June 2013 Open thread

Irony Meter shares skyrocket ahead of anticipated massive round of replacement as those Libertarian Heroes of Capitalist Triumphalism at the Heartland Institute first loudly claim endorsement by The Commies, and are then forced to recant and grovel to them.

Watts and minions manage to make muppets of themselves in the process, but we knew that already.

(Prof Lew manages to get a decent kick in, as is fitting.)

Of such is Denial made...

GSW:

I’d say it was wrong to attribute her comments as having the full “rigour” of an “analysis” as you seem to do.

If that's how it seems to you then you've not parsed my comment correctly. I said:

If this is how she now conducts her analyses, her scientific colleagues are going to start asking her to not stand so close.

Note the emboldened emphasis? Note especially the predicator "if"? There is nothing "wrong" in my comment, and rather a "wrong" spin of it by you.

How sad that you feel the need to misrepresent But then, given the many errors of your that litter Deltoid, that's pretty much your modus operandi...

With respect to Curry's stated opinon about the coming decade of cooling, if that is what she truly believes she could always support it with a scientifically conducted "analysis". I'm sure that climatologists around the world would be intersted to see if she can justify her statement with science. Otherwise she's just selling an illusion to certain clients, and there are words for that sort of professional behaviour.

3. “For example, there is emerging research which suggests there is a link between declining Arctic sea ice and European climate – but exactly how this process might work, and how important it may be among a host of other factors, remains unclear”

IT REMAINS UNCLEAR FTARD!.

Yes, I did read it all you unpleasant oik, but unlike you I appreciate that this is but one of many signals emerging from not only the physical processes of climate change but of ecosystems also. Additionally, and unlike you, I have studied the many aspects and can appreciate the connections between them.

You really are an ideological dinosaur birch-head.

@BJ

"With respect to Curry’s stated opinon about the coming decade of cooling"

For goodness sake BJ, that is not her "opinion", it's a comment on a blog! "Tsonis and others" have "posited" a climatic shift around the same time, she's just drawn the two together, she doesn't claim any significance to it. IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND.

I'm going to add you to the simple folk list; check, wow and now the appropriately named BJ.

GSW:

For goodness sake BJ, that is not her “opinion”, it’s a comment on a blog!

What?! So you're trying to tell us that she can say on her blog that the next decade will demonstrate a cooling trend, but when she's in her office writing her next paper for a scientific journal she can say the opposite and agree with the scientific consensus, and in the process lose no scientific credibility?

Do you actually follow the implications of your comments to their logical conclusion?

Also, if there's no scientific credibility or underpinning to Curry's blog pronouncements why do the denialists nevertheless give them so much credence? It sounds as though you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Nice propositional fallacy.

You're also flirting with the logical fallacy of the suppressed correlative, and there's a strong hint of a thought-terminating cliché.

At least you're being consistent in your penchant for bastardising logical thought.

Furthermore Betula-birch-head here is a quote you missed, I wonder why:

One last word and one last thing to think about. More and more the weather patterns resemble those roughly described by scientists as a Heinrich Event. Such events were characterized by rapid Arctic ice melt and resulting extreme weather and climate shifts. So it might be useful for climate scientists and the UK to discuss these geological events in the context of potential future weather. Because the UK, Europe and the rest of the world appear to be at the start of just such an event. The difference between this event and past events in the geological past is that the human forcing driving it is much greater than the previous natural forces that caused such changes. So it would be naive of us to hope that the current event will not also be more extreme than those seen in the past.

You could discover more about Heinrich Events, and also Dansgaard–Oeschger events, by reading David Archer's excellent 'The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate', followed by 'Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast' for the wider context on the science with the associated lectures being found here: at Chicago University.

Wise up, don't be an arse all of your life.

"Give it up Jeff. You’ve been exposed in more ways than one"

This coming from Betula, who claimes that icnreasing atmospheric C02 concentrations is good for the environment and that white tailed deer and coyote abundance are good indicators that the environment in his neck of the woods is in god shape. I don't known why he didn't throw in brown headed cowbirds or ragweed - native NA species that are also thriving under anthropogenic conditions and which have greatly expanded their ranges in the past 2 centuries. This represents the basal intellectual level of Betula's 'expertise' on ecology and the environment.

And this clown doesn't think his stupidity hasn't been exposed?!?! A key element in his ritual self-humiliation is that when his arguments are shown to be hilarious over- simplifications or just plainly incorrect, he doesn't attempt to defend them; no, instead, its back to the Algonquin Park meme.

I think that any rational readers of this thread a well aware of whose lies and/or embellishment are being exposed. Its old birch man.

Betula

Hard to imagine, but you are just as retarded as BBD.

A sore loser, I see.

Notice, all, how our petulant loser skipped over yet another substantive comment - directly addressed to him - without so much as a pause.

Since this is blatant evasiveness, here, again, (with apologies to others for the repetition) is the comment Betty simply had to ignore:

Graphs can help. Really :-)

Please, be curious and actually look at the two links. First you see the global average temperature response to an increase in net forcings - literally the bigger picture, and sadly, rarely shown. All we normally see are temperature time series on their own. The context is helpful. Note that the forcings are scaled coherently. Look at TSI vs well-mixed GHGs.

Next you can see what climate models do when forced with and without anthropogenic GHGs.

Meh, climate models, you might say, but it's solidly backed up by paleoclimate behaviour, as you would have discovered if you had actually read the first three links at the time. Or even on previous occasions.

Lionel A. # 6

I have to somewhat disagree with the notion that what is happening now has any strong parallel with Heinrich events. These are *coolijng* events that occurred during the coldest periods of the last glacial and which were then followed by abrupt NH warming.

They are features of a glacial climate state rather than an interglacial phase. HEs are, apparently, the consequence of glaciological instability in the Laurentide Ice Sheet (MacAyeal 1993; MacAyeal 2010; Hemming 2004) resulting in episodic purging and consequent ice rafting in the N. Atlantic. It's not a term I would use in the context of modern warming.

BBD well this caveat was included:

More and more the weather patterns resemble those roughly described by scientists as a Heinrich Event...

But I guess we (you, I and other participant here) will not be around long enough to a) know how closely the current events paralleled Heinrich events and b) know the finer points of how those events unfolded over time.

What is not in doubt is that the northern hemisphere climate and weather patterns that we once knew are now in a new oscillation phase rather like an engine that has gone out of tune and is hunting because of disturbed inputs from its supporting systems - ignition timing or fuel flow in this latter case.

If we do not prod the beast further then it may well settle down to a new normal otherwise with BAU all bets are off.

The interesting thing about D-O and Heinrich events is the common trigger: freshwater flux into the N. Atlantic at high latitude which inhibits NADW formation and "switches off" the AMOC.

Nobody talks about it much, but there *is* a potential source for such a flux today, even without the Laurentide. See Giles et al. (2012) Western Arctic Ocean freshwater storage increased by wind-driven spin-up of the Beaufort Gyre

So it appears that strengthening Arctic winds have increased freshwater storage in the Beaufort Gyre by ~8000km^3. And there it all sits, held in place by the wind.

Sadly, Dr Giles was killed in a cycling accident in April.

Has anyone asked Dr Curry if her "cooling trend" includes the melting Arctic and Antarctic ice, the increasing ocean heat content and rising sea levels?

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/whats-that-about-16-years-since-1996…

Deniers like Curry and Watts are getting more shrill and silly while Earth just keeps getting hotter.

You're done BBD. You believe estimates, assumptions and predictions to be fact...they aren't. Until you admit it, you will always be the loser.

And to quote you (when you skipped answering my question @ 81 pg 4)..."I don't care"

BBD @ 91..

"The fun thing, all my denialist chums, is that the signal is only just beginning to emerge from the noise. This is – forgive me – only the warm-up. The best is yet to come"

Not only are you the loser, you are a LOSER.

You want the predictions, speculations, assumptions and estimates to be correct so badly, that you are imagining how much "fun" it would be if they were fact,

You state "The best is yet to come"....yes I can also imagine. I imagine you skipping deliriously in circles shouting "it's here!, it's here!.....I'm a loser, I win!, I'm a loser, I win!"

Talking of shrill and silly, Betula does it well.

If BBD is a loser for respecting the value of, "predictions, speculations, assumptions and estimates", then what does that make you, Betula, somebody who gets their disinformation from anti-science kook internet sites like Anthony Watts' WUWT?

Just in (?): the MET Office does now understand Marcottian science:

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/6/14/met-office-withdraws-article-…

..."Not only are you the loser, you are a LOSER."

...says Betula, whose understanding of environmental science is about the same as that of an elementary school student (see examples I have pointed out many times). And what's worse, after making various ridiculous assertions, he doesn't even defend them. He just shifts the goalposts and makes a fool of himself elsewhere.

This is what climate change deniers think masquerades as 'debate'. Many of them are masters at this art of hitting and running. They think their nonsense will stick if they spew enough of it out without the need to support it empirically. I listed a number of studies showing biotic responses to warming, and birch man completely ignores them and goes on to another topic (well, one new one and one very, very old one).

What is clear is that he does not read the primary literature. That's hardly new: none of the deniers here do. That is because it completely counters their world views, and also because it is way over their heads. Craig summed it up above (#16) when he said that their 'information' is gleaned almost exclusively from denier web sites like WUWT, BH and CA.

What was I saying? By sheer coincidence, in pops Olaus with more crap from BH. Exactly what I meant. Olaus also has never read a scientific article in his life. His views come straight from denier weblogs. He is a perfect example of what I said above.

Sorry Monsineur Bonaparte, here it is again from another denier blog:

http://www.myclimateandme.com/2013/03/12/new-analysis-suggests-the-eart…

;-)

Yes Oily, the entire scientific edifice is going to crumble overnight because of some half-arsed crap at the Sticky Bishop's. As it's going to every 3 weeks or so. It's like the second coming for you lot...

For the 143rd time, Dolt, we have the actual temperature record for the uptick.

Have you worked out The Commies don't agree with you yet, incidentally?

Bill, what has that to do with Marcott?

I noticed that you celebrated Curry's comment:

"This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the ‘climate shift’ circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr ‘pause’."

If (sic) there is a slight cooling trend from 2002 it is interesting, from a scientific point of view that is...Oh...Sorry forgot I was at Deltoid. ;-)

That'd be the slight cooling trend since the record Arctic melt of summer 2012, AKA winter in the northern hemisphere.

Olap won't respond to this because it''s not on his talking points sheet, and it doesn't compute in his excuse for a brain.

Olaus Petri says:

I noticed that you celebrated Curry’s comment...

Really? "Celebrated"? Could you please link to the post on this thread where anyone who is not a climate change denier "celebrated" Curry's nonsensical statement?

And whilst you're at it Olaus, how many times now have you been told about signal, noise, and the interval of time required to discern signal from noise? For giggles can you answer these questions:

1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by 'signal'?

2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by 'noise'?

3) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the magnitude of the 'noise' compared to the magnitude of the 'signal'? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

4) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

5) In the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

Come on Olaus, show us just how informed you really are. Provide the answers. It's not difficult, as it's all been done for you before, but if you disagree with the conclusions of the consensus on these matters it behoves you to state your own understanding of these matters.

Hello, my little Deltoids, I'm glad to see you're still here even if this beleaguered site resembles Custer's last stand! Anyway, as this is an Aussie site I thought you ought to know that at least the Kiwis seem to have got the message:

"[Kiwi Green Party] co-leader Russel Norman in his speech to this month’s annual conference never once mentioned global warming...The Green Party did have a climate change conference the following week but Mr Norman’s keynote speech lacked any of the usual end-of-world prophecy and knee-jerk call to de-industrialise."

I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!

Another moron parrots some dimwittery from a trollfeed blog. Late. Have you noticed your drooling imbecility is self-correcting, dummy? Boring. Next.

Do you actually follow the implications of your comments to their logical conclusion?

Oh, Bernard, you high jester, you!

Don't worry be happy Deltoids:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00Y9EZDdpUw&feature=share

;-)

Notice, all, how our petulant loser skipped over yet another substantive comment – directly addressed to him – without so much as a pause.

Did the same to my comment pointing out that he was ardently arguing against himself, etc. But then we can all see that's his modus operandi. When he can't substantiate his claims - which is all too frequently - he simply runs away from them and hopes no-one notices.

We notice.

even if this beleaguered site resembles Custer’s last stand

You're confused again Duffer. The closest analogy to Custer's last stand currently are the Heartland Institute who's latest wheeze of lying about the Chinese Academy of Sciences is getting them slaughtered in the article, the comments and out in the real world too.

Heartland chief liar Joe Bast is so busy profusely apologising for something he apparently didn't do and 'disappearing' their own web pages which apparently didn't say what he's abjectly apologising for, it would make even your pointy little Winston Smith denier head spin Duffer.

Your friend, font of knowledge and Heartland stooge Williwatts hasn't yet been told what to say at last viewing, and is letting assistant moron DBS take the heat.

You state “The best is yet to come”….yes I can also imagine. I imagine you skipping deliriously in circles shouting “it’s here!, it’s here!…..I’m a loser, I win!, I’m a loser, I win!”

Logic fail, the stupid it hurts for "The best is yet to come" was irony. I'll bet you were a bundle of laughs in for the Marine Corps birch-head.

No doubt this comment will languish in moderation. . .
I came back for a visit.
Sad. . . deltoids. . . very, very sad :-(

Yep. . .
Thought so :-)

# 20

- The article was removed on March 12 2013. Montford is just stirring up his monkeys. Who are apparently too stupid even to read the date on the *original post* at My Climate & Me blog.

- M13 is fine. Nothing was changed, withdrawn or altered. The desperate noise from the deniers notwithstanding.

The statement from the paper itself remains just as it was published, and clearly bears repeating:

Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the
Standard 5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high
frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard 5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P.

Climate models project that temperatures are likely to exceed the full distribution of Holocene warmth by 2100 for all versions of the temperature stack (35) (Fig. 3), regardless of the greenhouse gas emission scenario considered (excluding the year 2000 constant composition scenario, which has already been exceeded). By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean for the A1B scenario (35) based on our Standard 5×5
plus high-frequency addition stack (Fig. 3).

IMO the My Climate & Me blog should have left the post up.

Tamino demonstrates why in detail here.

So please take the lies and the rubbish back to BH, where they belong.

No. This is wrong:

- The article was removed on March 12 2013. Montford is just stirring up his monkeys. Who are apparently too stupid even to read the date on the *original post* at My Climate & Me blog.

"Come on Olaus, show us just how informed you really are"

Now there's a challenge. And the answer is going to be really ugly. He isn't remotely informed. His 'scientific acumen', is embedded somewhere deep in the benthos of ignorance. His humor isn't even original; this twerp merely parrots the so-called humor of the other deniers here.

The only thing Olaus fears are commies under his bed. And his entire worldview stems from that little nugget.

Jeffie dear, is science beginning to take back what scaremongering conspiracy theorists like you took from it?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00Y9EZDdpUw&feature=share

Don't worry, be happy little Napoleon!

;-)

Well known science journal: Youtube.

Moron.

Don't be so depressing Wow, sing a along! :-)

Portentology is starting to get out of fashion. Isn't that a good thang?

Portentology is starting to get out of fashion

Well as you're the only one engaging in it, the obvious answer is to quit it and deal with the accredited science instead.

But you won't because your whacko beliefs are more important to you than reality.

Olaus Petri

Please list the errors found in Marcott et al. that have resulted in changes to the paper.

Thanks!

Betula

You’re done BBD.

You're projecting, Betty.

Olaus.

Your last few postings indicate that you have missed some basic questions arising from your ill-advised comment. To assist with your difficulty in observing what was easily seen by others, I will repeat them here:

1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

3) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

4) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

5) In the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

Once you manage to answer these questions we can explore the import of Curry's comment about a decade or more of impending cooling.

Curry’s ... impending cooling

That'd be one of Olly's portentology portents, I take it.

That's the spirit, Bernard J. Insist on an answer. Refuse to allow all this skip-skip-skipping away.

Nobody is allowed to behave like that in the material world. Imagine if someone engaged in evasiveness of this order in a business deal. You would not tolerate it; I would not tolerate it; Betty would not tolerate it.

Nobody would tolerate it.

These lying scum - yes, that is what I said - need to be forcibly held to normal standards of behaviour.

That will be the end of them.

Olaus

# 38 - still waiting...

Your dance card is filling up. Best get on with it.

What was I saying.... Olaus does his 'science' by blog and Youtube. Where are the peer-reviewed studies? Nowhere in sight. Of course, Olaus doesn't read them nor does he understand them. He is a right wing loony driven by his own wretched political views. He certainly finds solace in fringe weblogs that simplify science to the lowest common denominator.

And his Napoleon comment comes straight from Betula. The little twerp isn't even original. Copies everything from other deniers or from denier web sites. Note how his latest Youtube offering screws up the importance of temporal scale. That's not at all surprising, since the author hasn't clearly been anywhere near a science lecture theater. Note also how deniers like the clown on Youtube only highlight trends when they think it supports their arguments - this graph was avoided like the plague for years and now suddenly its dusted off and used because they think it suits their purpose.

What a bunch of d***heads they are.

And now Olaus is going to answer # 24 / # 40 (Bernard J) and # 38 (me).

He is going to engage in substantive discourse. He is going to learn something.

"He is going to engage in substantive discourse"

Don't hold your breath waiting for this. He neither wants to nor is capable of doing so. Be prepared for more witless posturing.

I attended a workshop in Amsterdam a few weeks ago and a prominent theme was ecological noise and how scientists deal with it. 'Noise' comes in many forms, but for ecologists or physiologists studying mechanimsm it is characterized by variation that tends to mask key parameter or processes under investigation. Given that noise dilutes the results of many experiments, many scientists try to eliminate or avoid it. Genetic variation in traits is an excellent example of noise generated at the population level that often makes the results of bioassays hard to interpret, such as whe comparing the response of a plant species to various biotic and abiotic stressors.

With respect to climate, of course there is a lot of noise that masks short-term effects. Deniers like Olaus don't have even a basic grounding in science, they don't understand the importance of scale, they cannot reconcile complex non-lienar short term dynamics and thus think that everthing operates in a linear fashion. Stochastic processes are too complicated for these simpletons. To some extent engaging with them is fruitless because they are not educated in the relevant fields and lacking this rely on their own 'instincts' to guide their views, which are all-too-often hijacked by their own political biases.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for this.

I am not going to wait. I am simply going to cross out any further of B's comments that are not attempts to answer Bernard's and my own questions.

Either he engages, or he runs into a wall. Will you help?

Anything off-topic, gets the strikethrough treatment and absolutely no further response.

Liars need a firm hand. Liars must be forced to engage substantively if they will not do so out of common decency.

The difference between prediction and fact...a reality check.

"The Met Office’s temperature forecasts issued in 12 out of the last 13 years have been too warm. None of the forecasts issued ended up too cold. That makes the errors systemic and significant."
http://www.thegwpf.org/12-reasons-met-office-alarmed/

Interesting....it's almost as if BBD himself is running the Met Office.

Oh my... look where Betula sources his latest disinformation.. the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Do these clowns have no shame? Every right wing-corporate funded source they can think of they glean for their world view. Not a peer-reviewed scientific study in sight. These organizations exist for the sole purpose of distorting the science in pursuit of a pro-business agenda.

And Betula calls this a 'reality check'. Hilarious!

You mean this GWPF?

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/lord-lawsons-cl…

Johnl,

Yuo, that's the one. Sourcewatch has a good write up on them here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Founda…

The AGW deniers here on Deltoid aren't afraid to wear their hearts on their sleeves. They'll link to just about any source no matter how sordid or unscientific it may be. The reason is simple: they don't do science. None of them have any relevant expertise in the Earth or environmental sciences. Instead they paste up any disinformation on Deltoid so long as it says what they want to believe and fits in well with their political and idealogical views.

The GWPF is just one of many sites that distorts the science it hates. many more are cited here: BH, WUWT, Climate etc., CA, and others. This is where the Olaus's, Betula's, Karen's, GSW's and others get their (dis)information about climate from. In the rare occasion they cite an actual published study, its only because they think they can mangel the conclusions to support a pre-determined opinion. The recent study on the fertilizing effects of increased atmospheric C02 on desert and dryland boundaries is a good example. But even there the deniers do not read the entire studies and only cherry pick the conclusions they like.

@Jeff

I thought you were Canadian?

Another Betula source-fail combined with a comprehension implosion.

Stupid Betty still thinks variability in surface temperature actually "refutes AGW" even though the *fact* that it is almost irrelevant has been explained to him over and over again.

Stupid or dishonest or both?

@Jeff

It's only that if you spend anymore time in "de Nile", you'll be entitled to dual Canadian/Egyptian citizenship.
;)

GSW,

Guffaw, guffaw, guffaw....

Stay in the shadows. You are better there.

GSW

Pointing out that the GWPF is a front organisation disseminating anti-science lies is a statement of the facts.

Denial is what buffoons like you do. You also - all of you - project like poisoned dogs. The truly stupid comment at # 54 being a prime example.

GSW and Betula.

Olaus Petri is having significant difficulty answering some questions. Perhaps the both of you could help by each offering him the benefit of your own perspectives...

1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

3) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

4) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

5) In the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

When you've offered your own answers these questions we can explore what the temperature record to date is really indicating with repect to the progress of planetary warming, and of the scientific wisdom of Curry’s comment about a decade or more of impending cooling.

Be brave boys - no dodging, no weaving. Let's see the depth (or lack thereof...) of your scientific understanding, and where this understanding leads if distracting prevarications are put aside.

BBD..

"Stupid Betty still thinks variability in surface temperature actually “refutes AGW” "

Dumber than dirt BBD believes predicted future scenarios resulting from predicted future surface temperatures aren't predictions.

Bernard re #57...

Funny, I don't recall you answering #79 on pg 4. You seemed to have skipped over it...or as BBD so eloquently put it @ 42::

"That’s the spirit, Bernard J. Insist on an answer. Refuse to allow all this skip-skip-skipping away."
"Betty would not tolerate it"

Hadley@ 49...

"Not a peer-reviewed scientific study in sight"

When you can't attack the content, attack the messenger', eh Hardley?

Jeff, why would listing what was predicted by the Met Office and comparing it to what actually happened require a peer reviewed scientific study?

Try to answer this one without kissing your own lying embellishing Algonquin ass.

Shit-stupid Betty still insists the worst is over. Which - and it's the only item of interest here - is also because he (and his GWPF mates) can't differentiate between signal and noise.

"Shit-stupid Betty still insists the worst is over."

Not true. You're still here.

"can't differentiate between signal and noise"

By the way, chek, what time scale would you use to distinguish weather from climate

That's the question everyone keeps asking you. The difference is, chek would be able to answer it...

Betula said at # 59:

I don’t recall you answering #79 on pg 4.

Betula, you don't recall me answering because I did not bother to answer you at the time - neither your questions nor their answers alter the laws of physics or the fact of climate change. However, if it backs you into a corner from whence you can only respond by answering in turn truly substantive questions put to you, or by capitulating and thereby showing the depauperacy of your case, I will happily respond to your non sequitur as framed by:

Which of the following sentences do you believe?

1. “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand”

2.“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand”

1. I am not au fait with the nature or extent of climatological signals recorded on Jeff's trip, so I hold no particular "belief" about them. That said, if Jeff or his colleagues objectively observed parameters that were demonstrably different in the past, then I am am happy to accept that, to the extent that such changes are anomalous, they represent "first hand" evidence of climate change.

And as I have noted myself, and as you have refused to challenge, I have seen indications of climate change in my own part of the world. Will you now dispute that such changes are occurring?

2. If Jeff says that he can't describe soil "things" first hand, of course I "believe him". What the relevance of your question is though is unclear - it would appear to be a non sequitur within a non sequitur...

Now, it's your turn.

1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

3) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

4) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

5) In the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

When you’ve offered your own answers these questions we can explore what the temperature record to date is really indicating with respect to the progress of planetary warming, and of the scientific wisdom of Curry’s comment about a decade or more of impending cooling.

Betula asks:

By the way, chek, what time scale would you use to distinguish weather from climate

It seems (unsurprisingly) that Betula needs others to do his homework for him.

If you answered my questions to you, Betula, you'd have a better understanding of what's weather and what's climate...

Betula cannot answer Bernard's question. It should be patently obvious what noise is, yet he is stick in his sandbox-level discourse.

And he still refuses to discuss a single study posted up here that refutes his b*.

@All

I suspect Betula doesn't post here with the intention of answering your "questions", he does it for for the pleasure of watching you guys irately console each other that "The Rapture" might still be approaching. There's no harm in that either in my view, the best things in life are free after all.

Keep up the good work loonies!
;)

Dumber than dirt BBD believes predicted future scenarios resulting from predicted future surface temperatures aren’t predictions.

I've got paleoclimate behaviour and the laws of physics.

You have nothing, which is why you lost the argument, you fucking buffoon.

And that hurt, didn't it, Betty? I notice how much more shrill and desperate you've been since.

It's only going to get worse. Now you have to answer some more sciency questions. Woo!

Amazingly, GSW's comments actually get even more achingly stupid over time:

he does it for for the pleasure of watching you guys irately console each other that “The Rapture” might still be approaching.

Unless the laws of physics change to let libertarian cretins off the hook of their own creation, modern climate will behave like paleoclimate.

Global average temperature will rise by around 2.5C - 3C per doubling of CO2.

Acceptance of the laws of physics or butt-stupid denial? Oh, okay GSW, play it your way then...

GSW.

In keeping with Ockham's razor I have a more parsimonious and plausible reason for why Betula, Olaus, and you do not answer the questions.

You are each either incapable of answering correctly and/or afraid of confronting the logical conclusions that arise from answering correctly.

Of course neither alternative precludes the likelihood that you and your denialist chums take perverse pleasure in opposing without training, experience or objective basis the work of the world's professional scientists. If the latter is also the case though, then that's just sad.

Are you just a sad case, GSW? Are you?

Or perhaps you're just slow on the uptake. Perhaps you can't see the questions when they all camouflaged by other words. Let me help you:

1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

3) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

4) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

5) In the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

Remember, when you’ve offered your own answers these questions we can explore what the temperature record to date is really indicating with respect to the progress of planetary warming, and to the scientific wisdom of Curry’s comment about a decade or more of impending cooling.

