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.
Keep the (bad!) faith.
:-)
She isn't even wrong. She conducts a freakshow. A couple of you have escaped, I see.
Could it be that Cox now sees the comedy in his previous "missing hot spot" nonsense?
He's obviously not completely stupid, so he may now realise that the retarded nonsense he had swallowed and was in the habit of regurgitating wasn't doing much for his credibility?
Here's a clue, Cox: stay away from the crank blogs. You obviously have neither the training nor the natural intellect to distinguish between fact and fiction. Stick with simple, mainstream websites that explain the situation and you can avoid looking like an idiot.
Meanwhile, Luke is running so scared of having been called out so many times for posting nothing of substance that he has descended to petty abuse in the hope he will be banned and can use that as a claim for "victory" on his return to whichever cesspit of crankery he sprang from.
Transparent and dishonest. But I believe I was beaten to that assessment of Luke by more than one other here.
Which communists?
All the rest of us want are links.
I wouldn't mind trying to stifle stupidity, though, does that make me a communist?
Wouldn't want to be a communist, they are very, very scary, especially when they're hiding under Luke's bed.
Luke:
Funny how the guy who thinks others are trying to stifle dissent is the one telling people like BBD to
What's Lotharsson's refrain again? Oh yeah: Remember, with deniers, its always something-something...
Sigh...
...which is why Luke's conspicuously progressing meltdown over the last couple of pages has been so revealing.
(Especially since he's attempting to enlist el gordo, of all people, in a discussion allegedly based on the evidence. For someone who loudly and obsessively blows his own trumpet proclaiming that he is intellectually reaming other commenters here, that's an impressively large petard to park oneself on top of just after pulling the pin.)
Ewwwww, this is more than a touch creepy.
I don't think Luke is entirely right in the head. Either way, it's well past time for him to get his own special thread. Or join el gordo back on his special thread where they can reminisce fondly about
Brilliant riposte chek; you are obviously the pace-setter here! Well done again, I'm learning so much from you!
You're just obsessively repeating bollocks to try and reassure yourself, aren't you?
a) If we get much past a couple of degrees warming, we're unlikely to be able to stop it there.
b) Warming loads the dice for undesireable outcomes. It doesn't take a huge amount for 1 in a 1000 year occurrences to start occurring at 1 in 100 or 1 in 50 or 1 in 20 rates. You ought to be able to understand this concept by thinking about sports analogies. Imagine a batsmen's chance of getting out because he received a completely unplayable ball. If that chance was 1 in 100 a few years ago, but now due to some small change it is now 1 in 10...what do you think will happen to crop yields batting scores?
c) There are threshold effects, so for some undesirable outcomes when you slightly exceed a threshold the problem SUDDENLY gets way way worse. Investigate minimum nighttime temperature thresholds for rice during pollination season, for example. We've already seen crop failures in the Subcontinent due to heat waves, and if we load the dice with another degree or two of warming these will become MUCH more frequent. Or imagine the batsmen who faces fast bowlers and only JUST has enough time to tactically react to the delivery. A fast bowler who is just a few km/h faster can completely remove that ability from the batsman.
This will potentially reduce food security. Monoculture is already a problem because it means reduced genetic diversity, which means reduced natural resilience in the entire agricultural system to various threats. We are attempting to compensate with genetic engineering and the liberal application of pesticides and fertilisers and so on - but there are now signs that yield improvements due to genetic engineering are slowing down, that resilience improvements due to genetic engineering aren't as dramatic as hoped for - and that pests are evolving rapidly to deal with both genetic engineering and pesticides, with farmers in some places finding some in the last few years remarkably difficult to control - and very expensive to even try. All of this suggests your claims about increased food security are dubious, perhaps even foolish.
More ignorant bullshit. The null hypothesis that you cite was used and it failed. The entire set of evidence simply cannot be explained without invoking the greenhouse effect, and even the imperfect models, which "skeptics" like to allege can be tuned to produce any outcome one likes, cannot be tuned to explain the observations without invoking AGW. (If they could, it would cost a fossil fuel company less than a million dollars to do it and publish it - way cheaper for them than their lobbying and PR efforts. They may be willing to deny science, but they ain't stupid about where to invest their cash.)
And yet again you misinterpret the issue.
The problem with Curry is not Curry per se, it's specific behaviour. She is capable of doing good work as some of her published work demonstrates, but she has set those critical faculties aside far too often on her blog and when doing presentations outside of the peer reviewed literature.
The same applies to Lindzen.
That's why peer reviewed journal papers that survive post publication peer review are the gold standard, and blog posts and presentations to amateurs who don't have the skills to spot when they've been bullshitted are not.
Thanks Lotho, for setting me straight; much appreciated.
'The entire set of evidence simply cannot be explained without invoking the greenhouse effect'
Massive Fail
Indeed. And yet that level of Fail is what you have been relying upon. Good to see some self-awareness finally creeping in ;-)
Just found this NASA link and the real SLR.
‘The “Geodetic Reference Antenna in Space” (GRASP):
“A Mission to Enhance GNSS and the Terrestrial Reference Frame”
[ http://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/meetings/2011-06/bar-sever.pdf ]
From frame 3 of the above GRASP pdf.
>>>> “Impact of TRF [ Terrestrial Reference Frame ] on GMSL Record from Tide Gauges:
Competing approaches for TRF realization yield estimates for sea-level rise ranging from 1.2 to 1.6 mm / yr.
Desired accuracy for measuring global mean sea level (GMSL) rise is 0.1 mm/yr
Ah Vince and Lotharsson - I've had a most pleasant afternoon off blog - and no meltdown - it's called taking the piss. I'm just fucking with ya's. I'm sure you're all very serious - but hey don't be too serious - life is too short.
Sorry you guys aren't very good. I'm really disappointed actually. I thought you'd be up to speed. El Gordo told me the place had gone to crap and I didn't believe him.
I thought you'd be all cut and thrust with the latest science - I didn't think I'd get the hymn book and appeal to authority line. How boring. How passe.
Anyway I guess I'd better get back in character hey?
And yea lotsa 505s earlier.
@Lostson
More ignorant bullshit. The null hypothesis that you cite was used and it failed. The entire set of evidence simply cannot be explained without invoking the greenhouse effect, and even the imperfect models, which “skeptics” like to allege can be tuned to produce any outcome one likes, cannot be tuned to explain the observations without invoking AGW. (If they could, it would cost a fossil fuel company less than a million dollars to do it and publish it – way cheaper for them than their lobbying and PR efforts. They may be willing to deny science, but they ain’t stupid about where to invest their cash.)
what n incredible piece of shit, lotarson. agw null hypothesis has not been falsified, you layman without intellect and knoledge. you are an ideology greenpisser, just a cheap ignorant in science but full of crap green ideology. piss off from here you idiot and sham for mankind, fuck
'Anyway I guess I’d better get back in character hey?'
