More thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
By popular request. Comments from El Gordo and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by El Gordo and responses to comments by El Gordo should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
This thread is for people who wish to engage Ray in discussion.
Ray, please do not post comments to any other thread.
Everyone else, please do not respond to Ray in any other thread.
By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
Hey rhwombat!
Yr. no. 95 (previous page)
rhwombat, I'd like to administer a little, Lewandowsky-inspired, self-awareness test to you, ol' buddy. Ready with the "ideations", guy? Here goes!
Please answer "Yes" or "No" to the following question, rhwombat:
rhwombat, do you really think your above (no 95 (previous page)) effortful, labored, not-nearly-so-bad-as-to-be-good, tediously-tedious, pathologically-gaudy, sting-less, obviously-derivative (and I do so thank you for the sincerity of your copy-cat flattery, rhwombat!), stupid-jerk, further-proof-rhwombat-if-any-is-needed-that-there's-no-way-you-could-make-it-in-private-practice!, retard-genic, baroque-abortion of a rant-booger can be considered in any way, shape, or form a quality "zinger"?
And, oh by the way, rhwombat, I've recently wrinkled-out one of the hive's most closely guarded secrets. Namely, I've discovered that your public pseudonym, "rhwombat", is, in fact, an anagram of your hive-spook, nom-de-guerre "bmrotahw"--and that last is, in turn, an acronym for "Big-Mouth, Really-Obnoxious, Total-Asshole Hive-Wanker". But I can't pat myself on the back too much for this last penetration of mine into the hive's super hush-hush arcana since it was pretty darn easy to figure the whole thing out, I must say--I mean, like, for obvious reasons, rhwombat.
Shorter Cohenite:
I get my understanding of science from some undergraduate literature course I once did.
and
I don't know what "internal variability" means, but by god I won't let that stop me from offering my half-arsed observations.
So then, basically no improvement since cohenite used to hang around here several years ago.
I don't think rhwombat is amused.
#2
Yes. That's the first time a clueless denier has waved PBS in my face in lieu of an actual argument.
Clowns. All of them.
O/T bollocks from the SS gospel.
'....a 21st-century Maunder Minimum would only slightly diminish future warming. Moreover, it would be only a temporary effect since all known grand solar minima have only lasted for a few decades.'
The standard of insult here is pathetic.
You understand nothing. You say nothing. You are nothing.
Please fuck off.
O/T bollocks from the SS gospel.
‘….a 21st-century Maunder Minimum would only slightly diminish future warming. Moreover, it would be only a temporary effect since all known grand solar minima have only lasted for a few decades.’
Cohenite
The quality of your commentary is pathetic. You are in no position to complain, so you can fuck off as well.
You people seem blind to the fact that you are tedious. Wake up.
Now, let's watch the clueless trolls launch an outpouring of abusive bollocks to cover up the fact that they they don't have anything remotely approaching a scientific basis for their science denial.
Instead, it's all politics. Right Cohenite the Anti-Carbon tax, anti-environmentalist shill?
Right Gordy the third-rate hack and sycophant?
Right Luke, the brain-damaged bully-boy and coward who will not answer pertinent questions?
The irony stings.
Translation:
A bunch of ignorant right-wing fuckwit physics-deniers on the internet.
You aren't intelligent enough to understand irony Gordy, so please fuck off as advised.
BBD, I wonder if you would consider making a donation?
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/the-best-chance-…
Early snows in Canada...
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/its-official-the-weekend…
cohenite
How's that degree in climatology coming on?
You are a joke, matey. Please fuck off as advised.
And onward flows the bollocks.
This is what the deniers do because they have no coherent scientific counter-argument to the mainstream scientific position.
As predictable as it is tedious.
Yap, yap, yap. Like vicious little dogs.
Burbles Gordon, as if it means something or anything.
Not that he'd understand what anyway, but hey it was on some denier toilet wall somewhere..
While you're there cohers, if the Coalition fails to win both houses they will have to go for a double D election.
It would be over a single issue and everyone will be talking about the weather and CC. Not sure if Abbott has the bottle to take it on.
More politics. No physics.
Yap! Yap! Yap!
There has been summer snow in China, Alaska and now Canada. Its the wobbly jet stream of course.
Any thoughts on why the jetstream is "wobbly", Gordo, or is this another facet of your quite Renaissance range of things you don't know about?
This BBD guy is great.
This BBD guy is bored.
Here's a question for the Great Climatologist cohenite:
If you think that cloud feedback is net negative, and dominates the climate system, then why are we not stuck in a Snowball Earth state?
If Luke is back - I had a question he might have missed, that he might grace us with an answer for, seeing he is so keen for us all to come over to Jo's place to "prosecute our arguments": While he is correct that debate on Deltoid is essentially irrelevant in the great scheme of things, why does he think is Jo Nova any different? Does the community that actually does science really care about the blatherings of someone whos claim to doing science consisted of playing with liquid nitrogen volcanoes and baking soda rockets at Questacon? Are climatologists suddenly posting there? Policy makers? Perhaps the plenary session of the Doha Round paused to consider Ms Codlings latest musings before agreeing to do 9/10s of fuck-all?
"Relevant"? Really? Do explain how....
And please, no more PBS. If you must quote poetry, Eliot or perhaps Donne.
Or Rochester.
Anthony, do you expect any of your candidates will get their deposits back?
Eliot, Dunne?! Snowball Earth!?
Clouds are neither a negative or positive feedback; they work against whatever trend is on; if warming more evaporation will cause increased clouds and solar blockage; if cooling, less evaporation and less clouds will cause a reversal of trend.
Lindzen thinks so:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012050/abstract
And so does Pierrehumbert:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/JGRSnowballProof.pdf
Oh, looky - Anthony doesn't know the meaning of "negative feedback" either...
That is the definition of a negative feedback. One that suppresses the effects of a change in forcing.
Thank you for demonstrating that you are clueless.
FrankD - what is it with these clowns and understanding feedbacks?
Anyway, cohenite has now joined Gordy in the troupe.
And it's Donne, you moron.
Witless. If a trend is cooling then clouds will increase temperature; from an AGW viewpoint that is positive. You guys don't even recognise your own garbage.
Yes, Donne, I was busy scratching fleas and hit the wrong key.
#99: you posturing twat - quoting Shelly, then misspelling you're.
Oh you fucking buffoon. You are still describing a negative feedback. What you call "a trend" is a forced change in climate. A mechanism which acts against the forced trend is a negative feedback.
I'm not going to argue the basics with you like this. Fuck off and read a textbook. Come back in two years.
Twot. Maintain the rage.
gordolocks did disgorge:
This ignoring the up-escalator besides the heat within the whole earth system continues to rise as the it is the rate of heat increase at the surface that has slowed, the rate has slowed not stopped. You people never did grasp the difference between velocity and acceleration anyway, or velocity and speed for that matter.
Here, have a look at these and play with them , now what do you deduce?
Forget Luke's cupid stunts they ain't worth the effort just like those of Brad Keyes previously of which Luke is a more raucous, obnoxiously vulgar version.
Oh please BBD, ask me another question; I'll do better this time; you're so big and smart I can feel my brains growing just by reading you.
'Any thoughts on why the jetstream is “wobbly”,
The circumpolar vortex becomes slack periodically and I'm not sure why.
Cohenite
You do not understand even the basics. You have just unequivocally demonstrated your fundamental cluelessness above. Nor did you answer the first question, so what is the point in asking you another?
I know you are a posturing clown now, and so will anyone else reading this exchange.
Just trying to fit in BBD.
'...now what do you deduce?'
You should give up your addiction to the SS Gospel, its not credible.
It's interesting to see just how stupid and clueless these deniers actually are though.
There is huge intellectual dishonesty in claiming to be "sceptical" of something that you demonstrably do not understand at a fundamental level.
You must have been a fucking dreadful lawyer.
So if the climate system is dominated by a net negative cloud feedback, why aren't we stuck in a Snowball Earth?
Come on cohenite, since you haven't had the sense to run away, you'd better answer the question you dodged above.
Only this time, use the correct definition of negative feedback.
And don't quote Pierrehumbert - I've read his papers on SE and you obviously have not. Just a gentle hint to spare you more embarrassment.
gordolocks did vent forth:
Ah! Now there is a chance for you to learn something by finding out why this is so. Hint, Jennifer Francis is your friend.
I've been thinking about Donne BBD and his theme of redemption from sin through faith; do you feel an affinity with that in your faith in AGW?
Lionel I watched her vid explaining that its to do with global warming, so I looked a little further (being of a sceptical bent) and discovered that the dips in the jet stream is actually related to global cooling.
At least that's what the US National Academy of Sciences said in 1975.
You never understand this either do you, our views have nothing to do with faith but understanding of the physical and biological processes, and the obvious signals emerging from such, that are telling us that AGW is a reality. Percy Bysshe never knew about this either but he had an excuse for he was too early to learn from Joseph Fourier, let alone Tyndall, Arrhenius, Callendar, Revelle and so on.
Snowball and why it doesn't happen unless there is a high climate sensitivity to CO2. That ignores the other factors, the best known being Ice/albedo which is also probably the largest known. However, it is much less well understood than the greenhouse effect as it varies strongly with the latitude of the ice edge, not to mention the varying albedo of different kinds of ice, whether it’s snow covered or not or the effect of dust deposits. In addition, the contributions from clouds and aerosols are uncertain. Then there is the faint sun. Which brings us back to Donne:
"Thou, sun, art half as happy as we,
In that the world's contracted thus.
Thine age asks ease, and since thy duties be
To warm the world, that's done in warming us.
Shine here to us, and thou art everywhere;
This bed thy center is, these walls, thy sphere."
Busy old fool, unruly BBD.
There's only one apt response to this.
I see Luke is back with a new avatar., but still no attempt to actually string his links together to (try to) make a point.
Citation?
Due to global cooling eh! So why is the Arctic warming up as demonstrated by the year on year loss of ice volume? Never mind what is happening on Greenland, all this being in no way compensated by any, debatable, increase in sea ice at Antarctica where net mass is also being lost.
Indeed Lotharsson, the writer of that should stick to poetry which being more elastic when stretching slaughtering the facts.
Looks like that Turbo, where Delingpole is an 'interpreter of interpretations' Luke is a 'Gish Galloper of Gish Gallops'. This, and the fact that like all such as he here, he persistently evades direct questions.
Good old cohenite's real qualities shine through as he unleashes from the fever swamps of Catalaxxy...
Speaking of liars, arrogant turds, and fuckwits Anthony where has that Climatology Degree of yours gone?
Yep. Stuffed that one up something fierce. Try this ... http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/well-done-anthony-cox/
guffaw
http://press.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/15/national-geographic-maga…
I have to ask, considering that outpouring of bile on Catalaxy, where 'steve from brisbane' (well done that man) really got up the nose of this inflater of own credentials (is this called 'Doing a Ball' or 'Doing an O'Sullivan), is cohenite even a qualified lawyer. Maybe he watched a few episodes of 'Perry Mason'.
More bollocks from the Great Climatologist:
The question I asked you, clown, was how does the climate system get out of an albedo-locked icehouse (Snowball Earth) if the climate system is dominated by net negative cloud feedbacks.
Your blather aside, the answer is "it can't". This is as simple a demonstration as I can think of that you are wrong.
I thought your utter cluelessness about positive and negative feedbacks might mean that even this example is too conceptually complex for you. Your throw-everything-at-the-wall "response" shows that I was correct.
Here is what we have established today:
- You are absolutely clueless about the basics
- You are intellectually dishonest to a high degree
- You are incapable of understanding explanations and so cannot learn from your appalling errors
- You can google "Donne" and cut and paste
I already knew that you have lied about your credentials elsewhere, thus marking you out as scum, but thanks to Chris W above for providing a handy link so that other reviewers of this exchange can see you doing it.
What a disappointment. The feedback 'mistake' was no such thing. For AGW CO2 is a positive feedback because it universally warms. Water doesn't.
Witless.
Oh yes it was, you liar. And no amount of bluster is going to put the fart back in the dog.
Don't lie so blatantly. It's repellent.
That's good; "fart in the dog".
Here is your stupid error again:
That is the definition of a negative feedback. One that suppresses the effects of a change in forcing.
Now, using the correct definition of cloud negative feedback, answer the fucking question:
Why isn't the climate system stuck in an extreme icehouse state?
Yes, it was. You haven't even learned what basic terms like "negative feedback" mean, and you presume to lecture other people on how they are mistaken. Speaking of not knowing what the terms mean:
(I think we're up to a triple facepalm - anyone got an image for that?)
No, that's STILL not what determines whether a feedback is positive or negative.
You're so incompetent you don't know how incompetent you are. If anything, you are more clueless than you were last time you were here, which is truly an impressive achievement. If you weren't actually serious it would be sadly amusing (for the first few minutes).
Let's walk through this together. I will hold your hand.
- Planetary albedo is very high. This is a Snowball Earth.
- Biogeochemical carbon sinks are shut down. CO2 from volcanism accumulates in the atmosphere to very high concentrations and the super-greenhouse eventually overcomes the very high cooling from albedo.
- The door to the icehouse is unlocked
- As melting gets underway, the hitherto extremely dry atmosphere becomes much more moist, and cloud formation increases
- At this point, your negative cloud feedback should kick in and suppress the warming, re-locking the icehouse door.
But that is not what happened.
Now, now BBD, your bully-boy persona can be tedious. You answer the more important question first: are clouds a feedback or a forcing?
Its not my cloud feedback BBD; do you disagree with it? And while you're contemplating your answer to whether clouds are a feedback or forcing perhaps you could also present some evidence to support your thesis that greenhouse gas concentrations were sufficient to stop perpetual snowball.