It seems that the words of Hans von Storch that I posted in the Science thread have some bearing here as well. From the Climate onion:

“Auch mein Eindruck ist, dass die Klimahysterie abgenommen hat. Es gibt zwar noch immer Leute, die bei jeder Naturkatastrophe rituell rufen: „Haltet den Dieb, der Klimawandel hat Schuld!“ Doch viel mehr redet man mittlerweile über die naheliegenden Ursachen der Hochwasser wie das Versiegeln der Böden oder das Verschwinden natürlicher Überschwemmungsgebiete. Und das ist auch gut so.”

http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.se/2013/06/ich-war-nie-klimakanzlerin-spie…

@Olaus

"It seems that the words of Hans von Storch that I posted in the Science thread have some bearing here as well"

True, true, Olaus, how very true.
;)

GSW, have read the latest block buster on Arctic ice melt? ;-) Thrilling, or should I say Chilling? Roy Spencer have some excerpts to share:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/who-dares-to-deny-arctic-warming/#c…

:-)

So...what you're saying is Bernard J. has science, but you have some quotes from people who agree with the physics of the greenhouse effect, agree global warming is occurring, but don't do much research of their own.

I think I'll go with the science, thanks.

For Olaus:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLe4v3jMNIw

Chilling indeed: in 1930 people started to see Franz Josef Land consisted of many islands. In 2012 the sea was fricking ice-free several degrees NORTH of Franz Josef Land.

Olaus # 71 and # 73

See # 47

Questions to answer before we continue:

(BBD:)

Please list the errors found in Marcott et al. that have resulted in changes to the paper.

* * *

(Bernard J:)

1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

3) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

4) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

5) In the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

* * *

It seems that the words of Hans von Storch that I posted in the Science thread have some bearing here as well. From the Climate onion:

“Auch mein Eindruck ist, dass die Klimahysterie abgenommen hat. Es gibt zwar noch immer Leute, die bei jeder Naturkatastrophe rituell rufen: „Haltet den Dieb, der Klimawandel hat Schuld!“ Doch viel mehr redet man mittlerweile über die naheliegenden Ursachen der Hochwasser wie das Versiegeln der Böden oder das Verschwinden natürlicher Überschwemmungsgebiete. Und das ist auch gut so.”

http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.se/2013/06/ich-war-nie-klimakanzlerin-spie…

And:

GSW, have read the latest block buster on Arctic ice melt? ;-) Thrilling, or should I say Chilling? Roy Spencer have some excerpts to share:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/who-dares-to-deny-arctic-warming/#c…

:-)

All, please help improve Olaus' behaviour by forcing him to conform to the minimum standards of debate in good faith.

He is a chronic avoider. He never answers questions. Let's not put up with this dishonesty and evasion any longer.

Let's insist on some substantive responses before Olaus goes skip-skip-skipping on to the next denialist lie.

Let's insist on some intellectual integrity from the worst serial evaders here.

BBD, I don't think von Storch produce "denier lies". I believe he is a scientist. ;-)

BBD, I don’t think von Storch produce “denier lies”. I believe he is a scientist. ;-)

Answers please. Questions at # 76.

Olaus Petri and GSW.

I will follow on from BBD and point out that your respective quoting of and remarking about von Storch falls under the logical fallacy of non sequitur. Just because von Storch has an impression of non-scientific commentary decreasing over time does not mean that the science is in any way challenged or refuted. You are also committing the logical fallacy of straw man construction - hoping to distract from the science that remains unperturbed by your pointings at squirrels.

Now, as it is patently obvious that your boys have a shorter attention span than the proverbial goldfish and a lesser capacity for scientific understanding than one, I will attempt to assist your grossly stunted learning by repeating those questions of which you are so mortally afraid:

1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

3) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

4) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

5) In the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

Remember, when you’ve offered your own answers these questions we can explore what the temperature record to date is really indicating with respect to the progress of planetary warming, and to the scientific wisdom of Curry’s comment about a decade or more of impending cooling.

And Betula, you are welcome to chime in with the answers whenever the inspiration should strike.

Surely between the three of you there is one who can answer these relatively simple questions...

What are you lily-livered nimrods so afraid of?

Olaus Petri

Please list the errors found in Marcott et al. that have resulted in changes to the paper.

Olap never said how you can see climate change.

Don't expect the retards to pull their heads from their arse long enough to answer your query.

If they don't answer they will get their lies crossed out.

If they don't demonstrate some intellectual integrity, they will get their lies crossed out.

If they can answer, they they can just fuck off and stop lying.

Had it with climate liars now.

Von Storch is an upstand guy because he behaves like scientists. What's wrong with that?

"upstand" was funny though. ;-)

Yeah, hilarious.

Had it with climate liars now.

Problem is, Tim doesn't give a fuck. He doesn't have to spend time answering their drivel and allows them on here, ensuring that he is almost never included in diatribes specifically, therefore he can pretend he's being the perfect host who everyone loves.

Tim's as responsible as the person who lets their kid scream and shout in the cinema or theatre. Yes, the brats are making the noise, but the parent is responsible for enabling it here.

Olaus

Please list the errors found in Marcott et al. that have resulted in changes to the paper.

You raised the matter of fake sceptic fake controversy over a robust study. Please demonstrate some honesty and integrity in this matter.

I have lost count of the times I have asked.

* * *

Von Storch is an upstand guy because he behaves like scientists. What’s wrong with that?

I ask chek...

"By the way, chek, what time scale would you use to distinguish weather from climate"

Bernard @ 68..."It seems (unsurprisingly) that Betula needs others to do his homework for him"

Bernard asks @ 83...
1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?
2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

It seems that Bernard needs others to do his homework for him....

Bernard @ 64...

"However, if it backs you into a corner from whence you can only respond by answering in turn"

So, I get you to do a tap dance in regards to the question you skipped over and you backed me into a corner?
Nice try. You're not as smart as you think you are, but you are a better dancer than I thought you were...

Let's review your dance: "The Algonquin Tap"

1. There is no skipping in tap dance.

2. You start with..."I am not au fait with the nature or extent of climatological signals recorded on Jeff’s trip, so I hold no particular “belief” about them"

There weren't any in the article, so you are correct that there is nothing to believe. My critique here is that your dance starts with the right movement, but you need to put more heart into it.

3. You tap..." if Jeff or his colleagues objectively observed parameters that were demonstrably different in the past, then I am am happy to accept that."

Of course you mean at Algonquin.....they didn't, so you shouldn't be. My critique here is that your taps should be a bit more firm and you should wipe the happy off your face.

4 ."If Jeff says that he can’t describe soil “things” first hand, of course I “believe him”.

Only he didn't say that, he said...“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil". Since the soil was frozen, there was no "first hand"

So, you defaulted on one of the required elements in the dance....disguising dishonesty. That's an automatic deduction of 3 points, however, I'm only going to deduct 2 points because you said soil "things" and that added a splash of comedy to your routine.

5. "What the relevance of your question is though is unclear"

I know, the Algonquin is a tough tap dance to learn. "The Algonquin" is a dance that masks a self centered pseudo King's lies, embellishments and ego.

Final critique - overall, you have a lot of work to do. The effort was there, and I can see you've had a lot of practice, however, there were some major flaws and the dance lacked feeling. It was almost as if you were backed into a corner...

The good news is, you are dancing at the Deltoid Theater, so the crowd will still love you no matter how many times you trip over yourself.

I ask check...

"By the way, chek, what time scale would you use to distinguish weather from climate"

Bernard @ 68 responds:
"If you answered my questions to you, Betula, you’d have a better understanding of what’s weather and what’s climate"

Interesting. So I don't understand the difference between noise and climate because I asked chek what he thinks is the needed time scale to distinguish between weather and climate?
Berntard, you went directly from doing the tap dance to doing the shuffle...very impressive!

BBD..
"Had it with climate liars now"

Watch out Hardley...BBD is the vying to be the new s̶t̶r̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶K̶i̶n̶g̶.

Yack yack yack.

The laws of physics and paleoclimate behaviour make a mockery of your silly denialism.

And we've heard enough of this *noise*:

So, I get you to do a tap dance in regards to the question you skipped over and you backed me into a corner?
Nice try. You’re not as smart as you think you are, but you are a better dancer than I thought you were…

So in the shitcan it goes.

How about answering Bernard J's questions instead of trolling like a 13-year old?

Here they are again. Knock us out. Prove that you aren't just a know-nothing trolling arse. If I were you I'd do it just on a point of pride.

Perhaps you have no pride. Perhaps it went at the same time as your integrity.

* * *
1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

3) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

4) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

5) In the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

Betula.

I answered your questions - questions irrelevant to the science of global warming - in good faith. Let me unpack your latest attempt to twist things...

You say:

You start with…”I am not au fait with the nature or extent of climatological signals recorded on Jeff’s trip, so I hold no particular “belief” about them”

There weren’t any in the article, so you are correct that there is nothing to believe. My critique here is that your dance starts with the right movement, but you need to put more heart into it.

You're already off-beam, because by "I am not au fait..." I meant that I did not read Jeff's account of his trip. Simple as that. Any motive that you ascribe to me that assumes otherwise is incorrect speculation.

You then say:

You tap…” if Jeff or his colleagues objectively observed parameters that were demonstrably different in the past, then I am am happy to accept that.”

Of course you mean at Algonquin…..they didn’t, so you shouldn’t be.

No, I do not "mean at Algonquin", for the reason I've just indicated in the preceding paragraphs. I simply meant that if Jeff or his colleagues objectively observed parameters that were demonstrably different in the past, then I am am happy to accept that. It's not a trick statement, but it seems to have you tying yourself in Gordian knots of ludicrous reinterpretation in an effort to distract from ever touching on the real, actual fundamentals of the science of climate change.

Then you came out with:

If Jeff says that he can’t describe soil “things” first hand, of course I “believe him”.

Only he didn’t say that, he said…“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil”. Since the soil was frozen, there was no “first hand”

This is just bizarre cherry-picking and desperate reinterpretation. Observe...

You quote Jeff as saying:

As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand.

[Emboldened emphasis mine.]

to which I respond:

If Jeff says that he can’t describe soil “things” first hand, of course I “believe him”.

My response is enirely consistent with the last (emboldened) part of the quote from Jeff that you provided. Jeff said that, I responded. Understand?

As for your mendacious antics with Jeff speaking about frozen soil and me referring to such as soil "things", well of course I mean to say soil 'things', but if you are so stupid (or simply desperate) to erect straw men point at any random squirrel then that's your problem, not mine.

You finish with:

“What the relevance of your question is though is unclear”

“The Algonquin” is a dance that masks a self centered pseudo King’s lies, embellishments and ego.

which is simply more of your signature thimblerigging. The fact is that whatever you thnk of Jeff, and whatever Jeff says about himself, the laws of physics remain unchanged - and completely avoided by you.

So I'll take all of those points back thank you, deduct twice as many from your sheet, and observe that you're still a gutless coward who will not ever engage with the basic fundamentals of the science, simply because you are shit-scared that the minute you start to do so you'll be cornered by empirical evidence, by the immutable laws of nature, and by merciless logic.

Come on you cowardly Chilodonella, yellow-bellied custard baby... address some basic, lower high school level concepts:

1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

3) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

4) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

5) In the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

Remember, when you’ve offered your own answers these questions we can explore what the temperature record to date is really indicating with respect to the progress of planetary warming, and to the scientific wisdom of Curry’s comment about a decade or more of impending cooling.

Don't go off on yet another of your trade-mark excursions to irrelevant distraction-land, just grow a spine and answer the bloody questions.

So I don’t understand the difference between noise and climate because I asked chek (sic) what he thinks is the needed time scale to distinguish between weather and climate?

Quite the tap dancer Betty. I suppose you think it's impressive. But it isn't, except on the moronic scale.

Anthony Watts blasts Christy, Spencer and Monckton all in the one article. And all the deniers agree their work is just awful.

What a hoot!

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/anthony-watts-attacks-christy-spence…

Hey Sou, that 'fame and riches' post and comment thread is extraordinary.

'Irony', though? In many cases I think not! Ever since I was revolted by the dismal Delingpole's crowing over being made a 'rock star' by Heartland I've been struck by the extraordinary opportunity Denial provides to the second-rate, hack, or otherwise-undistinguished.

Here's a quiz question; what do you reckon the chances of gaining global attention for the likes of Delingpole, Monckton etc. - hell, even the ludicrous Josh - would have been had they not thrown in their lot with a minority reactionary cause that just happened to be sponsored by some of the world's largest and most powerful economically vested interests?

What 'claim to fame' might any of them have made had they supported the scientific consensus, and what would have been the likely result of their competing for attention in the much-wider field of 'mainstream' - and hard-won - expertise?

We even see it here on a smaller scale, with no-marks who would otherwise languish in an obscurity as complete as their merits (or absence thereof) getting lashings of attention - and playing at having intellects - by regurgitating the oily scraps those they've elevated to tawdry fame repay the compliment by disgorging for them.

A quicker and more cheaply-earned path to narcissistic gratification could scarcely be imagined! If you don't much give a damn about the consequences, of course...

And there it is. Proof. When certain commenters are firmly required to demonstrate intellectual integrity and *honesty*, they are stymied. They cannot defend their positions. They cannot answer specific questions. They cannot justify their behaviour.

You know who you are, and you know what this proves about your "scepticism". So how about rejecting it?

Bill, I am fascinated by the seediness of Richard Tol and his ineptitude. How he manages to hang onto a position in a university I don't know. How he managed to get appointed as a lead author to the IPCC I don't know either. It will be interesting to read his chapter when it comes out.

The man has dropped all pretence at ethics but looking at his past behaviour maybe he never pretended ethical behaviour.

I nearly shut down the thread when it got sidetracked into stats and he started being treated as if his number crunching meant something. But I ended up leaving it open. In the meantime I checked and discovered he's not one for truth and honest dealings. A man to be avoided in real life.

@BBD - sorry about that. Friends and allies are important - including you :)

You might be interested in this.

World Bank warns of severe hardship as climate warms

TANYA NOLAN: The World Bank has issued a dire warning about the impact of climate change on the world's poorest people.

In its revised Turn Down the Heat report, the World Bank says severe hardships will be felt within a generation and it says there's a growing chance that warming will reach or exceed four degrees Celsius in this century.

Emily Bourke reports.

EMILY BOURKE: The president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, is alarmed by what lies ahead.

JIM YONG KIM: The conclusions in this report should make all of us lose sleep over what our world will look like in our lifetimes. The conclusions are clear - a world that warms by two degrees Celsius perhaps in just 20 or 30 years will cause vast parts of African croplands to wither, submerge large swathes of cities in South Asia and kill off much of the fisheries in some parts of South-East Asia

EMILY BOURKE: The updated Turn Down the Heat climate report, was commissioned by the World Bank.

It says evidence over the past seven months indicates that projections for greenhouse gas emissions have been too low and that now there's a growing chance that warming will reach or exceed four degrees Celsius in this century unless emissions are cut quickly and deeply.

The World Bank's Jim Yong Kim says the severe effects on water will disproportionately affect the world's poorest.

JIM YONG KIM: Consider these forecasts in the report - in South Asia, shifting rain patterns will leave some areas underwater and others without enough water for power generation, agriculture or drinking.

Sea level rise coupled with more intense tropical cyclones could mean extensive flooding in coastal areas of Bangladesh as well as in cities such as Kolkata and Mumbai.

In South-East Asia at two degree Celsius, maximum fish catch will decline by 50 per cent in the Southern Philippines, loss of the coral reefs will diminish tourism, reduce fish stocks and leave coastal communities more vulnerable to less frequent but increasingly violent storms.

Across all regions the growing movement of impacted communities into urban areas could lead to ever higher numbers of people in slums and other informal settlements being exposed to heat waves, flooding, mud slides and epidemics of disease.

KELLY DENT: I think it's a real wake-up call that there needs to be a massive injection of political will including by the Australian Government.

EMILY BOURKE: Kelly Dent is from Oxfam.

KELLY DENT: Australia has to be able to pay its way in terms of supporting developing countries. Now this needs to go through a global climate fund, it also needs to go by way of bilateral support to climate projects, to projects that affect the communities but it needs to be above the existing and committed aid budget because the aid budgets for lifting people out of poverty and for meeting the Millennium Development Goals.

Now climate change has thrown us back even further.

EMILY BOURKE: Jim Yong Kim says the World Bank is boosting its funding for risk mitigation programs.

JIM YONG KIM: We are developing tools that help countries better assess and adapt to climate change including transforming the way we farm to maximise productivity and resilience and doubling global renewal energy and efficiency and we can't ignore the financing challenge.

The world needs to find innovative ways to set an appropriate price on carbon. If we can get prices right, we can redirect finance to low carbon growth, lessen the changes of two degree warming and avoid a four degree world.

EMILY BOURKE: And he's issued a blunt warning to those who are still unsure about climate change.

JIM YONG KIM: If you disagree with the science of human caused climate change, what you are disagreeing with is science itself and as far as I know it's the best we got. You know, the modern science is the best we have and so I think it's really stop, a time to stop arguing about whether it's real or not.

I've lost count of the number of once in a life-time events that happened in the last two or three years. You know, duh, there is something going on here folks, once in a life-time events all the time, right?

This is real and I can just see it. You know, my kids already, I can see the way they're going to talk to me. They're going to say, oh thanks dad, right, you were president of the World Bank, what did you do when you knew that this was going to happen to us?

TANYA NOLAN: That's president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, Emily Bourke with that report.

But of course this wouldn't matter to Betula, GSW, Olaus Petri, KarenMackSunspot, Jonas N, David Duff, Freddy (the multi-socked creationist visiting from A Few Things Ill-considered), pentaxz, and the other white male Westerners here.

After all, climate change doesn't happen to them, so it's irrelevant if a few Third World people of coloured persuasion are lost to unusual weather event... even when those weather events stop being unusual, and even when it's a few more than a few...

Stuffing their ignorant, mindless heads up their arses is heaven for denialist trolls such as the aforementioned. I really wish that there was a wrathful God, because it would be just retribution for the Denialati to be cast in to lakes of fire for all eternity as penalty for their sins against humanity.

Just retribution, and justly ironic.

@Jeff and @Bernard J, you'll be interested in this one. I reckon this one beats the best that Duff and Betula and the other idiots here have to offer.

Anthony Watts has put up a third article by Ronald D "it's insects" Voisin. This time he's advocating killing off six per cent of insects and microbes to stop CO2 from rising.

If that fails, next on his hit list are "mammalia". I'm not sure if he knows that humans are mammals because he lists humans separately.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/anthony-watts-promotes-more-nuttery-…

Let us hope for the best, shall we?

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

;-)

@ Sou # 4

All my fault - in a foul mood and wires crossed. Blog bleh. It happens. Just my luck (or lack of it) to confuse MV with the enemy ;-)

Let's hope he can see the funny side.

# 6

Questions to answer before we continue:

(BBD:)

Please list the errors found in Marcott et al. that have resulted in changes to the paper.

* * *

(Bernard J:)

1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

3) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

4) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

5) In the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

* * *

Let us hope for the best, shall we?

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

Jaysus, not my day. The above is to Olaus @ # 7

@BBD - no problem. It happens. I don't blame you for being furious with Christy. The mere mention of his name can be enough to make any reasonable person see red.

Olaus, I notice your graph doesn't include a lot of relevant data.

Here is a version of it that includes the inconvenient context you are trying to ignore:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

And here is a graph that shows volume:
http://haveland.com/share/arctic-death-spiral-1979-201301.png

@ Sou #11: ah, yes, but Jesus loves him!...

Voisin is astonishing. What sort of an ASD would you have to have to suggest it would be 'trivial' - let alone desirable - to exterminate 6% of the insect population?!

And 'low' consequences?! Ye Gods!

Let alone 'microbes'... Jeebus, has anybody ever told this buffoon what the majority of cells in his body are? This has to be a Poe, surely?

Similarly, what would have to be wrong with you to publish such nonsense?

(And isn't it blackly funny that the anti-environmentalist Right is now embracing Trotskyite - and in this case ultra-Maoist - Direct Action?)

Citizens of Adelaide: how do you reckon you'd cope with Port Augusta's climate? Just sit tight to find out ...

Craig, this one is also more informative:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

Currently seventh lowest in the 35 year detailed record. The six lower years are all in the last seven. My bet is that come September, it will be second lowest. Recovery!

@bill #14 Watts has been publishing some very weird stuff lately. I don't think he is capable of distinguishing off-the-planet weird from normal denialist weird. He relies on his readers to tell him. And most of them don't know the difference either.

On the subject of weird/funny, denialsists are all DuKE-ing it out, with WM Briggs entering the fray and getting it as embarrassingly wrong as rgbatduke did, but for other reasons.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/a-battle-of-dukes-climate-science.ht…

I don’t think he is capable of distinguishing off-the-planet weird from normal denialist weird.

Crank magnetism at your service.

Bernard @ whatever...

"because it would be just retribution for the Denialati to be cast in to lakes of fire for all eternity"

Sounds like Global Warming.

Time for another John Lott Jr. post!

See
http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/2/565.short
and
http://econjwatch.org/file_download/619/AnejaDonohueZhangJan2013.pdf

Aneja, Donohue and Zhang not only put the last nail in the coffin about more guns => less crime, they glue the lid and then screw it down.

Betula at #19:

“because it would be just retribution for the Denialati to be cast in to lakes of fire for all eternity”

Sounds like Global Warming.

Sounds as though you have finally mastered the nuances of irony.

On other matters, your avoidance of those basic questions is glaringly obvious. When are you going to show us that you understand basic science and provide a defensible response?

And once you've greased the wheels with those basics, perhaps you could tell thread what the mean long-term minimum rate of warming would need to be in order to detect a signal from noise over a period of 17 years? How long to detect such in 15 years? And how long to detect it in 10 years?

My guess is that you don't know, and also that you don't understand the import of these values in the context of either the science of the underlying warming, or the biological responses to the resulting climate change.

Bernard...

“because it would be just retribution for the Denialati to be cast in to lakes of fire for all eternity”

So your religion is Global Warming with Deltoid being your Church, scientists the Disciples and the IPCC your Bible. Those of us who say you can't prove the existence of the outcome, whether it be Heaven or Hell, are sinners, and therefore destined to eternal Global Warming.

Too late

Deltoid is your church and the IPCC wrote your Bible

"perhaps you could tell thread what the mean long-term minimum rate of warming would need to be in order to detect a signal from noise over a period of 17 years? How long to detect such in 15 years? And how long to detect it in 10 years?"

It would all depend on which paper you are reading at the time. For example, you forgot to mention a 23 day time scale..

Sheesh, tired and trite attempts to analogise reliance on the processes of science with religious belief - used as a mechanism to avoid answering basic scientific questions.

Seen it all a thousand times.

And it just goes to show that Betula can't demonstrate a basic understanding of climate science.

Trite indeed. Yer borin' us, Batty.

You might just as well be like the buffoon I encountered the other day who turned up at SkS claiming they had never put forward any evidence CO2 was changing the climate! I mean, are you actually a complete dill, or do you just play one on the internet?

Betula, you said:

So your religion is Global Warming with Deltoid being your Church, scientists the Disciples and the IPCC your Bible.

No.

Lotharsson and Bill have already whacked you with the get-a-brain stick, but I might as well join the fray and point out that you are confusing metaphor with something literal.

If you can't get such a basic language instrument right, it's no wonder that you struggle with science - even the basic science to which you've been led by the nose, but at which which you refuse to look.

Which is fine by me. I'm not the one embarrassed by your persistent display of ignorance. And if you aren't in your own turn so embarrassed, then that's simply an indication of just how pig-ignorant you really are.

Now, do you need me to repeat the questions yet again, or do you think that you might actually be able to manage to locate and read them all by yourself, and to reply?

Bernard...
" I really wish that there was a wrathful God, because it would be just retribution for the Denialati to be cast in to lakes of fire for all eternity as penalty for their sins against humanity."

Sloth...
"tired and trite attempts to analogise reliance on the processes of science with religious belief "

Amen.

The noise....BBD, Wow, Bernard, Hardley, Sloth, Bill et al

The signal....The success of Deltoid Church.

After separating out all the noise, we can see there was an upward linear trend that plateaued and is now on a steep decline....

Predicted future scenario.....catastrophe.

Oh dear, Betty's stretching that meagre braincell again. It won't end well.

Betty, explain the connection between "the processes of science " and " I really wish", because I can't see what your denier brain seems to illuminate for you. Not without a whole heap of wishful thinking and projection.

OOPS...

The noise....and chek.

After separating out all the noise, we can see there was an upward linear trend that plateaued and is now on a steep decline….

Only if you are engaged in deliberate misrepresentation aka the "cooling over the last decade" meme.

Fact - you are reading *far* too much into an uninformatively short period.

Here's the unvarnished truth: there are two strong La Niña events in the second half of the period (2008 and the "double-dip" LN of 2011 - 2012). This inevitably depresses the trend. Nobody serious would attempt to go any further than that. It would be a blatant, deceitful cherry pick, as is instantly obvious from any clear presentation of the data.

Read the words and look at the graph. If you are half-way to being a decent human being, you will feel some shame. You don't have to admit that here of course - but just stop repeating the lie.

..."even the basic science to which you’ve been led by the nose, but at which which you refuse to look"

Exactly. Betty's had the literature pasted in front of his face many times and his response to that? To close his eyes very tightly and to whimper, "it ain't so! It ain't so!". Instead, he relies on his own gut instincts which we all know here mean diddly squat. And every so often he comes up with hilarious examples he has conjured up from some place of another.

Yet he persists. Go figure.

[*snort*] Talk about 'when you're on a crap metaphor, stick to it'. How do you manage to live in that cramped little intellect, Batty?

Sigh...I wish there was a stricter troll policy here. I like this blog and I'd like to visit more often but unfortunately the presence of persistent, stupid, moronic denier trolls who have nothing intelligent to contribute is a put-off. Even for me, it makes my brain hurt to read their inane shit; I can't imagine what it must feel like for others here who are more educated and more intelligent.

Anyway, this aside, I'd like to read a rebuttal of the latest denier nonsense that I first heard about on talk-back radio yesterday, namely that recent measurement by NASA show that CO2 cools the planet by reflecting 95% of the sun's energy, or something to that effect. I did a quick google and this meme is all over the web, spreading like a virus.