Many years ago we were having a discussion on SWWA and the supposed AGW drought.
What is your perspective now?
Just saw Chasing Ice, the Balog & Orlowski doc on filming glacier change in response to AGW ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasing_Ice ). Despite the studied bullshit of the "academic" Biz Droid at Deakin ( http://theconversation.com/chasing-ice-bewitches-eyes-but-wont-change-m… ) - who thought it needed more denial to make it palatable to her masters, It should make Luke, Cox, Fatso scurry back under the fridge. Not that it will.
Stuff you wombat, Luke, cohers and me might just make our own doco and become rich and fatuous.
Fatty, the three of you combined have not got enough gray matter to achieve anything noteworthy.... as illustrated time and time again by your gumbified posts on Deltoid.
Luke's latest mini-rant: "Sorry you guys aren’t very good."
Look in the mirror, pal. You aren't good at all. If you'd dare venture into an academic environment - such as a conference in which climate change and its ecological effects is a main theme - spewing the crap you do here you'd be chewed up and spat out in a second.
You think you are an alpha male on a blog. I think you ought to meet old Jonas - that is if you and him can squeeze your bloated egos into the same room.
Then this little nugget: "Frankly it doesn’t matter how Nova is funded or not funded. Is she right or wrong? I suppose you communists would like to stifle all dissent."
I deconstructed this crap earlier, and yet Luke comes back with it. OF COURSE it matters who pays the bills because this tends to act as a camouflage for the truth. Deniers on the corporate payroll cannot say that their views are effectively bought and paid for (which they probably are), because this would shoot down their street cred. So they package their views as a search fro scientific truth - as elusive as that is - when the real truth is that their views have been bought. Heck, the tobacco lobby did this for years, using well-honed PR techniques, in order to downplay the clear negative effects of smoking on human health. In doing so, they'd often invest big bucks in paying off medical experts etc. to publicly downplay the risks of smoking, even though said experts knew they were lying.
If old Luke doesn't think that money influences opinion, then he is even dumber than I thought.
Then he totally undermines what little solid ground he has left with his final quip about communists. Yup, every loony on the far right has been using the watermelon analogy to smear scientists and those arguing the humans are the main drivers behind GW and that inaction to deal with it will have potentially serious consequences. I am used to it as well - after critically reviewing Bjorn Lomborg's TSE for Nature (2001) the knives came out and several right wing think tanks were calling me and Stuart Pimm green fanatics and the like. Along with a climate scientist I debated a right wing politician and a mediocre science writer on AGW a few years ago here in Holland, the the politician actually opened his argument by claiming that I and other scientists like the guy on my side were ' watermelons' green on the outside but red inside.
Of course, no evidence is ever procured, except for the supine bullshit that Karen pasted up last week (which was a Green Party rally in which they advocated some kind of global regulation of environmentally damaging activities - hardly 'communist' - but nothing ever about how this relates to the bulk of scientists doing the research that the deniers frequently denigrate or distort.
By contrast, there is a huge volume of evidence that many of the most prominent deniers are on the corporate payroll, either directly or mediated through their affiliation with libertarian corporate funded think tanks, PR companies or astroturf groups. I debated a Dutch ' scientist' a decade ago inn which the subject was extinction rates and biodiversity loss. I checked the guy up beforehand and found that he was associated with two organizations that routinely spewed out anti-environmental rhetoric. One, based in the USA, is a prominent site and was set up by what appeared to be two corporate lobbyists. Its web site spewed out right wing kindergarten level science. The guy I debated wasn't the only 'adviser' to that site; the list was a veritable who's who of anti-environmental pseudo-scientists on the academic fringe. During our debate, in front of a large audience (about 300 people) I asked my opponent if and how much the organizations were paying him. He refused to answer (an admission in itself) and claimed that this was irrelevant to our debate. I countered by arguing that of course it was relevant: this guy has a piss-poor publication record and if they are paying him I don't think they would expect him to espouse views that are opposed to their own. One doesn't hire a lawyer if the lawyer testifies against his/her own client, even if they know their client is guilty. In our debate, I also suggested that anybody with half a brain would consider the current threats to biodiversity to be serious - hence how they managed to scrape this guy up at all. Lomborg had been invited to debate me earlier, but he had declined several other offers since I had skewered him in a debate earlier in the year. Not to boast, but that wasn't difficult. Lomborg's understanding of environmental science was abominable.
But every time the commie/green/watermelon canard is brought out of the chest (Bring out the gimp! Bring out the gimp!) it makes me realize how intellectually bankrupt the deniers are.
Luke took the trouble to post nine lines but failed to think of any actual content for those nine lines.
Pointless Luke.
At least Cox manages to entertain by laying out his entirely faulty analyses and lines of reasoning for everybody to giggle at.
Thanks VW, I aim to amuse; thankfully you guys are easy to please.
Yes but Vince given I have VIP status here now so I think I can be indulged. Given your suggestion i think I shall now give a long winded account of my daily activities here.
JEff - Of course money influences opinion Jeff. So we have govt and NGOs at a bazzilion dollars versus a few million of oil money and sometimes NO oil money. I think it's pretty certain that personalities like Nova are not in for the money. They simply despise your entire thesis!
Nova has made ongoing studies of your money http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-climate-industry-wall-of-money/
Piss weak Jeff. Simply piss weak. So all your ECOLOGICAL science has a bit of a problem - if the forecast is wrong - my point here - well all your modelling on that is wrong.
Which leads to the problem that you can only parrot and not answer any of my questions.
So Jeff you're just another censor of dissent. Stop frothing and answer the fucking questions.
The blog alpha male - gee Jeff that's brilliant. I'm adopting that. But what if I'm a chick (with a dick). So many assumptions.
This thread is stuffed; I told everyone about Ouroboros but since everyone here is illiterate they didn't get it even though I threw in a clue about sphincters.
The last thing any government wants is to be told that there's a fucking great problem with fossil fuels, because the measures to deal with that are quite often rather unpopular and may be quite disruptive for a time. (See: government, Gillard.) And the potential disruption is especially strong to industries with proven fuel reserves currently valued at about $20 trillion - with a T - that will have to remain unburnt if the scientists are anywhere near right about the danger level. And you don't have to look very far to see how influential those industries are on governments...