Geez this is tedious.
Stop being so childishly evasive. Admit your error.
For someone quick as a flash to reference Pierrehumbert, you seem remarkably unfamiliar with his work on this topic. Perhaps you are a clueless, posturing clown? Could that be it?
Abbot & Pierrehumbert (2010)
Now admit your errors:
1/ about the definition of negative feedback and
and
2/ your erroneous claim that the climate system is dominated by net negative cloud feedback.
Errors; coming over here is top of the list. But seriously BBD did you read that Pierrehumbert link; it doesn't say CO2 levels were sufficient to drive Earth out of snowball. There is considerable evidence that there wasn't sufficient [by AGW modelling criteria] CO2 to counteract snowball:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7289/full/nature08955.html#B…
You're beginning to let me down BBD; I like being manhandled by a big, gruff bully who knows their stuff but I'm starting to think you don't.
Of course I read it, cohenite. It's a paper about albedo, CO2 and getting out of the icehouse.
But while lowered equatorial albedo might be one factor reducing the amount of CO2 forcing necessary to escape the icehouse, clouds are another.
Abbot et al. (2012) Clouds and Snowball Earth deglaciation.
It looks as though clouds enhanced the CO2-forced warming during the termination of the Snowball phase. Which would, of course, make clouds a positive feedback.
Imagine what it would be like to have begun this discussion understanding the correct definition of the terms and knowing all this already.
Too funny. GFY.
Which brings us back to the problem with your lies and evasions.
Admit your errors:
1/ about the definition of negative feedback
and
2/ your erroneous claim that the climate system is dominated by net negative cloud feedback.
You must be a truly awful lawyer.
"This is our blog now. We’re moving in."
He's not wrong.
Tim has given them this ground, this playpen. They think that this proves them right. Just proves Tim lazy and shortsighted.
Except for the young, foolish or lucky, everybunny knows that life occurs. Welcome to the Moon of Alabama
Lotharsson #69
Seek and you shall find...
... ask and it shall be given you.
Actually my favourite would have to be Gordo, Kazza and Cox
So wait, we finally get a reprieve from "Boris" to be left with these two clowns?
Need better trolls!
FrankD delivers!
Now somebody, don't be shy gordolocks, earlier cited a site run by the Idsos. Now it just so happens a lettuce leaf has just pooped up over at the Rabett's
There Is No Free Lunch, But How About Two Free Dinners and Your Name on the Heartland Institute's NIPCC Report.
S Fred strikes again and look who else is in the mix, Hum!
Oh my, that is interesting reading...
BBD - take a couple of days off and jerk off - it may help. Turn off the console. Try going to the park catch a movie.
Meanwhile just wondering about why the models aren't working. BBD doesn't know.
What you mean is BBD doesn't know what you're talking about, because the models are working pretty well by anyone's (except thick wittted deniers') standards
Luke
Repeating debunked claims doesn't make them become true. It does make you look dishonest though, or possibly rather too stupid to be commenting here.
Masturbatory abuse - which I note is a leitmotif of yours - is assumed to be projection.
I spent the whole afternoon in the park. It was very nice. It is now 7:00pm so I thought I'd look in and see what the lying trolls had left here and bingo! There you are.
You don't like me because I have shown you up to be incapable of answering straightforward questions, serially evasive and dishonest and because your thuggery doesn't work on me.
And the remarks about your mugshot really got you where it hurts, didn't they?
As we can all see very clearly ;-)
What's with all the creepy sexual repression from the deniers? Just wondering.
They're on the offensive, don't ya know!
Come on people. Remember the Teachings of Lotharsson:
It's always projection.
:-)
Geez, I actually thought that somebody who has been commenting on climate change for years would actually have understood the basics.
Apparently not.
He just doesn't get it. Does not understand science. Maybe the old "black = white" argument is useful when you're trying to confuse a jury (if you ever got that far with your lawyering) but it is a completely nonsensical way to approach science.
I always knew COhenite was strongly wedded to anti-factual ideologies, but I never realised he was actually ignorant.
It's actually reassurring - maybe he isn't an evil piece of shit at all, just an idiot?
Interesting to see Eli turn up, this place is really jumping. Timmy Lambert will be happy with the robustness.
BBD - try not commenting for a day - you'll explode !
P.S. On the mugshot - that's simply to see if you'll make some comments based on your putrid bias model - thanks for playing - data logged. You realise that my sock puppet El Gordo and I are just studying you for our thesis in mass delusion don't you? Don't swing at it.
chek - are you some sort of bag man - fancy showing us old tuned AR4 crap. The CMIP5 models are gone my friend. This is the game.
And you huff and puff but you're into the intellectual bankruptcy of creeping incrementalism. You could have whipped up a stats rebuttal to Van Storch and Lucia but being the scoundrels that you are you've been reduced to obfuscating your arses off, laying smoke and diversions.
You've been dragged all over the pond boys. Don't go over to Nova - they'll pull your pants down and tweak your nose.
"maybe he isn’t an evil piece of shit at all, just an idiot?" hahahahaha - I'm gonna use that on him. That's good. You guys are great.
You guys are insane.
Thanks for the solace, Eli.
I wonder if the re infestation with (very) local creeps (save, of course, for the spittle flecked rant of the uber-patriotic lil'mike, which was, I admit, invoked by poking his obsessive search for validation) is due to the need to shut down any links to Koch cash until Tory Rabbott flops over the line on Sept 7? This leaves the local "useful" idiots at a loose end, free to wander the ruins of Tim's site, picking at their own scars, and trying to salvage their tattered egos.
Wow. Has it occurred to you that Tim might have rather persuasive personal reasons to withdraw from the fray after years of leading it?
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair...
"Don’t go over to Nova – they’ll pull your pants down and tweak your nose"
"They"? Nova and her acolytes? They carry about as much intellectual weight as a bag of feathers.
Please don't make me laugh too hard Luke; its too late here for that and I have to get some sleep.
The problem the western world has with CC mass delusion will take years to resolve, but once the media click into place it shouldn't take long to debrief most adults.
The young have been seriously brainwashed through the education system, so they may take a little longer to convince that global warming was a scam after all.
Indeed they may, as they will be growing up in a world where the effects of AGW are becoming increasingly hard to ignore. Or deny.
As I mentioned upthread, my little boy turned six yesterday.
A mini ice age is no laffing matter, but in a technological modern world of free enterprise we should see global cooling as an opportunity.
Hilarious.
Gordon, keep your silly, unfounded religious mantras to yourself, will you?
You must realise by now that you, Luke and Cox have less than zero credibility in anything you say, interpret or just generally burble because you know nothing at all.
And your constant repetition of that fact is as grating as it is unnecessary
A mini-ice age is a fantasy only entertained by physics deniers.
And I await your explanation for a physical mechanism.
How does the climate system enter a mini-ice age when the forcing increase from CO2 hugely exceeds the forcing decrease from solar activity?
And remember, there's no evidence for a negative cloud feedback ;-)
Look at the relative sizes of the variability in solar forcing vs the increase in GHG forcing.
?
'And your constant repetition of that fact is as grating as it is unnecessary'
I'll stop talking about global cooling if you stop talking about unnatural warming.
BBD the CO2 forcing you talk of is flawed, like the models. Its time to consider your future in a cooler world.
This UK winter will probably be horrendously cold, like many others this decade. This is not weather ... more a climate change trend.
Why should we stop talking about "unnatural warming" when that is what is occurring?
You lot are always whining about shutting down the debate. Despite the fact that there was not, and is not, a scientific basis for any of your claims.
A tad insane, no?
I have to go to work but it's been a joy; BBD implacable to the end; solar vs greenhouse forcing:
http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/energy_wavelength.gif
It was great while it lasted but the punters have moved on:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/media/history/media-climate-change-cover…
No, it isn't. You will be unable to provide a referenced argument supporting this claim because none exists.
Again:
Good God you're a delusional little man.
IPCC AR5 coming soon. Heads will explode.
cohenite
WTF?
How clueless can you be?
Yes, that you don't understand the science is implicit in my last post.
But this article and comments are interesting for its guide to Aussie cranks.
One Nation appears to have gone shopping to the Climate Science Denial Mart and come back with the whole deli counter of debunked talking points. "What's really behind all the global warming hoopla," One Nation's website asks. "Power. It's the same old Marxist/Communist/Fascist collectivist shtick, dressed up in new clothes. Global warming is all about a power grab by a wealthy elite and their collectivist sycophants — using the (United Nations) as a cover and tool." Elsewhere, One Nation accuses the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO of engaging in the corruption of science.
And then of course there's the Galileo Movement with its fear of the Jewish Banking Conspiracy. *wink*
So with all your blather about re-educating the masses and the youth, which band of nutcases is your little sleeper cell in bed with? One or both?
Would you post that link again, chek? It's not working and I am curious about the background...
Sorry 'bout that BBD. Try this one
Well bugger me. A bunch of right-wing opportunists and fundamentalist nutters all muddled together denying physics. It's just like America. Who knew? Here in the UK, at least we are largely spared the Southern Baptist version of physical climatology.
But we have The Monckey and The Corbyn, which pretty much stuffs us. What if someone ever did a cranks/km^2 analysis?
And we've had ample examples that the regularly debunked figleaf pseudoscience spouted by our visiting crank trio is neither understood or of any consequence to them. Their agenda is elsewhere.
Oh God, I missed Delingpole. Cranks/km^2 by nation gets ever-more depressing.
* * *
It is mind-boggling. But it will destroy them all in the end. Physics doesn't vote, but frightened and angry people do.
And they remember who lied to them.
The gentlemen you mentioned are heros of the revolution.
I pulled this from that Guardian link.....
'This ignores a recent study, co-authored by fellow The Guardian environment blogger Dana Nuccitelli, about 97 per cent of scientific studies on climate change in the last 20 years all agree that global warming is caused by humans. It also ignores all the major science academies in the developed world.'
The Guardian spins propaganda.
What. The. Fuck. Are. You. Talking. About. You. Moron.
The author Graham Readfearn is a known warmist zealot and we were in close communication on his blog at the Courier Mail.
When he went head to head with Monckton in Brisbane I wished him well and told him to remain calm, but he ignored my unsolicited advice and shortly after got the sack.... or quit his day job.
Delingpole, Corbyn and the Lord.
Gordo, your morbid and pathological fascination with people getting fired is duly noted. Do tell, cupcake. Who fired you, and for what?
Delingpole? Let me see, what are his credentials... doop-dee-doop-dee-doop... OH, a degree in English Literature! Well sheeeat, better listen to this guy, he's an EXPERT!
*snirk*
He must be a quality journalist though. Doop-dee-doop-dee-doop... oh, yes:
Man, if he steps it up he could hook up with Malkin or Coulter.
Stu: Fatso got fired from one Rupert's Lesser Organs for being insufficiently flexible. Apparently being very stupid and servile are insufficient...who knew?
Tut tut Lotharrson, Craig, Marco et al.
Lotharrson sees fit to bring up my name so here is my reply (but languish in moderation no doubt)
Belittling and faux intellectual sneering are tactics that you really should have left behind in your schoolyards.
There is nothing wrong with the quals and creds of Ove Humlum here:
http://www.climate4you.com/Text/BIBLIOGRAPHY%20OLE%20HUMLUM.pdf
In fact they look more impressive than the quals and creds of this guy here:
http://www.gci.uq.edu.au/researchers/john-cook1
Of course he has every right to comment as does Ove Humlum.
Personal attacks are just intellectually lazy.
It looks like your new friend Luke is trying to help you but you lot are so totally blinkered that you can't see that. You could take his advice and listen to your Mums. I hope they taught you "if you can't say something nice..."
Ah, screw it. Any person I have to explain to why Corbyn and Monckton are clowns is very likely beyond rescue anyway.
By all means, if there are any lurkers present that need clarification, please do not hesitate to ask. I'll gladly dig up some explanatory links.
Did he get fired for an insufficiently flexible sphincter?
Stu @ #28: I thought Delingpole got publically devoured by a Nurse Shark (Ginglimostoma cirratum var nobelesis) - "My, Sir Paul, what big polite teeth you have"? To be fair, that is a much less gruesome fate than to be fed to the Coultergeist, or the rage-imp.
Doc I worked for Fairfax.
Monckton turned up in my town and was treated with respect, befitting a showman, from an appreciative audience.
There were three people outside in the cold holding banners protesting his appearance.
So what warm welcome was afforded to Bozo, Gordy?
Yes I see that I still get moderated. Your new friend Luke must be right when he calls you a dour lot.
BTW Lotharrson please be assured that I did not consider my time here as a 'career'. What an amusing and conceited comment from the self professed and self appointed master of RIH. :-) :-)
My time here was merely an amusing diversion during the holiday season and for a short time afterwards. I managed to get myself parked in moderation while not once breaking any blog rules and remaining unfailingly polite in the face of increasing abuse all the way to sexist and even misogynist. I did learn a great deal about engaging with a mindset and an attitude that is quite different to mine. I can at least thank you for providing me the practice. It has actually helped me in my real career.
Who is bozo?
--------------------
Following on from cohenite's link ... the blogosphere around October 13, 2011 shows a huge reduction in chatter about climate change and nobody knows why.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/media/history/blogs-climate-change-cover…
Up intill October 2011 the warmista message was loud and clear, but then they blew it.
Alarm bells had just begin to ring on the methane bomb in the Eastern Arctic, which threatened to increase warming at a phenomenal rate.
It was a bridge too far.
Yes, they are rather poor at scientific discussion, preferring in my experience instead the clownlike behaviour that you portray.