My take on it, assuming that the story is genuine and the figures correct, is that it doesn't mean anything. It changes nothing in regards to the planet's accumulation of energy. A bit like someone stuck in a drain during a flash-flood and in danger of drowning and a denier saying there's nothing to worry about because 95% of the water is actually falling outside the drain. If 5% of the sun's energy (don't know if that's correct, but just using it for the purpose of the argument) is what's keeping the planet warm, then it's irrelevant how much is being reflected. That's my uninformed opinion. Any comments?

BBD...

My comment @ 28 went right over your head....an indication of how thick you are. I was talking about Deltoid you dumb ass...

"If you are half-way to being a decent human being, you will feel some shame".

Hilarious.

...because obviously you're not a half-way decent human being - you're an internet troll!

You 'religion' *cough* 'metaphor' is still hopelessly lame, Batty.

Are you one of those Doofuses who insists 'Atheism is a Religion', incidentally? Like non-smoking is a form of smoking...

The question:

1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

Betula's answer:

The success of Deltoid Church.

The question:

2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

Betula's answer:

BBD, Wow, Bernard, Hardley, Sloth, Bill et al... OOPS… and chek.

Ruprecht. Don't take the cork off the fork.

...and he's already relieving himself at the table! ;-)

Another bad day for the wind-baggers.

Amen.

The projection is strong in this one.

an indication of how thick you are.

Every time you use a denialist lie - even in simile - you are *spreading* the excrement in the public domain.

What disturbs me is that you don't understand that this is a crime against humanity.

How this makes me thick and you a fucking savant is beyond me.

BBD..

"How this makes me thick and you a fucking savant is beyond me"

It's beyond you because you're thick.

Let's review:

Not being able to tell the difference between the predicted demise of Deltoid and the predicted outcome of climate change you attempt to hide your dumber than dirt mistake with this logic @ 41...

"Every time you use a denialist lie – even in simile – you are *spreading* the excrement in the public domain. What disturbs me is that you don’t understand that this is a crime against humanity."

So, predicting the future demise of Deltoid is a crime against humanity, because calling predicted future climate scenarios what they are....predictions, is a crime against humanity.

Now that's THICK.

Let's review some of the other Deltoid Disciple's musings:

1.Bernard, conflating climate and religion, claims that calling a prediction a prediction is reason enough to be sent to the lakes of Global Warming for eternity.
I hear a promotion to Bishop may be in the works...

2. Hardley, who blatantly lied about experiencing climate change "first hand" and seeing shifting zones "for real" over a 23 day time scale while obtaining frost bite, is promoted to High Priest of Deltoid for his efforts.

3. Lionel A, who was exposed for embellishing articles at #2 on page 5 and again at #'s 94 and 95 on pg 5 (all for the sake of promoting the cause) is considered a top Deltoid Deacon.

That leaves you as an altar boy BBD, occasionally singing with the Choir, with little chance of advancement due to the fact that you are dumber than dirt.

Now, turn off the lights and go light a candle...

Betula loves to talk about 'lies and embellishment'. How about his 'ignorance and embellishment'. For sheer unadulturated stupidity, birch man ranks near the top.

Note how he's tried to stay away from some of his howlers - C02 fertilization as a good thing, the wonderful state of eastern NA ecosystems and glacial retreat - and focus on pedantics. He also has clearly never read a peer-reviwed paper in his life; when they are stuck in front of him, in keeping with his usual demenor, he doesn't respond to them but goes off in another direction.

To top all of this off, the guy thinks he is both smart and witty. That is probably the biggest irony of all - to wallow in a pit of ignorance and to try and ridicule those who conistently shoot down your garbage. Betula appears to think that saying something off the top of his head and then ignoring a veritable flood of responses with scientific support makes him a good debater.

Sorry Betula, it doesn't. That's why your support on Deltoid is down to a few hacks and cronies. Nor can you boast of huge support in the scientific community; you are left with a lot of politically motivated but scientifically illiterate people like yourself who glean their views from AGW denier weblogs. You've proven that you are an ignoramus. Why add to this legacy?

Betula, spin it all you like.

The world can still see that you are unable to address those questions.

Nor are you able to come within a bull's roar of the follow-up questions.

The evidence for both is recorded above, for all time... well, at least for as long as there is an internet. Which is still a long time to be recognised as a denialist who is criminally ignorant of basic science.

And what's with you bonnet-bee about my metaphorical allusion to the sins of those who stand in the way of preventing further damage to the planet? You yourself have been peppering the thread with many more direct science-religion confabulations, and from a time before my own reference. Hypocrisy, much?

That is all.

Betula

You calling me thick is just funny.

Your denialism is a lie. Spreading lies about CC is a crime against humanity. You are scum.

Simple enough, isn't it?

Hardley...

"Note how he’s tried to stay away from some of his howlers – C02 fertilization as a good thing"

Is it a bad thing? Or don't you know...

And if you don't know, why don't you?

"Spreading lies about CC is a crime against humanity"

Identify the lie...I can't seem to find it in any of the verses. Is it in the Book of Predictions?

Denying your denial now Betty? Lying about lying?

How low will you go?

BBD..
“Spreading lies about CC is a crime against humanity”

Identify the lie…I can’t seem to find it in any of the verses. Is it in the Book of Predictions?

Tough one for you BBD?

Don't be a tit, Betty.

This doesn't actually merit another reply, so in the shitcan it goes:

BBD..
“Spreading lies about CC is a crime against humanity”

Identify the lie…I can’t seem to find it in any of the verses. Is it in the Book of Predictions?

Tough one for you BBD?

There are limits.

Its strange how Betula tries to spin one link in the AGW chain - increased atmospheric concentrations of C02 - into something positive, but when it comes to the warming part of it, "we don't know if it is happening".

Tis stuff comes straight from a comic book. Betula, the more you write the worse you look. I never said that increased C02 was a bad thing, but that it would have unpredictable and perhaps negative consequences on ecological systems as a result of a complex interplay of physiological changes in plant properties, responses up the food chain, and effects on processes like competition, community assembly and plant-consumer interactions. You intimated that it was a good thing on the basis of your profoundly ignorant understanding of the field. But you seem to think its OK for humans to simplify and alter the planet's surface so long as we do not understand the outcome of this 'experiment'. With people like you around, who needs regulatory bodies in government? Heck, allow every product corporations produce to be marketed and sold until harmful effects are found. Let the Pharmaceutical companies sell all of their drugs without preliminary checks. Let the pesticide manufacturers patent everything they produce, and use it without a second thought until empirical evidence proves it harms human health or the environment. And so on and s forth. Why stop at 400 ppm with atmospheric C02 concentrations? Lets see if we can crack the 500, 600 or 700 ppm barrier, until concrete proof comes in that it has serious effects on nature. Of course, given the time lags involved, by this time it will be far too late to do anything. But you get the idea with mindsets like old Betula's. Calling it gumbified is a compliment.

This is like putting the cart before the horse. Open Pandora's Box and wait until the shit hits the fan, then do something about it. And make sure that the shit has indeed hit the fan - even if there are signs it will, keep spewing it out until there is 100% proof.

In spite of what Betula might think of himself, he's a full blown bonafide idiot. He can't debate at all, but thinks he is clever and witty. Everything he says drags him deeper and deeper into the mire. Its actually fun watching this happen.

Bill#39

They seem to be revolting here :-)

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…

Ouch ̶B̶B̶D̶ ...

"This doesn’t actually merit another reply, so in the shitcan it goes:"

I see you can't answer your own accusations. This must be awfully awkward for someone with a mouth as big as yours.

Does it bother you, being identified as a serial liar, Betty?

I wonder if (being woefully stupid, as you are) you don't quite get what I am driving at here.

You are routinely wrong about climate change science and routinely corrected. Yet you routinely return with the same, discredited bollocks or variations on the denialist theme. This is intellectual dishonesty. Or put simply, lying.

It is your default mode of communication here. It is a crime against humanity, and you are scum.

Hardley...

1. You ramble...."I never said that increased C02 was a bad thing"

And I never said it was a good thing. I said your predictions are predictions based on unknowns...CO2 fertilization being one of them.

2. You continue..."but that it would have unpredictable and perhaps negative consequences on ecological systems as a result of a complex interplay of physiological changes in plant properties"

So you are saying it is a bad thing....or "perhaps" a bad thing? Or are you saying you don't know?

The fact is, you don't know, do you Hardley?

Eye opening isn't it?

Are you beginning to see how retarded you are?

"Does it bother you, being identified as a serial liar, Betty?"

Not by you, because you can't seem to identify the lie. Does it bother you, being unable to back up a claim? C'mon, you must have examples big mouth....take your time.

Stupid Denialist Meme # 302:

CO2 is plant food therefore CO2 is good:

And I never said it was a good thing. I said your predictions are predictions based on unknowns…CO2 fertilization being one of them.|

A thinly disguised lie. Is this a feeble attempt at plausible deniability of denial? If so, it doesn't work.

There's a great pile of evidence that says rapid warming will fuck up agricultural productivity and the ecosystem with equal thoroughness. Only liars pretend otherwise.

Misrepresentation of the potential seriousness of rapid future warming is a crime against humanity. Only the vilest scum engage in such poisoned rhetoric. They are regarded with loathing and contempt by the rest of the species. Why would anyone sane want to be lumped in with the vermin?

Until you back it up, you are in the shit can... we can't tolerate the likes of you at such a fine blog as this.

̶D̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶b̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶,̶ ̶b̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶i̶d̶e̶n̶t̶i̶f̶i̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶e̶r̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶l̶i̶a̶r̶,̶ ̶B̶e̶t̶t̶y̶?̶

All your rhetoric about uncertainty and good outcomes is a lie, Betty. If you are so abysmally stupid that you don't even realise what you are doing then this conversation isn't going to progress to a satisfactory outcome.

Which would be that you accept that you know nothing, accept that you have been lying about CC, renounce your denialism, accept the scientific evidence and consensus of evidence, and fuck off from this place, never to be heard from again.

You know it makes sense. You'd feel so much better about yourself. In your heart of hearts you must have an inkling that all you are is an unpaid shill for vested corporate interests and swivel-eyed right wing nutters. Who wants to be a capitalist lackey and a water carrier for the self-serving right?

Where's your pride, Betty? Your sense of self?

# 59

Are you blind as well as a fuckwit, Betty? Do try reading the words.

̶A̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶d̶i̶s̶g̶u̶i̶s̶e̶d̶ ̶l̶i̶e̶.̶

Back it up.

Just. How. Stupid. Can. Someone. Be?

Read the fucking words, you tool.

Dear God in heaven.

"Which would be that you accept that you know nothing, accept that you have been lying about CC, renounce your denialism, accept the scientific evidence and consensus of evidence, and fuck off from this place, never to be heard from again"

Accept ̶J̶e̶s̶u̶s̶ the IPCC or leave ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶C̶h̶u̶r̶c̶h̶ Deltoid?

Since you have not one iota of expertise, on what basis do you reject the scientific consensus on AGW?

This is the root of your intellectual dishonesty. When I've raised this with you before (eg May thread), you became extremely evasive then started lying:

Here was my response to your lies:

********************************

# 95 BBD:

This is a fucking flat-out lie:

The problem here is that all possible positive reactions are taken out of the prediction equation….they carry no weight in the projection of predictions that potentially may happen to a system that is too complex to possibly know how all the interactions will react. Why is that?

Why are deniers so fucking dishonest?

Why is that?

Well we know, don’t we? It’s because they are arguing against a robust scientific consensus without benefit of a scientific counter-argument.

So they need to tell lies all the time.

****************************************************

JP#34

That’s my uninformed opinion. Any comments?
.......I can’t imagine what it must feel like for others here who are more educated and more intelligent.

Sigh. Its a heavy burden but one does ones best.

The socks gather...

"All your rhetoric about uncertainty and good outcomes is a lie"

This is your proof of a lie? Be more specific, show me the words. Prove to me there aren't any uncertainties or unknowns in predicting future scenarios, prove to me the effect of CO2 fertilization on climate, if any, are certain .... until then, you are in the shit can:

̶"̶A̶l̶l̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶r̶h̶e̶t̶o̶r̶i̶c̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶u̶n̶c̶e̶r̶t̶a̶i̶n̶t̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶g̶o̶o̶d̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶c̶o̶m̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶l̶i̶e̶"̶

I don't have to prove a damned thing to you, Betty. Try to get this into your buttock-thick head.

You have no choice but to accept the scientific consensus - which is that warming is potentially very dangerous indeed unless moderated.

You have no choice because:

- You are not an expert

- You have no robust scientific counter-argument

If you *still* cannot understand the profundity of your intellectual dishonesty in *rejecting* the scientific consensus and foghorning your stupid misconceptions in comments here then I don't know what else to do.

Are you incapable of even the most basic reasoning?

BBD...

You have no choice but to admit the future scenarios are predictions.... NO CHOICE....because they are.
In the process of predicting, there are admittedly many uncertainties and unknowns that come into play...ADMITTEDLY.

Now, since you are a genius of sorts, please explain to me, with CERTAINTY, the role something such as CO2 fertilization may play in the overall scheme of things.

Until then, try to keep it together in the shit can:

̶I̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶v̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶d̶a̶m̶n̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶,̶ ̶B̶e̶t̶t̶y̶.̶ ̶T̶r̶y̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶g̶e̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶t̶o̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶t̶o̶c̶k̶-̶t̶h̶i̶c̶k̶ ̶h̶e̶a̶d̶.̶

"I can’t imagine what it must feel like for others here who are more educated and more intelligent."....yet can't answer their own accusations.

But Betty, I've already shown you that the climate system is sensitive to radiative perturbation and that empirical estimates from paleoclimate give us an ECS/2xCO2 of about 3C.

I didn't have to do that either, but that was back when I could still be bothered with your lying denialist rhetoric. You imploded, remember? No countering scientific argument, just weak, dishonest blather about uncertainty.

As several people have explained here, CO2 fertilisation is a fucking irrelevance compared to the effects of abrupt climate change on plant physiology and global agricultural productivity.

Relentlessly going on and on and on about it is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty. This too, has been explained to you.

But on you go.

I repeat: misrepresentation of the potential seriousness of rapid future warming is a crime against humanity. Only the vilest scum engage in such poisoned rhetoric. They are regarded with loathing and contempt by the rest of the species. Why would anyone sane want to be lumped in with the vermin?

please explain to me, with CERTAINTY

Betty, after all these years you still haven't understood that science prediction deals with probabilities, not certainties.

If it's certainty you crave, go find an ol' time religion website to troll because you're a waste of space and time here.

I further repeat: the entire multidisciplinary field of Earth System science is *against* you. The scientific consensus on AGW and its escalating potential for harm is rock solid. Ubiquitous.

All the scientists, all the real experts, disagree with you.

Since you have no expertise and no robust scientific counter-argument, you are engaging in the utmost intellectual dishonesty by rejecting the scientific consensus.

Why can't you see this? What, literally what the fuck is wrong with your mind?

On a lighter note.
In the Telegraph there was an interesting take on the recent UK Met Office meeting to discuss the unusual UK weather.
(Still getting frost and its almost July)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100222487/when-it-comes-to…

Betula: if you don't think the so-called C02 fertilization effect is a good thing, why did you bring it up in the first place? It has no relevance in the context of this discussion except for you to dispute AGW but suggest benefits of the other parameter, C02.

By George you twist and spin and dodge and wriggle in order to cover your tracks. You just aren't very good at it. And you still never refer to the primary literature. Only appalling web sites like GWPF. Clearly your reading skills are either limited or else you are bone-idle lazy when it comes to 'sourcing' your information.

Rednose: What brings your brand of stupidity back here? An article in a right wing corporate rag? One that conflates weather with climate? And why aren't they writing anything about conditions in Alaska and the Canadian Arctic right now where it is hot?

Just for Rednose: I checked the Environment Canada weather and temperatures across the North West Territories and Yukon are 5-10 C above normal and this will remain for an extended period. Can't be too good for the Arctic can it? Temperatures on the Arctic coast are 15-20 C, and 30-35 C inland. Alaska is also basking.

If you are going to play the weather is climate game, Reddy, prepare to get burned. And seek out some other source than a right wing newspaper.

RedNoise the Clown

Third warmest May in the instrumental record...

You are once again confusing regional with global. And that got old a long time ago. Can't you come up with something a bit more amusing and challenging? Or are you just a crappy little troll without what it takes to make it to the big time?

And why aren’t they writing anything about conditions in Alaska and the Canadian Arctic right now where it is hot?

Because the article, dear JH ,was reporting the Met Office meeting which was discussing the UK weather for the last several years which seems to have dumbfounded the Met Office as it has been actually much colder than the stuck record forecasts of BBQ Summers and mild winters emmanating from the Met office.
If its that warm in Alaska ( It is midsummer after all) then maybee I should holiday there, as it seems most of Spain and France are having a shite summer as well.

Mind you, the very extreme weather this year is interesting.

Most expensive flood in Canadian history last week...

Major damage and loss of life from flooding in India...

Another 500-year mega-flood in Germany (the second in 11 years)...

Pay attention, Clown. Globally, we've just had the third warmest May in the instrumental record and it's not even an El Nino year.

As usual, your regional weather hyper-focus is blinding you to the facts. I can't quite believe I'm being forced to quote this to you *again* because once should have ended your shite forever on this topic. But here you are, maundering on about the fucking UK weather again...

How cold has it really been in the NH?

While some places were cold, the northern hemisphere was warmer than average in March, and indeed across the winter, consistent with long-term warming trends. The US National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC) has recently described such conditions as “pockets of cold in a warming world”.

The last time the northern hemisphere recorded a month — any month — that was cooler than the 1961-1990 long-term average was in February 1994. The last time a whole northern hemisphere winter was colder than average was 1984.

Read the words.

Very active trolls tonight. Must be the weather.

#78
,blockquote>Third warmest May in the instrumental record

Using the CET, over the last 30 years, only in 1996, 1984 and 1975 has May been colder

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/index.html

Or are you just a crappy little troll without what it takes to make it to the big time?

So polite. . When did you make it to the big time?
BBD. Master of Deltoid
What a dick.

Clown, why are you wittering about the CET? It is irrelevant to discussion of global average temperature.

How stupid and limited are you exactly? How dishonest? How troll-ish? How pointless?

Fuckwit.

The last time the northern hemisphere recorded a month — any month — that was cooler than the 1961-1990 long-term average was in February 1994. The last time a whole northern hemisphere winter was colder than average was 1984.

Choke on the facts.

why are you wittering about the CET? It is irrelevant to discussion of global average temperature

You discuss what you want to discuss. I was discussing the Met Office meeeting called to consider the UK weather for the last few years.
Fuckwit

Who gives a stuff about the tiny little postage stamp of surface that is the CET? You actually think that blethering on like this is some sort of argument against AGW, which is hideously stupid and morbidly dishonest.

Meanwhile, back in reality:

The last time the northern hemisphere recorded a month — any month — that was cooler than the 1961-1990 long-term average was in February 1994. The last time a whole northern hemisphere winter was colder than average was 1984.

The anomalous UK weather will without a shadow of a doubt turn out to be at least partly caused by AGW, so why you are going on about it is a mystery.

Might as well stand there and shout "look - anthropogenically-forced climate change!"

Yeah. We know.

,blockquote>Might as well stand there and shout “look – anthropogenically-forced climate change!”

Well the met Office seems to think its tied up with the AMO.

The key point revolves around discussion of Atlantic ocean cycles, specifically one known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which can have an influence on UK summer weather.

Professor Stephen Belcher, Head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, and Dr James Screen, a NERC Research Fellow at the University of Exeter, were careful in their messaging about the AMO.

They talked about initial research which suggests this cycle, which can last for 10-20 years, can ‘load the dice’ to mean we may see a higher frequency of wetter than average summers before switching to its opposite phase, where we may see the opposite effect.

Currently, they said, it appears we are well into the ‘wet’ phase of this cycle, so it may continue to have an influence for a few more years to come.

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/media-coverage-on-wet-sum…

Still I expect BBD knows better than most.

You can't even read your own excerpt. Rednos!

Try again without your Denier Goggles on... oh, that's right, you can't see anything at all except through the goggles, can you?

And re your #52 - yep, you're an honourary Boltard and no mistake!

HINT: Don't try to be clever about other peoples' political processes you know bugger-all about. It's like watching the Scanditrolls try to be smartarses in a second language...

Betula.

I see that ignoring those basic questions is a lifestyle choice for you now. Is "Choose Ignorance" your personal motto?

At least you're still here though. Olaus Petri, GSW and KarenMackSunspot ran away with their tails between their legs, too scared to even be present on the same thread as those simple questions.

Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the "no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years" claptrap), can you explain

1) in the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the "no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years" claptrap), can you explain

2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the "no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years" claptrap), can you explain

3) in the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the "no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years" claptrap), can you explain

4) in the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the "no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years" claptrap), can you explain

5) in the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the "no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years" claptrap), having addressed the questions above can you now explain

6) what the mean long-term minimum rate of warming would need to be in order to detect a signal from noise over a period of 17 years, and

7) what the mean long-term minimum rate of warming would need to be in order to detect a signal from noise over a period of 15 years, and

8) what the mean long-term minimum rate of warming would need to be in order to detect a signal from noise over a period of 10 years?

Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the "no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years" claptrap), with all of the above now under your belt can you now carefully explain

9) what the temperature record to date is really indicating with respect to the progress of planetary warming?

Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the "no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years" claptrap), can you explain

10) can you assess the scientific wisdom of Curry’s comment about a decade or more of impending cooling?

Betula.

You have once again brought up the issue of increased growth in response to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Tell us, in branch sawing school did your teachers

1) explain to you anything about plant nutrition, and how the nature of growth is affected by the ratio of nutrients?

For example, in branch sawing school did your teachers

2) explain what happens if plants receive excess nitrogen?

In branch sawing school did your teachers

3) explain what happens if plants receive excess water?

In branch sawing school did your teachers

4) explain what happens if plants receive excess boron?

In branch sawing school did your teachers

5) explain what happens if plants receive excess chlorine?

In branch sawing school did your teachers

6) explain what happens if plants receive excess carbon dioxide?

In branch sawing school did your teachers

7) explain what happens to associated species and to ecosystems if plants receive an imbalance or an excess of nutrition?

In branch sawing school did your teachers

8) explain what happens to plants, to associated species and to ecosystems if plants receive an imbalance or an excess of nutrition in combination with atypical climatic variation?

When it comes down to it, in whatever schools you attended did you

9) ever learn basic physics and chemistry, especially as they pertain to climatology?

and

10) did you ever learn basic and perhaps even intermediate ecology, especially as it pertains to climatology?

bbd, your fucking global temperature is not defined in wikipedia!!

hence shut up you warming fuckwit who hates reality but adores virtual computer games. idiot

bernard, are you a fuckn biology-ignorant who did never understand photosynthesis?

freddy, is you a poe?

bill, bernard is a biology-ignorant fuckwit like you

"bernard, are you a fuckn biology-ignorant who did never understand photosynthesis?"

OMG, we have ourselves another AGW denier but this one has an even greater depth of profound stupidity than most of the others. It seems like every 'new' denier that enters Deltoid has the task of out-doing the others in terms of brazen ignorance. 'Freddy' is the new troll on the block. How long he will persist here with his kindergarten theatrics is anyone's guess, but let us hope it is of short duration.

On that note I don't think its worth the effort to demolish his photosynthesis comment. Anything other than 1 + 1 = 2 will be well over the head of this clown.

yes, freddy, yes we are. is that your nurses calling?

bill, no just from intelligent people outside your closed agw delusion world in your isolated insane fuckwit reality, you morons

um, are you supposed to be using a keyboard, freddy? you don't have anything sharp, now, do you?

"jeff harvest"

hahahaha, ha!!!

insane biology-ignorant, MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i have a university doctorate, AND YOU

IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"bill, no just from intelligent people outside your closed agw delusion world in your isolated insane fuckwit reality, you morons"

Yes, the nurses are indeed needed. 'Freddy' makes his namesale in Nightmare on Elm Street sound almost normal. Esepcially since he considers himself to be 'intelligent' then spews out this garbage.

Still I expect BBD knows better than most.

I know better than you, Clown, which is enough. I know because I read stuff. Stuff like this:

Professor Stephen Belcher, Head of the Met Office Hadley Centre and chair of the meeting, said: “Ultimately what we’ve seen in each of these seasons is shifts in the position of the jet stream which impact our weather in certain ways at different times of year.

“The key question is what is causing the jet stream to shift in this way? There is some research to say some parts of the natural system load the dice to influence certain states of the jet stream, but this loading may be further amplified by climate change.”

[...]

With regards to the cold winters, there is a wide range of drivers that could have an influence.

There is some initial evidence to suggest that changes in Arctic climate may also be making an impact.

Dr James Screen, from the University of Exeter, said: “There has been a lot of talk about declining Arctic sea ice playing a role in our weather patterns, but really that’s just one aspect of changes in the Arctic climate – which has seen rapid warming compared to other parts of the world.

“Those changes mean there is less of a difference in temperature between the Arctic and tropics, which could impact the position of the jet stream.”

Try to understand better, Clown:

Global average temperatures over the last decade are the highest since records began. Ditto OHC at all measured depths.

The climate system is holistic and interconnected. So the increasing energy content of the climate system will affect all of it in some way or another. Strange UK weather is one aspect of this, but the NH mega-floods and heat waves and super-freezes are caused by blocking highs resulting from alteration in the behaviour of the jet stream. Something odd is happening to the jet stream. Something new. Something certainly connected to AGW.

freddy

You are not a PhD. This is painfully evident.

So, you are a fantasist, a liar and a parodically ill-informed troll.

Sling your hook.

Freddy, where did you get your doctorate from? The University of Fuckwittery? And in what may I ask?

Strangely enough, I also have a doctorate in Population Ecology, with 130 peer-reviewed publications and over 3000 citations. My h-factor is 32....

Care to share your publication bonafides, and to then stop hiding behind a stupid pseudonym?

I must admit I thought "freddie" might be a Poe but like as not he's just insane.

Certainly seems to have flipped since he appeared on this thread.