So if government money influences positions - and more so those outside of peer reviewed journals, which just happens to be where almost all of the contrarian claims lie - then the scientists would be reporting "no problem" back to those governments, right? Especially since that's exactly the message the big fossil fuel companies want to hear, and they have significant influence over politicians in most advanced countries so both government and big business are aligned in their desires.
You really haven't thought this through. But then that's par for your course.
Sorry, Luke, but the niche on this site for a commenter with a delusion of special status is already taken. Freel free to head on over to the BK thread and duke it out with him for alleged supreme status if you want.
In fact, you might enjoy the conversation. The number of similar delusions that you and BK hold is quite fascinating, but I'm sure you'll be able to find a point of difference which will lead to endlessly entertaining "dialogue".
Lotho, I'm beginning to suspect you don't like fossil fuels.
Idso is associated with fossil fuels, apparently.
We're all associated with fossils except those greenies who are true to their vows and living under rocks.
Gordy
The Idso clan is paid by the fossil fuel industry. Fact.
You are rebroadcasting deliberately misleading information injected into the internet by paid shills for the energy industry.
This has been unequivocally and repeatedly demonstrated above. But you continue.
This makes you a tool of the shills. There is no alternative explanation.
Please explain why you are doing this.
(Yes, that is a gotcha. But then, you have been got, Gordy. I'm just trying to get you to understand what you are doing).
#31
No, it's anti-democratic practices by corporate interests, paid liars and their tools - such as your good self - that aren't popular here.
Be careful with that unwarranted assumption! It might bite you in the omphalos!
Where's the link to that blog debate with Kellow, Luke?
If it is evidence that you aren't a liar who pretends to have read references that he has not read, the post it up!
Defend yourself man. We all think you are a lying sack of shit! Prove us wrong. Come on.
What possible reason could there be for holding this information back?
:-)
You.. you didn't call Professor Kellow a cunt, did you Luke?
:-)
Luke's latest conspiracy theory is quite fascinating, seeing as he doesn't seem to see any contradictions embedded within it.
Let's hypothesise that:
a) The climate science consensus is horribly mistaken and fossil fuel combustion products aren't significantly contributing to warming the planet or acidifying the ocean, and the consensus only arises because practically every single scientist involved has been "bought", and consequently they are all conspiring to produce wrongness, but wrongness that is reasonably consistent with everyone else's wrongness. (And clearly the Central Wrongness Planning Bureau must remain a well kept and plausibly deniable secret. And every year practically every new scientist that starts a research career gets "bought" as well.)
Let's further hypothesise that:
b) You're a fossil fuel company CEO faced by a dishonest propaganda campaign unfairly vilifying your product using a message derived in large part from scientists who aren't paid by your industry, and putting at risk your substantial share of the $20 trillion pot.
Given (a) and (b) what's your smart move - and your duty to the shareholders? Do you:
a) Pay PR people to put out a message that doesn't stand up to basic scientific scrutiny, and is often so poor that even non-scientists can poke valid holes in it?
b) Pay some scientists - who, Luke alleges, can be easily bought, so they can clearly be paid to be honest - to demonstrate that the scientific consensus is the product of liars and scoundrels utterly misrepresenting reality? After all, you know the consensus is bullshit, so demonstrating how you know it by unrebuttable reference to reality should be quite feasible. (And those government scientists don't earn much, so if you really wanted to go for the kill you could probably buy up a large number of them and change the consensus by brute force...)
c) Do (b) and then pay PR people to get your - now unimpeachable - message out?
(Cue more ducking and weaving and charges of "philosophy" from Luke...)
Jeff Harvey
Indeed. Something that is oddly overlooked is the strong racist association with the term "watermelon". Our denier friends, always so quick to shriek about imaginary associations with the Shoah seem perfectly blind to the racist stink billowing up from "watermelon".
Didn't know cohenite was a Red Dwarf fan, but that's hardly the criteria for being literate.
;-)
Cox @ #8
You're welcome. You'll find it's a common hazard of not reading/not understanding what you're quoting.
I'm still gobsmacked that you even attempted to pass off a guidance note as if it were a criticism. (Page 93 of the IAC pdf)
It may be just a Brit thing. I recall mentioning several years ago that I'd pay to see Monckton give his then current watermelon speech in Brixton, but the racist usage seemed to elude most here.
It's from the American South, originally.
It's odd how the Lukes, Jonarses, and BKs of this world all share the same fundamental mental illness: delusions of grandeur. They are all essentially narcissists. They strut, and preen, and fabulate about their own imaginary potency and brilliance. Something about the Internet blinds them to how utterly ridiculous they actually are.
I'm not sure about that. I think they are already blind, but the Internet gives them new forums to inflict their obsessive iterated pronouncements (which seems to me to be more about desperate faith maintenance than anything) on a wider audience. And it's a forum that, unlike the pub or the workplace, limits the modes of response of those so inflicted, eliminating many that the horn blowers might find undesirable.
Yes. A palm-strike to the nose does shut most people up, at least temporarily.
I didn't think that remark required a riposte, after all you are so evidentially up yourself with myths, about climate science, that one more myth in your cognitive sphere was unremarkable.
That you still carry on spouting the same old memes in the face of hardening evidence, both from scientific research and real world events is a clear sign that you suffer from cognitive dissonance.
And you may like to do more research on Antarctic warming before crowing any-more on that score.
"It’s odd how the Lukes, Jonarses, and BKs of this world all share the same fundamental mental illness: delusions of grandeur. They are all essentially narcissists."
EXACTLY BBD. Well put. I couldn't have said it better. It wouldn't be so bad if they actually were professional scientists with some kind of standing in a related field, but the truth is that NONE of them have any relevant qualifications (except in their own minds where they are intellectual heavyweights). If they did, we'd sure be the first to know about it. I have asked all of them many, many times to tell us what their scientific backgrounds are, and every time the request is greeted with derisive snarky responses or else silence. This is proof positive that they have no scientific pedigree. Yet we are more or less permanently told in no uncertain terms that we MUST accept their own admissions of brilliance. To question it is t be called a commie stooge and much, much worse.
The main point is that it is these narcissists whose views run counter to conventional wisdom and the prevailing views of most scientists. Their arrogance would be at least a smidgeon more tolerable were they to defer to the expertise of trained climate scientists who mostly agree that humans are the main drivers behind GW, and that inaction to deal with it could have huge societal and environmental costs. But this group of self-righteous Dunning-Krugerites dismiss the views of most scientists, repeatedly smear some of them and act as if they have accrued the wisdom which has miraculously bypassed the people doing the research. Its like Hansen, Trenberth, Mahlmann, Mann, Santer et al. do not understand atmospheric science as well as they do, and we are supposed to believe that a few other keyboard experts on Nova's blog somehow know more about climate science that those scientists (and many more) listed above.