NASA accepts the word of an Oz cartoonist, what a joke.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The methane bomb story still has legs, a new paper came out recently.
'The claims also suggest that the methane released by the shrinking levels would bring forward the date at which the global average temperature rise exceeds two degrees Celsius by between 15 and 35 years.
'Dr Chris Hope, of Cambridge University, added: 'In the absence of climate-change mitigation measures the model calculates it would increase mean global climate impacts by $60 trillion.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2377547/The-great-Arctic…
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Yes, using a fallacious ad hominem attack like that, and blatantly lying about what it was that was accepted - from someone who was allegedly a journalist - is a complete joke.
Especially since one presumes that you were attempting to slander John Cook (IIRC calling him a "cartoonist" is a denialist favourite), and the web page you link to doesn't reference the peer reviewed study of which he is one author.
You still don't come here for the hunting, do you?
No, no, that's it, you trolling douchecanoe. Have fun pretending. How do you look in the mirror and not cry?
The new IPCC report says only 95% of scientists agree that humans are destroying the planet.
Oh dear !
Who would have thought, methane really is VERY VERY dangerous
http://www.ronsonwriter.com/content/view/69/9/
lol
I have always sat on the fence regarding this co2 thingy.
However after reading the last few days comments in here I am now leaning towards the belief that a co2 greenhouse Hell on Earth co2 may have been some type of propaganda campaign ?
..........and who is that repulsive person?
the one humping the wombat.........disssssgusting
repeat after me.........
co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2o2co2co2co2co2co2
lol
Hi Karen
Wombat is okay, he's under a bit of stress at the moment but after the election he should settle down.
Hi el, :)
It seems that BBd is about to pop, lol
Natural Climate Change has been Hiding in Plain Sight
This paper by Dan Pangburn presents a simple equation that models average global temperatures with an accuracy of 90%, by considering only natural oscillations and the sunspot time integral. Change of atmospheric CO2 levels is found to have no significant effect on average global temperature.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/natural-climate-change-has…
lol
Hey guyz........I think that I might sell my air conditioning investments and get into wheat futures.
wod u tink ?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/07/17/uk-china-wheat-idUKBRE96G00020…
@Karen, methane is a much more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2. But by far the most important greenhouse gas is water vapour, which is easily forgotten in the climate debate.
Dan Pangburn? C'mon Karen, you can do better than this. Pangburn is sub-benthic when it comes to the scientific acumen of cranks. His garbage is smeared all over the denialosphere, but very little of his equations end up in scientific journals.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why. In the meantime, keep on citing nonsense spewed out by denial blogs. Its worth a good laugh in the morning.
... then this little gem from Cohenite:
"It was great while it lasted but the punters have moved on"
Sure they have. The punters being scientifically illiterate gnomes like Cohenite and others (several of whom contaminate this blog) who have other agendas to pursue. Its too bad for these 'punters' that the vast majority of the scientific community remain convinced by sound science and have very different views on AGW.
But wait - 'punters' like Cohenite, El Gordo, Karen, Mike, Luke eta al. THINK they are veritable experts in climate science. Therein lies the rub. This bunch of illiterates all show deep signs of the Dunning-Kruger affliction: most of them has been anywhere close to a science lecture theater or (God forbid!) attended a scientific conference (Cohenite apparently studied geography as an undergraduate???? That does not count) but they all think that they are bonafide experts in atmospheric science. Simply put, the less education one has in a field, the more they THINK they know about it. This lot are textbook cases - as were Jonas, Betula, PentaxZ and other morons who came in here from time to time.
Yup, the D-K affliction is strong with these 'punters'.
JeFfEry'S next post will be all about how fantastic and wonderfully talented he himself is :)
How long do you stand naked kissing the mirror JeFfEry ?
First person to mention Galileo, Feynman or Dunning-Kruger loses.
Jeff your base assumptions are all wrong.
Mean von Storch and Lucia have called it on the models - do you have scientific comments of substance to make? I know insults are more fun.
This is a hard hit to the co2 thingy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
I really was looking forward to seeing greenies donating dry ice, hehehe
Luke, any reason we should put any confidence in whatever Lucia Liljegren has to say? It's not like she is a luminary, sorry, WAS, a luminary in her own field.
'This bunch of illiterates all show deep signs of the Dunning-Kruger affliction'
D&K is not relevant to Post Normal Science (PNS).
"Wow. Has it occurred to you that Tim might have rather persuasive personal reasons to withdraw from the fray after years of leading it?"
Yup. Discarded immediately he put three more "Here's some more thread for you" threads.
He's withdrawing fuck all. He's nuts because the only reason to keep this going is to make his name known for running a science site that goes into climate change issues. But he's fucking that up a right royal treat by abandoning it. Sharon on another blog here just stopped blogging for a year or so because of work, life and stress issues. Her ego was not tied to "running a scienceblogs blog" unlike Tim, so she could stop because she could not participate.
Tim can't not play the Olympiad BlogMaster, though. His ego won't let him and his intelligence is secondary to his self image.
He's as nuts as Bray.
No doubt Tim woke up, the co2 trance broken :)
So I'm a gnome Jeff; could you narrow that down, there are so many varieties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnome
Personally I prefer the elemental variety; their capacity to move through solid Earth would come in very handy here although I'm not sure the solid stuff I have to move through is earth.
.
Actually, if you were capable of sustained, concentrated though for upwards of fifteen seconds, you'd realise that it would be even more relevant to PNS (whatever that is).
Yep. Why are you avoiding BBD's questions and repeating your bullshit ad nauseam?
#43 EG says:,i>The new IPCC report says only 95% of scientists agree that humans are destroying the planet.
Are you sure? The only 95% quote that I've seen is 95% certainty t hat global warming is man made.
It's only a hard hit to your reading ability SpamKan. Nothing more.
'Are you sure? The only 95% quote that I’ve seen is 95% certainty that global warming is man made.'
Of course the architects of propaganda would say that....this from Judith Curry.
'Once the UNFCCC treaty was a done deal, the IPCC and its scientific conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy. The entire framing of the IPCC was designed around identifying sufficient evidence so that the human-induced greenhouse warming could be declared unequivocal, and so providing the rationale for developing the political will to implement and enforce carbon stabilization targets. National and international science programs were funded to support the IPCC objectives.
'Were [these] just hardworking scientists doing their best to address the impossible expectations of the policy makers? Well, many of them were. However, at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.'
Nope, you're still no good at comedy.
So, Judith Curry has gone full-on conspiracy theorist now? Useful to know - we can now pretty reliably ignore everything she claims outside of peer-reviewed journals.
The 95% is hardly a scientific estimate though is it. It's a "we're pretty bloody sure" expert view. Based on the handful of people that understand the science in sufficient detail involved in the report. The 95% of scientists is also meaningless. Real numbers in these domains are very small.
chek 62 - because I asked first. I take it you can't answer either. Put your Mum on.
'Put your Mum on.'
** chuckle **
Still on with your nonsense about models, Luke?
Try to understand:
- The model output you are waving around is surface average temperature
- It is generally higher than observations
- This is because in the real world, the rate of ocean heat uptake appears to have slightly increased since ~2000.
- Nobody expects this to continue indefinitely, and when it stops the rate of surface warming will increase *sharply* as the full effects of >400ppm CO2 are manifest.
- Add in the effects of energy returned to the surface by ocean circulation *also* heating the troposphere.
At this point, all the moronic denial about the models being "falsified" will look like, well, moronic denial.
It's perfectly obvious to non-idiots that paleoclimate evidence demonstrates a fast-feedbacks sensitivity to 2/CO2 of about 3C. It's perfectly obvious that paleoclimate behaviour is inconsistent with a climate system heavily damped by negative feedbacks and consistent with one where positive feedbacks dominate.
You may not be able to grasp all this and fit it all together, but some of us can, which is why we disagree strenuously with your simplistic argument which is based on false claim of falsification.
The problem is in your head, not in the models. But I cannot understand this for you.
Agreed about Lucia. She has never understood this. And real efforts have been made to educate her, but she carries on wittering about "falsification". It's as if, for her, the entire climate system is troposphere. Either that or she's pushing an agenda.
And Luke, the reason you avoided my questions is because they demonstrated that your argument was nonsense. We both know this, as does everybody else reading this exchange.
The list grows:
Page 20 #3 #4 #5
Page 18 #13.
Page 18 #40.
" It is generally higher than observations"
That's a keeper.
And BBD you're obviously smarter than you sound.
And you are obviously as thick as pig-shit with zero topic knowledge. We established this two days ago. Further demonstration is redundant.
Note the way the denier picks a single statement, takes it out of context, and repeats it. This is denialist non-argument.
Context:
- The model output you are waving around is surface average temperature
- It is generally higher than observations
- This is because in the real world, the rate of ocean heat uptake appears to have slightly increased since ~2000.
- Nobody expects this to continue indefinitely, and when it stops the rate of surface warming will increase *sharply* as the full effects of >400ppm CO2 are manifest.
- Add in the effects of energy returned to the surface by ocean circulation *also* heating the troposphere.
At this point, all the moronic denial about the models being “falsified” will look like, well, moronic denial.
Argument.
And now there will be various inane and stupid comments, all diversions, until the serious points raise at #70 are buried and join the list at #72.
This too, is standard denialist non-argument.
'Nobody expects this to continue indefinitely, and when it stops the rate of surface warming will increase *sharply* as the full effects of >400ppm CO2 are manifest.'
Sorry sunshine you are mistaken, natural variability is a force to be reckoned with.
Here's a story that Jeff might like to debate?
'EXCLUSIVE: THE Murray River from the Darling to the sea was listed as "critically endangered" in a final act of federal Labor.
'The Weekly Times can reveal Environment Minister Mark Butler added the Murray and associated wetlands, floodplains and groundwater systems to the threatened ecological communities list just before the Government entered caretaker mode.'
Inane and stupid comment #1
Natural variability is fluctuation around the mean climate state. It cancels over time and - since it is not a forcing - it does not produce long-term trends. Read a textbook. Or better still, just go away. You have never said anything, and you never will because your understanding of the topic is non-existent.
gordolocks present argument based upon a strawman:
the strawman of 'unnatural warming'.
Why is this, because humans are a part of the natural system thus any warming caused by the human population is entirely natural.
Those arguing the toss with us here fail to appreciate that humans operate within a natural system and are not outside it controlling it. Control in this instance means the ability to make a system act as we desire. Unfortunately we fall far short of that ability and continue to carry out an uncontrolled experiment on the Earth.
Please find a copy of this book What Has Nature Ever Done For Us?: How Money Really Does Grow On Trees and read, learn and inwardly digest.
I don't expect you, Cox or Luke to understand the import of all that any time soon though. Prove me wrong.
Still waiting for Luke to make his point.
When you're ready son...
Hey Jeff!
Yr. No. 52
You know, Jeff, ol' buddy the above comment was such a good one, it inspired me to write a little poem in its honor that celebrates the high-point of your scientific career:
JEFFS LITTLE ADVENTURE
Algonquin's wilds
Aimed Jeff to chart
A trek we'll call
"Die Grosse Fahrt"
And since our Jeff
Thought global warm
Wreaked everywhere
Its scary harm
He mused the stroll
Would balmy be
And planned his trip
Accordingly
****
So off set Jeff
All bright and bold
When suddenly
"Things" got real cold!
But Jeff was not
At all abashed
And at the chill
Credentials flashed!:
"A smarty-pants
Am I and got
A model here
That says it's hot!"
There then ensued
A merry fuss
In which Jeff proved
The eco-wuss
And lost his nerve
Just 'cuz some toes
Picked then--"Oh great!"--
To get all froze
And turning tail
Jeff nature fled
Preferring what
His model said
***
The moral to
This silly tale?
"Mother Nature
Must not prevail!"
And so Jeff's route
Scored him a trough
With title grand--
An "Endowed Prof"!
Hahahaha!
gordolocks did expel (from 7th rock from the sun at a guess):
Well I agree, carbon capture is a mass delusion with those who want to inject it underground (unknown unknowns and all that) for part of the real answer lies in the soil.
And before you go off on one, CC - yes I know, but then you are nearly always ambiguous and careless with language, and quotes too.
, you join the in-illustrious club with this as there signature tune where you can find refuge and also loll around like that arch loller Karen.
A literally lengthy diversion by mike.
Silence re #70 from the trolls. But the awkward stuff is fast disappearing in our wake, so they will be back out soon.
Denialist non-argument in action.
Lionel
That's the braying of Teh Stupid celebrating its own existence.
Aw c'mon Lionel, everyone needs hobby.
BBD
Indeed and present in this sad story .
And look who takes centre stage, none other than Richard Lindzen who gets more dissection as the result of some madness at Bishop Hill's (aka Cardinal Puff - Dragons and all that)..
Back a few pages #86 on page 21 I raised awareness of a post at Eli's and Lotharsson noted how interesting that was in the next post #87.
A development late last night, UK timing, was the entrance oif one Jim Lakely setting himself up, foot mouth and all that as both John Mashey and caerbannog put Lakely straight. If that latter is at all possible that is.
To make watching developments unfold easier here is a repeat of the link
There Is No Free Lunch, But How About Two Free Dinners and Your Name on the Heartland Institute's NIPCC Report..
These HI folk do like to keep digging don't they.
Great poem on Little Napoleon Mike" :-) The natural philosohy had von Schelling quality. ;-)
'carbon capture is a mass delusion with those who want to inject it underground'
I agree.
Fuck, the trolls are thick at present.
Aye, 'twere always thus. There's no evidence of a thinning trend.