In Freddy's case PhD actually stands for Puffed-up halfwit Denier. I thought that much was obvious.

But he can't go yet - I wanted to know which Arkansas mail-order 'University' he got that PhD from...

This is priceless:

bbd, your fucking global temperature is not defined in wikipedia!!

It's always informative to debate the subtleties of climate metrics with a post-doc. And what a devastating blow he strikes!

GAT isn't defined in Wikipedia folks! (see note).

So:

hence shut up you warming fuckwit who hates reality but adores virtual computer games. idiot

Wow. What an incisive evisceration of the scientific consensus on AGW! This man will go right to the very top, IMO.

Thanks freddie. I'm feeling a great deal better now you've fixed AGW for me.

* * *

(note:) Except of course, it is, and this cretin either didn't bother to check or is just lying.

"But he can’t go yet – I wanted to know which Arkansas mail-order ‘University’ he got that PhD from…"

Yes Bill, I am very keen to know what Institute of higher learning would award Freddy anything other than a redundancy notice...

Hey Deltoids!

I've just read over the last coupla days' comments and, let me say it straight out, I'm disturbed, alarmed, and concerned by this blog's most recent commentary!

Seriously guys, things seem to be getting just a little bit "mentally-ill" in Deltoidland, and all--I mean like some really strange, unwholesome, truly weirdo crazy-talk kickin' around the place, and all. You know, like, total bug-fuck, nut-ball stuff like wow's febrile, shreiking, "Tim-fuck-you-seriously-fuck-you!", meltdown hysterics and BBD's kinda demented, little, Vyshinsky-wannabe, "crime against humanity!", show-trial-audition, episode-booger riff (you O. K., BBD?) and all. I mean, like, that sorta unsettling weirdness and all. I mean like you guys are getting so worked up that I'm afraid the internal pressure build-up just might even make your heads all collectively explode into so many 10:10-style, big-time messy blood-splatters, if you don't get a hold of yourselves and all.

C'mon Deltoids, lighten up, guys! Throttle back! Take a break! And since you Deltoids are such ol' buddies, I've even worked up some guffaw-magnets to lift your mood:

"%"--bill in an "unzipped", can't-get-a-date, wanker mood

"&"--Craig Thomas in his "suppository-head", normal, "rest" position.

"*"--BJ being an ass-hole, as usual

"?"--wow, realizing that eco-scams are fast losing their mojo makes a savvy career move and re-invents himself as an intestinal parasite

"^^"--BBD's carbon-tax "ideation" goes completely "tits-up"

"@"--The whole, B. S., greenshirt, do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do!, taxpayer rip-off deal circles the drain

Good stuff, huh, Deltoids! Nothing like a little laugh-cure to chase those "green" blues away, is there? I see a whole hive full of smiley-faces, now, here in Deltoidland! Good Deltoids!

I'd ignore freddy folks - the farce is strong in this one.

As I noted a few days back he's a regular at A Few Things Ill-Considered, where he barrows around a whole heap of Creationism and other non-science. Half the time I think that he's just a poe, but if he is he's a peculiarly persistent and spiteful one who masters the pretense of being functionally illiterate in even primary school level science.

Having said that, if freddy cares to provide in his own words a précis of light reactions, the Calvin-Benson cycles, the nuances of RuBisCO's action, the peculiarities of Crassulacean acid metabolism, and whatever other understandings of photosynthesis he appears to believe that I lack, then he's welcome to knock himself out.

If we're really lucky he might take that last literally, and thereby measurably increase the intelligence quotient of the planet.

BBD’s kinda demented, little, Vyshinsky-wannabe, “crime against humanity!”, show-trial-audition, episode-booger riff (you O. K., BBD?)

I get a little angry, sometimes. Do you have any kids, mike?

Bernard J

Funnily enough, I was reading about Rubisco only last night. Carboniferous oxygen level adaptations, mass balance and all that. Berner & Canfield. Fascinating.

Bernard - thanks for the tip about freddie - the rabidity explained. Another effing creationist.

Teh Stupid, with religion, again.

Oopsie, mikie's off his meds again.

Mike, would you care for once in your meagre existence to start a commentary with real, actual science, rather than spraying random incoherent examples of coprolalic Tourette syndrome?

Perhaps you'd care to answer the questions on the previous page, and from which Betula and the other trolls have scampered, double-haste.

Or perhaps you might just go find your nursie and let him put on your pretty white jacket with the fancy buckles at the back...

BBD.

RuBisCO is amazing, isn't it? It's rather an argument against the Tim Curtin style hysteria that we must burn several hundred millio0n years worth of fossil fuels as quickly as we can because we're all about to die from lack of primary productivity.

I'm not sure that we should let it cross beams with the fundies here though - I'm not fond of the sight of exploding Stay Puft doughboys...

BBD
June 25, 2013

Still I expect BBD knows better than most.

I know better than you, Clown, which is enough. I know because I read stuff. Stuff like this:

Professor Stephen Belcher, Head of the Met Office Hadley Centre and chair of the meeting, said: “Ultimately what we’ve seen in each of these seasons is shifts in the position of the jet stream which impact our weather in certain ways at different times of year.

“The key question is what is causing the jet stream to shift in this way? There is some research to say some parts of the natural system load the dice to influence certain states of the jet stream, but this loading may be further amplified by climate change.”

LoL..........lOl.....LoL..

Twentieth century North Atlantic jet variability

"Long records of the latitude and speed of the North Atlantic eddy-driven jet stream since 1871 are presented from the newly available Twentieth Century reanalysis. These jet variations underlie the variability associated with patterns such as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and have considerable societal impact through variations in the prevailing westerly winds. While the NAO combines variations in the latitude and speed of the jet, these two characteristics are shown to have quite different seasonal cycles and interannual variability, suggesting that they may have different dynamical influences.

In general, the features exhibited in shorter records are shown to be robust, for example the strong skewness of the NAO distribution. Related to this is a clear multimodality of the jet latitude distribution which suggests the existence of preferred positions of the jet. Decadal variations in jet latitude are shown to correspond to changes in the occurrence of these preferred positions. However, it is the speed rather than the latitude of the jet which exhibits the strongest decadal variability, and in most seasons this is clearly distinct from a white noise representation of the seasonal means. When viewed in this longer term context the variations of recent decades do not appear unusual, and recent values of jet latitude and speed are not unprecedented in the historical record."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2197/abstract

JeFferY was also sucked in with the alarmist Jetstream end of the world bedtime tales lol :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

hi..barnturdy..........you sicko (spew)

Karen opines: "I know better than you, Clown, which is enough. I know because I read stuff"

Yeh, most of the 'stuff'' you read is puerile garbage from denier weblogs. And in the rare occasion that you do read intellectual 'stuff', you generally misunderstand it, or distort the conclusions of the article to shape to your own warped world view.

Actually JeFferY if you had the intelligence that you profess to have then you would have known that "BBD opines: “I know better than you, Clown," not me sweety :)

Really, how could you be expected to understand climate change when you can't even keep up in a simpleton blog like this ?

Unfortunately, the extreme weather *clusters* since ~2000 are highly atypical, which very strongly suggests that Woolling's reanalysis is not robust. I thought you lot didn't trust climate models anyway. So what's with this sudden enthusiasm for C20th reanalysis?

Who is feeding you this stuff, Karen? Where are you getting your prompts from this time?

Do tell.

Learn to use blockquotes, Karen. You are the cause of the problem here, not Jeff. Your lazy posting style is hard to read.

Who is feeding you this stuff, Karen? Where are you getting your prompts from this time?

Inquiring minds wish to know.

# 18 Bernard

I sincerely doubt that this lot would understand the argument in the first place. The only thing that will make these mouth-breathers explode is one of those red button box thingies that our masters are even now preparing to ship in bulk (h/t chek for the joke).

:-)

Wow, the whole 'off their meds' clan is here - it's none other than Li'l Mikey, the too strict / too early toilet training casualty, a man who, doubtlessly-unfounded rumour has it, lean towards the Don Lane, if you know what I mean!... ;-)

bill

Yes, the whole troupe of clowns has come out to cavort. Mentioned this last night. I wonder what's got them all stirred up this time?

It's almost as if they are co-ordinated somehow.

Slow day at Climate Etc.?

"Who is feeding you this stuff, Karen? Where are you getting your prompts from this time?

Inquiring minds wish to know."

It is mostly common knowledge BBD :-P

...this from a person who has difficulty keeping track of what year it is, or what the difference between Fahrenheit and Celsius is! Oi vey!

Of course, I know what's got them all out - it's the Super Moon! Hoooooowlllll.....

It is mostly common knowledge BBD

Except it's not. Nor do you know anything about Woolings et al. so somebody is feeding you your lines.

Who is it?

# 32 bill

Of course! How could I have been so stupid.

#34 the mind boggles :)

Who is feeding you your lines, Karen? There's no point trying to pretend you actually know what you are talking about because I *know* you are only parroting. We have had enough discussion now for that to be absolutely, incontrovertibly clear.

So, where is it all coming from?

Solar activity drives Indian winter and summer monsoons

http://hol.sagepub.com/content/23/7/945.abstract?rss=1&utm_source=feedly

Yes, Karen, I know how the monsoon works. That isn't the answer to the question I keep asking you.

Please stop being evasive - it generates huge amounts of suspicion among observers.

"It is mostly common knowledge" whinges Karen.

Certainly is - amongst the scientifically illiterate that is.

...mostly that they're witnessing the consequences of a particularly clumsily performed leucotomy.

Bugger - Jeff snuck in there!...

And just as suddenly... they're gone! Gee whiz, guys, and you were nearly winning there, you really were...

They're dust in the wind, Bill... here today, gone with their stupidity tomorrow....

bill # 29 and # 42

I don't recall any of these muppets from CE. But they did indeed depart as they arrived - en masse, exactly as though co-ordinated.

Strange.

Ah, well, seems Sticky Mike made this species list,anyway...

Surely Latimer, The Prince™ and Chebbie's arrival wasn't a coincidence, either?

Web's Clown gazetteer is a very hand thing. I used it extensively when posting at JC's because there are so many clowns it is difficult, at least at first, to sort them all out. Good egg, is Web. I don't post at JC's much now because JC put me in moderation for upsetting the denialiati just a little bit too well.

It is *unbelievable* that JC holds any academic role at all. She both promotes climate lies and misinformation via guest posts and through her commenting policy. A sickening display at every level.

AFIK Chebbie was a sock used by "Brad".

I've "known" Latimer for a long time as he is a UK based denialist and libertarian bloviator from the Sticky Bishop's congregation (and thanks for that unforgettable nomination, bill).

Latimer fancies himself an intellect but is in fact only a verbose buffoon, whereas "Brad" was genuinely smart and had the full lawyer's toolkit at his fingertips. Yet he too was a pitiful sight in the end. Intelligent and highly educated yet hopelessly blind and marinated in the filthiest intellectual dishonesty. The power of denial is a terrible thing to behold.

Actually, it's possible that Sticky Bishop was Lord_Sidcup, in which case apologies all round ;-)

Re heightened clown activity

Perhaps this explains it.

Hardley...

"Betula: if you don’t think the so-called C02 fertilization effect is a good thing, why did you bring it up in the first place?"

I only said it was a good thing in your mind....which means even your own imagination is lying.

I brought it up because it's never brought up...even though you can't state what affect it may have. The fact is, you don't know. You can pretend to know.... but then you will be caught in another of your many lies, and I won't let you forget it.

# 95 BBD:

"This is a fucking flat-out lie:"

"The problem here is that all possible positive reactions are taken out of the prediction equation….they carry no weight in the projection of predictions that potentially may happen to a system that is too complex to possibly know how all the interactions will react. Why is that?"

Ok, why don't you list for me some of the possible benefits of warming and how they are calculated into the predicted future climate scenarios...

“The problem here is that all possible positive reactions are taken out of the prediction equation….they carry no weight in the projection of predictions that potentially may happen to a system that is too complex to possibly know how all the interactions will react".

Now, let's assume that those exact same parameters apply to a car crash.

Ok, why don’t you list for me some of the possible benefits of warming crashing and how they are calculated into the predicted future climate post crash scenarios…

Now do you appreciate the stupidity we have to behold from you Betty?

Berntard...

I answered your childish noise and signal question back at # 28 pg 7, in fact, it was so convincing, BBD at #30 accused me of "deliberate misrepresentation aka the “cooling over the last decade” meme."

Regarding your questions @ 93...

I take soil samples and do soil amendments on a daily basis. Your questions are very basic, indicating to me that your knowledge of plant requirements and diagnosing plant problems is very limited.
Your questions are dependent on a myriad of information you seem to have left out...location of plant, soil type, ph of soil, cation exchange capacity, variety of plant, maturity of plant, micro nutrients, organic matter, tolerance to shade, to salt, do they like wet feet etc...

It is the same when you leave out a myriad of information when predicting future climate scenarios. Some information isn't known, some is uncertain, some is assumed and some is left out all together....resulting in a prediction.

Did any of you geniuses 15 years ago predict GAT to stall for the past 15 years?

Tell me Berntard, how do you think something like CO2 fertilization may or may not fit into the future climate scenario...

Hey bill!

Yr no. 42: "And just as suddenly...they're gone"

":"--bill's nostrils

"."--bill's favorite nostril

","--bill's obsession

"!"--bill's forefinger in its normal, nasal, "rest" position

"?"--bill's goober-groping "smooth-move"

";"--bill shows off his "prize"

"<-"--bill flicks his booger like a girl

"#"--bill's booger-flick is assigned comment no. 42 at Deltoid

Chek @ 53....

A simplistic analogy from a simple person...

chek, did you happen to notice BBD called the statement a "fucking flat-out lie"....so which part is the lie?

One thing that is a relief: the moron brigade (Betula, Mike, Karen, Freddy, Rednose, GSW, Olaus et al) are stuck on blogs. For the most part in lecture halls, universities, conferences and workshops they are few and far between. And in the empirical literature they are virtually invisible.

They pound their chests and act like silverbacks as anonymous entities on the internet, but in halls of academia they are laughingstocks (or indeed would be if their true identities would be revealed).

Reference and context required Betty. Nothing can be taken on trust from you.

One thing that is a relief: the moron brigade are stuck on blogs.

That's a big deal to them Jeff. My biggest laugh this week - or could maybe even this month - was GSW accusing Tim of "playing God" by delaying Jonarse's comments. I know Tim can move in mysterious ways, but still, God?? Only to a moron, presumably.

jeff, you idiot are always wrong

the majority of the US population detests warming by humanoids and cows, the US congress is firm against idiotic co2 laws which would weaken the US economy. you warming apes are an exotic foolish minority in the most important country of the world. china, india, japan, canada laugh about you idiots.

YOU ARE SO RIDICULOUS, BUT BEFORE ALL YOU ARE INSANE GREEN-SOCIALST STINKING AND DIRTY SUPER ASSHOLES WHO WANT TO DESTROY CAPITALISM, GENERAL WELFARE, INDIVIDUAL HAPPINESS OF BILLIONS OF HUMANS AND POISON EVERYBODY WITH YOUR STUPID IDEOLOGY OF THE ROTTEN CLIMATE CHURCH WITH THEIR PAGAN COMPUTER GAMES.

ASSHOLES!!!!!!!!!'

I expect Obama's climate speech today will have poor li'll Freddy here weeping into his over-saturated wank mops.

Who is feeding you your lines, Karen?
Probably the hockeyschtick or a repost originating from there.

Betula

Ok, why don’t you list for me some of the possible benefits of warming and how they are calculated into the predicted future climate scenarios…

Because the work has been done by the experts in the relevant fields and the scientific consensus is that they are outweighed by the impacts. Never mind asking me to list things. You need to produce the evidence that will convince the experts that they are wrong. Since you aren't an expert and there is no scientific counter-argument (by definition - look up "consensus"), this will be challenging.

You accuse the entire field of Earth System science of cooking the books:

The problem here is that all possible positive reactions are taken out of the prediction equation….they carry no weight in the projection of predictions that potentially may happen to a system that is too complex to possibly know how all the interactions will react. Why is that?

You provide neither evidence that the books were cooked nor a scientific counter-argument. This isn't even weak. It's nothing.

* * *

By the way, is there any John Birch connection? Ideologically speaking, of course.

BBD...

"Never mind asking me to list things. You need to produce the evidence that will convince the experts that they are wrong"

No BBD, this is about you accusing me of lying, you are the one who chose those words as proof. The onus is on you to back up your accusation.
Until such time, you can keep your mouth shut in the shit can:

̶B̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶k̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶b̶e̶e̶n̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶t̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶l̶e̶v̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶f̶i̶e̶l̶d̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶t̶i̶f̶i̶c̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶e̶n̶s̶u̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶w̶e̶i̶g̶h̶e̶d̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶i̶m̶p̶a̶c̶t̶s̶.̶ ̶N̶e̶v̶e̶r̶ ̶m̶i̶n̶d̶ ̶a̶s̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶m̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶l̶i̶s̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶s̶.̶ ̶Y̶o̶u̶ ̶n̶e̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶d̶u̶c̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶v̶i̶d̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶v̶i̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶t̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶w̶r̶o̶n̶g̶

By the way, is there any connection to the BBD in the Urban Dictionary? Ideologically speaking, of course.

Freddy! Now, remember the anger-management classes; deep breaths, in... out... in... out...

Jesus was a Social!st, Freddy.

Yawn.

Apparently, according to sources 'Sticky Mike' was his nickname at school, where he was always turning up with skin and clothing sporting the crusty remnants of his various emanations and effluvia... On the worst days it became 'Skidmark...'

And those handkerchiefs! Eeeew...,.

So, reactionary mugwumps, your slide into richly-deserved obscurity continues apace. Did you get the bit where Obama pointed out the IEA's own figure of $500 billion in annual subsidies to that bastion of the Free Market™, the Fossil Fuel Industry?

Whew! Kind of puts all the 'horrendous', market-distorting wind subsidies in perspective, don't it? ;-)

We look forward to the FF phase-out!...

And 'Flat Earth Society' is right. Sticky, SpamKan, The Bircher, the Egregious Freddy (burst a blood vessel yet? Jesus really was a Commie, you know), Oily, Goosey, and Prince Bradley, if you're still around. Card-carrying kooks, all...

No time for you indeed. Just the dust bin of history...

Betula said at #54:

I answered your childish noise and signal question back at # 28 pg 7, in fact, it was so convincing...

Hold the bus.. Stop right there.

Really? "...it was so convincing"?! Let's just spend a few moments to carefully pick this claim apart, even though I commented on this previously.

Your response to the question:

1) in the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

was (brace yourselves people, it's powerfully scientific...):

The success of Deltoid Church.

That's it. Nothing more. And your response to the question:

2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

was equally sophisticated:

BBD, Wow, Bernard, Hardley, Sloth, Bill et al… OOPS… and chek.

Betula, are you really going to say with hand on heart that you answered those two questions in anything resembling a serious scientific manner?

Really?

Now I realise that you may have answered them to the best of your ability, but that's not the same as answering them properly, and answering them scientifically. If you disagree with this then you are dreadfully confused about science...

You then said:

Regarding your questions @ 93…

I take soil samples and do soil amendments on a daily basis. Your questions are very basic, indicating to me that your knowledge of plant requirements and diagnosing plant problems is very limited.

Once again you are completely missing the point. Points, in fact.

Of course my questions are "basic" - that has been exactly my explicitly stated approach throughout this whole thread. As an exercise in verification, go back through it and count how many times I've expressly mentioned "basic", "fundamental", "simple", and similar descriptors. I am attempting to establish your understanding of the first principles of the science that you so vigorously disparage, but against which you offer neither any demonstration of understanding nor any defensible (or even visible) counter.

Further, my questions about the impacts of nutrient excess are not predicated on any specific cofactors, they are intended merely to elicit from you an acknowledgement that seemingly beneficial elements and compounds that facilitate growth can also compromise plant (and interacting species') health.

Your response was to tap dance around directly answering those questions, likely because you knew where this would lead you. Instead you attempted to counter with mention of system complexity, which was a bit of an exercise in closing barn doors because my point in question (8) was about the effect of nutrient imbalance with confounding climatic factors - the specific system complexity to which we've been trying to lead you and which you've been assiduously ignoring on this blog for a long time.

Oh, and for the record the interactions of nutrient excess with other environmental factors is implied by my mentioning in questions (7) and (8) of ecosystems and imbalances. If you worked as an ecologist you'd understand that we take it as read that all biophysiochemical parameters are integral to an ecosystem - but as I said above, it doesn't change the simple fact that you simply tried to avoid providing a simple answer to a simple question about simple science.

And it's not as if the complexities of biological response to climate change and increased CO2 levels hasn't all been laid out for you before. A few years ago I listed on several occasions whole swags of references covering negative consequences of increased CO2, including amongst other things altered nutritional composition in plant matter; differential pest, weed and disease responses; and altered mycorrhizal associations. I've mentioned numerous times the fact that shifting agricultural climatic zones don't drag their geologies and hydrologies with them. And I couldn't count the number of times that I and others have mentioned Sprengel's Law of the Minimum (latterly attributed to Liebig) - this is another fundamental confounder of your simplistic representation of increasing atmospheric CO2 as an overall beneficial circumstance.

And yet you ignore that, and the simple questions about simple climate science.

In attempting to so prevaricate you said:

Your questions are dependent on a myriad of information you seem to have left out…location of plant, soil type, ph [sic] of soil, cation exchange capacity, variety of plant, maturity of plant, micro nutrients, organic matter, tolerance to shade, to salt, do they like wet feet etc…

As I explained above, the questions did not require monographic responses, just a simple acknowledgement that nutrient excess can have negative effects. However, as I also noted above, you shot yourself in the foot by drawing the "complex response/no general answer" card, because this matter of complexity of response is exactly what biologists are saying about increased CO2 in the atmosphere - it is not as simple as plants merely growing at a faster rate. This is what I was trying to elicit from you with the questions about increased nutrients. This is what I and Jeff and Lotharsson and BBD and Chek and so many others have for so long been trying to have you face.

And this is what you have studiously skirted, ignored, avoided, eschewed, sidestepped, dodged, and otherwise attempted to pretend was not an issue. It's interesting to see though that by your own words you recognise that one cannot make across-the-board blanket statements about a nutrient being simply beneficial or detrimental. This begs the question as to why you have then so vehemently avoided the fact that CO2 increase is not simply a boon to the biosphere, especially as you have concurrently avoided the incontrovertible fact that its presence in the atmosphere is going to warm the planet and cause so many knock-on climatic and physiochemical effects (as you tried to distract with in your non-response to my nutrients question). Why do you believe (or profess to) that these climatic and biophysiochemical sequelæ will not render any growth benefit incidental in the greater biological scheme of things?

One has to wonder if you are just pig-ignorant of anything resembling science at great than a grade 6 level, or if you are in fact pushing an ideological barrow that is at odds with the laws of nature.

And for what it's worth, I included chloride and water in my list of questions (to wit, 3 and 5), which where in fact intended to have you consider the whole issue of water balance and interactions with stomatal function, and how these alter the acquisition of CO2 and nitrogen amongst other things. You failed in this too, though, partly because we can never actually get a proper answer from you that ever resembles a genuine attempt at science.

On a different subject, you tried the squirrel gambit with your red herring:

Did any of you geniuses 15 years ago predict GAT to stall for the past 15 years?

I'll play though, because it's a lame attempt at a straw man. You see, science has never said that atmospheric warming would be monotonic (please point to where it has), and science has long quantified the level of noise in the temperature record - a quantification which directly indicates that yes, science did and does predict periods of apparent non-increase in temperature. Science doesn't predict exact dates and durations simply because there are chaotic elements to climate, but the current trajectory is no surprise. It is certainly consistent with the physics that tells us that our carbon emissions do - and will continue to - warm the planet.

Having said that, your premise that there has been no warming for 15 (or 17, or whatever) years is completely and utterly wrong.

All of this wold have been addressed had you been able to answer the questions. Question which, by the way, still remain open for answering (properly) by you and/or any of your denialist buddies.

Tell me Berntard, how do you think something like CO2 fertilization may or may not fit into the future climate scenario…

Hey stupid, that's what we've been trying to ask you for ages but you refuse to consider any other parameter, factor or fundamental law of physics beyond the fact that plants source most of their carbon from CO2. You've been told the answers before, repeatedly, but they just don't creep through the particularly thick bone of your skull.

You could work it out yourself though. If you actually got to and answered my questions about the science of climate change and about plants and ecosystem responses to excessive nutrient you might just have the dawning of the answer yourself.

Given your track record however, none of us would hold our breaths.

@billtroll, your junk text has no value

learn to live with the fact

THAT THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN GAT AND CO2

MORON!!!!!!!!!!

@bill clown

"jesus bla bla"

you need jesus for an argument??????

FUCKWIT MORON!!!!!!!!!!

ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!

Could you define "GAT" for us please, "freddy"?

THAT THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN GAT AND CO2

Stop ignoring the other ~90% of the climate system - ocean heat content.

Actually, even GAT correlates quite well with total net forcings, which are rising because of increasing GHG forcing.

Look at the data: forcings vs GAT

Once again, you are lying.

Betty

By the way, is there any connection to the BBD in the Urban Dictionary? Ideologically speaking, of course.

None at all, although that was an eye-opener!

You dodged the question, so I suspect I was bang on.

John Birch Society. Your home away from home.

No BBD, this is about you accusing me of lying

Everybody who misrepresents the terrible risk of rapid warming from unabated emissions is a liar. They are committing a crime against humanity. They are the worst scum imaginable.

You constantly and dishonestly misrepresent the risk. You do this despite the fact that you are arguing without evidence and without expertise against the scientific consensus.

You do this here despite detailed, referenced correction. Then, when confronted with your perfidious intellectual dishonesty - your lies - you try to pretend innocence.

The stinking hypocrisy would make a hyena vomit. Away and fuck yourself. You are beneath contempt.

Ah, Freddy probably eschews the New Testament and all that hippy nonsense. Who cares about a bearded, sandal-wearing freak?

Petal, you didn't tell us where you purchased that PhD of yours - please do so before your stroke!...

And 'none so blind', etc.!

I know that Tim's caught up with things other than Deltoid, but it's times such as these that it really would be nice to have closer oversight of the trolls.