As I have said, my interest in AGW is on the possible ecological consequences, many of which are well described in the empirical literature. The debate about causation should have moved on a decade or more ago. Now we should be focusing on effects and consequences, as well as mitigation and, because of inaction, adaptation.
:-)
Sticks and stones!
They never learn how to dance, these people.
Loathsome #38
OR NOT
Let's hypothesise that you're personally involved in a multi-national massively funded global research program that's "saving the planet" and you just want to ask a few questions.
Strangely nobody wants to listen but is very keen to write their next funding application. Asking a question immediately labels you a disloyal oil industry shill and denier. You ponder such a vicious reaction and are taken aback.
Jeff like a dog returning to its vomit offers no answers except his slavish devotion to authority. POSSIBLE ecological consequences - fuck off Jeff and get a real job.
o tell us Jeff'ey boy - CSIRO's multi-model mean projections give rainfall scenarios from plus some more to less some more - which do I pick? Models don't represent ENSO or interacting decadal influences yet that's my biggest problem.
In the climate change adaptation workshops rolled out to farmers the response comes back that's it's all so plus or minus and in the future nobody knows what they could do as an individual operator. You're a fucking lazy academic lay-about who wouldn't fucking know. Full all serious experience trying to implement policy or you wouldn't be carrying on like a toss-pot.
You're basing your whole ecological response on models that probably FUCKED ! What a fool.
Remember Jeff - first person to offer Dunning-Kruger, Galileo or Feynman loses. It's the dead set wanker warming giveaway.
Trenberth clearly doesn't understand - or he wouldn't be saying - where the travesty fuck is the heat!? And Mann would not have had McIntryre DESTROY the Hockey Stick if he knew what he's doing - it won't be in AR5 - go figure. It's smashed. And Hansen's models would be shaping up. Don't make me laugh in your face.
BBD - you got ratfucked yesterday - you lying little prick who said I was quoting from a book I did not have. And you were done !
Then you had a second ask and got answered.
On the third go I asked you to back up you putrid assertion with a bet - and you just ran away. Gutless - now you don't get any mores goes - you're done. Fuck off the blog.
It's plain for your mates to see that you were done. Now on your bike sport and fuck off the blog.
"They are all essentially narcissists." Well only for humorousless creeps like BBD who don't know when they're being mocked or played like a rube. Mate we just become whatever persona makes you happy. You see that is the test of your objectivity. How much you read into what you don't know. Remember there are many Lukes. A whole club of them. Or did I just tell you that? Do you know?
OK I confess I work for a big think tank paid for with WA petro-dollars and international Tea Party funds just to sink creeps like you. So we can protect our freedoms, liberty and way of life from the pink green insurgence.
Luke's suggestion is to throw away the imperfect models and adopt the instructions given by the fossil-fuel lobby, yes?
I notice he seems to have missed the dozen-or-so independent studies that have replicated the "hocley stick". It's a sure sign of his being a kook that he still has to rail and rant about the "hockey stick" which is now entirely uncontroversial.
'The climate science consensus is horribly mistaken and fossil fuel combustion products aren’t significantly contributing to warming the planet or acidifying the ocean'
tru dat
Independent my arse - don't make me laugh. Defending the Stick is the last refuge of scoundrels.
#24 Luke
The funny thing is, old bean, we don't. Earlier, you said this:
I responded by asking you to link to these papers. You... demurred.
And that's where we stand on this issue. Link to a study that "proves" that the models are "FALSIFIED" (OMG!!) and we can have a substantive discussion.
Keep calling us all c**ts and failing to deliver the links just makes you look desperate and a teeny bit insane.
* * *
Meanwhile, as per, I am forced to repeat *another* request for evidence:
Time to make that call, Luke!
Hardball!
:-)
So the PAGES 2k Consortium is composed of scoundrels?!
Who knew?
You have a very odd mode of thought for a working scientist, Luke!
Perhaps you lied?
About both claims.
This is downright disturbing, Luke. Are there... voices in your head too?
That would be reducing the alkalinity of the ocean imputed from modelling with no real observations. To levels dwarfed by natural variability. Skanky mesocosm tests using HCl. And its chemothermodynamically impossible to get to shell dissolution with future levels of atmospheric CO2.
Enjoy the coral basking in a volcanic CO2 vent (seep) off New Guinea.
'The main point is that it is these narcissists whose views run counter to conventional wisdom and the prevailing views of most scientists.'
Heretics, the lot of them, but if we could just return to the null hypothesis you will see that the scientists got carried away with delusions of grandeur. In many ways it was like being the heros in a sf movie.
The watermelon slur is political and not racist (for us in Oz) where Communist sympathisers have taken over the Greens.
Pages-2 is irrelevant to the Stick affair. Bad science and bad stats is still bad science and bad stats.
How is watermelon racist - what wankery
"This is downright disturbing, Luke." no really - only for you if you're gullible. Goes to the heart of your objectivity. You're not listening are you.
No, it's patently untrue by any metric you choose.
That you want it to be true and pretend that it's true is the reason you're perceived as cranks out of touch with reality.
Of course, you should realise that the next stop on that line is plain old insanity. Line of least resistance and all that. Look at Luke - barking mad.
But PAGES-2k *validates* the Mannean hockey stick.
[Figure caption]
Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman.
Which strongly suggests the claims of "bad science and bad stats" were false. Does it not?
Some etymology for you.
Not wankery.
;-)
Sane people don't find it necessary to adopt a shifting array of personas to "prosecute their argument". What is your motive for behaving like a net nutter?
Objectively, it is unlikely to bolster your credibility with onlookers, never mind those directly subjected to your metamorphism.
That said, I don't actually believe this claim. I think the real you has been on show a fair bit over the last few days, and it is not a pretty sight.
NOT AT ALL
BBD - nope getting the right answers for wrong reasons isn't science. The Stick is gone and won't be in AR5 - go figure.
BTW have we audited them? Who paid for their funding? Was it a big govt grant designed to get the right answer? Were they cleared of noble cause corruption? Did they get a soft review.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/21/pages2k-reconstructions/
http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/20/pages2k-south-america/
http://climateaudit.org/2013/05/09/pages2k-online-journal-club/
This stuff is now a swamp. A poxy swamp.