I see Trenberth is predicting more hotspots and wetspots:
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/19/new-ipcc-report-leaked-a-bit-humans…
They're on the move so hard to pin down. What are the odds the next wetspot turns up in BBD's trousers?
Yeah, to match the area between his ears, lol
Oh look..........there is that filthy bestializer @93
I am sure BBD will be able to keep you out.
As I predicted, more inane drivel from the deniers. They will keep it up until we go on to the next page of comments, then they will simply repeat their debunked lies once again.
This sort of intellectual dishonesty is why denier trolls are universally regarded as scum. The amusing part is that when they are treated as scum, they whine.
Oh, let's just get it over with.
LOL, eh, karen? You Einstein, you.
My no. 82
Fair's fair. My little poem was based on impressions gained from my reading of some exchanges on this blog between Jeff and another. However, I've since read an article about Jeff's trip that shows I did not exactly understand the particulars of Jeff's Algonquin trip. Hence my poem may not leave an accurate impression of Jeff and his Algonquin experience (e. g., the trip's frosbite was of the face not the toes).
My apologies to Jeff for that and I ask the moderator to delete my no. 82.
While normally I consider it bad form to include within an apology anything but that apology, I will note that Jeff's no. 52, which inspired my little ditty (no. 82) contains some misrepresentations of moi:
-Contrary to Jeff's assertion, I do not regard myself as "a veritable expert in climate science" and I defy Jeff to provide evidence to demonstrate his assertion.
-Contrary to Jeff's assertion, I do not regard myself to be a "bona fide expert in atmospheric science" and I defy Jeff to provide evidence to demonstrate his assertion.
-Contrary to Jeff's assertion, my thought processes cannot be characterized in terms of the "less education I have in a field the more I think I know about it" and defy Jeff to provide evidence to demonstrate his assertion.
-Contrary to Jeff's assertion, I do not show "deep signs of Dunning-Kruger affliction" and defy Jeff to provide evidence to demonstrate his assertion.
Sorry, Jeff, but I'm a "vet" of the Deltoid blog's gamesmanship and have found my previous offers of good-faith apologies to have been perceived by others as a sign of weakness and a "dog-whistle" invitation for yet another one of Deltoid's patented, tag-team pack-attacks. So as a precaution, if you should get all "assy" in your reaction to my apology, I've included a "bill of particulars" where you've mischaracterized myself.
Sorry, it has to be like that, Jeff, but I've been "bitten" before and prefer not to be "bitten" twice. Nevertheless, my apology is sincere and well-intended--I hope you accept it as such.
My no. 1
The comment numbers, referenced in my above comment refer to comments on the previous page.
I note Gordon has no answer of any consequence to the Aussie conspiracy cranks (see~16 & ~18 previous page) and his & his Co.'s place in that operation, preferring instead to divert attention with an ad hom against The Guardian newspaper and a pointless non-anecdote about the article's author Graham Redfearn instead,.
But despite the obvious diversion and gutless avoidance, the language about "re-educating the masses" and "debriefing brainwashed youth" and his "heros (sic) of the revolution" suggests Gordon and Co. are up to their necks in conspiraloon ideation.
And you can't argue with cranks. They occupy a fantasy reality with its own set of "facts".
Luke: in your own time mate.
He won't engage. He knows what will happen if he does.
Mike, I thought that your poem was actually quite funny, although I think that you could do many more useful things with your time than that.
Betula has tried to hang the Algonquin trek I made around my neck like a millstone for more than year now, ever since it was posted on the web site of the research center where I work. Climate change was only a small addendum theme as of course I would have to conduct research there to elucidate any ecological effects at biome boundaries. The main point is that there are plenty of studies showing effects of warming at larger spatial scales on biodiversity - Betty just doesn't read the primary literature and chose to ignore it. But the main reason I did the hike was as a challenge to be the first to cross the park in winter on one set of supplies. I'll probably be crucified for saying that, too.
As far as climate change goes, given all of the bluster from the deniers here, one would think that major scientific bodies and organizations are deeply divided over the issue. But the only real controversy emerges from weblogs, most of which are set up and operated by a bunch of non-scientists. Most of them clearly have a political axe to grind, and despite trying to give the impression that they are independent thinkers who care about science, their continual referral to garbage spewing from corporate funded think tanks and lobbying groups - as well as their often quite blatant affiliation with them - reveals their true colors. Yet still, we are expected to believe that the AGW debate is about science when this is pure and utter bullshit. Its about profit and public policy and always has been. If the deniers would stop lying about this and tell the truth - that they are distorting science to promote their own libertarian/right wing agendas - then at least we'd be seeing the debate for what it is. But they still try and convince us that its all about science, and this coming from a bunch of Dunning-Kruger educated wannabes.
Many of them post on Deltoid. And yet not a single denier here has a professional qualification in anything remotely scientific. And, to reiterate, every major scientific organization and every National Academy in every nation on Earth has released statements affirming the reality of AGW and its potentially serious consequences. Juxtapose that with a bunch of scientifically illiterate hacks and its easy for me to decide where I stand.
So if there is no warming why is this and paying particular attention to the QuickTime clip between Fig1 and Fig2?
One has to be selectively ignorant to ignore the evidence here.
Inside a tornado - Milan July 2013.
Jeff,
Yr. no. 9,
Thanks so much for your gracious reply--I appreciate it!
And let me add, Jeff, when I actually read the article about your Algonquin trek, I came to realize that it was quite an achievement--especially for two "50 somethings". We may have our philosophical differences, Jeff, but that doesn't prevent me from acknowledging and admiring your remarkable feat of endurance and, even, daring. Indeed, that's what prompted my apology--after reading the article I realized I'd been "razzing" you about a first-class, solid accomplishment and felt like a jerk about my prior conduct.
Let me add that you originally deserved a more effusive and particularized apology, but, for the reasons given in my earlier comment, I'm a little guarded and "skittish" when it comes to apologies on this blog.
But let me try and make amends and, belatedly, Jeff, for what it's worth, offer your Algonquin adventure a hearty "Bravo!"
Well, hats off to mike.
You mean they're not trying to remake Australia as a country run by retired loons?
Evidence we live in a cooling Earth.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Its the coldest Arctic Summer since records began.
But the clincher for me is
http://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2013/08/heineken-sales-hit-by-cold-wea… :-)
Meanwhile some of the anti frackers of Balcombe have been interviewed.
http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/exclusive/4596/i-met-the-frack…
Some of them sound more articulate than Shrek or rhwombat while BBD, as he seems so stressed, anxious and upset should spend some time at Guineve's safe place to relieve some of that angst and tension.
Rednose #15 Do you know what the DMI link shows:
Calculation of the Arctic Mean Temperature
The daily mean temperature of the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel is estimated from the average of the 00z and 12z analysis for all model grid points inside that area.
Found the quip with the last photo here amusing:
http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/4630/balcombe-fracking-protest…
TB#17
Have you compared this years graph with the archived graphs for previous years on the left?
Seems lower this year during the Arctic Summer months than previous.
Pitiful, isn't it TB.
Oh look we're trending just a nano-smidgin below 2012, the hottest year on record!
Well fuck a well-fucked duck!
100:1 that Redarse hasn't a fucking clue, but he saw it on a denier blogscience site, assumed it emanated from Lawson's arse, then ran to tell us what he doesn't know.
As they all do.
There's no case apart from how fuckwitted do you have to be to spam denier junk interpretations of interpretations. But at least SpamKan has an equal to 'talk' to.
Found the whole article amusing.
Shrek#20
Any plans to join up with your friends at Balcombe.
I am sure you you will have lots to talk about.
Rednoise
Interesting how you lot feed off each other's silly memes. I just don't like liars. So you see the less affable and easygoing side of me here. But don't let me get in the way of any of your dishonest framing...
So I take it you can't explain why the models have failed. Close to 0 instantiations within the obs. Not long now boys,
You can't explain the missing trop hotspot
You can't explain the incorrect evap trend
You can't explain the Antarctic sea ice trend
You can't explain the centennial trends in internal variability now demonstrated inside GCMs
You can't defend the impact of running GCMs on direct machines and getting very different answers
Well you'll try - but you never expected any of it and now you're scrabbling for position. And you talk about denial.
Even if AGW is as bad as portrayed and it all works out - you guys are just flakes. No content all mouth. Or as Bob would say All hat. No cattle. You'd be the last bunch of fools to get any advice from.
Anyway - off to a downscaling meeting. Toodle pip. Sip your Kool Aid.
.
#22 And there you go again! Making stuff up!
Not surprised that nose is red. Cheeks too, I hope.
#24
Giiiiiiiish Gallop! Giddyup!
You were already shown how well the models match reality Luke.
But your problem is you don't 'do' reality.
You 'do' denier memes as your substitute reality.
'Elsewhere, One Nation accuses the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO of engaging in the corruption of science.'
I tend to agree and hope the marriage ends in divorce.
Like why the fossil fuel shills rely on ageing, raddled old arseholes like you, perhaps?
What the fuck do they think they're playing at, investing their customers' hard-earned money in that cretinous demographic baying for a world that can never be?
Whole lists of them. Yet when I provide links to the ever-growing list of comments Luke hasn't responded to substantively, he complains.
Reality inversion.
One [Crank] Nation.
* * *
#30 was in response to chek #27. Popup troll got in the way.
They tried bribing the laws of physics but it didn't pan out, so this is Plan B.
BBD#23
I think Guineve's calming influence is working. You haven't sworn on this page, yet.
Of course you 'agree'.
Gathering empirical data and having it analysed by experts in their field are anathema to cranks. They're your number one enemy in your battle with the real world - which you can never win, it must be said.
So I'm sure as shit that isn't your only 'agreement' with One Nation Under Cranks.
More Comrade Shrek. Balcombe is waiting for your rallying call.
If anybody cares about this cant, Stoat has a detailed post.
Otherwise, file under "denialist confusion".
Rednoise
When I feel like saying fuck, I will say it. Meanwhile, see #23.
I know you have difficulties scrolling up, so just click the link.
Redarse:
God but I despise your prissy, self-righteous, hot-house flower fuckwittery and your petit bourgeois attempts at tone control Redarse.
"Crank Nation"?
#38 Yup, me too.
Fuckittyfuckittyfuck.
Heh - Redarse will suck and splooge whatever the deniers deposit in his mouth, and then complain about language. Must be a blindspot that masks what he actually does from his sensibilities.
'So I’m sure as shit that isn’t your only ‘agreement’ with One Nation Under Cranks.'
That's it.
The marriage of convenience between BoM and the CSIRO helped give political structure to the Department of Climate Change (Klimatariat).
Read what Judith Curry said on the other page and you will understand how the system works here too.
Many of these scientists are playing high priests and should be sacked.
Oh look at this. Another ex-Cold War warrior wannabee looking for "Reds" under his Chinese quilted bed.
I have, and greater wrath hath no man than a woman who thinks she deserved the plaudits Mike Mann received.
The fact that he did what nobody had done before seems to roll off her back, like much else in her under-achieving life, I suspect. But, like many entitled-feeling American women,. she wasn't satisfied with what she had, or could achieve.
You'll note well that none of her bitterness make it into peer reviewed criticism, only into her two-bit bog comments. Or perhaps you're the fuckwit demographic she's aiming at who aren't capable of understanding the difference.
This is, in essence, conspiratorial ideation (love that phrase).
Who is going to sack the laws of physics? And how, exactly?
* * *
I had to smile when Eli once referred to JC as "Judy in the attic".
I'll add that having tangled with Curry personally at Kloor's and Real Climate in the fallout from her attempt to plug Pope Montford's book several years ago, I realised hat she's an intellectual lightweight. And speaking as an intellectual lightweight myself, that's pretty damning.
'The fact that he did what nobody had done before'
His hockey stick was impressive and ended up being used around the world as a propaganda exercise.
His hockey stick was broadly correct. All later work confirms that the second half of the C20th was the warmest period in ~2ka. You are the one engaging in propaganda here.
'Who is going to sack the laws of physics? And how, exactly?'
Politicians are not scientists and will give less weight to the 'precautionary principle' as temperatures have been flat for more than a decade.
'His hockey stick was broadly correct.'
C'mon he fudged it and the bloody thing ended up in the IPCC.
You left out that subsequent studies have only reinforced his ground-breaking work, and that the world is now (literally) up to its arse in hockey sticks.
But we all understand the heap big ju-ju it represents to you fuckwits.
Why do you keep repeating this shite?
I think it's because you can understand memes, but are congenitally unable to understand facts.
No, he didn't "fudge it". This entire framing is dishonest. It was broadly correct and has been confirmed by every millennial reconstruction since.
* * *
The troposphere isn't the climate system and you are yet again repeating debunked rubbish which dovetails with the misguided "models are falsified" meme.
Eh, what chek said. Sorry chek, we crossed twice.
If it's natural variability, why are recent decades the warmest in 2000 years? What *kind* of variability? Where's the energy coming from? It ain't the ocean releasing ancient solar forcing because the ocean is warming, not cooling (as it must, if it gave up stored energy to warm the troposphere).
You believe in magic, Gordy.
BBD @ #56: In most civilised arena that would be classed as hoisting Gordon by his own petard. Check and mate.
Unfortunately, here he will deliberately pretend to not realise it, ignore basic laws of physics, hope nobody notices (guffaw) and carry on as if his anus isn't hanging out of his trousers.
'Why do you keep repeating this shite?'
Most scientists agree that its been flat, do you know of any atmospheric scientist who says differently?
'If it’s natural variability, why are recent decades the warmest in 2000 years?'
The MWP was warmer.