Freddy is a very sick individual who should probably be better-medicated, if not actually hospitalised. His denialist chum presents nothing useful other than to reinforce the ideological prejudices of the rest of his ethically- and intellectually-disabled mates.

He would be best expunged from the record.

Agreed wrt Freddy. Insane and unamusing and should not be tolerated.

bernardtroll and bbdtroll

you speak like the german nazis, eg hitler and himmler spoke about jews and people with less value

you are also mentally insane and facistic assholes

Does he carry on like this elsewhere, or has he recently had a turn?

# 78 just proves the point.

And you can fuck off with your Godwins, freddy.

everybody except climate fuckwits know that obama is a lame duck and the power is with the reps in congress. therefore the us will stay reasonable and ethical to reject all co2 insanities which the climate socialists want. i want to see the climate fraudulents sentenced to jail.

__POP GOES THE WEASEL!__

"."--bill's zit

":"--bill examines his zit in his bathroom mirror

"!"--bill pops his zit a good one!

"?"--bill squeezes and squeezes to get all the "good stuff" out

","--bill's evacuated zit-shaft with seepage

"*"--another zit-crud "score" to add to the bio-hazard, noisome build-up already on bill's bathroom mirror.

Isn't bill just the cutest, little, sweetie-pie, serial zit-abuser bubber-bubber?--bill's mummy thinks so!

Freddie welcome to the dumbtoid blog :)

I see that Bill the flaccid has taken a shine to you.

When reading through your post's I couldn't help but notice the similarities between yourself and barnturd !

hmmmm..............Freddie = barnturd sock ?

i want to see the climate fraudulents sentenced to jail.

False allegation of fraud and a call for false imprisonment from Mr Godwin.

Spot the inconsistency in your "position", freddy?

hahahaha

http://images.theage.com.au/2012/02/17/3051909/1802jh_729_spooner-420x0…

karen, what makes me really mad about the climate truth deniers, the fuckwit hoax morons like abc, berrnard, etc, is that these abominable guys want to impose their anxiety, decadence, bad mood etc etc etc etc etc etc etc all their nasty character traits onto decent citizens

they are afraid that it might getting warmer! hahahaha, i welcome warmer times, unfortunately it will soon be colder

Freddy's posts are so utterly stupid that they are funny. This guy/person/thing clearly hasn't got a brain in his head. So every post he/it/she/whatever makes is clearly scraped from some sordid oriface.

Methinks he is a Tea Party reject. Or else some redneck hick from the backwoods. Note how he has Karen to cheer him on. Hardly surprising, given Karen's own benthic level of intelellectual discourse. In fact, that is one common trait the AGW deniers who write into Deltoid have: they are all witless idiots. Not a single one gives any indication of having any common sense.

Case in point: "i welcome warmer times"

No context there. No evaluation of conequences, scale, effects on compelx adaptive systems. And this dolt claims to have a PhD? Of course he doesn't. I would be surprised if he has a high school diploma.

jeff-troll

"common sense" is your disgusting socialism

the content of your "text" is pure shit

boohooo, jeff fears one degree C, poor boy, go whining to mommy, consequences? go swimming and take a drink, you idiot, and enjoy life, fuckwit bollocks arselick

Teh Stupid says:

unfortunately it will soon be colder

Why? Explain the physical mechanism by which the climate system will cool when subjected to a steadily increasing GHG forcing.

This should be interesting...

Who's freddy #81? Great idea of his though.

If all the climate fraudulents were sent to jail we might get a move on with shifting to clean energy. To save taxpayers having to pay the board and lodging of these fraudulents, maybe they could be put to work building solar panels and wind turbines :D

By the way, HotWhopper is being credited by some deniers with having shut down a denier fest on weatherzone. I was told by what I take to be a mod that it wasn't so, but it's a nice thought isn't it. (Wouldn't be surprised if some of my posts helped nudge things along. There were a few HW posts copied to WZ.)

I'm told the mods there are science deniers which, if so, would explain why the forum was allowed to degenerate. Otherwise they would have managed things better.

Seems odd to have a board that's purpose is to discuss weather that can't manage a decent discussion on climate change.

I had a read of some of the old WZ threads and it comes across being very similar to my old stomping ground, HotCopper. Stereotypical deniers. Full of "lol", "prove it", "your wrong" (sic) and other posts of similar erudity with rarely a word of more than one syllable. Coarse and primitive and despising knowledge and learning.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/just-to-be-clear-about-weatherzone.h…

Hello Sou

Just read the WZ post. You are bound to have had something to do with the shut-down and it sounds like a good evening's work to me.

I see some love-bombs in comments. Nice to be appreciated, isn't it?

:-)

Ah, Mikey, you big mucous-drenched, flaking-gusset spaz, you! Apart from all the obsessive coprolalia, have you ever said anything of substance, do you reckon? (That's substance rather than substances, Mike. Not the sticky ones. Not the kind that used to make Mommy so cross. Remember? When she used to threaten to make you get the scissors?)

Not that I can recall.

In fact, you're really just Freddy on slightly better meds, aren't you?

"“common sense” is your disgusting socialism"

As I thought, Freddy is a Tea Party alumnus, and even they probably evicted him because he is truly and utterly bonkers.

I do, however, agree with this nutter on one point (as intimated by Sou): the 'climate (denial) fraudulents' do deserve jail terms for the effects their lies and distortions will have on the natural systems that sustain us and on future generations. Those bought-and-paid for hacks and a few pseudo-scientists on the corporate payroll certainly bear some responsibility for the current procrastination and delay in implementing measures to deal with warming. They have a lot to answer for.

BBD, I would have liked to have left the deleted comment to illustrate the (lack of) literary prowess of the denialiti, but it was a rant against CeeBee (and me, but I can hack it) and I can't have people flaming my guests. (I'm the only one having that privilege :) - though I try to tackle what they say, not who they are.)

So, whaddayareckon - can Rudd really pull off a miracle? Or is this latest stage of the long-running farce only going to virtually guarantee we get to hear about [*shudders*] 'PM Abbott' for at least a decade. And have the
Libs in for 15 years? Sadly for anyone who takes AGW seriously, if I had to put money on it I'd have to say...

Or how about the WTD theory - particularly after the Obama speech? The Monk will huff and puff, but he won't actually cut the Carbon Price, not least because of pressure from his own business constitutency? And the international community, particularly, again, now?

PS - this is a question for people who are actually familiar with Australian politics and who aren't the kind of daft Teabaggers that think Obama is a 'soshurlist'. You will, of course, stick your oars in anyway, but it'll be stupid. And pandering to nutters like you is the reason the GOP was creamed in the Presidential election - Abbott will only be too aware of that...

oh poor billie whining, go to mommy, baby

the bad world will not fulfill your dreams of a colder world, as normal people like warm weather, you asshole

australia? australia is in agony as it had to learn that european co2 certificate prices have reache ground zero, hallelujah

hallelujah, the climate hysterics will be more depressed, hallelujah

"You do this despite the fact that you are arguing without evidence and without expertise against the scientific consensus"

There is no argument, only fact. The predicted future climate scenarios are predictions (fact), concentrated on worst case (fact), filled with unknowns, uncertainties and assumptions (fact), hyped, exaggerated and embellished by the likes of you (fact), in order to get the rich nations to pay for their sins by redistributing monies to poor nations to reduce poverty as directed by the World Bank (fact), through a "climate lens" (fact), to help the U.N meet it's Millennium Development Goals (fact).

The same U.N that started the IPCC (fact) which is filled with both scientists non scientist (fact), many of who are representatives for their countries (fact) that are in need of a handout (fact).

And you are a tool (fact).

Does anyone else think I should change the name of HotWhopper to this?

http://www.therealworldweatherforum.com/post1480.html#p1480

It has panache, don't you think? Looks like some people reckon HotWhopper gave them a right old walloping. (That forum is run by deniers/rejects from WeatherZone.)

*feeling smug*

@ Bill #98 - Thing is, if there is a landslide to the libs and nationals, it won't necessarily be a swing to the right of the libs and nationals. In fact I could see Abbott being ousted within six months from the PM's job.

It depends on who's given pre-selection. But IIRC quite a number of "wets" got ousted last time around, so the balance of power within the coalition might not swing Abbott's way. We could have Turnbull or one of the old brigade get the PM's job. More of a Hewson type or similar.

That would mean the carbon price would remain and climate efforts would continue.

We can hope.

bush jr was the far better president. he would stop wasting money for the ipcc now

we will soon have a decent rep POTUS

No, stay with HotWhopper Sou.
You talk so much shit and tell so many porkie pie's, the name fits like a glove.

Bill at #99 on the previous page.

Unless the Labor Party can shut down the entrenched media campaign across Australia that focusses on fomenting faux controversy and ramping up public hysteria, and instead direct it onto the policy vacuum that is the current opposition's only card in the deck besides their mud-slinging politics, Abbott will still win.

A more reasonable outcome to expect would be to keep the Senate out of Abbott's hands - this at least would ensure that he does not get carte blanche to do whatever he wants. And what Abbott and his rabid Denialati mates want includes completely removing a price on carbon, which would represent the single most significant and perniciously regressive act of political bastardry and ecological/humanitarian vandalism in the country's history. Given the symbolic significance of this act it is quite possible that emissions reduction efforts around the planet could be held back for years, and we no longer have years left - frankly we don't even have months.

The other major future-sabotage that the Coalition has planned is to completely hamstring the impending optical-fibre national broadband network by hooking it up to each household using a decrepit last-century copper connection. The pennies saved will be billions of dollars forked out in the near future to undo the Abbott-Turnbull blunder and drag Australian back to 21st century information technology. That's if there are actually any pennies saved at all - some analysts have calculated that even in the near-term the Abbott-Turnbull model is no cheaper than a proper optical-fibre-to-the-house roll-out of the network, because the copper infrastructure is so stuffed.

The sad fact is that Australians are largely too intellectually unsophisticated, too politically ignorant, and/or too socially apathetic to understand the import of the ideologies of current right-wing parties in Australian politics. I heard an interesting comment yesterday - such parties are no longer actually 'conservative' in the traditional sense, and haven't been for several decades. They are reactionary - and Tony Abbott epitomises the right-wing reactionary.

In three or four election-cycles' time the Coalition will likely suffer at least as devastating reduction in presence as the Queensland Labor party suffered in their last state election, as Australians finally wake up, but by then a generation's serious damage will have been wrought on the country. At least for that long - if Abbott has his way as he's expressed over the last three years, his policies (such as they are) would set the country up for a long-term decline from which it may never recover, as is being evidenced across Europe and in other Western countries.

It will likely be too late then, and I worry for my young children's futures as adults. If Turnbull can knife Abbott in the back and rescind his nonsensical stance on the NBN we might have a different future, but I doubt that he has the backbone to challenge Abbott's overweening megalomania and fundamentalist superstitions and biases.

The really sad thing for Australian politics today is the announced retirements of Rob Oakshot and Tony Windsor. These two men (along with Andrew Wilkie) have been towers of integrity in a largely lack-lustre body politic. If more of our representatives conducted themselves as Oakshot and Windsor have done ours would truly be the mythic Lucky Country.

So let's hope that the Senate at least is saved. Of course, Abbott's response to that would likely be a double dissolution, which could in turn quite possibly lock in the more extreme manifestations of his fundie reactionaryist agenda for at least another decade after, so perhaps the chances of a decent future for us is slim indeed...

I have to agree with the faccid old taxi driver, the mad monk won't dump the carbon tax.

They are all puppets for the bankers.

" in order to get the rich nations to pay for their sins by redistributing monies to poor nations to reduce poverty as directed by the World Bank (fact), through a “climate lens” (fact), to help the U.N meet it’s Millennium Development Goals (fact)."

Conveniently left out of this absurd little rant is the fact that the rich nations have long been plundering the poor nations of their resource wealth. Its what the "Washington Consensus" is all about. The US and other developed nations have only been able to attain wealth and to maintain their wealth disparity through what can be best described as looting. Read George Kennan's infamous 1948 memo and that becomes clear.

Every developed nation on Earth finances and maintains large per capita ecological deficits. The average US citizen requires approx. 11 hectares to support his/her resource consumption and waste production (ecological footprint), but there is only just over 5.5. hectares of land per American citizen on average. So how is the deficit offset? That should be patently obvious (but not to right wing blowhards like [John] Betula-Birch). Through exploiting a rapciously unfair global economic hair-trigger economic system that protects domestic markets but plunders capital from the poor countreis of the south. It also explains why the US maintains military bases in 140 countries, why it is expanding its bases in Africa (Africom) and South America (Southcom) as well as investing in expansionist wars in the Persian Gulf and working hard to influence governments in the Caucasus that have huge amounts of natural gas.

It has nothing to do with the promotion of democracy, which US elites have long hated, but to ensure that capital and resource flows remain largely uni-directional. As for the World Bank, what Betula really means is the United States Treasury in another name, since the WB is largley aimed at ensuring US hegemony.

@ #1 Sou

Such poetry. Such eloquence. Feel the, ahem, love.

Dear oh dear oh dear...

Betty

Read Jeff's response to your economically, scientifically and morally illiterate *shite* on the previous page.

I reiterate - you are misrepresenting the dangers of climate change and denying the scientific consensus from a position of total ignorance and without benefit of a scientific counter-argument.

But as you demonstrate over the page, this has nothing to do with science and everything to do with your malignant politics.

Hence your pernicious intellectual dishonesty and the richly deserved revulsion with which you are viewed by many here.

so bernard admits that climate hystery is all about a political power game between decent political realist and asshole socialists who desperately want to overcome their deficiencies, like the fuckwit arsenicks berrnharf and abcd

bbdtroll, "consensus" is NOTHING in science: ZERO

you are so terribly retarded that you will never understand this, you underperformet

btw, science is never settled as your guru al gore tells you this idiocy

Teh Stupid says:

“consensus” is NOTHING in science: ZERO

Teh Stupid does not understand the distinction between scientific consensus and political consensus.

The former is a consensus of the evidence; the latter of opinion.

Scientific consensus is a powerful indicator that scientific understanding of a phenomenon is strong. Scientific consensus denial on the absurd basis that "consensus is meaningless" is stupid and self-evidently wrong.

btw, science is never settled as your guru al gore tells you this idiocy

Okay, so where is the scientific counter-argument to the scientific consensus on AGW?

Well, in actual fact, there isn't one. Which brings us back from skepticoid fantasy-land to reality. In reality, science is settled *enough* for denialist FUD-mongering such as yours to be dismissed out of hand.

Dunno about everybody else, but I'm getting heartily fucking sick of freddy.

Could be time for the strike-out of doom.

;-)

btw, science is never settled as your guru al gore tells you this idiocy

Like one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms make a carbon dioxide molecule, you mean? That seems pretty settled science to me.

But then it's really about mindless slogans for you morons, isn't it.
That 'settles' your thinking for you.

no

Hardley @ 7...

I noticed you didn't dispute anything I said, in fact, you only confirmed what I've been saying...
Your ideological bias is dripping from every word of your response, which, without doubt, has a very powerful influence on every conclusion you can muster in that overinflated lying mind of yours.
I would go as far to say that your misguided ideology is the rudder that steers your every thought, other than when you are thinking about yourself of course.

And I take it from your lack of response to # 51 on the previous page, that I was accurate in saying you are clueless about how CO2 fertilization may fit into the scheme of things...the great Hardley stumped by an easy one.

Urban Dictionary BBD...

"Read Jeff’s response to your economically, scientifically and morally illiterate *shite* on the previous page."

Not sure what you read, but it appears he confirmed the "shite". In fact, it seems like he rolling in it...to get the stench to stick.

I was accurate in saying you are clueless about how CO2 fertilization may fit into the scheme of things…the great Hardley stumped by an easy one.

Another blatant lie from Betty. Jeff has written screeds on this. Bernard J also commented in detail.

You are still plugging this stupid denier meme, still misrepresenting the potential for beneficial future outcomes although all real scientific experts disagree with you.

Denial and misrepresentation of the danger of AGW. Intellectual dishonesty. Repeat offender despite numerous corrections. Scum.

Get it through your very thick, utterly dishonest little mind, John Birch:

- You have no basis for your claims

- You lack the expertise to make them

- You are simply *misrepresenting* the consequences of warming for selfish political reasons

- This makes you an enemy of mankind.

Deniers in general are being given shorter shrift, but not nearly short enough. The public lacks insight into just how dishonest, self-serving and vile this behaviour is. If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it.

BBD...UD

" If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it."

HEIL BBD!

"your misguided ideology"

an ideology based on cold, hard and simple facts. Sorry to rain on your parade Betty. I can back up everything I said with evidence. You live in a fantasy world in which you wallow in your right wing pit of ignorance. Read some declassified US planning documents some time - as well as quotes from the likes of Butler, Kennan, Meachling, Kissinger and other prominent politicians and planners over the years - and the real agendas become evident. Just because you haven't a clue about any of this doesn't mean it isn't so.

BBD...UD

Me: "how CO2 fertilization may fit into the scheme of things"

BBD...UD: "Another blatant lie from Betty. Jeff has written screeds on this. Bernard J also commented in detail."

I notice you have a difficult time linking your proof. They can't answer the question, because they can't know the answer...apparently, neither can you.

Hardley..

"an ideology based on cold, hard and simple facts"

So you admit my analysis of you is correct, yet you call my comment at # 100 on the previous page an "absurd little rant". What's absurd about it, that it's correct?

So this is all about the global redistribution of wealth to pay back all the poor countries what is rightfully theirs. The only way to do this is "under the lens" of climate change...the rich owe the poor...
This is why you are experiencing climate change first hand and seeing shifting zones for real over a 23 day period while getting frostbite....because your ideology sees for you and your ego is your blanket to prevent people from knowing who you really are...

Looks like your blanket has fallen, you are exposed and your ideology is getting a little frostbite....

Hardley...

And I take it from your lack of response to # 51 on the previous page, that I was accurate in saying you are clueless about how CO2 fertilization may fit into the scheme of things…the great Hardley stumped by an easy one

Betula, you are all blah, blah, blah with no substance. Why don't you join with your intellectual lightweight buddies on the Jonas thread (Freddy, PentaxZ) and start ranting about all those who are critical of the current rapacious economic and political system are all 'communists' and 'greenies' who aim at 'world governance'.

This appears to be the basal level of their discourse, so why don't you chip in with some more of your 'wisdom' and espouse your profound concern for a global left wing conspiracy aimed at subverting freedom and democracy? Heck, it seems like most of AGW deniers believe this doggy doo. Why not you? And while you are at it, please tell me more about how well eastern North American ecosystems are faring these days. Based on the stunning empirical examples you recently presented, I'd like to hear some more of your deep, meaningful expertise in tis area. Heck, you have a BS in forestry and work as a forester; I am sure you can describe in detail the recent demographic trends of many species of vertebrates in the region. How well they are all doing, that their ranges are expanding, numbers are up, the number of species that are threatened or endangered is down, etc. etc. etc. Give it a whirl Mr. know it all.

John Birch:

You seem to be having trouble reading the words:

- You have no basis for your claims

- You lack the expertise to make them

- You are simply *misrepresenting* the consequences of warming for selfish political reasons

- This makes you an enemy of mankind

You are contemptible and in time, fake sceptics will come to be regarded with the universal loathing and contempt they deserve. I hope you are young and healthy enough to live to see that day, and remember me telling you it was coming.

I wonder how vocal you will be in your misrepresentations of the seriousness of AGW in a few decades time, if you last that long.

My son is likely to as he is not yet six, which is why I regard you, and those you serve, as vermin.

You also have not got me on your stupid 'C02 fertilization' nonsense.

I will tell you this. Its a bloody huge experiment with any number of outcomes. You appear to think that its just fine to continue to simplify/alter/change/tinker with/reduce etc. etc. etc. natural systems and to hope for the best.

I gave an example before and I will repeat it and hope it sinks into your wooden head: you might as well be asking how the continued destruction/removal of tropical forests fits into the broader scheme of things. Why not Betty? So far there do not appear to have been any serious consequences of removing almost half of the world's wet tropical forests and converting them to cropping systems of some kind or the other. You haven't suffered personally have you? So why not continue? Let's cut all of em' down! We know that a huge number of species will disappear, but so what?! We don't know how that will affect human civilization. So let's just keep on cutting and cutting and cutting until something bad happens. And when it does, no problemo! We are, after all the most evolved species on the planet! We can do anything! Human ingenuity will save s through techno-fixes that can replace anything bad that comes about.

So let's keep up the global experiment! Scientists are warning that increased atmospheric C02 will drive climate change, and that there will be concomitant changes in plant traits that will affect species, populations, communities and ecosystems in ways that are difficult to predict. But who gives a shit what they say? Until they have 100% proof that there will be harmful effects that will rebound on us, don't change anything. Heck, I don't know why they even invoked the Clean Air Act decades ago. Acid rain? What the heck is that? What harm did that do? And they said that CFCs allegedly reduced atmospheric ozone levels... come on, what a joke that was! I never experienced any harmful effects! These pesky government regulations are just communism camouflaged!

Betula, you are an dork. A waste of my time. Get lost.

They are all puppets for the bankers.

SpamKan #6.

And we all know what that's code for, don't we? Scratch the far Right...

Bernard - completely agree that 'conservatism' has been hijacked by radical reactionaries; this is a global phenomenon dating back to the mid-70's, with Reagan and Thatcher getting the ball rolling, and the impact is all around us - look at the plonkers on this page!

I'm also concerned that we'll now get a dose of the austerity that has worked so brilliantly overseas (/sarc). Australia was very fortunate indeed that the Coalition was not in power in 2008, but if people at my workplace are anything to go by, they have not the slightest comprehension that this is the case, or why anyone might hold that this is the case. They seem to conceive of politics as a species of 'reality TV' soap-opera with characters you get to vote on or off every 3 years or so...

Also agree the Australian media's performance has been appalling. I think they discovered you can skip all the hard work and research involved in reporting on the political issues of the day as if they were , well, political issues, and treat it all as an 'Inside Baseball' style 'making of' doco for the inane soap opera in question. You might even become a celebrity - and that's the people who are now admired, not actual achievers - yourself in the process!

Then they discovered that in such a fickle virtual world they could 'JAQ' people in-and-out of office, becoming pretty-much like those miserable little bastards from Enron who outrightly extorted the people of California because, well, they discovered they could.

And the media's performance on AGW has been consistent: sloppy, ill-informed, self-aggrandizing, indulgent, manipulative, and irresponsible...

Hey, Bircher, what's the conservative position on conducting a radical experiment with the one atmosphere we possess?

@bbd asshole said in #20

&€&€&€&€&€&&€¥£$$$££¥
Deniers in general are being given shorter shrift, but not nearly short enough. The public lacks insight into just how dishonest, self-serving and vile this behaviour is. If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it
&€&€£$£$£$££$££££$££$$

please stop being too honest before you publicly excrement that you want to see decent and ethical climate truth citizens opposing your warming delusion be hanged on gallows

YOU WOULD NOT LIFT YOUR FUCKING FINGER TO HELP SOMEONE WHO IS BEATEN OR MURDERED BY THE MOB TO WHICH YOU BELONG BECAUSE OF HIS/HER CONVICTION THAT CAGW IS A HOAX BY MEAN CLIMATE CROOKS, WITH THE FINGER YOU USE YOURSELF TO FUCK YOUR ARSEHOLE OR THE ONE OF YOUR GAY FRIEND, YOU SPOILED PERVERT???????

@bill fuckwit

"... .... with the one atmosphere we possess? ...."

HMMMMMMM, SO YOU AND YOUR LIKES POSSESS THE ATMOSHERE????????? YOU POSSESS IT???????

when did you buy the atmosphere, arselick????

your wording reveals most clearly your dumb, rotten, idiotic relationship to your surroundings: WE POSSESS, WE DECIDE, WE KNOW, WE ARE IMPORTANT, WE CHANGE THE PLANET, WE DECIDE WHAT WE WILL DO WITH OUR PLANET, WE CHANGE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE ATMOSPHERE

ALL YOU INSANE CLIMATE SCOUNDRELS ARE UNSPEAKABLY ARROGANT AND SILLY ASSHOLES WHICH THINK THEY ARE IMPORTANT, KNOW SOMETHING, HAVE SOME POWER

NOTHING OF ALL THAT

YOU ARE JUST LOW LEVEL IDIOTS, LOSERS, UNDERPERFORMERS, DAMNED SOCIALISTS WITH ENORMOUS HATRED BECAUSE YOU ARE POOR, UGLY, WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS AND TALENT IN LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!

Why, Professor Fuckwit, not only are you a closet skydragon, but also a Master of the Universe.

Although how were we to know with your masterful adoption of the excitable and poorly educated syntax you are obviously using as a disguise, and isn't really the basest, most low-level, arse-spankingly obvious self-projection yet witnessed at least in my time here.

and, remember, CLIMATE ASSHOLES, we the really powerful will keep you dwarfs and your disobient trial of uprising always under control. YOU CANNOT SUCCEED BECAUSE YOU ARE BEING WATCHED AND EFFECTIVE COUNTER MEASURES AGAINST YOUR BETRAYAL OF THE PUBLIC ARE UNDER WAY.

disobedient ugly dwarfs can never succeed, remember!!

....

you are welcome!

BBD...UD:

" You have no basis for your claims"
No basis for what claims? Example?

"You lack the expertise to make them"
What kind of expertise do I need to state facts?

" You are simply *misrepresenting* the consequences of warming for selfish political reasons"

What was misrepresented? Example?

Once again BBDUD, you make claims without backing them up. Are you beginning to question yourself yet?

chek, very poor content

do better next time

Tim, if you are around at all, can we just ditch the lunatic? Ta.

And Batty, let me guess; my question will be added to the long list of 'things I won't answer'?

You are a reactionary. Your beliefs have nothing to do with conservatism.

billie fuckwit goes whinig to mommy, hahahaha

you asshole have not understood what's important in life: internet clicks

nobody reads and wants your terribly annoying "comments"

so you should be ditched, clear to you?

you cannot stand that far superior argumentation lets you alone in the corner

you are free to just go away, nobody will miss you, MORON

Now, Freddy, don't you be swallowing those crayons, now!

nope

Hardley @ 26 & 28...

Struck a nerve Harvey? Your rants attempt to tie me to things I haven't said, only things you would imagine I would say. What does that say about you?