And let's not forget our retracted Aussie Gergis paper debacle - sunk by the stern - and goooonnneeeee !
Well BBD - I think you fucking idiots camped out here for all time on the leper colony are the definition of net nuttery.
Hey - you fucked up and were ratfucked - why are you still here. Now fuck off the bog.
'you’re perceived as cranks out of touch with reality.'
Yes, yes... but the science suggests strongly that CO2 doesn't cause global warming. Should I hang out with the brainwashed simpletons like chek, Harvey and BB and pretend the world is going to hell because of fossil fuel?
Grow up and get a life, the 'precautionary principle' is no longer relevant.
Your "auditor" is a fake, rolled out for know-nothing, believe-anythings just like you.
Note that Wegman used McIntyre's "work" to fool a Congressional committee. The chickens for that stunt have still not come home to roost.
That is a gross distortion of what Trenberth said and of his message which was about it being a travesty because there was not enough incrementation deployed to detect temperature change across the breadth and through the depths of the oceans.
Go check it out elsewhere than those well know denier blogs.
As for McIntyre destroying the hockey stick well that is absurd. McIntyre found one small discrepancy that made no practical difference to the the foundations of one hockey stick. Besides which many other graphs, using different data sources, have produced similar curves. Then McIntyre made a series of DOS attacks on scientific establishments and continued to make a fool of himself whilst being a bloody nuisance and it ended up he had the data he was supposedly shrieking about all along after all. If you don't belive this then in that little Search field for THIS blog enter McIntyre and see what turns up.
And then there is the Wegman brouhaha, go figure!
It appears that you have just fallen out of a tree somewhere, perhaps the koalas chucked you out for anti-social behaviour.
And to use an expression of yours, it is you who has been 'ratfucked'!
but the science suggests strongly that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming
What you mean by science is actually "blogscience", which is a fantasy game for retirees, unconnected to the real world.
Sidebar: This is where I differ from my friend El Gordo - I think CO2 does impact the Earth's radiation balance - but how much and with what interactions is now a mess. Policy grows increasingly impatient with our inability to advise and withstand scrutiny. Upper levels of govt with the lights on, not having swallowed the Kool Aid, well aware of the consensus juggernaut they have created are looking for serious answers from people of integrity.
The clock is ticking.
So fucktards answering my questions in a competent workman like fashion would be of great assistance.
'And let’s not forget our retracted Aussie Gergis paper debacle'
The southern hemisphere hockey stick that wasn't. I always had respect for Gergis and the work she was doing down under.... until that paper.
"What you mean by science is actually “blogscience”, which is a fantasy game for retirees, unconnected to the real world."
well dickhead - remember you're here the rest us
Did I mention crappy Wegman? McIntyre's work has shown what an incestuous pile of crap the whole field is. Dream on if you're still on the party line.
But Luke, the latest and most comprehensive science validates MBH99.
You are making a noise without addressing the latest science!
Something you have repeatedly accused others of doing here.
The smell of confusion (with an atomised hint of desperation) is getting stronger.
Where's the Kellow blog debate link and that paper "proving" that the models are OMG!!
And you apology for your ignorance about the racist stink roiling up from "watermelons"?
BBD - fuck off the blog. You're through.
"the latest and most comprehensive science validates MBH99."
nope got a soft review and is full of holes
No, you were caught out bluffing and lying and eventually cobbled together a childish story that only you think is plausible.
The beautiful thing about this is we both know the truth.
The fun part is how you deal with that link to the blog debate with Kellow that you, unwisely, tried to turn into a weapon against me.
Now we play hardball. You have to show your hand or you are obviously caught in a lie. I do hope the link doesn't demonstrate that you hadn't read the book.
Over to you!
:-)
Apparently not.
Over to you!
Well I asked you for a bet and you ran away. CHICKEN !
Come on Luke.
Just take baby steps. You were shown up to be ignorant and abusively wrong about the watermelon thing.
Just admit it!
It won't kill you. And it will make the next step that tiny bit easier!
Chooky chooky chicken.
You were right on watermelon - I apologise - we'll now substitute lying cunt commies.
Chooky chooky chooy
BB what is this 'racist stink' to which you refer?
Gutless wonder
Twattish taunts aren't really what what you need now, Luke.
You need to defend your claims.
But first, admit your mistake over watermelons. Come on. FFS!
Demonstrate a scintilla of good faith for a change.
Gordy
Do you *ever* read the links?
Click here!
Oh dear.
No cunt - you're a goal post shifting turd. Having been exposed to being an OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIAR - you've just proceeding oblivious - get straight fucked !
That's right El Gordo - just think on all those TV shows, newspaper articles, and blogs how many times people have called dark skinned people watermelons.
So many times.... I count about once myself - here.
They're fucking idiots aren't they.
Ther crucial difference is I - like the rest of the regulars here - don't believe that science is done on blogs, it's discussed on them. Whereas you believe that trashblogs like climateaudit and Codling's sewer should be taken seriously when their distortion and misrepresentation is so much a feature that it seems to be the whole point of them.
Which of course it is.
Really? When? I seem to have missed that.
Please link to the quote where I am exposed as an OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIAR.
Or chek - you're unable to take the fight to them. From your responses to myself and El Gordo here - you're a flake that can only survive here on the leper colony reinforcing the insular myopic views of its deformed inhabitants.
Love the collegiate tone, btw, "working scientist".
:-)
And the days roll by.
Page 30(!) #39:
BBD - you were done. We all saw it. Lie down.
An updated list of things Luke urgently needs to do:
1/ Link to a study that "proves" that the models are "FALSIFIED"
2/ Link to the blog discussion with Kellow
3/ Link to the quote where OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIAR.
To recap, that is:
1/ ?
2/ ?
3/ ?
Sorry,
"3/ Link to the quote where I am exposed as an OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIAR."
'They’re fucking idiots aren’t they.'
Strongly agree bro.
BB in the antipodes we see watermelons as green on the outside and communist reds on the inside.
Just sayin'
Luke, posting links to McIntyre's crank blog exposes you for what you are: an anti-science nutter.
Additionally, your view of politics as a binary "you're either in the anti-science camp, or you're a communist" shows incredibly poor intellectual development.
Every scientific institution in the world agrees on the science of climate change. I doubt any of them are run by The Greens, let alone by Communists. Even if they were, it is very clear that the only mob that is seeking to corrupt and undermine science is the right-wing fossil-fuel lobby and their useful idiots like Cox, Codling and yourself.