Oh ffs. Thread dead. Good job clowns, there's officially no point talking anymore. Gordo, you're a pathetic lying sack of shit.
You only believe that due to Lamb's Central England reconstruction. You will NEVER comprehend that it wasn't supported by global data, primarily because you're a fuckwit.
And once again, the atmosphere isn't the sole store of solar energy, which, again you've been linked and informed of ad nauseam.
Data aren't really your thing, are they Gordon?
Watch out for those mongrels sniffing behind you, your anus is showing.
You are unfamiliar with the literature.
:-)
"I had to smile when Eli once referred to JC as “Judy in the attic”.
You don't get anything do you BBD; eli is the attic.
Nice titty comment though.
Fuck it!
Crossed again!
The know-nothings and the care-even-lesses aren't the only reason for being here Stu. There are those who can source good material which might otherwise be missed.
Cohenite
Any thoughts about the Snowball Earth question answered with correctly-defined terms yet?
For the sake of the lurkers, Idso is good to go.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
You never did respond to the clear evidence that the Idso clan are energy industry-funded misinformers.
Incontrovertible evidence.
Instead, you push links to said misinformers. That doesn't reflect well on you, Gordy.
Any lurkers, take note!
:-)
For the sake of the lurkers, Idso is good to go good to go if you're a crank seeking validation from a pseudoscientist.
Corrected that for you Gordon.
Sorry, I should have referenced #68. Here's an unanswered question from long ago:
Gordy
Whatever happened to your response to #93 page 16?
Those links Lionel A posted were:
http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dio…
Act like a proper journalist, Gordy. Not a third-rate hack.
It took him a long time to work his way up to being a fourth rate hack BBD. Don't expect any intellectual activity at this stage of his threadbare, arse-wagging career.
"It took him a long time to work his way up to being a fourth rate hack BBD."
Far from being an ad hom, I think many would agree that Gordon's intellectual rigour, as displayed here. would be fully engaged if not swamped by a cat up a tree story.
Now now. I'm simply saying that he's behaving like a third-rate hack. This doesn't necessarily imply that Gordy couldn't write good copy on cats-up-trees stories. It's what happens next that is disquieting.
* * *
Speaking of which, Gordy, have you read those referenced references yet? I'm interested in your defence of the Idsos as unbiased, independent champions of scientific communication. As opposed to their being shills.
'Any lurkers, take note!'
Forget the politics of climate change and who is funding who, just read what the scientists say about the MWP.
I did. They said is wasn't as warm as the latter half of the C20th.
Which "scientists" are you reading?
Here is just one scientist who says it was 2 degrees warmer in England during the MWP.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_korttajarvi.php
Here, again, is the latest.
PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia
Funny thing I just noticed. Serves me right for being bored. Luke's list of things-the-models-got-wrong.
How come his list never includes the one model series that everyone agrees is completely, breathtakingly, inadequate? Arctic sea ice. http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b017744cf5360970d-pi
In England. Not *globally*.
The trick Isdo's site plays is to present a large array of local reconstructions all of which happened at different times.
If you want to stop being a third-rate hack and start being a journalist, then keep digging. Look at this. Already linked on this thread. Come on, Gordy!
Lurkers also note: Lake Korttajarvi is not in England, or indeed the UK.
Gordon's stumped by how the cat even got a ladder to get up there.
This is a very literate thread, except for BBD who promised Donne, Rochester and Eliot but has delivered nothing!
You're a hollow man BBD!
But my headpiece is not filled with straw!
But since you prefer to irrelevance to discussion of your gaffes about negative feedback and more, it was Donne for the thought required, Eliot for the message and Rochester for the c__t.
:-)
So, Cohenite
Any thoughts about the Snowball Earth question answered with correctly-defined terms yet?
Or would you rather discuss poetry and poets?
...On a climate blog?
Never mind, I'm going to bed.
Did anybody post a link to this?
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/how-australias-big-wet…
"“In late 2010, early 2011, there was a whole series of flooding events in Queensland, in Victoria, in the Northern Territory – and then tropical cyclone Yasi hit northern Queensland,” said David Karoly, professor of meteorology at the University of Melbourne. “If you look at the area of Australia and the amount of water that fell, it's not surprising that it had an impact on global sea levels.”"
Cohenite's ludicrous mis-perception of current trends in sea level rise is based on a trend calculated from a period that ends with the 7mm dip in sea levels caused by the Australian big wet.
The very definition of intellectual dishonesty.
Unlike Gordo the Clown, Cohenite is deadly serious with his false assertions.
Deadly. As are you.
So lots of sledging but no answers.
Come on guys these are serious assertions. It's not a gish gallop. It's a collation of serious issues.
Can you please help me answer the questions. I'm interested in any serious answers.
I just showed that your assertions about sea level rise are false.
You can either IKYABWAI, or you could grow up and show your evidence that I have asserted something that is not true.
It seems to me that somebody who feels the need to invent qualifications is likely not a reliable conveyor of fact.
Luke's questions are all answered here:
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators
Here:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Climate-change-tr…
Here:
http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding.aspx
And here:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/
If you manage to take on board the basics, which barely requires a bit of high school science, you could advance to reading and discussing some primary research.
Informing yourself would save the rest of us wading through your tedious and uninformed blather.
Gawd I hate puerile acronyms. Since you have loitered at Jo's you know my answers to KR about sea level are there; read 'em, chew on em and then do whatever else you guys do.
I note that Fatso and Co are still pretending that the "hockey stick" trajectory is not valid.
Perhaps they missed the latest independent verification of Mann's work which shows that he was right all along:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html
More here:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/08/2261531/most-comprehensive-…
Puerile acronyms cover puerile behaviour. If you can't back your assertions with fact, you get what you deserve.
The fictitiously-qualified Cohenite thinks its ignorant assessment of sea level rise is correct and that relevantly-qualified CSIRO scientists (who are reputable in ways no lawyer could ever be) are wrong.
Dunning-Kruger in action.
You're an ignorant buffoon, Cohenite - your assertions are frequently wrong, they are clearly informed by belief and not by fact, and it is a trivial exercise finding evidence showing this to be so.
For all el gordo's blather, including ironically asserting claims based on very thin evidence against rebuttals derived from a much larger set of evidence in a beautiful illustration of inversion of reality, I'm still waiting for any sign of acknowledgement that he lied about "NASA accepting the word of a cartoonist".
I'm comfortable calling it a lie in the absence of additional evidence, because el gordo is self-allegedly a former journalist, so one would expect him to be able to engage in basic English comprehension. And basic English comprehension reveals that the link he provided relied not on anyone's "word" but on three different papers, none of which were co-authored by John Cook. Or el gordo could admit he made a basic error in English comprehension, a key capability at the core of his alleged former profession.
:)
"Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN’s climate claims and its scientific methods."
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ - Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001
‘The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!’ -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 – Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” – declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications. (LINK) & (LINK)
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
UN IPCC Lead Author Tom Tripp Dissents on man-made warming: ‘We’re not scientifically there yet’ – July 16, 2009
The UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s claim that the UN IPCC is an “very open” also needs examining. The IPCC summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The UN is all about politics.
UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s alleged global warming “consensus,” according to a May 10, 2007 article. Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?
Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton, accused the UN of “censorship” on July 23, 2008. “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.
Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.
Here is a small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN IPCC’s “very open” process.
(Below are excerpts from various U.S. Senate reports which Climate Depot’s Morano authored during his years at the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.)
One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN's] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar concluded.
Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.
Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.
In addition, a Greenpeace activist co-authored a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace, was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN’s policy prescriptions.
The UN IPCC’s own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.
In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party’s convention platform battle – not a scientific process. During an IPCC Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for Policymaker’s process on January 24, 2007.
McIntyre wrote: “So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.”
Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained. He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”
Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher: “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on…
:) :) :) :) :)
"Scientists are struggling to explain why global warming seems to have slowed down in the last decade in a leaked draft of the UN’s next big report on climate change.
The intergovernmental study claims scientists are 95 per cent sure that humans are to blame for climate change, but presently they have not come up with a unified reason for why global surface temperatures have not risen as predicted in the past 15 years.
According to the unpublished draft document, scientists believe volcanic ash, less heat from the sun and more heat being absorbed by oceans could explain the mystery.
Set for release in October 2014, the AR5 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) includes a number of explanations for the slow-down in global warming.
The Met Office told Fox News that while global temperatures rose quickly during the 1970s, the trend appears to have become flat during the last 15 years, with some parties claiming global warming has stopped all together."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2398753/Why-HAS-global-w…
:) :) :) :) :)
Record Events For The Past 4 Weeks - National US
http://wx.hamweather.com/maps/climate/records/4week/us.html?cat=maxtemp…
Looks like Karen is intent on proving BBD's predictions correct...
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
SNOWFALL closed a number of roads on the Australian West Coast today.
http://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/1717153/snowfall-causes-road-closur…
:) :) :) :) :)
Major Danish Daily Warns: “Globe May Be On Path To Little Ice Age…Much Colder Winters…Dramatic Consequences”!
http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/09/major-danish-daily-warns-globe-may-b…
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
'Lurkers also note: Lake Korttajarvi is not in England, or indeed the UK.'
Thanx BBD I had to rush out on another job and .... my bad. You would make a good editor.
"You would make a good editor."
Yeah.........for the ipcc.........lol
Craig none of your offerings are anywhere near an answer to my question. And time series of couple of years with no errors bars are hardly convincing of anything.
Karen - I have to say most of the experts on your list are appalling. Some are OK - but McLean - pullease.... have some decency.
'Did anybody post a link to this?'
Sir, sir.... I did and remember saying it was plausible.
Luke, the same could be said for the other side of the coin, the dumbtoids will luv you for comment tho :)
'...somebody who feels the need to invent qualifications is likely not a reliable conveyor of fact.'
You mean like Boris and Wombat?
Has anyone seen the flaccid old taxi driver around ?
I fear that he may have eaten another semi decomposed crow again :)
Luke what do you make of BJ's link?
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html
They are disappearing the MWP with a consortium.
No. I meant like Cox, Monckton, and McLean.
Unreliable, the lot of them.
Snow.
In the middle of winter.
At the point of Australia closest to Antarctica.
Gee whiz, that's almost completely unheard of.
'Unreliable, the lot of them.'
You are entitled to your opinion, but you are wrong.
That's good Craig.
Nothing unusual happening. It's just weather blah blah blah. It does appear from the raw data of the last 15 to 17 years that you may have hit the nail on the head with that comment to Karen above.
Its a pity for you lot that some of the CAGW media stars saw fit to use the opposite 'not unusual' weather events to try and argue their case.
Your new friend Luke has asked some good questions and as he points out you have offered very little in the way of evidence based answers that contain updated data. Trotting out out-dated time series graphs using basic statistical methodology is something that you and Lotharrson sneered at further upthread in relation to Ove Humlum and Climate4You.
Can I please ask that the moderators cease holding back my comments from some imaginary gaffe they falsely claimed I committed several months ago? I couldn't have used a 'sock' because at the time I didn't even know what a 'sock' was in the blogosphere. I have not broken any rules so this behaviour is now looking more like cowardice and spite. This does not create a good look folks.
I will admit el gordo is correct: the likes of Monckton, McLean and Cox are reliably wrong.
Craig.
Yes, KarenMackSunspot's actually being a teeny little bit mendacious by saying "Australian" rather than "Tasmanian".
Waratah is in Tasmania, not mainland Australia as his post seems to imply, and July-August is the time of year that Tasmania usually experiences is heaviest snows. The thing is that this year's snow fall has been paltry indeed compared with the regular dumpings of decades ago. Mt Wellington's current dusting of icing-sugar is a sad shadow of the August blankets that it used to have in the past.
We should thank KarenMackSunspot for drawing to everyone's attention the fact that the signature of global warming is very clear in Tasmania's climate.
I started reading Karne's list of alleged ' scientists' who question SAGW and the first was a guy called Kenneth P. Green. This Kenneth P. Green is one and the same fellow in the employ of right wing corporate funded Fraser Institute in Canada.
All Karen did here was (as usual) shoot her-him-itself in the foot. As I said yesterday, there's hardly a notable denier out there who does not have some affiliation with a corporate think tank or lobbying group. Truth is, there are very, very few deniers with any kind of scientific pedigree at all. That's why Karen and Fatso have repeatedly pasted up nonsense here from a bunch of clowns. They are forced to try and legitimize the views of those outside academia or on the academic fringe who tend to do very little (if any) science but who spend a lot of time writing on blogs. McClean, Humlum, Monckton, Green, and others who they regularly cite here all have appallingly bad or non-existant publishing records in the peer-reviewed journals.
To repeat what i said yesterday, the broad scientific consensus over AGW and its potential harm to the natural and material economies is clearly illustrated by the fact that every major scientific organization on Earth verifies it. Every single one. No exceptions. And these prestigious bodies have based their views on the peer-reviewed literature in leading journals, not on the views of cranks and pseudo-intellectuals on the fringe. That leaves nobodies like Karen and Fatty scraping up the dregs of garbage from a slew of right wing think tanks and from cranks and trying tom package this spew as being sound science.
Get a life Fatty. You too Karen. Or sign up t attend an international conference or workshop on climate and/or environmental science and learn something, instead of sitting behind your computer monitors and tapping out endless streams of gibberish.
"the broad scientific consensus over AGW"
Hi JeFfErY, there is one small little problemmmm sweety :)
The climate is not doing what your team of experts have predicted, the proof is in the temperature gauge honey :)
poor old barnturd is constantly alarminising about his personally seeing agw up close and surrounding his hovel, here are the BOM's history of the hick city that lies just a stones throw NE from the sty that he resides.