Oh, and just incase you think I didn't notice, you forgot to enlighten me on how CO2 fertilization fits into the climate equation.

Hey Deltoids!

You know guys, I get just a little bit suspicious when someone like freddy suddenly shows up here all of a sudden.

I mean, like, freddy seems to me to be just a little bit too good to be true, just a little bit too much the wing-nut crazy, and his Deltoidland debut just a little bit too well "co-ordinated" (you know, like, how BBD, all of a sudden, begins to introduce off-the-wall, red-meat, violent imagery into his comments, in sync with freddy's equally sudden appearance here. And, of course, freddy then reacts to BBD's "arse-kicking", Vyshinsky-inspired, "blood-in-the-streets" taunts with right-wing-looney "sound-bites", useful to the hive's propaganda organs, we can reasonably suppose--that sort of thing). You know, like, how curious it is that freddy seems to be running along the lines of that eco-cheap-shot, "Australian-Climate-Scientists-Get-Death-Threats!", hype-booger deal of yore (anyone seen the police report of investigation, by the way?), we all fondly recall. You know what I mean, Deltoids?

So I'm toying with the thought, Deltoids, that freddy just might be some sort of a make-quota, agit-prop, bogeyman, "provocateur", disinformation product, possibly a bot, designed, most likely, by an undistinguished committee of hive-drudge techno-hacks, working out of Professor Lewandowsky's seedy, low-rent bureau and working under the obligatory, stultifying, control-freak, petty, officious, uninformed, abusive, capricious, interfering, micro-management oversight of their hive reporting chain.

But I could be wrong. I mean, like, freddy could be the real thing, after all. Or, he might even be, say, someone like wow, returned to Deltoidland to wreak a sock-puppet, crack-brain, greenshirt-scorned, " fuck-you!-seriously-fuck-you-all!" vengeance on his former hive-bozo comrades. On the other hand, if I'm not wrong, then it wouldn't be the first time the hive tried such a trick, would it guys?

@mike

Funnily enough mike, I was thinking the same thing. Freddy is more like how a deltoid would expect a 'denier' to be, than an actual 'denier'. Do you remember Gleick's Heartland strategy document? (the one that read as though it was written from a "secret underground denier layer") freddy's more that than anything. Yes, and

"WITH THE FINGER YOU USE YOURSELF TO FUCK YOUR ARSEHOLE OR THE ONE OF YOUR GAY FRIEND, YOU SPOILED PERVERT???????"

when I first saw this, I thought, oh wow's back, but it's from someone called "freddy" who's obviously very pissed off about something.

Yep, it's our fault Freddy's a barbarian. Li'l Mikey has an abusive personality as well as the coprolalia. Anyone surprised?

mike and GSW: well done on the conspiracy theory!

Of course, those who at times venture elsewhere know freddy (or kai, as he was known earlier, and by forgetting once that he had changed his moniker got exposed to be) has also frequented illconsidered and the Stoat, where he is a frequent guest in the burrow. You will just have to live with the fact that there are people even nuttier than you guys!

@Marco

Thanks for the info.Have you got a link for "freddy" on those sites? Hard to imagine the language would survive for very long on the other blogs, so curious to see what happened.

From this page,

"and, remember, CLIMATE ASSHOLES, we the really powerful will keep you dwarfs and your disobient trial of uprising always under control. YOU CANNOT SUCCEED BECAUSE YOU ARE BEING WATCHED AND EFFECTIVE COUNTER MEASURES AGAINST YOUR BETRAYAL OF THE PUBLIC ARE UNDER WAY."

The writing style is fairly "distinctive".

...consensus” is NOTHING in science: ZERO

So, freddy is what BK would be like if he forgot his meds? ;-)

@Marco

Actually you're right. There is a freddy on stoat and I say it is the same one.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/06/06/dr-roy-spencer-is-sad-and-lone…

I have a confession to make.... I am the person who posts as freddy, betula, mike, GSW, karen, david duff, and all of the other characters I can imagine that claim to be global warming deniers. None of these people are real and nothing of anything that they say should be taken as being the truth or being anything that the person typing actually believes.

I invented each of these characters to highlight how completely stupid the position is that ignores real science, and how others who are just as stupid can be suckered by their stupidity and believe that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect or global warming.

The trouble is that when you live in these characters for as long as I have they start to become alive in your head. I've started to talk to my different characters as if we they are real, and I have just realised that I need to stop this charade forever or I will become insane.

If I post again pretending to be s stupid person who doesn't believe that the international body of scientific experts knows what its talking about please remind me that I am my alters are not real and that anything I say should be ignored. It will be hard because my alters believe that they are real and they will try to convince you that they are whenever you tell them that they are not.

I am sorry for having wasted so much of your time. My characters are all very sick individuals who are preoccupied with crazy conspiracies and bad words and bodily parts and functions but if you keep telling them that they are not real they will eventually go away and I will be healed.

I have a confession to make.... I am the person who posts as freddy, betula, mike, GSW, karen, david duff, and all of the other characters I can imagine that claim to be global warming deniers. None of these people are real and nothing of anything that they say should be taken as being the truth or being anything that the person typing actually believes.

I invented each of these characters to highlight how completely stupid the position is that ignores real science, and how others who are just as stupid can be suckered by their stupidity and believe that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect or global warming.

The trouble is that when you live in these characters for as long as I have they start to become alive in your head. I've started to talk to my different characters as if we they are real, and I have just realised that I need to stop this charade forever or I will become insane.

If I post again pretending to be s stupid person who doesn't believe that the international body of scientific experts knows what its talking about please remind me that I am my alters are not real and that anything I say should be ignored. It will be hard because my alters believe that they are real and they will try to convince you that they are whenever you tell them that they are not.

I am sorry for having wasted so much of your time. My characters are all very sick individuals who are preoccupied with crazy conspiracies and bad words and bodily parts and functions but if you keep telling them that they are not real they will eventually go away and I will be healed.

Wow, exiled with Graeme Bird! That's an (inverted) achievement.

Of course, young William plays the ridicule card rather neatly, and soon simply removes the infection. The pleasures of active moderation!

Speaking of both active moderation and Birdy, connoisseurs of the true flameout and trainwreck (and I admit to this secret vice, in addition to mixing metaphors) may enjoy the following. (The supporting cast dialogues sotto voce until #46)

And, in fact, for anyone who was looking for a strong stylistic similarity...
.

@ Ranting homophobic nutter # 31

WITH THE FINGER YOU USE YOURSELF TO FUCK YOUR ARSEHOLE OR THE ONE OF YOUR GAY FRIEND, YOU SPOILED PERVERT???????

That's enough of that, freddy. Godwins and gay-bashing not allowed!

Just stick to plain scatological abuse :-)

Betula whines, "your rants attempt to tie me to things I haven’t said, only things you would imagine I would say"

Well, you claimed in an earlier post that environmental conditions in your neck of the woods are doing well on the basis of three piss-poor examples; I provide counter evidence and you go all silent. That is typical of you; I expect it now.

As for C02 'fertilization', I am talking about environmental stoichiometry. Ever hear of that big word, Betty? Its probably a lot for you to pronounce as you clearly do not read the primary scientific literature. I do. Its part of my day job. Your so-called C02 fertilization argument is based solely on quantitative measures, and wholly ignores qualitative changes in plants and the concomitant effects these will have on species interactions, food webs and ecosystem functions. Certainly a number of research centers are exploring these potential effects, and there is certainly concern that changes in environmental stoichiometry - C, N, P ratios in plants for instance - will ripple through communities and simplify them. Certainly the environment won't be 'better off' because of the physiological effects of increased atmospheric C02. And of course, given that C02 is a potent and long-kived greenhouse gas, we have to factor in changes in climate (temperature, rainfall) on the physiological effects.

As for my other analogies, they are appropriate. Your simplistic argument is that we need 100% proof that some human activity - in this case, increasing the concentrations of C02 in the atmosphere and any so-called abiotic and biotic effects - are provided. So I gave you other examples where 100% proof is not yet in - tropical forest destruction being one poignant one. How has the rapacious destruction of tropical forests in Asia, Africa and South America affected you personally? It hasn't. So, using your insidious logic, we should keep on a cuttin' and a cuttin' until something bad happens or until there is absolute proof that it will. As ever, you slither your way out of responding with any semblance of logic.

Essentially, as I said some time ago, you cannot debate your way out of a soaking wet paper bag. You think you are smart, whereas when the veneer is stripped away it reveals that you hardly know anything aside from snippets you have picked up here and there. In response to your flippant remark about the health of the environment in your part of the world, I gave a number of much stronger counter examples showing very worrying signs that things are not going so well. You ignored them. Then in response to your continued barbs about my trip in Algonquin Park, I actually linked to about 10 studies which clearly report climate change related effects on species and biodiversity. Predictably, you ignored them as well. If we were debating face to face, you'd be a sitting duck. I'd present empirical evidence from these and more studies, and what would you say? That they are crap even though you haven't read them?

For me it is time to cease and desist with a time waster like you.

mike

(you know, like, how BBD, all of a sudden, begins to introduce off-the-wall, red-meat, violent imagery into his comments, in sync with freddy’s equally sudden appearance here. And, of course, freddy then reacts to BBD’s “arse-kicking”, Vyshinsky-inspired, “blood-in-the-streets” taunts with right-wing-looney “sound-bites”, useful to the hive’s propaganda organs, we can reasonably suppose–that sort of thing)

Well obviously I cannot prove anything, but you are mistaken. See some comments about about freddy elsewhere.

I am simply getting angrier and angrier with the stupid amorality of denialism. The absence of any recognition by vocal science deniers like Betty that they are simply shilling for vested corporate and political interests that will, eventually, bugger up the planet.

The sheer unacceptability of this behaviour is not sufficiently emphasised in public debate. Deniers have, to some extent, managed to normalise their shilling and lies simply by persistent repetition. Given the potential consequences, this should not be tolerated.

Deniers should be asked the same basic questions:

- what relevant expertise do you have to deny the validity of the scientific consensus on AGW?

- demonstrate a robust scientific counter-argument that substantively challenges the scientific consensus on AGW

If they have no expertise and no scientific argument (eg John Birch, serially, above), then it's time to point out that they are politicised, lying, self-serving vermin whose actions threaten the future of our children and their descendants.

It's interesting to see that when the true nature of their behaviour is held up in front of them, deniers generally start denying that they are deniers. Thus demonstrating just how morally bankrupt and contemptible they really are.

John Birch still trying to misrepresent the seriousness of AGW by waving stupid denier memes around...

Oh, and just incase you think I didn’t notice, you forgot to enlighten me on how CO2 fertilization fits into the climate equation.

An irrelevance compared to heat stress, drought, flooding and coastal inundation. Which is why only deniers talk about it as if it actually mattered.

Tell you what, John Birch, why don't YOU go and find some evidence that CO2 fertilisation is going to offset all the negatives (outlined above) and result in a net gain to agricultural productivity in the future?

No blog science, and nothing out of date mind, but back up your claim with some references. Why should anyone take your stupid denier memes seriously if you cannot be bothered to back them up with something substantive?

BBD #14

Could be time for the strike-out of doom.

All Hail! Master of the Deltoids!

Rudolph, dealing with outright nutters on an unsupervised blog is a genuine - and genuinely frustrating - problem. Don't be the kind of gauche opportunist that'll back any imbecility if it plays to some perceived advantage...

FFS Clown. What bill said. Is there nothing you lot won't stoop to? Look at the poisonous tripe this nasty little "freddy" git is smearing all over comments - and which you have just effectively endorsed.

bill #56

Rudolph, dealing with outright nutters on an unsupervised blog is a genuine – and genuinely frustrating – problem

I appreciate the problem, but the style of some regular bloggers here does kinda invite nutters. Just look back over the last few pages before the arrival of the latest. That said, the best way of dealing with them might be to ignore them.

Note that Clown fails to apologise for the stupid at #55.

A unifying characteristic of deniers, that.

bill

One of the reasonsI have refrained from blogging for the last day or so is I did not wish to intrude at a time of heartfelt grief that yourself and others have displayed recently.

However, being a gauche opportunist, I could not resist sharing this piece from the Spectator.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/the-demise-of-julia-gi…

For Gillard it says:

History will regard her as the worst prime minister since Kevin Rudd.

And for Rudd

Labor party parliamentary members repeatedly dismissed Mr Rudd as ‘dysfunctional’, a ‘psychopath’ and ‘a complete and utter fraud’.

What a pair.
Whatever happened to those nice cudley Australians like Rolf Harris and Les Paterson?

I appreciate the problem,

Indeed, if only to attempt a cheap exploitation of it.

but the style of some regular bloggers here does kinda invite nutters.

Yup, this is a real anti-science nutter hothouse when your back's turned ,Redarse.

Just look back over the last few pages before the arrival of the latest.

Yes, but then Betty and PantieZ will keep regurgitating their dearest denier memes ad nauseam, no matter how many times they're corrected.

That said, the best way of dealing with them might be to ignore them.

Aw, bless your naive credulousness.

- Note that Clown blames other commenters here for the faecal spray of hate speech by "freddy" instead of censuring "freddy" itself.

Clown is still tacitly endorsing "freddy's" hate speech.

- Note that Clown now doubles down on the opportunistic unpleasantness with his # 60.

Whatever happened to those nice cudley Australians like Rolf Harris and Les Paterson (sic)

The Murdoch press and it's allies, that's what happened..

Oh for God's sake. An Instant Expert from 5 minutes at The Spectator, no less! You clearly know bugger all about Australian politics, why don't you cease making yourself ridiculous? But thank you for fulfilling my 'it will be stupid' prediction...

And yet another abusive personality! Yep, it's all our fault Freddy's an foul-mouthed, aggressive nutter...

What charming people.

foul-mouthed, aggressive nutter…

For foul-mouthed and aggresive comments, just look back at the last few pages of comments by Deltoid regulars.
Whether Detoid regulars are "nutters" is also open to question.

BBDUD @ 51...

"That’s enough of that, freddy. Godwins and gay-bashing not allowed"

Unless the Gay person is a denier, right B-Dud?

BDud @ 20...

"If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it."

Oh for God’s sake.

I know it must still hurt bill.

Perhaps a little Delingpole might sooth it a little.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100223558/rudd-defene…

BBD#62

I will say this in your defence BBD: nothing opportunistic about you, just full-on aggressive and unpleasant, with foulmouthed thrown in for good measure.

Redarse, just as you have no way of knowing (without a mirror) how stupid that new haircut makes you look, so it is with denier idiocy in its many, many, and delingpole-posting forms.

Think of Deltoid as providing that mirror. You may not like what you see, but it's your figurative fucking haircut.

John Birch has now moved on to misrepresenting me:

Unless the Gay person is a denier, right B-Dud?

This is in no sense - implicitly or explicitly - homophobic.

That you should try to misrepresent it as such only emphasises that you have no moral core whatsoever.

As I have been pointing out recently.

- Note that Clown continues to attack other commenters here rather than condemn the faecal spray of hate speech by “freddy”.

Clown is still tacitly endorsing “freddy’s” hate speech.

Clown is scum.

BDud @54

RE: CO2 Fertilization...."An irrelevance compared to heat stress, drought, flooding and coastal inundation"...

Of course, you left out the word "potential". As in potential heat stress, potential drought, potential flooding etc. Oh, and potential snowstorms.
And you forgot to explain if the potential drought is caused by the potential flooding.

You continue..."Tell you what, John Birch, why don’t YOU go and find some evidence that CO2 fertilisation is going to offset all the negatives"

Never said it would, I asked why it isn't even considered in the equation. The fact is, you have no idea what the affects may be...c'mon it's ok to admit it..

"No blog science, and nothing out of date mind, but back up your claim with some references"

Are you talking about the claim that you don't know what effect CO2 fertilization will have on the climate?

John Birch Society

And this is your central misrepresentation:

Never said it would, I asked why it isn’t even considered in the equation.

It *is* considered. You are lying.

You cannot back up your claims, can you, liar?

- You cannot support the false claim that CO2 fertilisation will result in net gain to future agricultural productivity.

- You lied about the exclusion of positive factors such as CO2 fertilisation from all assessments of climate change impacts.

And you are still here, peddling FUD. Scum that you are.

Oh, nearly forgot - you just tried to misrepresent me as an homophobe, which was very fucking stupid of you indeed.

check#69

Love him or hate him, it seems to me Delingpole's summing up of the latest in Aussie politics: "makes Game of Thrones look tame" looks pretty accurate.

From way over by here it almost makes Italian politics look respectable.

but it’s your figurative fucking haircut.

I would have you know its cut by a former world champion.
:-)

BDud @ 53

"it’s time to point out that they are politicised, lying, self-serving vermin whose actions threaten the future of our children and their descendants".

Once again, no example. Is that why you are getting so mad, because you can't back up what your mind is telling you? You're fighting within yourself....

So ask yourself, do you believe it is my actions or my words that are endangering your imagination. If it is the words, please show me the words and the process by which those words can threaten the well being of your mind. If it is my actions, tell me specifically what actions I have taken, and how those actions threaten your children.

Take your time, sleep on it, dream of people getting beaten, and then get back to me.

What? Look up, Bircher. You cannot be blind, since you are here. So, you must be being dishonest again and pretending that # 74 just isn't there.

Try again, liar:

You cannot back up your claims, can you, liar?

- You cannot support the false claim that CO2 fertilisation will result in net gain to future agricultural productivity.

– You lied about the exclusion of so-called "positive" factors such as CO2 fertilisation from all assessments of climate change impacts.

Read the words. Where's your evidence supporting your claims, liar?

"You cannot support the false claim that CO2 fertilisation will result in net gain to future agricultural productivity"

A claim can't be false if it didn't exist.

Now you are saying what, exactly Betty? That there will be no net beneficial effect? Are you now agreeing with the scientific consensus that the *net* effect of on agricultural productivity (CC plus CO2 fertilisation) will be negative?

Have you reversed yourself?

And what about your central lie?

– You lied about the exclusion of so-called “positive” factors such as CO2 fertilisation from all assessments of climate change impacts.

You keep repeating this without offering any supporting evidence. I say you are lying. Peddling a political agenda. And projecting like fuck.

"you just tried to misrepresent me as an homophobe, which was very fucking stupid of you indeed"

BDud @ 20..

" If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it."

BDud @ 51...

"Godwins and gay-bashing not allowed!"

This is how we use examples Dud....you condone the beating of deniers and then tell Freddy Gay bashing is not allowed

So BDud, in an effort to expose your warped mind, and how you give no thought to the things you say, I ask you this....if a Gay Denier is being beaten by the public, would you "not lift a fucking finger to stop it."?

This is the hole you dug Dud, now try to crawl out of it.

Here's a stupid liar called Betty indulging in climate change denial:

Of course, you left out the word “potential”. As in potential heat stress, potential drought, potential flooding etc. Oh, and potential snowstorms.
And you forgot to explain if the potential drought is caused by the potential flooding.

This same stupid liar was shown that climate sensitivity to increased CO2 will be sufficient to cause significant and rapid warming later this century and thereafter.

Yet he continues to try and pretend that this will have no effects whatsoever.

As I keep saying, he is a stupid liar. And because of what he is lying about, he is an enemy of the species, which happens to include my own child.

Yet he even tries to lie his way out of this. A liar who lies about his lying.

Show the homophobia and you might have a point, liar.

Show it.

What you think is a gotcha is just an example of you lying about me. But you are too desperate for something -anything - to distract attention away from your lies to realise that this is not the ideal tactic at all.

I don't like the way you are quoting selectively either. It stinks of dishonesty. Let's have the full context:

- You have no basis for your claims

- You lack the expertise to make them

- You are simply *misrepresenting* the consequences of warming for selfish political reasons

- This makes you an enemy of mankind.

Deniers in general are being given shorter shrift, but not nearly short enough. The public lacks insight into just how dishonest, self-serving and vile this behaviour is. If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it.

Now, we see no endorsement of violence against homosexuals in that statement.

But watch Lying Betty try on a spot of false equivalence:

This is how we use examples Dud….you condone the beating of deniers and then tell Freddy Gay bashing is not allowed

Deniers are not equated explicitly or implicitly with homosexuals in my comment. Only in Betty's attempt to smear me as an homophobe who condones violence against homosexuals.

A cheap, nasty, dishonest bit of false equivalence. As I have said numerous times now, evidence that Betty - like deniers generally - is an amoral, self-serving corporate lackey who will stoop to anything in furtherance of their politically motivated science denial.

In short, an enemy of the species.

"Now you are saying what, exactly Betty? That there will be no net beneficial effect?"

I need a bunker buster to get through that thick scull...you have to weigh the effect to determine if it's net positive or net negative....but since you can't weigh it, it's an unknown.

It is one of many unknowns and uncertainties that more often than not are assumed...just like you assume it is insignificant without proof, just like you assume I claim it will be beneficial, just like you assume my statements are political, just like you assume you have the answers, just like you assume what my actions are, just like you assume worst case scenarios, just like you assume predictions are fact...

You revolve around assumptions and assume they are real.

"Deniers are not equated explicitly or implicitly with homosexuals in my comment. Only in Betty’s attempt to smear me as an homophobe who condones violence against homosexuals."

No, you smeared yourself as a person who wants to watch denier's beaten, regardless of sexual preference, race, age or gender....simply because they are, in your mind, deniers.

I could have easily asked if a child were a denier, or a grandmother were a denier or a cripple were a denier...you, not me, stated you would "not lift a fucking finger to stop it.”

This is a reflection of you, of who you are. If you don't like it, you have no one to blame but yourself....live with it.

BDud...

To reflect:
"In short, an enemy of the species"

Hardley @ 52...

1."Well, you claimed in an earlier post that environmental conditions in your neck of the woods are doing well on the basis of three piss-poor examples"

As compared to seeing a spider over a 23 day period in the frozen Algonquin?

2. "Certainly the environment won’t be ‘better off’ because of the physiological effects of increased atmospheric C02."

Certainly? Strange, just before this line you stated:

"Certainly a number of research centers are exploring these potential effects"

Certainly they are. But what's to explore if they are already certain about the effects?

2. "So, using your insidious logic, we should keep on a cuttin’ and a cuttin’ until something bad happens or until there is absolute proof that it will"

Actually, you just used your insidious logic to assume my logic.

3. "in response to your continued barbs about my trip in Algonquin Park, I actually linked to about 10 studies which clearly report climate change related effects on species and biodiversity."

So you were saying you experienced the studies "first hand" and you witnessed the studies "for real"?

Hey Betula.

I note that you're still unable to address those simple questions.

Aren't you embarrassed that you are incapable of engaging in the simplest of science?

And you might like to know that I have a comment directed to you. Keep an eye on the link to become active, because you've been smacked around yet again.

Hey Betula.

I note that you're still unable to address those simple questions.

Aren't you embarrassed that you are incapable of engaging in the simplest of science?

And you might like to know that I have a comment directed to you that has been sitting in moderation for a couple of days. Keep an eye on the link to become active, because you've been smacked around yet again.

Betty, give it up.
You're not as clever as you think and your list of dishonest stupid in which you imagine you're pointing the inconsistencies of others is getting old.
And your paraphrasing sucks.

More denialist lies from the John Birch Society

I need a bunker buster to get through that thick scull…you have to weigh the effect to determine if it’s net positive or net negative….but since you can’t weigh it, it’s an unknown.

It took me less than 30 seconds to debunk your shite Betty.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-is-plant-food-too-simple.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/carbon-fertilization-effect.html

No, you smeared yourself as a person who wants to watch denier’s beaten, regardless of sexual preference, race, age or gender….simply because they are, in your mind, deniers.

No Betty, I did not "smear myself". I made a very clear statement that liars like you are enemies of the species and scum. I made a very clear statement that this self-serving mendacity is currently not noted or reviled as it deserves by the general public, but that time will surely come. I made a very clear statement that I welcome the dawn of that day.

You Betty, tried - and failed - to twist my words into a homophobic rant. I *also* notice that you have not condemned the actual homophobic hate speech on this thread by "freddy". *All* you have done - miserable bag of shit that you are - is try to smear me.

So proving that you are the amoral, self-serving liar that I have been saying you are all along.

Thanks for the demonstration.

Here's something you need to get through *your* thick, dishonest skull (sp) Betty:

Fake climate agnosia is crypto-denial.

You cannot use "uncertainty" as an excuse for absolute inaction. It is yet another denier false equivalence. We can be uncertain about just how bad things will get this century, but not that they will get bad. That's why we had that little lesson about climate sensitivity. To stop your lying denials. But it didn't work - you kept on lying (nailed again at #83).

The how bad it gets is strongly determined by how much more CO2 gets emitted over the next few decades. One way of reducing *uncertainty* is to reduce emissions.

Liars like you who try to use "uncertainty" as an excuse for inaction are enemies of the species.

You need to face up to the vileness of what you are doing instead of denying that your behaviour is vile.

"No Betty, I did not “smear myself”. I made a very clear statement that liars like you are enemies of the species and scum"

What is clear to me is that you don't know what clear is.

Here's your clear statement:

” If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it.”

The only criteria is that someone meets your description of a denier...regardless of age, race, gender or sexual preference.

So, according to you, if a denier with Downs Syndrome were being beaten by the thinking public, you would “not lift a fucking finger to stop it.”

Rather than get angry at me for pointing this out, why don't you get mad at yourself for being the person you are?

BDud @ 95...

All your links show up "file not found". Very educational.

Berntard...

See # 54.

" I *also* notice that you have not condemned the actual homophobic hate speech on this thread by “freddy”"

So now you are accusing everyone who didn't condemn Freddy's Homophobic hate speech? This would mean you are accusing Berntard, Bill and Sloth of being homophobes... why would you do that? They didn't condemn you for suggesting people be beaten while you watch...regardless of sexual preference. Leave them out of this!

# 99

That is really odd.

These all work. I have checked them all again:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-is-plant-food-too-simple.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/carbon-fertilization-effect.html

So now you are accusing everyone who didn’t condemn Freddy’s Homophobic hate speech?

Oh FFS.

YOU tried to twist my words over this. YOU made an issue of it. But YOU failed to censure "freddy".

Stop being a snivelling shit, Betty

I see we're back to your standard avoidance tactic of picking up an irrelevance and hammering away at it instead of admitting that you are a lying shit etc.