Having said that, there is nothing wrong with using the term "Watermelons" to describe people like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Rhiannon
whose family were active Australian-based participants in the Cold War, on the wrong side.
We shouldn't let the Yanks's appallingly limited version of our language corrupt the way we speak.
#4
You should consider what it is that you are just sayin'.
Language is a weapon, Gordy. In case you hadn't noticed!
:-)
Hang on, Codling isn't a "useful idiot", she actually takes money from Heartland to peddle her misinformation and paranoid rants.
There is no "fight" to take to them, you fatuous child, although we are currently suffering invasion by delusional morons.
Why would anybody sane seek out yet more flakery?
Let them waffle away on their own about their imagined conspiracies and die in peace, I say.
* * *
An updated list of things Luke urgently needs to do:
1/ Link to a study that “proves” that the models are “FALSIFIED”
2/ Link to the blog discussion with Kellow
3/ Link to the quote where I am exposed as an OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIAR.
4/ PAGES 2k validates MBH99. By doing so, it *invalidates* the claims that MBH99 was profoundly flawed. Yes or no?
To recap, that is:
1/ ?
2/ ?
3/ ?
4/ ?
* * *
chek - gutless eh? chickens ! chooky chooky chooky
Deltoids can't make in the real world. Have to live here on the atoll - and hahahahahahahaha - they can't ADAPT to climate change.
Can't answer questions on science. What a bunch of losers.
As I said, fatuous child.
Luke
#9
EG previous page ‘And let’s not forget our retracted Aussie Gergis paper debacle’
Do you know if it has it been adjusted and resubmitted?
Another nail in the coffin for the MWP and LIA: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html
Oh noes!
Given the disappointment demographic, they could at least have warned readers to ensure their pacemakers are fully charged, TB.
Oh dear!
Ironically, Luke, it's you that has two left feet!
You can't dance.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/weekend-unthreaded-16/#comment-1310598
http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/loadcurvecolourmaster.jpg
Meanwhile somewhere in reality
http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/loadcurvecolourmaster.jpg
You're here having a circle jerk - he's over there ! Eat a dick !
Gordy
It would be unfair of me not to hold you to the same standards of honesty that I am requiring of Luke. So we must continue with your little problem:
The Idsos.
You are being transparently evasive about a very serious issue.
You are rebroadcasting deliberately misleading information injected into the internet by paid shills for the energy industry.
This has been unequivocally and repeatedly demonstrated above. But you continue.
This makes you a tool of the shills. There is no alternative explanation.
Please explain why you are doing this.
* * *
Tricky!
Crank blog links!!!
But Luke old bean, that's not what you urgently need to provide!
Whoopsie!
* * *
An updated list of things Luke urgently needs to do:
1/ Link to a study that “proves” that the models are “FALSIFIED”
2/ Link to the blog discussion with Kellow
3/ Link to the quote where I am exposed as an OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIAR.
4/ PAGES 2k validates MBH99. By doing so, it must *invalidate* the claims that MBH99 was profoundly flawed. No dog-logic now. Just an answer. Yes or no?
To recap, that is:
1/ ?
2/ ?
3/ ?
4/ ?
#22 Luke
We are having this discussion here.
Whatever is happening elsewhere isn't relevant.
Try to focus on what is happening here.
There are problems you need to address. Focus. My best advice!
I see your pretty colours Luke and raise some hard facts:
http://www.gizmag.com/renewable-energy-cheaper-australia/26193/
According to the BNEF study, electricity can now be supplied from a new-build wind farm in Australia for AUD$80/MWh (US$83), while the cost of electricity supplied from a new coal plant is AUD$143/MHh (US$148) and AUD$116/MWh (US$120) for new baseload gas plants. While these figures include emission taxation under Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s carbon pricing scheme that was introduced last year, the report says that, even without a carbon price, wind energy is still 14 percent cheaper than new coal and 18 percent cheaper than new gas.
The prices are the continuation of a downward trend for renewables in Australia. Since 2011, wind energy costs have fallen by 10 percent, while photovoltaic (PV) solar has decreased by 29 percent. Conversely, fossil fuel energy generation costs have trended upward, motivated by high financing costs linked to Australia's "big four" banks charging substantial risk premiums for potential reputation damage associated with investments in technologies that emit high levels of greenhouse gases.
So let's sum up the past couple of weeks.
We've been introduced to Luke, a denier 'working scientist' who passes off as just another meme spouting fuckwit.
Anthony Cox, wannabees politico, just another denier fuckwit.
And Gordon, ex-journo and delusional denier fuckwit.
All believe in outlandish and not even remotely substantiated conspiracy theories
All believe that their blogscientists have somehow trumped real science, though none can demonstrate how, other than resorting to their already discredited ten-times-over memes.
All are absolutely incapable of reasoned argument.
All are completely unable to pursue an argument because once one thread unravels, their whole sandcastle comes tumbling down in a crash louder than colliding mixed metaphors.
And in the end we have working scientist Luke - Gordon's Big Gun, lest we forget, yapping playground abuse. It's absolutely pitiful.
The joke is of course that should the fuckwits' neolib favourite Abbott win, he'll do whatever is necessary to comply with Australia's obligations to it's world-class technocracy including the environmental technocrats and the fuckwits will, as ever, be left standing on the sidelines wondering what the fuck just happened.
For their information, when the day comes, just review the past two weeks here and wonder what other outcome was ever possible, and be glad your intellectual class can never win.
And another nail for you:
100% Of New Australian Power Plants Are Wind Or Solar
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/22/100-of-new-australian-power-plants-…
Time to review your career choices Luke
'Language is a weapon, Gordy. In case you hadn’t noticed!'
Much amusement.
It's good to wake up and check the comments and see "the face of hardening evidence" as described by one of the regulars, Lionel A.
chek has found fault with my reference to the IAC report as evidence that the models are wrong; in Lionel A's parlance my evidence is limp, a soft cock.
Well, may I suggest the stimulation here would drive Don Juan or even Casanova impotent. You guys need to tart up a bit, put on some lippie, pad the bras and strut a bit; I reckon BB would have a great arse for instance, he should wear something tight to emphasis his contours; present your wares a bit better boys and I guarantee you'll get some hard evidence.
chek
No, it's wonderful!
The hard man can't dance! Sounds like something Mailer should have written.
;-)
Answer the questions cunts - you can't
It's the DOLTOID sheltered workshop
Gizmag - hahahahahahahahaha Cleanfuckingbatchoppetechnica - wait till Abbott pulls your rent seeking subsidies.