Anyone can clearly see that by going all the way back to 1882 nothing has changed, maybe he should change his name to returd.
Mean minimum temperature (°C) http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/cvg/av?p_stn_num=094029&p_prim_eleme…
and.........
Mean maximum temperature (°C) http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/cvg/av?p_stn_num=094029&p_prim_eleme…
Funnily enough, BoM's analysis of their own data is completely different from Karen's:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=e…
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=t…
So, let's ask ourselves - who is more likely to be correct?
- a scientific organisation staffed with well-qualified individuals?
- an anonymous, random crank on the internet?
Sorry, Karen, you lose.
Where's the abominable snowball Earth man? Santa Claus has answered my email and sent back amazing facts.
Spam - the notorious liar exposed above - thinks there's only one temperature guage. lol.
Vince the second link on temperature anomaly is interesting, accepted at face value, you can see the decline has already begun.
Also, its easy to spot the 'Great Climate Shift' of 1976 and now, half a cycle on, we can expect cooling in the coming decade.
Karen, The temperature gauge is doing exactly as has been predicted - and, more importantly, nature has been responding. If you bothered to get your head out of your rear orifice, you'd find a huge body of literature reporting changes in species distributions, voltinism, phenology, etc. in response to climate change, All of your fake posturing cannot trump this evidence which is indisputable.
Moreover, there's the little problem of scale. We've been over this many times before, but it clearly hasn't sunk into your uneducated little noggin.
"voltinism"
hmmmm.........I suspect that you have only recently leart that word JeFfErY
oooopsie daisy ..........."n"
"The temperature gauge is doing exactly as has been predicted "
Not to mention the height gauge:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/08/the-looming-peri…
Following on from previous discussion, the sea level anomaly at the time of the Oz wet. This from BoM.
'Australian temperatures from late 2010 to mid-2012 were kept relatively cool by two major La Niña events and record high rainfall which gave rise to widespread flooding affecting much of the country.
'The cooler conditions were a direct result of the high rainfall during these two years. Widespread, excess rain over the continent effectively acts like a large evaporative cooler, suppressing daytime temperatures in particular, while additional cloud cover also cools daytime temperatures, especially in summer.
'The national mean temperature from September 2010 to August 2012 was 0.27 °C below the 1961–1990 average, while the rainfall was the highest on record with 1365 mm falling on Australia; against a 2-year average of just 930 mm.'
JeFfErY..............
You have steadfastly refused to demonstrate that the biotic responses to cc that are being noticed recently are out of the norm.
To me these apparent responses are insignificant, and without the opportunity to compare these to observations of the biota to prior planetary warmings what is the point?
The world has warmed before JeFfErY
"while the rainfall was the highest on record with 1365 mm falling on Australia; against a 2-year average of just 930 mm."
hmmmm................I doubt that the "rainfall was the highest on record",
OIne thing for sure is that none of the floods broke records.
When I look at Karen's linked graph it doesn't show any comparisons - just one year of data. So firstly, Karen has posted links that don't support her arguments.
When I (say) select the 1980-2010 30 year average it shows me a comparison in a table at the bottom with the full data set average. That comparison shows that 30 year period was distinctly warmer than the average over the full data set. So secondly, Karen has linked to a site that refutes her own argument.
Clown trolling indeed.
I suspect SpamKan is as bumbling and inept in everything else as in the long lasting clownshow here.
Karen can't seem to decide whether to go for "it's not warming" or "Sure it's warming, but ...". That internal debate could rage for years. It sure would be nice if she refrained from arguing with herself here until she figures out which position to plump for.
#34 Lotharsson.............nithe twy Lothy
'...none of the floods broke records.'
IThe rainfall was widespread.
Noice satire from Wedd.
Sheesh gordolocks! Don't you bother reading anything that is inconvenient for your narrative indicated by this from your #50 page 23.
Before which I had pointed you to this at my #10 page 23 and this sometime earlier at #40 page 21 .
What's up gordolocks having trouble keeping up thereby simply repeat the same ol' garbage time and time again. If it were not for the way lurkers here can be informed by the citing of accurate sources aimed at you also then you would be a waste of space and not worth bothering with.
Same goes for the other deadbeats here, you know who you are and so do we. Keep up the digging folks, it seems that it is already too late for you to climb out - pride, face or whatever. Hubris has been the downfall of empires and the one you are trying to prop up is falling into disrepair bit by bit.
Indeed BBD, and it isn't as if gordolocks has not been pointed at correctives about the Idso's. Thus gordolocks is either a complete idiot or a completely corrupt lying idiot.
So BoM is no good?
I think it is about time that Timmy does something about the agw trollz and cranks festering this blog.
"So BoM is no good?"
snow good at all el,
Did you know that they have never and still don't record snowfall in oz?
Which, Kraken, is completely undermined by all that melting ice globally. Tell me oh clever-cloggs how much heat does it take to change one gram of ice into water vis a vis raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Kelvin?
Now think about what that means, and there is even more to this process than indicated by the above for the ice has to get to melting point first. Oh and whilst on it, what is another name for that point?
#38 el gordo
Hey el, :)
Do you know where BOM hide's the historical yearly rainfall data, charts, graphs ect ?
anyone ?
cox the fox WRT Wedd,
Oh my, and AGW is caused by an increase in pirates!
"hich, Kraken, is completely undermined by all that melting ice globally. "
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.wi…
Looks average to me sweetie :)
'Did you know that they have never and still don’t record snowfall in oz?'
I took a look and you appear to be correct. Its a disgrace.
Which silly quip indicates to me that you would be better off spending time education yourself about the numerous processes that go to make the natural world as we know it and less time regurgitating massive amounts of vacuous verbiage from tendentious blogs and denier/delayer owned or policed media organs. It isn't as if over time you have not been made aware of remedial sources.
It might be here, Karen.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/
Pulled this out to illustrate the rain was widespread and could have reduced sea level.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest…
el, I would like to see a BOM historical yearly total rainfall chart, not something we need to know obviously.
This chart indicates that Victoria has not had rainfall records broken recently,
http://www.melbournewater.com.au/images/water_storages/Annual_Inflow_Ch…
KarenMackSunspot says:
Sometimes one wonders why these fools even try to pretend that they have a clue.
These were easily found in about 15 seconds. They're all worth reading to the end...
http://www.southperisher.org.au/weather/chart/all/
http://www.onthesnow.com.au/australia/mt-buller/historical-snowfall.html
http://www.onthesnow.com.au/australia/thredbo-alpine-resort/historical-…
http://members.pcug.org.au/~terryg/Snowdepth.pdf
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/mpaine/snow.html
KarenMackSunspot says:
Sometimes one wonders why these fools even try to pretend that they have a clue.
These were easily found in about 15 seconds. They're all worth reading to the end...
http://www.southperisher.org.au/weather/chart/all/
http://www.onthesnow.com.au/australia/mt-buller/historical-snowfall.html
[conitnued next post]
http://www.onthesnow.com.au/australia/thredbo-alpine-resort/historical-…
[continued separately to skirt moderation of multiple links]
http://members.pcug.org.au/~terryg/Snowdepth.pdf
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/mpaine/snow.html
Yes, but they are not BoM.
"Yes, but they are not BoM."
Comprehension fail is a standard for barnturd.
It will be spring soon, barnturd will be screaming his puny lungs out that his apple tree has blossomed 33 seconds early.............lol
"Hidden" in plain sight. It took me two minutes to find what I think* Karen is asking for.
Conclusion: Karen is too stupid to use the internet.
* I say "think" because her burblings have become almost impenetrable, But I found historical maps covering Australia for each year back to 1900, and of course daily/monthly/annual data for individual stations is absurdly easy to find.
Karen can't manage to do something that is absurdly easy. News at 11:00....
Well c'mon Frank, spit out a link yer nuffie
A link to what, fucktard? Your question is so vague I would need to provide dozens of links to cover all possibilities.
What exactly do you want? National, regional, single station? Daily, monthly, Annual?
Ask a proper question and I'll give you a proper answer.
Oh, and feel free to ask nicely, fuckface. Who is doing who a favour?
Australian
National
Total
Historical
Yearly
Rainfall
Thank you dear Francis :)
I hope I didn't confuse you DeeDee by putting the big words out of order :)
Can't you find anybody to help Frank ?
sheeezzzzzzzzzz .......don't ask barnturd...lol
Luke
Not only was your list a Gish Gallop, it was a GG of denialist misrepresentations and confusions. For example, can you find me any atmospheric scientist in good standing (ie not a fringe "contrarian" spouting bollocks) who has published a study stating that the tropospheric "hot spot" is missing?
Or is this meme only to be found on crank blogs like Nova?
Be sure to answer me on this point.
Everything you *think* is a problem for the standard position simply isn't - except in the clueless, confused, deluded world of denialism.
Far from being "on my side" you have taken to megaphoning this denialist misinformation around the internet while claiming it represents fundamental problems with science you do not understand.
Remember, I know you are essentially clueless because of our little chat a few days ago. So I know you are simply posturing while parroting rubbish gleaned from crank blogs.
This is stupid, contemptible and dangerous. Far from being some brave seeker after truth you are a dupe now effectively shilling for the energy industry. FFS grow up, recognise the utter folly of what you are doing, and stop it.
Gordy
What about the Idsos and the fossil fuel-funded misinformation?
Answer the question please.
cohenite
Desperately emailing your chums for some help with the homework, eh? Well, you need all the help you can get.
Why don't you post whatever your handlers have provided you with and we'll look it over?
I'm going out now, so there's no rush. You might even want to read the material and attempt to understand it before posting it up here.
Gosh, I didn't respond instantly, so Karen thinks I need help.
Actually, watching "Vikings" is much more interesting that watching Karen wave her pathetic ignorance about.
But since she asked, graphs start here. I'm sure even Karen can manage to work out how to increment them forward.
Frank.............snot there
Not really: the records are there. And there's a reason why BoM doesn't collect them.
Do you know what it is?
no
drum roll for barnturd,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.....................
That's just great barnturd !!!!
You have forgotten already
BBD - no matey - you had peer reviews publications from me and LOTS of them. Nobody has responded. And quite a lot NOT gleaned from denier sites.
I now know that you're clueless and can't step up. Your ram-raid technique and bluster has left me utterly unimpressed.
Realclimate was shrill about the trop hotspot. Ya gotta know it's hurting. Nobody is going to publish a study showing the hotspot is missing - it's core mantra - moreover Sherwood's paper desperately try to run the uncertainty ruse to prove it exists. John Cook turned himself inside out on the hotspot. Frankly you have never looked into it.
Energy industry - what shit - most of our prominent Aussie deniers are doing what they do coz they hate your guts or are just ornery mavericks. They think you're a trillion dollar wasting watermelon greenie commie pinko. It's ideological - you have to get beyond that.
You ought be able to demolish my list in a workman like fashion. You can't except to slag it off - this just shows how much of a devotee you are.
You guys have no objectivity left here. And fancy barking about the end of the world when lots of the AGW ecological studies are the result of running a dodgy bunch of GCM runs with PLUS or MINUS effects (!?!?!) on equally dodgy species extinction models. End of world bullshit.
It is your abject failure to indulge a mature debate that is stupid, contemptible and dangerous. If AGW is a hazard we need a massive improvement in science standards or the deniers will have a field day - if they have not already done so. Your devotion to authority is nauseating. Try thinking.
I'm not shilling for the energy industry. In fact anything written on here counts a big fat ZERO in the serious policy mix. Nobody fucking cares a hoot what you guys think. It's just a debating club. You're not saving the world. It's an enclave. A ghetto for those who who have signed on ideologically and switched their brains off.
Conspiratorial ideation?
Check.
Failure to understand how science works?
Check.
Failure to understand the hotspot is core physics (let alone core climate science), so anyone who shows it is missing is arguably in with a shot at a Nobel Prize?
Check.
Failure to understand the hotspot is independent of AGW, therefore using its presence or absence to cast doubt on AGW is fallacious?
Check.
Failure to understand that, given the above, if the hotspot isn't unambiguously present in the data then the data itself is highly suspect?
Check.
Repeating all of this despite having had the errors in it pointed out here just recently?
Check.
Better trolls, please.
Karen:
My link is to what Karen asked for - historical yearly rainfall data. If Karen did not get what she wanted, perhaps this is because she asked the wrong question.
Me:
If Karen cannot clearly articulate what she wants, that is hardly my problem. Anyway, Ragnar Lothbrok is paused and more interesting that this, so I'm checking out, but I'll be back tomorrow to see if Karen managed to formulate a coherent and complete requirement. If she can manage that, I'm sure the BOM website can provide the information she thinks she wants.
(And while we're at it, add blatant lies that "Nobody has responded." to that list.)
Luke continues to write pure unadulturated garbage:
"They think you’re a trillion dollar wasting watermelon greenie commie pinko. It’s ideological"
Sure is. The far end of the political right who hate science are bastardizing it to bolster policies aimed at eviscerating public constraints in the pursuit of private profit. Hence why huge amounts of corporate money are being invested in third parties - public relations companies, think tanks and the internet - all aimed at downplaying the science and sowing doubt. And there's a huge amount of evidence to back that up. The 'greenie communist' bullshit is conjured up out of thin air - no evidence at all. But its all you sordid lot have left.
Karen opines, "To me these apparent responses are insignificant"
To YOU?!?!?!? OMG, yes, we do need better trolls. Who the hell are you to say whether these changes are significant or not? Gosh, you bolster your D-K credentials with every post. This kind of insidious logic is typical of you clowns. Species and populations are indeed showing responses to recent warming events, and in some cases - indeed many - the effects on the demographics and local abundance of these organisms are very negative and indeed therefore worrying. There are many examples of range contractions or declines in numbers associated with warming. And Karen, a complete non-expert, claims that in their view its insignificant. Un-be-lievable.