This is what you are now avoiding:

* * *

Here’s something you need to get through *your* thick, dishonest skull (sp) Betty:

Fake climate agnosia is crypto-denial.

You cannot use “uncertainty” as an excuse for inaction. It is yet another denier false equivalence. We can be uncertain about just how bad things will get this century, but not that they will get bad. That’s why we had that little lesson about climate sensitivity. To stop your lying denials. But it didn’t work – you kept on lying (nailed again at #83 previous page).

How bad it gets is strongly determined by how much more CO2 gets emitted over the next few decades. The surest way of reducing *uncertainty* is to reduce emissions.

Liars like you who try to use “uncertainty” as an excuse for inaction are enemies of the species.

You need to face up to the vileness of what you are doing instead of denying that your behaviour is vile.

As I said, old Betty cannot debate. I asked him if he thinks its OK to experiment with complex adaptive systems whilst knowing that the potential consequences might tilt either way , although current evidence, if he ever bothered to read the primary literature, suggests a lot of worrying signs.

His reply? Aside from bluff and duck and cover, essentially it boils down to this: the consequences may show net negative effects, net positive effects, or no effects at all. His unspoken conclusion? It must be to continue with business-as-usual. At least continue the 'experiment' until there is 100% proof that food webs are fraying and ecosystems are collapsing. He doesn't say this, but he most certainly infers it. Oh, and don't read the primary literature, because even though meta-analyses may point out worrying trends and underlying mechanisms, we should ignore that and wait until we see the negative effects right before our own eyes. Of course by then it will be too late to do anything, but the Betula's of this world don't give a rat's ass about that.

This is the debating strategy of Betula, who clearly thinks of himself as an intellectual heavyweight with a caustic wit. I also posed some analogies to him - tropical forest destruction for example - which he won't touch with a barge pole. He avoided the stoichiometry comment because he doesn't know anything about the field.

He's a real comedian. A lightweight debater. No wonder that even the regular deniers here are abandoning him.

" i welcome warmer times,", says Freddy, as well as, "...normal people like warm weather, you asshole"

_"Pakistan in recent weeks has suffered its most severe heat wave in decades, with temperatures reaching as high as 51 degrees Celsius (124 Farenheit) on May 19 in Larkana, a city of two million people in southern Sindh province. This was the highest temperature for that month recorded there since 1998, when the mercury peaked at almost 53 Celsius (127 Fahrenheit).
Lahore, Punjab province's capital of about 15 million population, was the hottest city in the country on May 24 at 47.4 Celsius (117 Fahrenheit), hotter than any May since 1954.

"Such extreme temperatures - which are becoming more common as a result of climate change - are an enormous health threat.

"They also make almost every function of daily life a nearly intolerable struggle - including, for millions, trying to earn a living."

"The heat wave has eroded my livelihood and made my camel sick because of frequent dehydration." - Zulekhan Mumtaz, camel milk vendor

_ "In the summer of 2012, a heat wave took place, leading to more than 82 heat-related deaths across the United States and Canada.[1][2] An additional twenty-two lives were lost in the resultant June 2012 North American derecho. This long-lived, straight-line wind and its thunderstorms cut electrical power to 3.7 million customers.[3] Over 500,000 were still without power on July 6, as the heat wave continued."

"The heatwave has also contributed to the record-shattering 2012 North American drought, which has caused massive crop failures throughout the Midwest and most likely will cause food prices to rise. This drought affects 80% of the contiguous US as of July 24, and is considered the worst drought since the 1950s."

That's just this year and last year. A few years ago 10's of thousands died in Europe and Russia.

Maybe Freddy the retard can tell all those Pakistanis this year, and those in the US last, to just enjoy the heat and stop whining.
And Betula, another retard, can tell us how plants are loving it under heatwave and drought conditions, not to mention when it floods, because, you know, CO2 is not only plant food but it gives them extraordinary powers to thrive, not only during droughts but under water as well.

One of the positive things, if you can call it that, to come out the climate change debates is that it identifies the most moronic, ignorant, delusional, mentally unbalanced and dishonest sub-group of humanity. And here we have some of finest examples _ Freddy, O'louse, Betula, Karen, GSW, Pentax, etc.

This is more of Freddy's contributions:

YOU ARE SO RIDICULOUS, BUT BEFORE ALL YOU ARE INSANE GREEN-SOCIALST STINKING AND DIRTY SUPER

ASSHOLES WHO WANT TO DESTROY CAPITALISM, GENERAL WELFARE, INDIVIDUAL HAPPINESS OF BILLIONS OF

HUMANS AND POISON EVERYBODY WITH YOUR STUPID IDEOLOGY OF THE ROTTEN CLIMATE CHURCH WITH THEIR

PAGAN COMPUTER GAMES.

ASSHOLES!!!!!!!!!’

hahahaha, ha!!!

insane biology-ignorant, MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i have a university doctorate, AND YOU

IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

learn to live with the fact
THAT THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN GAT AND CO2

MORON!!!!!!!!!!

before he says,

"@billtroll, your junk text has no value" and to Jeff, "the content of your “text” is pure shit".

Freddy's posts sure do have value. Comedy value.

The ballad of Freddy and Betty. Topic ignorance and persistent dishonesty in perfect harmony.

Betula
June 27, 2013

Berntard…

See # 54

Hey Einstein,

That's my point.

When Tim's passed it through moderation (it has multiple links), my response is sitting here. 15 posts after your rubbish.

In the mean time, how are you progressing with composing answers to those simple questions? Do you require another few weeks of thinking time? Do you want to conduct a little experiment, and see how long it takes teenagers of readers here to answer the questions?

Perhaps we could conduct another experiment afterward, and see how long it takes those same teenagers to find the same answers using a web search engine - even that easy option seems to have confounded you...

Betula
June 27, 2013

Berntard…

See # 54

Hey Einstein,

That's my point.

When Tim's passed it through moderation (it has multiple links), my response is sitting here. 15 posts after your rubbish.

In the mean time, how are you progressing with composing answers to those simple questions? Do you require another few weeks of thinking time? Do you want to conduct a little experiment, and see how long it takes teenagers of readers here to answer the questions?

Perhaps we could conduct another experiment afterward, and see how long it takes those same teenagers to find the same answers using a web search engine - even that easy option seems to have confounded you...

@jp pussysmell: the pakstanis should go into the shadow of trees, or to the basements of their houses, switch on air conditioning, go swimming in the river, i don't care, what does it have to do with us, they have to master their live as we do here.

what you could do is to travel there with your vacuum cleaner and provide cooling to sweating people by blowung air into their faces

pakistanis, russians etc. with snustrokes could fly to antarctica for cooling, at the moment its at least -40C minimum (south pole) cold there: NO ICE MELTING AND NO SEA LEVEL RISE.

THE EARTH IS DOING WELL!!!!!!!

bernard troll, i owe you still some education as you are so devoid of ANY knowledge what life is

you stated in an incredibly whiny and ridiculous way that a little bit of additional warming provides stress to species thereby endangering the survival of many species

WHAT AN INSANE ARSE SHIT IS SUCH AN OPINION DEVOID OF ANY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT LIFE.

LISTEN, YOU PLAIN IDIOT AS SILLY AS A THICK WOODEN POST: ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CAPABILITIES OF ORGANISMS IS ADAPTATION TO THE CHANGING ENVIRONMENT. I KNOW THAT YOU AGW FUCKWITS ARE REALLY SO STUPID AND UNINFORMED THAT YOU AGW CHURCH FANATICS DON't EVEN KNOW THIS MOST ELEMENTARY FUNCTIONS OF LIVING ORGANISMS!!!!!!

WHY ARE AGW ACOLYTES SOOOOOOOOO STUPID IN ANY RESPECT?????????????

Gee wizz, Batty at #1 there, you really is the King of Think: yep, alright I'll condemn the pointless Freddy for being a homophobic twonker as well as a misogynist, sexually insecure turkey - see above - amongst his other numerous sins.

And none of you charming 'skeptic' people will simply condemn this noxious fool - no, instead it's all our fault he's so ridiculously abusive! 'Contributory negligence', eh, guys?

bill fuckwit, YOU ARE THE ILL FOOL, YOUR MOST SEVERE PROBLEM is THAT LOSERS LIKE YOU ARE COMPLETELY UNABLE TO allow ONLY A TINY BIT OF SELF-REFLEXION.

you would then yourself diagnose what an incredibly stinking asshole you are!!!

go whining to mommy, baby

So, is one of you going to be game enough to tell this loser to sling his hook?

Freddy,
Thanks, buddy. I'm not making it up when I say that you do make me laugh. If that was your intention, then _ again _ thanks. But I suspect the comedy is not intentional; I suspect you might be an escapee from a mental institution.

The likes of GSW, Karen and O'louse etc. are dull, stupid and totally boring. But you, although being incredibly stupid, are very entertaining. By your writing I'd say that you're still in primary school. Am I right? And how old are you _ 17? 18? older? Anyway, don't give up, you'll graduate from year 8 one day. I think you'd better go back to the institution _ they're looking for you.

"pussysmell"....hahaha. I love your choice of words. I hope you don't say that to your new girlfriend Karen _ she'd be very offended.

In your post to Bill, you type "self-reflexion". Did you mean self-reflection, or maybe self-awareness. Don't go using big words, now. You'll look stupid, especially when you don't know how to spell them.

Ask your teacher, or one of the psychiatrists what self-awareness is. But then again, don't bother. You need an IQ of at least 40 to understand the concept.

To the rest of the denier crew, I'm glad he's one of yours. It'd be terribly embarrassing if he was an "alarmist".

So now you are accusing everyone who didn’t condemn Freddy’s Homophobic hate speech?

Neither logic nor comprehension are your strong suits, are they, cupcake?

You were the one alleging BBD was making homophobic comments.

In response BBD pointed out that (a) the evidence shows that he wasn't, and (b) you were highly selective in who you accused of homophobia, ignoring very real and obvious homophobic content in favour of making unsubstantiated claims of homophobia.

Instead of dealing with your own behavioural inadequacies, you named other people (in derogatory terms no less) in a bid to draw a false equivalence. However, those people were not making allegations of homophobic comments of anyone, so they aren't relevant to observations of you ignoring actual homophobia in place of manufactured allegations of homophobia.

These points are not very hard to understand. I'm not sure which possibility is worse for your reputation - that you clearly don't understand the basic logic here (and ditto for most of the implications flowing from climate science), or that you think you're fooling everyone else.

BDud @ 2...

Thanks for the links (to a blog). Did you happen to read any of them in the 30 seconds it took you to find them? They make you look like the complete Jackass you are, since they prove everything I've been saying.

1. CO2 fertilization isn't as insignificant as you and Hardley would have us believe...

"In the climate change debate, it appears to be agreed by everyone that excess CO2 will at least have the direct benefit of increasing photosynthesis, and subsequently growth rate and yield, in virtually any plant species":

2. The effect of CO2 fertilization is unknown....so how can it be insignificant if you don't know? And if it's unknown, how does it "carry weight in the projection of predictions "....IT'S NOT KNOWN. Example:

"The global increase of CO2 is thus a grand biological experiment, with countless complications that make the net effect of this increase very difficult to predict with any appreciable level of detail".

So let's see what has been said:

1. #46 pg 7...Hardley claimed I referred to CO2 fert as a "good thing"
I said....."Is it a bad thing? Or don’t you know". "And if you don’t know, why don’t you?"

2. Me at #56 pg 7...."And I never said it was a good thing. I said your predictions are predictions based on unknowns…CO2 fertilization being one of them"

3. BDud at #58 pg 7...."A thinly disguised lie"

4. Me at # 68 pg 7...."Prove to me there aren’t any uncertainties or unknowns in predicting future scenarios, prove to me the effect of CO2 fertilization on climate, if any, are certain."

5. BDud at # 72 pg 7.... "CO2 fertilization is a fucking irrelevance compared to the effects of abrupt climate change"

6. BDud at 74 pg 7..."All the scientists, all the real experts, disagree with you"

7. Me to Hadley at #51 pg 8 Re: The effect of CO2 fertilization....."The fact is, you don’t know. You can pretend to know…. but then you will be caught in another of your many lies, and I won’t let you forget it."

8. Me at #17 pg 9 to Hardley...." that I was accurate in saying you are clueless about how CO2 fertilization may fit into the scheme of things"

9. BDud at #19 pg 9...."Another blatant lie from Betty"

10. Me at #88 pg 9....To BDud Re: CO2 fertilization...."I need a bunker buster to get through that thick scull…you have to weigh the effect to determine if it’s net positive or net negative….but since you can’t weigh it, it’s an unknown"

Now, let's look at a few more quotes from your links...

1. "Because there are so many factors affecting annual terrestrial NPP, atmospheric CO2, air temperature, nutrient and water availability, season length, seasonal temperature development, air pollution and other anthropogenic interferences to name a few, it is very complicated to provide a reliable estimate from knowledge of all relevant processes and their dependencies on physical and biological parameters."

2. "Doubling atmospheric CO2 is likely going to cause some "greening" of the terrestrial biosphere globally under equilibrium conditions, especially if factors such as water and nutrient availability do not become limiting"

Once again BDud...thanks for making a fool of yourself.

I was accurate in saying you are clueless about how CO2 fertilization may fit into the scheme of things

Was, is, and forever will be. None of the above changes the vailidity of this observation, and the people who do know what they're talking about don't share your motivated Pollyannaism.

And you're a moral coward. Plus, I suspect from context, a homophobe yourself, but the tide of history really is overwhelming you very quickly at the moment, isn't it?

Get used to it.

Freddy.

Freddy, freddy, freddy...

(Or do you prefer 'Kai'?)

What medication are you being prescribed? Fluphenazine, haloperidol, pimozide, or perhaps tetrabenazine? I'm sorry to tell you that whatever your specialist is offering its not at all controlling your symptomology, although the mind-dulling side effects are extremely apparent.

Do you talk to God like that? What does He think about you using such bad words?

And why do you hate intelligent people so much? Did the class geek once give you a noogie?

Genuine fool or poe, you're a very sad and particularly damaged individual.

It's worth pointing out though that you're completely wrong when you spray:

ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CAPABILITIES OF ORGANISMS IS ADAPTATION TO THE CHANGING ENVIRONMENT... [snip unnecessary bad language) ... YOU AGW CHURCH FANATICS DON’t EVEN KNOW THIS MOST ELEMENTARY FUNCTIONS OF LIVING ORGANISMS!!!!!!

1) Many species have very tight bioclimatic envelopes and cannot adapt beyond a narrow range of conditions. Don't believe me? Go study emperor penguins, or those dratted polar bears, or any of a whole suit of corals, or mountain pygmy possums, or golden toads. Go back a bit further in time and ask mammoths, and Neanderthals, and dinosaurs about adaptation.

2) Adaptive capacity is intended to cope with the natural variation of the environment in which the organisms have evolved. It is not an effective response to infrequent, extreme natural changes or stochastic events, or to unnatural alterations of the environment wrought by human activity.

3) Ecologists are acutely aware of species' capacities or otherwise for adaptation, which is why global warming is such a concern.

It's probably pointless trying to correct you, but given that Betula, GSW, Olaus Petri, KarenMackSunspot, Duff and all the other Denialati never have the integrity to even once correct you, the job falls to one of us who actually has a clue.

Loth...

"You were the one alleging BBD was making homophobic comments"

Not at all, In fact, the more you try to twist this, the more I will point out BDud's own words. After all, he is an equal opportunity Denier beating watcher...

Ironic, how he gets upset by words directed at a particular group, however, if that same group were being physically beaten because he puts a "denier" label on them, then he "for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it.”

How about you Loth? Would you watch the beating of a "denier"? All "deniers" or just a particular group? What if the "Denier" had Downs Syndrome? Will you watch the beating? What if the "Denier" is a senior citizen? Do you watch the beating with BDud? Is there a beating criteria for "Deniers"? Just asking....

I have no idea if BDud is a homophobe...however, I have no problem (given he condones and would watch people be beaten) believing he has sadist qualities.

Since you didn't condemn what he said (BDuds logic), and since you seem to be protecting him from his own words (my logic), I believe I am required by Deltoid rules to think of you in the same way.

"I suspect from context, a homophobe yourself"

Hardly, my brother, a former Recon Marine by the way, and whom I love dearly, is openly gay. So go fuck yourself while watching "deniers" get beaten

Not at all,...

OK, fair point, so let's be more precise.

1. BBD made remarks to the effect that if the public understood how badly deniers had screwed them, the public would beat the deniers in the streets - which I think is a fair observation, given what we know about mob mentality when pushed hard enough.

BBD also stated that he would not lift a finger to stop them. Needless to say the latter clause is not a universally held position - despite your attempts to create a distraction from your own problems by projecting it on to other people.

2. Freddie made derogatory remarks about gay people.

3. BBD complained about Freddie gay-bashing - which is the practice of verbally or physically "bashing" people not because of anything they have done, but because of what they are.

4. YOU followed up by trying to introduce the notion of gay people being beaten to the scenario mentioned in (1) by BBD, presumably in an attempt to claim BBD was hypocritical. BBD had not mentioned gay people in that scenario, so you own that. This appears to be an attempt on your part to draw a false equivalence between hypothetical retribution against someone who has caused harm by their actions, and attacking someone for what they are.

5. BBD and others pointed out that gay people simply weren't relevant to the criteria of (1), which was the category of "those who have caused harm through denial".

6. BBD also pointed out your impressive selectivity, which I discussed in my previous comment.

No matter how you duck and weave, you're trying to draw a false equivalence on this matter at (4).

Ironic, how he gets upset by words directed at a particular group, however, if that same group were being physically beaten because he puts a “denier” label on them, then he “for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it.”

Ironic how people can be upset at police harrassment of black people, but if a black person gets arrested for driving without a license no-one gets upset in the slightest!

Or to put it another way, I pointed out that logic and comprehension are not your strong suits and you helpfully provide confirmatory evidence. As one presidential candidate recently said to the other, please proceed...

Hardly, my brother, a former Recon Marine by the way, and whom I love dearly, is openly gay.

Oh, my! Did you seriously just try the "some of my friends are black" defence?

You have "proceeded" just fine already. Carry on.

"“In the climate change debate, it appears to be agreed by everyone that excess CO2 will at least have the direct benefit of increasing photosynthesis, and subsequently growth rate and yield, in virtually any plant species”:

Kindergarten level science. This is like saying because someone eats more junk food, and get fatter, that their inclusive fitness also increases. Carbon is not a limiting nutrient for plants; N and P most certainly are. As plants take up more carbon, this most certainly means that it comes at the expense of N and P. Both N and P play an important role in plant metabolism - such as in secondary chemistry (plant defense) and thus changes in plant tissue stoichiometry will most certainly affect consumers up the food chain. What we will see are changes in herbivore feeding behavior, perhaps quite dramatically, as well as the way higher trophic levels respond at a community level. At the same time, the ability of plants to deal with higher C will be species-specific. This means that the current atmospheric experiment humans are conducting will lead to large competitive asymmetries amongst species growing as neighbors in the same communities. Effectively, the winners will outcompete the losers, leading to much ore simple ecological communities that are more species poor and thus less stable.

The final point is that past periods where the atmosphere had very high concentrations of C02 were not necessarily species-rich. The highest species and genetic richness evolved under comparatively low ambient C02 concentrations. Most importantly, human activities are changing these concentrations at a very rapid rate in evolutionary terms, perhaps faster than in many millions f years at the very least. To extrapolate simple linear conclusions that C02 is an atmospheric fertilizer like Betula and other simpletons do is therefore utter drivel.

Tell us, Betula, is your gay brother also a global warming denier?

Its funny how quickly Betula links into blogs when chellenged but how assiduously he avoids the primary empirical literature. And no matter how much I like Skeptical Science, which is a great blog, the author is also incorrect to simply state that everyone agrees that increasing C02 will increase growth rate and yield in any species. This statement ignores: per capita fitness, seed viability, and a range of other intrinsic physiological properties of plants.

Note how Betula latches onto the one statement that he likes from Sk Sc and goes on to ignore the complexities which follow in the discussion. To him, cause and effect are completely linear. As I have said, the guy can't debate himself out of a sodden wet paper bag.

The highest species and genetic richness evolved under comparatively low ambient C02 concentrations.

What does high levels of speciation tell us about the environment?

The Permian/Triassic extinction event should be instructive here - CO2 rise led to a global warming event that wiped out most land animals and virtually all marine life.

It is at the very least possible that our species' activity has kick-started a repeat of that event.
http://www.americanthinker.com/%231%20CO2EarthHistory.gif

Some of my best friends are gay marines.
Er...wait, perhaps that's not quite ...

# 17 I knew you'd quote mine the links. But to do so you must at least have skimmed them so you know that what they say is:

- based on everything we know, CO2 fertilisation isn't going to be a net benefit to agriculture under AGW because (a) its effects are constrained by other factors (nitrogen; water) and (b) temperature change will impact productivity in the temperate mid-latitudes.

Yet still you deny. Still you lie.

Lotharsson # 23

Thank you.

Hell, now I'm going blind. We have an expert commenting (Jeff Harvey # 26). Read the words, Betty. They bear repeating:

And no matter how much I like Skeptical Science, which is a great blog, the author is also incorrect to simply state that everyone agrees that increasing C02 will increase growth rate and yield in any species. This statement ignores: per capita fitness, seed viability, and a range of other intrinsic physiological properties of plants.

Note how Betula latches onto the one statement that he likes from Sk Sc and goes on to ignore the complexities which follow in the discussion.

Betty-John Birch continues to screech "misdirection" with all the power of his lungs. What BJB is trying to get us to forget is that he hasn't responded to this yet:

Fake climate agnosia is crypto-denial.

You cannot use “uncertainty” as an excuse for inaction. It is yet another denier false equivalence. We can be uncertain about just how bad things will get this century, but not that they will get bad. That’s why we had that little lesson about climate sensitivity. To stop your lying denials. But it didn’t work – you kept on lying (nailed again at #83 previous page).

How bad it gets is strongly determined by how much more CO2 gets emitted over the next few decades. The surest way of reducing *uncertainty* is to reduce emissions.

Liars like you who try to use “uncertainty” as an excuse for inaction are enemies of the species.

You need to face up to the vileness of what you are doing instead of denying that your behaviour is vile.

And instead of continuing to behave in a contemptibly dishonest manner.

BBD also stated that he would not lift a finger to stop them. Needless to say the latter clause is not a universally held position

Notice something Betty - I have *owned* my statement ever since I made it. Unflinchingly. Honestly. Compare and contrast with your characteristic evasive slipperiness.

Not in the same basket, are we?

Rosegate scandal, part XXX (is anyone keeping a count?) - David Rose uses fabricated Time magazine cover:

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/side-boob-shame-20130627

The prat. I thought everyone *knew* that cover was a fake.

Or perhaps it wasn't ignorance. Perhaps Rosie deliberately used a fake Time cover to deceive his readers.

Either way, Rosie doesn't come up smelling of his namesake, does he?

OK, I apologise. Your brother is gay - great.

So why not just openly suggest the loon engages in autointercourse? Who benefits from allowing misogynist and homophobic ranters free rein?

So why not just openly suggest the loon engages in autointercourse? Who benefits from allowing misogynist and homophobic ranters free rein?

Self-serving liars who gleefully use absolutely anything to smear their opponents. That's who.

Ah, David Rose! Could he have conveniently neglected to remember 'everyone knows' it's a fake.

Here's what appears to be the source (check the date). The author is also a denier - quelle surprise - but makes no claim whatsoever that this is a real cover; it's a commentary on the actual TIME cover. This could not be clearer.

And from there typical denier standards of evidence whisk it away to a truly fitting ultimate destination, The Fail.

(Do we assume the Greenpeace URL title is a little dig at the tabloids?)

bernard troll

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
1) Many species have very tight bioclimatic envelopes and cannot adapt beyond a narrow range of conditions. Don’t believe me? Go study emperor penguins, or those dratted polar bears, or any of a whole suit of corals, or mountain pygmy possums, or golden toads. Go back a bit further in time and ask mammoths, and Neanderthals, and dinosaurs about adaptation.

2) Adaptive capacity is intended to cope with the natural variation of the environment in which the organisms have evolved. It is not an effective response to infrequent, extreme natural changes or stochastic events, or to unnatural alterations of the environment wrought by human activity.

3) Ecologists are acutely aware of species’ capacities or otherwise for adaptation, which is why global warming is such a concern
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

your text is complete bullshit: YOU KNOWLEDGE ABOUT LIFE IS ZERO. therefore you better shut up

all your environmental crap (polar bears, emperor penguins, etc etc) is pure nonsense, which you can't believe yourself. nobody can be so stupid to believe such crap. have you ever visited a zoo in europe or the us and seen polar bears there??? you are really an unbearable idiot

it's clear: bbd is a racist. he thinks he is superior to others in certain undiscernible aspects. however his texts full of ignorance about weather and climate show that he is a fool

because bbd is a racist he is a bad guy, he is full of hatred and falsehood, and praises low moral standards

it’s clear: bbd is a racist.

Now the homophobe is calling me a racist. What next, one wonders?

"your text is complete bullshit: YOU KNOWLEDGE ABOUT LIFE IS ZERO. therefore you better shut up"

Or what, Freddy? You are going to come and get us?

Bernard of course is correct. Species all have evolved within defined thermal windows, a major factor that accounts for their differing geographic distributions. As biomes warm up, species have to respond to that: they do so by moving polewards or to higher elevations. There are many studies that have reported this pehnomenon in the past 20-30 years. Even the distributions of some plant species shows a polewards shift or else they are increasing in areas where they were once rare. One major impediment in polewards shifts is that organisms are facing a variety of topographical and anthopogenic barriers to traverse. The vast clearing of once-forested landscapes for agriculture as well as urban expanses makes it much more diffcult for some species, in particular those with poor dispersal capabiliites, to respond to rapid regional warming. And as I have said many times, biomes cannot merely shift with temperature, as there are all kinds of other biotic and abiotic parameters that will make transition zones subject to severe stress and possible collapse.

At the same time, local increases in termperature lead to reassembly of ecological communities and ecosytems. How this will play out is anybody's guess. But to argue that regional warming will not deleteriously affect biodiversity is pure and utter nonsense. We know that it already is. Since Freddy cannot apparently read or write properly, he does not source the primary literature.