Lert me amend that from "Anthony Cox, wannabees politico, just another denier fuckwit."
to:
Anthony Cox, wannabees politico, creepy ladyboy fan but despite the dubious predilictions just another denier fuckwit.
Luke, you're getting as incoherent as late-period Jonarse.
Lay off the sterno and have a sleep.
Your many and multiple self-inflicted embarrassments will still be waiting for you here later.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/a-nation-still-drawing-18000mw-in-its-…
What was it Lotharsson is always on about again?
Oh dear.
An updated list of things Luke urgently needs to do:
1/ Link to a study that “proves” that the models are “FALSIFIED”
2/ Link to the blog discussion with Kellow
3/ Link to the quote where I am exposed as an OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIAR.
4/ PAGES 2k validates MBH99. By doing so, it *invalidates* the claims that MBH99 was profoundly flawed. Yes or no?
To recap, that is:
1/ ?
2/ ?
3/ ?
4/ ?
#34 chek
The boy is getting tired. No doubt about that.
But expect a few last, desperate cunts before he finally throws it the cunt, sorry, towel.
Cox following on from ~33, let me me be more direct.
Are you still a closet homosexual, or are you coming out here, on Tim's blog?
The voters deserve to know.
Turbo this is from CA on Gergis .... Chiang is the editor on the second par.
'After further lobbying form Gergis, Chiang reluctantly permitted Gergis to re-submit as a “revision” by the end of July, but insisted that they show the results of both methods, describing this as an “opportunity” to show the robustness of their work:
'In the revision, I strongly recommend that the issue regarding the sensitivity of the climate reconstruction to the choice of proxy selection method (detrend or no detrend) be addressed. My understanding that this is what you plan to do, and this is a good opportunity to demonstrate the robustness of your conclusions.'
How cheeky chek; I can only assume you have been liberated by BB's reference to Mailer. Perhaps you would care to plow your earthy, gritty language into explaining where the IAC endorses the IPCC modelling as opposed to criticising it.
And I love your oblique, even baroque reference to Lady Windermere's fan; I direct you to Beardsley's illustrations.
Anyway, you're obviously a very witty, intelligent chap who contributes greatly to the tone of this wonderful site.
And let's not forget The Hunting of the Snark:
;-)
And a barrister, broker and banker could not resolve this mess. But they're all making money as you do from people's concerns; and the snark defends a pig!
Gordy
It would be unfair of me not to hold you to the same standard of honesty that I am requiring of Luke. So we must continue with your little problem:
The Idsos.
You are being transparently evasive about a very serious issue.
You are rebroadcasting deliberately misleading information injected into the internet by paid shills for the energy industry.
This has been unequivocally and repeatedly demonstrated above. But you continue.
This makes you a tool of the shills. There is no alternative explanation.
Please explain why you are doing this.
* * *
Tricky!
So explain yourself!
:-)
Barristers, brokers and bankers made the mess!
Climate scientists do science.
It's a funny old world, cohenite!
:-) :-)
Very good BB; he was a cynic though who did not see much good in humankind.
The issue is, are humans custodians of this fair planet or exploiters whose apotheosis lies beyond; and if the latter doomed like Icarus?
AGW is really just another testing ground for that choice. For instance should humanity invest in a space program and ultimately land and attempt to transform other planets?
Toilets a cynic? No, I don't think we can go that far.
:-)
Custodians? That's a bit too Cornwall Alliance for me!
We are clever monkeys who are just about to do something silly.
Don't squib the question BB and the "clever monkeys" is both a cliché and too pat; and leaves you open to the charge of beastiality, since chek is in an accusative mood regarding the alleged sexual proclivities of commentators!
The question was not meant to be framed in a religious context; think of it as an engineering issue; that is why do you think us clever monkeys are going to do something stupid?
Is the stupid thing messing with nature period, or messing with nature with a blowback obvious? Is messing with nature otherwise ok if the blowback is minimised or non-existent? Is the blowback only of consequence if it affects humans or is the blowback a wider prescription based on interfering with nature generally?
You omitted the unintended consequences that now require attention, Cox. I'm sure it wasn't deliberate.
#49
What are you wittering on about?
Clever monkeys meet the laws of physics with unintended consequences!
Not very snappy, I grant you.
How about:
Oh fuck!
;-)
'We are clever monkeys who are just about to do something silly.'
Glorified apes.
Laws of physics!
Say "hello!"
And so to bed.
For cohenite:
Night night!
:-)
The Easter-Islanders, Cohenite: That's you and Luke. BAU right up until the catastrophe your BAU necessarily entails.
Gordy, click me!
;-)
'The Idsos.
'You are being transparently evasive about a very serious issue.'
Not interested where he gets his money from, his science gathering is sound.
Boiling Oceans by Kevin Trenberth (A real scientist)
“They probably can’t go on for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again."
I'm in love with Cohenite. I confess.
Could you clarify your definition of 'boiling' there Gordon, because I'm absolutely certain it's not the same term as understood by anybody from school children and up.
It appears to be yet another nutter definition inflated by frustrated hyperbole to be used by idiots.
Hey Deltoids!
You know, guys, it's kinda interesting to drop in on the ol' Deltoid, intellectual-to-the-max discussions on an occasional basis and get a full over-view of hive's latest thinking on certain subjects--you know, Deltoids, like the hive's latest thinking on the term "Watermelon" and all--especially for a parochial, 'Murrican-exceptionalist "Yank" like me.
And so, anyway, after reading over all the "Watermelon"-term related commentary, appearing on the last two pages of this blog, I was rather struck by Vince Whirlwind's wise, cautionary hive-caveat: "There's nothing wrong with the term "Watermelons"...We shouldn't let the Yank's appalling limited version of the language corrupt the way we speak." Good stuff, Vince!
So in the spirit of Vince W.'s totally-original, good-comrade, enlightened-internationalist, anti-American-unless-we-need-them-to-save-our-butts animus, here's my proposal, Deltoids! Let's agree that "Watermelon" should be considered "racist" in character if it invokes offensive, Jim-Crow-era, demeaning, "pickaninny" stereotype images of American blacks eating watermelons.
Otherwise, let us agree, my dear, Deltoid friends, who are, of course, only interested in a scurrilous-agit-prop-free discourse in matters, climate scientific, that the term "Watermelon" should not be considered "racist", despite what "Yank" language-imperialists might try to impose otherwise, if it is:
-Used in reference to the cultivation of watermelons by salt-of-the-earth farmers and their sale by decent, hard-working green-grocers trying to make an honest buck.