As for voltinism, I do research on it in insects with multiple generations per year in relation to the ecology and phenology of their food plants. I have a paper just accepted in Journal of Animal Ecology on it and I am writing an invited paper on this (in part) in terms of landscape-level ecology. So yes, you dope, I know exactly what the term means. You clearly don't.
I supose you missed this JeFfErY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzJm-ZosEbo
"So yes, you dope, I know exactly what the term means. You clearly don’t."
I looked it up JeFfErY, it's nice to see that you have elevated yourself from seal sperm collector, well done.
oh deary me, I forgot was dealing with Jeff so I thought I had better put the qwote & link together for him.
"The ‘greenie communist’ bullshit is conjured up out of thin air"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzJm-ZosEbo
What's interesting about Luke's hotspot confusion is that it seems to be practically identical to Jo Nova's confusion. From memory she has near identical beliefs about it, also after repeated correction.
And Luke is also shilling for traffic on behalf of Ms. Nova. It's almost like he's a Nova by proxy...
Luke #78
Either irrelevant or demonstrably misunderstood by you.
There you go again. "The science isn't trustworthy!" Denier meme number one. And a lie. And you parrot it. You are a tool in both senses and too stupid and arrogant to recognise the fact.
Now, answer the fucking question you shifty little shit.
can you find me any atmospheric scientist in good standing (ie not a fringe “contrarian” spouting bollocks) who has published a study stating that the tropospheric “hot spot” is missing?
Or is this meme only to be found on crank blogs like Nova?
Be sure to answer me on this point.
Thought you'd dodge that one because it neatly illustrates the depth of your intellectual dishonesty.
So, I repeat: FFS grow up, recognise the utter folly of what you are doing, and stop it.
Lotharsson
Yes - Luke has been completely fooled by JN. A pitiful spectacle.
I have. And what do we find? Vested corporate interest paying the fucking bills. You are all tools but too stupid and insane to recognise the fact. You are being used. God you people are so fucking naive.
Lukle @ #78
"I’m not too stupid to realise I'm shilling for the energy industry".
Fixed that for you, Luke. Much more accurate.
BBD why you fucking stupid
It’s ideological – you have to get beyond that. I have. And what do we find? Vested corporate interest paying the fucking bills. You are all tools but too stupid and insane to recognise the fact. You are being used. God you people are so fucking naive.
not understand your text
BBD, why weak?
Now, answer the fucking question you shifty little shit. can you find me any atmospheric scientist in good standing (ie not a fringe “contrarian” spouting bollocks) who has published a study stating that the tropospheric “hot spot” is missing? Or is this meme only to be found on crank blogs like Nova? Be sure to answer me on this point. Thought you’d dodge that one because it neatly illustrates the depth of your intellectual dishonesty. So, I repeat: FFS grow up, recognise the utter folly of what you are doing, and stop it.
not understand your text
Fuck off, Boris-the-Freddy.
If you can't understand it, you are stupid.
Did you know that they have never and still don’t record snowfall in oz?’
Apparently the Met Office doesn't either in the UK... at least a cursory glance failed to find it. But then again why would they? It's just another form of precipitation.
Trop-hot-spot: http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
I'm amazed that there are still people why deny that AGW is happening. Haven't you got the message yet? That's so passé, nowadays you're supposed to be telling us that renewables don't work.
Sudden nasty smell of wet socks around here.
Luke, sweetheart...
Obvious and stupid blockquote fail is obvious.
BBD - look at yourself - screaming. Rabies can be cured.
The only reason you think those papers are irrelevant is because you are not very intelligent
It's apparent by now that you cannot answer these considerable flaws. You've been done like a dinner.
Nobody here has a decent response. Only abuse.
Turbo - Nova trashed and shat on Cook's rebuttal. It's piss weak and you my friend have not done your research. AGW may be happening but mate it not what the script says.
Turbo - yes renewables are shit. Expensive toys not fit for baseload. Just driving up your power bill be rent seeking do-gooders. There is no renewable baseload demonstration. Gun the Thorium reactors. Unlike your fucking useless droning on - BraveNewClimate is on point with that years ago. The systems analysis on renewables has been done.
Berendaneke - vested interest paying the bills - hahahahaha - AGW side on squadillion bucks (fucking massive eye watering amounts) versus evil energy industry/tobacco shills opposition - a few million. Really? Mavericks are doing it for free coz they hate your guts as pink commies in disguise and for pure sport.
So Deltoids shilling for the UN - a little enclave of closet commies - living on the Deltoid atoll - well really it's a leper colony isn't it - cut off from the mainstream - where the inhabitants think they're involved in changing policy or the world. You great big bunch of sookie wusses.
You're legends in your own imagination. Having Walter Mitty moments fighting the good fight. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Or best me and complete the sentence "The endless open threads on Deltoid are invaluable policy material because .............."
"In fact only the other day they changed the course of history because ................................"
Sounds of crickets. Paint peeling on the verandah. Letterbox fallen over. The endless Deltoid open thread - the The Fawlty Towers of blogdom.
Oh and Nova only provided one of my points. But you're all too fucking stupid to know that.
Sad Luke lost it.
All assertion and projection and no evidence - except that he's shilling for Nova's site, and Nova shills for Heartland, so it looks like that's what Luke the Stupid does too. If only he knew.
"Failure to understand that, given the above, if the hotspot isn’t unambiguously present in the data then the data itself is highly suspect?"
At this point - put your Mum on Lotharsson.
yes renewables are shit. Expensive toys not fit for baseload. Just driving up your power bill be rent seeking do-gooders. There is no renewable baseload demonstration.
Bless Luke, so you got the memo after all.
One word response: Germany.
Multi word response: do you know how many countries get more than 60% of their electricity from renewables? Answer: 45
chek - so you can't answer my questions can you (if we can remember what thye were now after all this nonsense) - creating a diversion and a weak one is the best you can do.
If she was shilling for Heartland I think she needs to up her rate and move into better digs. She's simply a disaffected maverick and hubby obviously disillusioned by the Greenhouse Office stint. Having been endured some of their processes - I think for good reason.
BTW I've only been banned at Novas about 3 times. My street creds are impeccable.
Courtesy of Brer Eli
Aside from The Rabetts selections, I chose this:
"We face many daunting challenges as a society, and they won’t all be solved with more science and math education. But what has been lost is an understanding that science’s open-ended, evidence-based processes — rather than just its results — are essential to meeting those challenges.
There always have been, and likely always will be cranks. The same applies to mavericks, although the two should never be confused as Luke is wont to do, because the latter generally respect science, while the former generally see it as an impediment to their agenda which must always be the primary concern. And meeting Frank's challenges of the future isn't going to come from confused, bandwagon cranks who don't even know whose or what agenda is enabling their crank ideas
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/the-price-of-moral-vanity-a-catalogue-…
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/renewable-power-a-ticking-bom…
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/the-major-physical-impossibil…
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/india-threatens-wind-farms-with-fines-…
You've just been ratfucked !
They're all over you on this - TonyOz for one will rip your ideas to shreds - he's over at Nova's or BraveNewClimate - go chance your arm - real power engineers versus Deltoid wankers - come on .....
What a fucking twat you are, Luke.
And you didn't answer the question.
BBD - I'm asking the questions not you - get back in line punk. You've had your turn.
Your 'creds' are dependent on what you say, currently here, not your putative antics on some other crank blog.
Which you then reference in support of your 'arguments'.
Can you see what's wrong with that picture?
What you are is a third-rate Mosher impersonator. We - or at least I - have heard your schtick before, but done much better. SM at least knows what he's talking about even though, like you, he is a crypto-denier.
Psst! The science is broken! Psst!
You are shilling for the energy industry but are simply too much of a plonker to see what you are doing. With hideous irony, you think you are being really clever. At least SM actually is clever.
#10
You never answered my questions, so away and fuck yourself!
;-)
Anyway, since you are being a knob-head, I will answer the question for you:
There are *no* reputable atmospheric scientists arguing that the "hot-spot" is missing. Not one. The only place this meme is aired is on crank denier blogs.
And you are parroting it. From this we can deduce that:
- You are clueless
- You are a denialist crank
Squawk! Pieces of eight!
Of course if there is no controversy and all you "experts" on here are so sure - you'll note that Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Carl Mears of Remote Sensing Systems and John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville seem to be having a debate here
http://www.climatedialogue.org/the-missing-tropical-hot-spot/ as to why we can't find the sucker !
And if you're confident after that - well adjust your tin foil hat. The science is settled - pigs bum it is.
BTW - that's what a science discussion looks like boy and girls. But I'm sure serious people would rather read here than over there. HAHAHAHAHAHA
Sucked in BBD. You've been played like the rube you are. What a fucking flake.
(Emphasis added).
Apart from the remarkable number of lies packed into that paragraph, there is a very serious problem with this. Your central claim (bold) is a conspiracy theory. Only denialist cranks peddle the lie that scientists are deliberately colluding to present a fake picture of AGW to the world, so you must be a crank.
The mask has slipped even further. And we see a nutter grimacing and gurning at us.
"There are *no* reputable atmospheric scientists arguing that the “hot-spot” is missing. Not one. The only place this meme is aired is on crank denier blogs."
I'm laughing so much I can hardly stand. Come in spinner.
John Christy. The man who, with Roy Spencer, fucked up the 2LT product so badly that UAH MSU atmospheric temperature reconstruction had to be completely withdrawn. For years it had been used to claim that there was no tropospheric warming. All that ended rather messily in 2005. Mears, oddly enough was co-author of the paper that brought UAH crashing down to Earth.
Why are you laughing, Luke?
There are *no* reputable atmospheric scientists arguing that the “hot-spot” is missing. Not one. The only place this meme is aired is on crank denier blogs.
You look like a total prat now. A denialist crank prat.
In one of those curious instances of serendipity that happen occasionally, while I was typing this @ #6: "There always have been, and likely always will be cranks. The same applies to mavericks, although the two should never be confused as Luke is wont to do, because the latter generally respect science, while the former generally see it as an impediment to their agenda which must always be the primary concern."
Luke was referring us in #7 to his go-to authority on renewables, blogger TonyOz, who tags his ... erm ... pieces thus:
Tagged: Base Load power, Climate Change Religion, Global Warming Alarmism, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Blundering Bureaucrats, Climate Alarmists, Conniving-Lying-Sneaky Politicians, Environment, Environmental activists, Fear-mongering, Fraud/Waste, Global Warming, Infrastructure Problems, Leftists (In the USA aka as Liberals-Progressives), Political Prostitutes, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda,
With those tags, actually reading the piece is pretty much superfluous.
@Turnoblock, no understood
yes renewables are shit. Expensive toys not fit for baseload. Just driving up your power bill be rent seeking do-gooders. There is no renewable baseload demonstration.
Bless Luke, so you got the memo after all. One word response: Germany. Multi word response: do you know how many countries get more than 60% of their electricity from renewables? Answer: 45
by the fuck: Germany kaput coz of renewsbles
you, blok, also idiot.
"Only denialist cranks peddle the lie that scientists are deliberately colluding to present a fake picture of AGW to the world, so you must be a crank."
You lying little turd BBD. You're so good at verballing you could get a job on many of our state police forces.
Licence bedwetting warmists not guns.
It's the "The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science"
http://www.e-elgar.com/bookentry_main.lasso?id=12839
Sherwood is there you tool. Show us your buttocks BBD - know when you're done mate. You've been ratfucked.
From Luke's link at #15:
@czek: why you crank
There always have been, and likely always will be cranks. The same applies to mavericks, although the two should never be confused as Luke is wont to do, because the latter generally respect science, while the former generally see it as an impediment to their agenda which must always be the primary concern. And meeting Frank’s challenges of the future isn’t going to come from confused, bandwagon cranks who don’t even know whose or what agenda is enabling their crank ideas
why u are crank. czek?
No Luke.
You have been ratfucked. Again.
You are a denialist crank. I didn't "verbal" you. I quoted you. And for calling me a liar and implying that I misquoted you, I am going to do it again:
(Emphasis added).
Apart from the remarkable number of lies packed into that paragraph, there is a very serious problem with this. Your central claim (bold) is a conspiracy theory. Only denialist cranks peddle the lie that scientists are deliberately colluding to present a fake picture of AGW to the world, so you must be a crank.
The mask has slipped even further. And we see a nutter grimacing and gurning at us.
Let's see it again for BBD
http://www.climatedialogue.org/the-missing-tropical-hot-spot/
Sherwood, Mears, Christy
a debate - July 2013
BBD mate - you're gone. You're done. Lie down or be fucked up some more.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
Oh I enjoyed that.
BBD can't minimally defend the AGW position. He's failed in his duty of care to this blog. Now off with thee BBD. Get off the blog. You've misled your merry men here for too long. You are banished to the bit bucket.
I've read Kellow. I wonder if you have.
Top of Page 146:
"BGH in milk, and thus [...]"
Carry on for a few words, please, Luke.
Luke
Is your browser working correctly. Mears doesn't support your crank shite from Nova. Read the words.
And you can't unwrite this, so you are a denialist crank:
(Emphasis added).
Climate dialogue? Yup, another denier site run by the usual (in this case Dutch) suspects. Living in Holland, I am all too aware of these people and their methods.
Luke, methinks you need to seek some form of medical help for your Stockholm Syndrome affliction as described by Bernard. Like other crank deniers on this weblog, you also suffer from the Dunning-Kruger syndrome big time.