Freddy is completely nutters IMHO. He does not know anything about everything. Bernard and I are professional ecologists, and I just cannot sit here and read such puerile crap as that spewed out by Freddy go unchallenged.

all your environmental crap (polar bears, emperor penguins, etc etc) is pure nonsense, which you can’t believe yourself. nobody can be so stupid to believe such crap. have you ever visited a zoo in europe or the us and seen polar bears there???

Freddy, I'm not sure that you understand this, but bears in zoos were put there by humans, and humans ensure that the bears are provided with all of their food and other needs so that they can tolerate the temperature shift to which they are subjected. It's what we clever folk all "an artificial environment".

Contrast this to polar bear distribution in the wild. When was the last time you saw one wandering through a temperature forest, or in an equatorial desert? Why do you think that this is so? And why do you think that species have been driven to extinction by past climate change events if adaptability is the universal solution?

Bioclimatic envelopes are defined integrally, which means that extremes in one parameter can be somewhat off-set by optimisations in others - possible in artificial environments but vanishingly rare in the natural context.

Stop being a prat. You must be an obscene act, because no-one who had the intellectual development of a 4 year old and who could switch on the power for a computer could be as pig ignorant as you pretend to be.

And I use the example of a four year old deliberately. My own four year old daughter spontaneously told me last week - that is, without prompting (in case you don't know what "spontaneously" means) - that the polar bears would have nowhere to live when the planet warms, as I explained was happening to the planet as a result of the gas that is produced by cars and power stations.

Yes, an intelligent four year old can, without prior help or preparation, nut this out... It says much about adults who bury their heads in the sand whenever my scientific colleagues and I try to educate such intellectually challenged individuals.

Whatever your game is freddy I hope that you're proud of yourself, because sure as night follows day no-one else is the least bit impressed. If you're fair dinkum then you shouldn't be allowed near sharp objects or hot ones, and if you're trying to poe then you're serving no-one any benefit because you're just gumming up the works.

Bernard,

Freddy is so far, far out in his world of make believe that one wonders if he is some kind of parody or benthic level comedian. Heck, even the dumbed-down AGW deniers on Deltoid are distancing themselves from him. Now that tells me more than anything.

Sloth at #23...

"Oh, my! Did you seriously just try the “some of my friends are black” defence?"

I'm on defense? From what? An accusation? Are you playing fucking games? Let's play you fucking Sadistic Homophobic Racist piece of shit:

From your above comment, you assume my brother is black, so according to your own logic you are a Racist.

According to your own logic, you didn't condemn Freddy's homophobic remark....you are a Homophobe.

According to your own logic, you didn't condemn BDud condoning and wanting to watch a beating...you are a Sadist

According to your own logic, if you attempt to comment about the things you are accused of being, it only proves you are these things.

Your actions from all the above prove beyond any doubt that you are a sick individual, the scum of the earth, a menace to society...a Racist, Homophobic, Sadist.

How do you live with yourself you sick bastard?

Oh fuck off Betty. You have utterly discredited yourself already. This is just annoying superfluity.

Betty "if a child were a denier" Betula, Id advise you to steer clear of applying logic. It's not something you understand beyond the context of a tool to attempt smearing somebody else with.

Btw regarding your new handle: what the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously.

From your above comment, you assume my brother is black

You cannot be serious? You really cannot do logic at all, can you?

And you're getting seriously overwrought. Isn't it remarkable how many of these macho types are prone to hysteria?

John-Betty is a sensitive, if confused, soul. He feels bad about all the lying. He wants to atone for his crimes against humanity but he doesn't know how.

This is all just a cry for help.

Betula, *surely* you realise that you aren't the smartest cookie in the jar?
*Surely* it is obvious to you in your day-to-day dealings with other people that most of them are a good deal cleverer than you are?

Bill..

You cannot be serious? You really cannot do logic at all, can you?

It's not my logic...It's Deltoid logic. Remember Bill, BDud is an Equal Opportunity Denier Beating Watcher, which makes me a homophobe...
Following this Deltoid logic, it would only make sense that Sloth, who mentions the word "Black" @ 23 in response to a comment about my brother, is a Racist. Of course, BDud thanks him for this comment at # 30, which, according to Deltoid logic, now make him a racist as well.

So now, according to Deltoid logic, BDud has proven that he is an Equal Opportunity Denier Beating Watching Racist.

C'mon man, get with the Deltoid game!

Oh, and apology @ 36 accepted.

Like I said, John-Betty, annoying superfluity.

chek @ 28..

"Some of my best friends are gay marines."
"Er…wait, perhaps that’s not quite …"

Actually it is right, in fact, the toughest person I know is gay...he was a team leader that went to rescue a downed pilot in the Libya.
So are you now stereotyping gay people? Will BDud now label you a Homophobe for stereotyping? Will BDud want to watch you get beaten down? Oh, wait, that's deniers....never mind.

Vince,

Yup, you are correct. Problem is, Betula thinks he possesses razor-sharp wit and high intelligence. But when it comes to the science part of it, he repeatedly falls flat on his face. And his sharp wit is demonstrated by his monickers for me (Hardley) and BBD (B-Dud). Really, he thinks this is funny. Hilarious.

Hardl(e)y. Now there's some irony. I also have yet to see him actually demonstrate that he knows anything about community and systems ecology as well as ecophysiology. So far he's been striking out more prodigiously than Adam Dunn.

BDud....

Oh My....

"Satellite observations reveal a greening of the globe over recent decades"

Oh Boy...

"Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilization effect is now a significant land surface process"

Poor BDud...

"The role in this greening of the “CO2 fertilization” effect—the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO2 levels—is yet to be established."

http://tinyurl.com/oxhuryd

"Betula, *surely* you realise that you aren’t the smartest cookie in the jar?"

No argument from me Vince, I realize you are as smart as a cookie.

Betula.

Why is it that you cannot and will not answer simple questions about the global temperature record for the last 150 years?

What is it that you are so afraid of that your testicles retreat upward and inward?

# 55

We've been through the gross misrepresentation of that study, right here, on this very blog.

Bernard J was at pains to set you straight.

Repeating very recently debunked misrepresentations is LYING you know.

Blatant, persistent, stupid lies, but lies all the same.

No, sorry, it was Karen and GSW trying it on with Donohue et al.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/05/09/may-2013-open-thread/

You are so utterly fucked even you must be able to see it by now, Betty-John.

Trolling on with pre-bunked stuff from just a few weeks ago is beyond pitiful.

It is... annoyingly superfluous!

I’m on defense? From what? An accusation?

I realise comprehension isn't your strong suit, so go back and read the thread - and do so

S
L
O
W
L
Y

if it helps.

Hint: Your very own #21 indicates what you were attempting to defend yourself against when you freely offered that defence. (Or did you get someone else to write that comment for you and you don't actually understand it?)

Let’s play you fucking Sadistic Homophobic Racist piece of shit:

Oh, my, you certainly have proceeded rather admirably!

From your above comment, you assume my brother is black, so according to your own logic you are a Racist.

You are really far more stupid than you give yourself credit for, aren't you? I have assumed no such thing. It is, sadly, necessary to repeat myself:

I realise comprehension isn't your strong suit, so go back and read the thread - and do so

S
L
O
W
L
Y

if it helps.

Hint: "The some of my best friends are black defence" is a type of defence that can be applied to bigotry OTHER than bigotry based on skin colour. It refers to the structure of the attempted defence, not to racism. It proceeds thus: "Some of my friends are black, therefore I can't possibly be racist in any way." The embedded fallacy is obvious to the majority people, but in your case I leave identification of it as an exercise for you, the reader.

Even bigger hint: if I'd ACTUALLY assumed your brother was black, I would have almost certainly have assumed that you were too - in which case I wouldn't have been accusing you of being anti-black. (Sadly it is necessary to reiterate that I didn't accuse you of that in the first place.)

According to your own logic, you didn’t condemn Freddy’s homophobic remark.you are a Homophobe.

You are REALLY bad at this logic thing, aren't you?

My logic pointed out you ignored actual homophobia in order to try and smear someone else by dragging homosexuality into a discussion that wasn't about homosexuality. If you can quote me (for example) dragging homosexuality into a discussion that wasn't about that topic, I will own it. But I simply will not respond to your attempted manipulation of me via false equivalences in the way that you hope. I will instead continue to point out that you are (a) using false equivalences in an attempt to manipulate and (b) using fallacious logic. And I will further point out that you are doing all of this because you can't substantiate your denial of the risks identified by climate science and you desperately wish to change the subject.

So, as I previously invited - with such resounding success - I now reissue the invitation. Please proceed.

BBD, science is not Betula's strong suit. He just cannot get this 'ferilization effect is good' nonsense out of his simple little noggin. So he cites any source he can which essentially says no such thing but instead talks about increased plant biomass as if that is the be-all and end-all of the topic.

Of course scientists (like me) know better than to try and equate mass with fitness. Moreover, extra carbon in plant foods represents 'junk food' as C is NOT a limiting nutrient. Notice also how C:N:P ratios in plants are much higher than in consumers up the food chain - plants are lousy food as it is for most herbivores and increasing the C content in their tissues means that herbivores will have to work that much harder to shunt out the extra C to obtain the necessary N (which is indeed a limiting nutrient). This cannot generally be done metabolically, but simply put, herbivores are going to have to eat more to maintain metabolic equilibrium of C, N and other essential nutrients. And studies in elevated C02 plots are reporting just that - insect herbivores are compensating for increased foliar C by eating more just to ensure they get enough N in their diet.

I would go on to discuss C and N based allelochemistry, but why bother? Betula is stuck on the 'C02 is plant food' narrative and won't budge an inch because to do so means admitting he was wrong. We all know he is but he won't admit it. Any more than he will admit that his examples for the health and viability of ecosystems in New England -based on wild turkey reintroductions, white tailed deer and coyote numbers - stink (to be blunt). There are many examples of species found in the east that are in population freefall that paint a very different picture.

Jeff, what leaves me speechless is the way Betty-John denies your expertise.

I don't tell my lawyer, investment advisor or doctor how to do their jobs. I *consult* their professional expertise. This isn't fawning before authority, it is common sense.

When your write about ecosystems and in this instance, CO2 fertilisation, I recognise and accept your expertise. So do the other rationalists here. We read, and we learn.

But not Betty-John. Betty denies. But Betty isn't an expert and Betty doesn't have a scientific argument. Sadly, Betty doesn't realise that this is the cue to STFU and pay attention.

Which is a rather long-winded thank you for continuing to contribute to what can only be a painfully tedious "discussion" about CO2 fertilisation in the wider context of rapidly forced system change.

Betula.

You've been crapping on about the growth response to CO2, and completely ignoring the repeated exhortations to consider the interactions with other factors that mean that there is not a simple relationship with increased atmospheric concentrations.

By you logic increased water should be just as good for all plants, in a monotically increasing response trajectory. You're a branch sawyer so you should at least be able to manage these questions...

1) What happens directly to roots that are too wet?

2) What happens chemcially in soils that are waterlogged for extended periods?

3) What happens to flowers, buds and fuit when they're exposed to increased intensity of rain/hail/snow?

4) What happens to many species' fruit and stems when they take up increased quantities of water?

5) What happens to the aerial parts of many plant species if they're exposed to excessive humidity, at different stages of their life cycles?

6) What happens to the internal solute balances of plants in increasingly wet conditions?

7) What happens (chemically and physically) when certain soils are subjected to increased flushing?

8) What is the import of some of the sequelæ arising from answers to the preceding question with respect to gross and fine soil structure?

9) What does increased water content mean for agricultural regions at harvest time?

10) What so all of the above mean for the premise that more water is better?

I could list more questions in the same vein, but given that your score for answering questions in any way that resembles a proper scientific/technical manner is 0 (zero %, there's probably no point.

You'll just clutch your old fella and suck your thumb and think of some new red herring with which to attempt distraction, as has always been your clumsy modus operandi.

Hardley..

"He just cannot get this ‘ferilization effect is good’ nonsense out of his simple little noggin. So he cites any source he can which essentially says no such thing but instead talks about increased plant biomass as if that is the be-all and end-all of the topic."

Hardley. I see you put 'ferilization effect is good’ in quotes. Where does that come from? Are you saying I said that, because it is a blatant lie. One of your many, which by the way I can back up. Now be a good retard and back it up...something none of you on this site seem to be capable of.

Try reading all the quotes I linked next time, you climate embellishing Weasel...with frostbite.

Here:

"The role in this greening of the “CO2 fertilization” effect—the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO2 levels—is yet to be established"

Hardly sounds like the "be-all and end-all of the topic" does it?

The fact is, once again Hardley, you don't know how it fits into the equation...it's unknown.....not good, not bad...unknown.You're ideology, as well as BDuds, is blinding you from seeing otherwise.

In addition, your overinflated ego seems to be expanding faster than oceans. I predict a catastrophic scenario if we don't find a way to fix the retardation perturbation.

Betula.

You've been crapping on about the growth response to CO2, and completely ignoring the repeated exhortations to consider the interactions with other factors that mean that there is not a simple relationship with increased atmospheric concentrations.

By you logic increased water should be just as good for all plants, in a monotically increasing response trajectory. You're a branch sawyer so you should at least be able to manage these questions...

1) What happens directly to roots that are too wet?

2) What happens chemcially in soils that are waterlogged for extended periods?

3) What happens to flowers, buds and fuit when they're exposed to increased intensity of rain/hail/snow?

4) What happens to many species' fruit and stems when they take up increased quantities of water?

5) What happens to the aerial parts of many plant species if they're exposed to excessive humidity, at different stages of their life cycles?

6) What happens to the internal solute balances of plants in increasingly wet conditions?

7) What happens (chemically and physically) when certain soils are subjected to increased flushing?

8) What is the import of some of the sequelæ arising from answers to the preceding question with respect to gross and fine soil structure?

9) What does increased water content mean for agricultural regions at harvest time?

10) What do all of the above mean for the premise that more water is better?

I could list more questions in the same vein, but given that your score for answering questions in any way that resembles a proper scientific/technical manner is 0 (zero) %, there's probably no point.

You'll just clutch your old fella and suck your thumb and think of some new red herring with which to attempt distraction, as has always been your clumsy modus operandi.

Hnnn.

One has to be quick to stop posting here. I really miss preview.

Berntard @ 57...

Give it up. If you think I'm going to respond to 10 questions because you demand it, you're out of your mind. The conclusion to all of them combined, is that the predicted future scenarios are predicated without all the data....i.e.: many unknowns.

Now, if you really need answers so badly that it hurts, here's a little reading to help you identify some of the "naiveté" in your questions...

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/01/weather-climate-and-noise.html

BBD,

I really appreciate your comments (as well as your patience in combating several of these persistant idiots on Deltoid. I learn a lot from yoru posts. Keep up the good fight.

What you tend to find is that AGW deniers - and anti-environmentalists in general - hate scientists. Its simply because we are the ones who are producing the data and doing the resesarch and because the public by-and-large trusts scientists. When we speak out its likely that most lacking the relevant expertise will listen. But those with agendas certainly will not, and thus we scientists in their eyes are the primary target. Look at the abuse heaped upon such eminent shcolars as Michael Mann, James Hansen, Paul Ehrlich, Jared Diamond, and even Edward O. Wilson, merely for alerting society to the dangers of environmental problems mediated by human activities. They and others (including myself) are ritually smeared, ridiculed, etc, for speaking out. But I am used to it. It goes with the job.

I have read Betula's comments and I am not afraid to say they belie a very poor understanding of ecology and the environment. Of course he doesn't like being challenged, but tough: if I see people saying things that are plainly incorrect, I will call them out on it.

Note how Betula routinely links to comedy web sites - GWPF and now Motls crapola.

No wonder nobody here takes him seriously. Its fun watching him lash out in every direction though. As I said earlier, even his friends appear to have abandoned him.

Betula.

I know the answers to all of my questions. I put them to you to determine the level of your understaing of the subject matter, and you steadfastly and singularly demonstrate that you cannot answer very basic questions. Whether you do so because you do not know the answers, or because you do know the answers but that you also know that to answer them puts in in an untenable conflict with your denialist stance... well, that's up to the third parties reading this thread.

If you are going to make claims, basic propositions that conflict with expert scientific understanding, you should stump up some hard evidence by way of support. You have shown that you are consistently incapable of doing this. Whichever way it's sliced you're a useless tool who cannot back up an argument with his own words, and who constantly relies on discredited pseudoscientific links in a forlorn attempt to disguise his ineptitude.

And now you glory in your incompetence. What a sad case...

bbd asshole deceiver

"wider context of rapidly forced system change"

your insanity is without comparison, global temps don't move, sea level is stable, but you dream of a "wider context of rapidly forced system change"

NOBODY WITH REASON BELIEVES YOUR UTTER JUNK.

you cheat and cheat and cheat again to get some little bit of money to carry on your miserable life. you are an enemy of society

Oh, and Betula, your link to Motl is a non sequitur.

You demonstrate no relationship between the answers to those questions and your conclusion that there are unknowns. The latter is trivially obvious and explicitly stated by mainstream science, and is completed beside the point of my questions about signal and noise.

And thanks for proving me right in my prediction that you would avoid the answers. You are nothing if not predictable in your behaviour...

...and on that I seem to be able to predict that behaviour with stunning accuracy for all that there is much about you that I don't know. Which only goes to prove another point - can you guess what that is?

Berntard..

1) What happens directly to roots that are too wet?

Are you referring to Swamp Maples or River Birches?

2) What happens chemcially in soils that are waterlogged for extended periods?

Are you talking about sandy soils?

3) What happens to flowers, buds and fuit when they’re exposed to increased intensity of rain/hail/snow?

What zone?

4) What happens to many species’ fruit and stems when they take up increased quantities of water?

Which species?

6) What happens to the internal solute balances of plants in increasingly wet conditions?

In the tropics?

7) What happens (chemically and physically) when certain soils are subjected to increased flushing?

I thought we were expecting droughts? Where is this going?

8) What is the import of some of the sequelæ arising from answers to the preceding question with respect to gross and fine soil structure?

What?

9) What does increased water content mean for agricultural regions at harvest time?

What are you harvesting?

10) What do all of the above mean for the premise that more water is better?

Depending on species, tolerance and susceptibility. Overall. too much water creates a habitat for many fungi....root rots, leaf spots, anthracnose etc.. I deal with too much irrigation on a daily basis.

I take it by these questions you are hoping for a change to a drier climate in some areas...

Nurse!

Freddy's out of his bed again.

Hardley @ 69..

"if I see people saying things that are plainly incorrect, I will call them out on it"

Hi Jeff.

I just came back from a 23 day hike...along the way I experienced climate change first hand and saw shifting zones for real.

No need for me to expound on what I saw...just take my word for it.

Berntard @ 71..

Ouch!

"If you are going to make claims, basic propositions that conflict with expert scientific understanding, you should stump up some hard evidence by way of support"

Which claim would that be?

Betula at #75.

More avoidance I see.

Those questions could be easily answered by any first year university student studying plant physiology. If you wrote those responses in an exam I'd fail you immediately and with no recourse to appeal, with no hesitation.

Do you not understand the basic principles of appropriate generalisation, of representative sampling, and of inferring the intent of the questioner from the context of the questions?

Here's a clue for the next time you go out to saw a branch off a tree - don't hold the shiny end with all of the zigzaggy teeth...

Berntard...

"on that I seem to be able to predict that behaviour with stunning accuracy for all that there is much about you that I don’t know"

Actually, I'm able to predict yours...like your end around on refusing to call Jeff out on his lie by feigning a lack of knowledge on the issue i.e. not reading his paper...a very simple thing to do. Or loading the board with time consuming questions to take the subject off of those who want to watch people get beaten or those who are witnessing shifting zones for real while obtaining frostbite.

Too much time indoors Berntard...get out more.

Betty “if a child were a denier” Betula yet again tries out his pipsqueak Torquemada via Ahab routine on some impressions (not a report) posted in a blog comment section.

Betty “if a child were a denier” Betula cannot contemplate the fact that AGW is real and must sail off in his Pequod to burn any heretic who suggests it is.

Unfortunately for him, Betty “if a child were a denier” Betula isn't the least equipped to pursue either metaphor and so is condemned for all eternity to sniff albatross butt. Which accounts for the disposition we see here.

Btw, Betty “if a child were a denier” Betula - what the fuck is wrong with you?
Child deniers?
Seriously, what is fucking wrong with you?

"If you wrote those responses in an exam I’d fail you immediately and with no recourse to appeal, with no hesitation."

That's the problem, you need to get out in the real world. You can't generalize a plants response on paper. Look at the plant structure, the species, the location, the soil structure, the competition, the maturity, the micro environment, the overall health.

You are stuck in academia....just as I predicted, with "stunning accuracy"

Now, if you were to come work for me, with your arrogant attitude, seething with ideology and over generalizations, I would fire you "immediately and with no recourse to appeal, with no hesitation".

Actually, I might give you until the end of next week, I'm nice like that...

Hi Freddy

NOBODY WITH REASON BELIEVES YOUR UTTER JUNK.

Easily disproved! Just read the recent thread. See comments by Jeff Harvey for example.

Not a very impressive sally, if I may say so, fred-fred. Come on, let's have some properly unhinged abusive ranting!

chek...

Let me help you with this one:

Betty “if a child were a denier, BDud would understand if the public were to beat him and wouldn't lift a fucking finger to help” Betula.

That's better.

Betty-John still denying basic physics:

Give it up. If you think I’m going to respond to 10 questions because you demand it, you’re out of your mind. The conclusion to all of them combined, is that the predicted future scenarios are predicated without all the data….i.e.: many unknowns.

In the region of 2.5 - 3C per doubling of CO2. See "known paleoclimate behaviour". References repeatedly provided.

Fucking well read them and stop lying about this.

chek...

Could you please describe the protocol for condoning the beating a denier and not lifting a fucking finger to help?

Just the denier criteria will do.

Thanks.

Respectfully,

Betty “if a child were a denier, BDud would understand if the public were to beat him and wouldn’t lift a fucking finger to help” Betula.

chek

What's wrong with Betty-John is that he's a nasty little shit who has been shoved, hard, into a corner and been shown the unpleasantness of his ways.

So he resorts to his one and only trick - grab hold of some irrelevance and misrepresent it like grim death.

It doesn't work. All it does is remind everyone what an unpleasant, dishonest, amoral creature Betty-John actually is.

See?

There he goes.

It's all he's got.

Betty-John

As any honest person knows perfectly well, we aren't talking about gay children with Downs Syndrome or little old ladies. We are talking about white, middle-aged, conservative wingnuts who spend a disproportionate amount of time peddling lies on the internet.

We are talking about the clueless but voluble, the aficionados of denialist chum-buckets like WTFUWT (and probably readers of the WSJ too), the always-on, the tenacious, the tireless and the utterly wrong.

In summary, we are talking about you, Betty.

You can wish it away, but it will do no good in the end. The science-denying right is digging its own grave with its bare hands. When the climate shit hits the economic fan, the public will be frightened and angry and looking for scapegoats. Guess who will be right smack in the frame? Oh yes.

Best not go shouting in the street about your part in the denial circus then, Betty. But you wouldn't have the balls, would you? You won't even admit to your lies and denial here when directly confronted over it.

It's all of a part. Contemptible from top to bottom.

"In the region of 2.5 – 3C per doubling of CO2. See “known paleoclimate behaviour”. References repeatedly provided."

An estimated temperature, which will result in a predicted climate based on many unknowns. You are talking predicted temperature, I am talking about the predicted climate reactions to the predicted temperature.

You are talking "known" past behavior (also filled with assumptions), and assuming future behavior, based on more assumptions and unknowns (i.e. CO2 Fert for one)

If it the future were known, then you wouldn't be talking about predictions would you?

You're a moron.

You’re a moron.

No, Betty. I'm really not. Just rather better informed than you are and not sunk to the deckrail in denial.

You know I'm right about what the future holds for the science-denying right. You know you are all fucked. In your heart of hearts, behind and beneath the frantic denial, you know.

Agreed, BBD.

I'm trying to establish how the kind of petty-minded sick fuck like Betty “if a child were a denier” Betula thinks up the concept of a "child denier", even when backed into a corner.
The single-minded pursuit of ideology as a substitute for reality seems a peculiarly unbalanced, but adult trait to me.

BDud , realizing how retarded he is, narrows down his "denier" beating meme to a more selective group of Deniers. It's appears he now has reached the level of denier discrimination.

Let's see if we can narrow it down further...

BDud, what if the white middle aged denier were a female in a wheelchair....do you still not lift a fucking finger?

Read the words, Betty-John:

You know I’m right about what the future holds for the science-denying right. You know you are all fucked. In your heart of hearts, behind and beneath the frantic denial, you know.

More words that Betty-John mysteriously ignores in his OCD pursuit of nothing:

As any honest person knows perfectly well, we aren’t talking about gay children with Downs Syndrome or little old ladies. We are talking about white, middle-aged, conservative wingnuts who spend a disproportionate amount of time peddling lies on the internet.

We are talking about the clueless but voluble, the aficionados of denialist chum-buckets like WTFUWT (and probably readers of the WSJ too), the always-on, the tenacious, the tireless and the utterly wrong.

In summary, we are talking about you, Betty.

BDud...

"You know I’m right about what the future holds for the science-denying right. You know you are all fucked. In your heart of hearts, behind and beneath the frantic denial, you know"

Capt. Queeg loses it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlV3oQ3pLA0

Still not paying attention, Betty-John.

You can wish it away, but it will do no good in the end. The science-denying right is digging its own grave with its bare hands. When the climate shit hits the economic fan, the public will be frightened and angry and looking for scapegoats. Guess who will be right smack in the frame? Oh yes.

Best not go shouting in the street about your part in the denial circus then, Betty. But you wouldn’t have the balls, would you? You won’t even admit to your lies and denial here when directly confronted over it.

When it comes, the fury of the public backlash against you and your lying denialist chums will be terrifying. And in your heart of hearts, you know this.

You will be metaphorically beaten in the streets of public opinion.

Can we stop being as literal minded as a bucket for rhetorical effect now Betty? It's getting really tedious.