Christy has zero credibility (see #19 and all his other public lies and misrepresentations over the years). Mears and Sherwood don't agree with Christy.
WTF you linked to that article evades me. Another case of not having read or understood the reference.
And now you are blustering desperately because it has whipped round and bitten you on the arse.
Kellow quote please Luke. We are waiting.
The unmistakable sound of Teh Stupid braying to itself.
But you've assured me there is no debate. Why is there a debate. Why is Sherwood and Mears debating Christy. Why are the discussing that the obs doesn't match the models and what is wrong with the theory. WHY WHY WHY !
You're done BBD - lie down and stay down you utter fraud. You're a witless fraud and you know it. I spit on your whole thesis - your whole intellectual approach is non-science - morally and intellectually bankrupt.
It's post-modernist virtual science for those who think "they're saving the world".
We can all imagine Luke desperately emailing his crank chums asking someone to help out with the Kellow quote...
:-)
Time's up, Luke old chap!
Caught you bluffing again, you little lying fucker!
No, you lying, bluffing, clueless arsehole.
No.
You have just been destroyed again. And you carry on as if nothing happened.
No.
You can do what you like, but you remain lying denialist scum and absolutely everybody can see that.
You have nothing left to offer here. You are the one who needs to fold up your chair and leave.
Luke: You really misrepresented Real Climate didn't you?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposph…
PS "Mispresent" is British for "telling porkies".
You haven't actually read it, have you? Or you really didn't understand what Mears and Sherwood were saying.
Bluffing or stupid, possibly both.
Jeff - well thank heavens for fortress Deltoid - thank heavens as everywhere else is a denier site. Stay home and put your hands over your ears.
My point Jeff is that IMHO you guys are simple now out of touch with the debate. We need good answers to my questions to hold the line with our new conservative masters in political control.
Your flakey appeals to authority are no longer going to cut it.
I'm your wakeup call.
Someone get BBD a Serepax
Has someone got back to you with that Kellow quote yet, bluffer?
;-)
I told you I could see right through your posturing days ago. You should have listened. Now look at you.
#22 Renewables contribute to lower wholesale electricity prices in Germany.
And Germany is not kaput through renewables: Germany is probably the least kaput of the EU member states.
No, you are an ignorant wanker.
"Berendaneke – vested interest paying the bills – hahahahaha – AGW side on squadillion bucks (fucking massive eye watering amounts) versus evil energy industry/tobacco shills opposition – a few million. Really? Mavericks are doing it for free coz they hate your guts as pink commies in disguise and for pure sport"
OMG, what utter gibberish. Pure insanity. I'd like to see some evidence for these 'eye-watering amounts' of money. None is ever provided. Its stated as if it is fact by deniers - with no evidence. None. Zilch. On the other hand, the huge number of right wing think tanks, public relations forms, astroturf groups and other third parties funded by the corporate lobby does indeed total many, many millions of dollars. And every year there are more and more of them. Corporate lobbyists play a massive role in determining public policy in the US alone. For example in the US in 1998, ALL advocacy groups covering a wide range of subjects - were able to muster up 4.3 million dollars lobbying the US Congress. Environmental groups were just one of hundreds of these, and their total was a fraction of it. The same year, energy companies alone invested 58.3 million dollars lobbying members of the US Congress, and Agro-Biotech companies 129.3 million dollars (Rampton and Stauber, 2001). And this excludes of course money spent on campaign donations, and other forms of lobbying, which are often far, far greater. Since that time, this amount has of course greatly increased. Corporate lobbyists rule Washington. They have a bottomless pit of money for their cause - deregulation.
Truth is, Luke, you can't debate your way out of a wet paper bag. You haven't got any data to back you up - nothing but innuendo and smears.
Watch this brazen, lying toe-rag just brazen out being exposed as conspiracist crank, liar and bluffer all in the space of a dozen comments.
But on he goes! Mendacity-powered!
BBD catching up - he can't read it quick enough. Eyes frantically scanning the screen test for a toehold. Quickly checks the comments - uh oh - Chris Colose is there. Heat on the neck increases. Stomach tightens.
So no debate screamed BBD but alas there does seem to be one among the big boys. Oh diddums.
Better move the goal posts, lay smoke and tack to port, or sledge like crazy. Or all three !
"thank heavens as everywhere else is a denier site"
Oh come on now, Luke. You must really be deluded to think this. Besides, universities and research institutes are most certainly NOT denier sites. You schmucks are stuck in your own little myopic world on the internet. Some advice: get out more. Attend a scientific conference or workshop. See where the prevailing view is there. Hint: as a working scientist I can tell you that it ain't the same as yours.
Makes you wonder just which of Lukes "references" he actually has read, doesn't it?
:-)
Not the same debate *you* are proposing, though, is it?
You are arguing that it's all crap. This lot are debating the details, not the reality of AGW or the necessity for policy response.
Luke: Look how your climate dialogue ends:
1Bart Verheggen
August 22, 2013 at 7:48 pm Log in to Reply
Based on emails from both Steven Sherwood and John Christy, and based on Carl Mears’ blogpost, I can report that all three agree that
1) Yes, amplified warming in the tropical troposphere is expected.
And that
2) No, the hot spot in the tropics is not specific to a greenhouse mechanism.
Thanks for posting a "shoot yourself in the foot" link.
Luke, for how many years were Christy and Spencer's incompetence with their own product undetected until RSS set them straight?
a)4
b)8
c)15
d)Christy's a lying sack of Texan-payroll Republican shit whose false results served a bigger purpose?
Nice choice of authority figure. Possibly the best you've got.
Still nobody got back to you to bail you out of that hole with the Kellow reference?
Shame.
:-)
Why Luke is a denialist crank (in his own words):
(Emphasis added).
Apart from the remarkable number of lies packed into that paragraph, there is a very serious problem with this. Your central claim (bold) is a conspiracy theory. Only denialist cranks peddle the lie that scientists are deliberatly colluding to present a fake picture of AGW to the world, so you must be a crank.
The mask has slipped even further. And we see a nutter grimacing and gurning at us.
I think Luke needs his own thread.
#22 would you also like to address those 45 countries that get more than 60% of their electricity from renewables?
BTW it's 46 if you count Portugal which got over 70% earlier this year for a brief period.
many millions of dollars Jeff - oooooo really - millions and many. Wow
The big attacks are coming from mavericks not think tanks. I'm not quoting Heartland and that dubious lot.
The establishment funding is zillions - the sceptic budget is piddly. Big science has a vested interest in keeping big science rolling. One is captive of group process and heavy management oversight.
Really who cares what funds what - the science stacks up or it doesn't.
Turbo - would like to cite that and the subsidies involved pls. What 70% for a brief period till the wind died? 37% hydro - with all that methane bubbling up. I guess we can wallpaper the place with dams. Always popular.
Luke needs his own thread.
People who get their faces ripped off and just keep churning out the cess as though nothing has happened aren't worth listening to.
chek - did I say I was a devotee of Spencer or Christy - more verballing by you
#57TB
You got a link for that source TB
Now we will all pretend that the farcical business with the hot spot crapola just never happened.
Luke is an unsinkable rubber duck. Like every other denialist crank infesting the internet.
"Attend a scientific conference or workshop. See where the prevailing view is there. Hint: as a working scientist I can tell you that it ain’t the same as yours."
Well I do. And as a working scientist I can tell you the answers aren't forthcoming and the group think is massive. The unhappiness festers in the ranks.
I love this though.
Every single time I really flatten a denier, their final "tactic" is to pretend it didn't happen.
The it's hard to express the utter, buttock-clenching stupidity of this final desperate resort in a public forum.
Uh-huh. Mavericks who no doubt confected all the very same pseudo-science talking points with remarkably similar agenda independently. Which do you think is the more likely, Luke?
That you're a complete spoonfed moron, or everybody else is?
First there came Boris the Freddy and Genius. Now this fucking clown is pretending to be a working scientist.
Not to forget cohenite/Cox. Which didn't work out too well for him either.
You stupid, stupid fucker, Luke. You have screwed yourself utterly now.
Byee.
"Well I do. And as a hardworking scientist lying wanker"
Corrected that for you, Dr. Luke de Kook..
BBD - you were done mate. Now there were about another 6-7 other issues I was after help with.
Would you like to be played for a rube with those as well.
You guys are portraying me as a denier / shill/ crank. Well I'll give you crank - we're all cranks or we wouldn't be here. WOULD WE?
Where I have go to is that the debate is no longer straight forward. But being very interested in the massive impact that a Hadley cell shift would have on global drought I need to get this AGW stuff worked through much more rigorously.
We can't do that religiously defending aspects of the science that clearly aren't working.
As you can see with this link to the Guardian, Portugal managed to get to 24.4% renewable in 2010 with a target of 31% in 2020.
The only European country hitting anywhere near 60% is Norway, which is blessed with an ideal geography for hydroelectric power.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/19/renewable-energy-c…
Zhou et al. (2011) Recent trends of the tropical hydrological cycle inferred from Global Precipitation Climatology Project and International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project data (supports J&F09 on widening Hadley cells – see below)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD015197/abstract
Johanson & Fu (2009) Hadley Cell Widening: Model Simulations versus Observations
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2620.1
chek - you're calling me a liar coz you've been ratfucked. Totally and utterly ratfucked.
The subsidies are peanuts compared to fossil fuel subsidies. In any case they are irrelevant, because the net effect of renewables is lower wholesale prices of electricity. Check out the merit order effect...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513000797
25#100: Actually, Luke, rabies cannot be cured - but it can take up to a decade to kill. Interesting analogy - lyssaviridae like rabies are introduced by bite from an infected animal, then travel (slowly) to the central nervous system via the nerves to cause almost certain death (2 recorded cases of survival without secondary vaccination). Bit like the denialist memes you keep excreting.
BTW no one makes you post here. Your insecurity and desperate need to engage may be behind you changing your avatar every 3 posts - or it may just be because you are a useful idiot, keen to promote Jo Coddling-Moth's pathetic propaganda mill. You, Fatso & cohenite are peas in a (rotten, festering) pod.
I wasn't "done" you posturing impostor. You are the one reciting denialist rubbish, not me. Got me that Kellow quote yet, you pillock?
;-)
I really do think Luke needs his own thread.
#63 Yep OK I see now I exaggerated it was only 68% Blame the aging neurones http://www.ren.pt/media/comunicados/detalhe/renewable_energy_sources_ac…
BBD - you say "bye" but your're back. you'll have all your phones on full there phoning a friend, Google Scholar going to meltdown. Mate that's the spirit - don't get mad - get even. Want a hand with Scopus - much better? Want to get my librarians to help you? Feels good to be alive and have your blood up doesn't it.
I gave you a Hadley cite a bazzillion miles ago - you said it was a gish. Try to keep up. This will help
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LCsiWL6gn0
Now pay attention boy !
#72 Er what's your point Rednose? I said "electricity".
No, I said byee to you as in fuck off now, Luke. But granted, it was ambiguous.
Then give up your job in the dogfood tasting department, get qualified and get to work.
Codling - sorry - cobbling together contradictory shite from crank blogs then testing your half-baked misconceptions and pretending to be a scientist at Scienceblogs™ is no way to go about it, or live a life.
I don't do video links. Paper and authors please.
rhwombat - are you making love to a rock?
#59 Luke, you said What 70% for a brief period till the wind died?
Actually it was the first 6 months of the year, but thanks for the predictable knee jerk reaction.
chek - don 't be a lying turd - you've had plenty of cites.
Luke 10
Deltoids 0
Boys you mommies are calling you ..... off you go now.
No. You are the one who has just been caught out bluffing your references. Kellow quote, fuckwit, Kellow quote.
So:
you’ll have all your phones on full there phoning a friend, Google Scholar going to meltdown. Mate that’s the spirit – don’t get mad – get even. Want a hand with Scopus – much better? Want to get my librarians to help you? Feels good to be alive and have your blood up doesn’t it.
Oh well the other 6 months won't matter.
Luke needs his own thread to posture emptily in.
TB#81
http://www.co2scorecard.org/countrydata/Index/4128
My point is, putting it politely, that the figures you quoted are an exaggeration, probably gained from the crap warmist blogs you frequent.
Working scientist my arse.
Poor BBD - now listen numb nuts you've been shown to be a lying fraud on the hotpsot - lie down or I'll have to bitchslap you some more.
Hadley cell expansion reference: paper and authors please.
#93
You are living in a parallel reality Luke.
But I bet you want to get this page of comments finished fast! Don't worry Luke, I'll remind you of your fuck-ups tomorrow!
And the day after that!
The "hot spot is *missing* therefore AGW is falsified" is a crank meme.
The "models are falsified therefore AGW is broken" is a crank meme.
Etc.
All you are doing is regurgitating debunked crankery and refusing to admit it when you get your arse handed to you. Over and over again. Which is absolutely diagnostic of the denialist crank.
BBD - I only need one - how you were done over totally on the trop hotty. I'm still laughing.
Ref I cited earlier is your 2nd above. One of a number on the topic.
I reckon I'm probably the best SOB you've had here is a while. I'm pretty good. I know it. I think you ought be grateful for livening your little incest pit up. So good luck with the denial. Keep the appeals to authority going and have a good sook when Abbott rapes and burns your research.
Don't go over to Jo's you'll be ratfucked. And give the poor lady at http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/ a hand
But you are right on one thing - Cohenite is a wanker. And be nice to El Gordo - he hasn't got long left.
Which alternative reality did this happen in, Luke de Kook? The same one in which you're a 'working scientist'? Or our collective one here where you're a crank/liar:?