-If it is used in reference to privileged-white, limey, pervert pedophiles slumming it in Brixton, England and on the prowl for black children of that neighborhood.
-If it is used in reference to the CAGW hustle (green on the outside, red on the inside) with that appalling scam's transparent resonances with the eugenicist, mass-culls of the Camobidan-Killing-Fields, Mao's Great-Leap-Forward, Stalin's Holodomor, and the like.
In conclusion and in the interest of building bridges (and making Vince W. happy) can't we, Deltoids and those of us who are not brainwashed, trough-riding-on-the-con, useful-idiots and witting hive-tools agree, at least, with the above rules for the employment of the term "Watermelon"?
BAU in Oz
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=t…
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=t…
*Sigh*
You're all projection, li'll mike, and your tired old nuts don't have much more rant left in'em. Hence the thankfully longer and longer gaps between your drivel 'reports'..
'I’m in love with Cohenite. I confess.'
You are sounding more like a sceptic everyday and I admit to be wooed by his quiet, cultured tone.
I make you a promise, that if my global cooling tipping point doesn't show up within a couple of years, I'll join the sceptics.
'It appears to be yet another nutter definition inflated by frustrated hyperbole to be used by idiots.'
It's tabloid, like the Methane Bomb.
Words have meaning.
No, it's a plain old lie.
Luke that first link is interesting, notice the huge anomaly spike around the time of the Great Climate Shift of 1976.
Thinking of mechanisms at work, cause and effect.
'No, it’s a plain old lie.'
The Methane Bomb?
Cohenite - what a spunk
Cohers is a typical golden haired bronzed Ozzy ... Oi Oi Oi
"Thinking of mechanisms at work, cause and effect"
That'll be the day.
Its a chicken and egg thing, Gaz.
No it isn't.
Here's an example of Idso's work for Heartland:
He references this study:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016703708007266
and says:
"there is no compelling reason to believe they were influenced in any way by the nearly 40% increase in the air’s CO2 concentration that has occurred to date over the course of the Industrial Revolution."
And yet the study itself (were Idso's fans sceptical enough to check up on it) says the opposite:
"The latter is likely caused by the large amount of anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution...Results of this study indicate that the impact of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 emissions may have reversed the natural pH trend in the SCS since the mid-Holocene."
You see what he did there? He did no science of his own, took somebody else's study, and then pretended it said the opposite of what it does say.
That is not "sound science gathering". If you are feeling charitable, you might accuse him of incompetence.
Here's another example of El Gordo's source, Idso, somehow getting it completely wrong:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3516
He references " Pelejero et al. (2005),", adds no science of his own, and concludes that "ocean acidification is a work of fiction".
He neglects, however, to quote what those who did the actual science gathering had to say about it:
So - that's the test for you, El Gordo - when Craig Idso -
- who doesn't do any science research as far as I can see
- who is paid by Heartland
writes something which supports Heartland's political lobbying on the subject,
are you,
- sceptical;
and
do you,
- do any fact-checking
???
Because there are only two options here:
- you fact-check Idso and discover he is an unreliable source who is most unsound as a "science gatherer"
- you don't fact-check him and gullibly take him on trust.
IdsoIdsoIdso
@ greenpisser Harvey
" repeatedly smear some of them and act as if they have accrued the wisdom which has miraculously bypassed the people doing the research. Its like Hansen, Trenberth, Mahlmann, Mann, Santer et al. do not understand atmospheric science as well as they do, and we are supposed to believe that a few other keyboard experts on Nova’s blog somehow know more about climate science that those scientists (and many more) listed above"
You greenpiss idology idiot misunderstand one fundamental thing: science is not that somebody - like your idols Hansen, Mann, Trenberth or other idedolgy-driven eco fundamentalists - knows more than anybody else and that your idols words have more weight than anybody elses (because those greenpiss ideology proagandists are your gods and you want all other decent people to believe in your decadent and immoral greenpiss faith). No, Harvey greenpiss ideologist, science works only on the basis of scientific evidence in the real world -regardless of what your idol Hansen tells you to believe.
The scientific evidence for the validity of the AGW hypothesis is weak:
1) A global surface temperature increase has not been convincingly shown so far due to methodological weaknesses
2) Consequently a part of a hypothetical temperature increase - which could not be shown so far - due to anthropogenic CO2 is not demonstrated so far by climatology
3) GCMS do not provide any evidence for CO2 warming in reality. It's only virtual reality and clouds cannot be modeled so far. Therefore this is methodological crap.
4) Harveys insect biology is irrelevant regarding the CO2 hypothesis. Life is always adapting to environment, but Harvey does not like this.
You greenpissers on deltoid are poor ideologists, far away from science. You are a shame for mankind. Try to remove your ideological greenpiss dirt and work hard to become decent citizens instead of staying unethical idiots.
John Mashey makes Carne Molida of Murray Salby:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/08/25/defamation-by-internet-part-1-murr…
Mr Mashey needs a life; perhaps he is like you BJ, this is your life.
"his subsequent NSF debarment "
That is not correct; have you read the NSF document; no, they admit to having no evidence against Salby; the best description of the circumstances between Salby and the NSF is abeyance; but then I don't want to get technical with you poor chaps.
Many thanks to BB for the Cumberbunce; amidst the agnotological utterances elsewhere on this thread [except by my dear old friends EG and luke, and many new friends such as B, M and K] it stands out like an elephant turd amongst the dropping of pigeons.
NH sea ice extent 48% higher than last year.
http://s24.postimg.org/cespj6nwl/NSIDC_Sept_Min_Proj_Aug24_2013.png
Yes, El Gordo, this year at this time, Arctic sea ice extent is only the 5th-lowest on record.
Therefore climate change is crap.
That's how it works, isn't it?
When you say "technical", what you really mean is, "I don't want to regurgitate some crap I read on a crank blog", right?
The NSF document appears to have these words:
The NSF say he was debarred. Cohenite says "this is not correct".
Cohenite up to his usual standard of reliability.
Maybe Cohenite needs to read it?
http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/I06090025.pdf
Maybe Cohenite will be more sceptical before believing the nonsense he reads on crank blogs in the future?
The activities of one of the Denialists' best and brightest make for interesting reading, huh?
Isn't there a blogger in Canada who likes to "audit" people involved in climate change?
Too bad he missed this one, huh?
I looked hard and deep cohenite and try as I might I could not see your post where you corrected John Mashey.
As a devotee of the pure truth I am sure that you will provide the link where you informed John of his oversight - after all, you would surely not allow to pass the opportunity to offer your expertise to ensure that only the most correct version of events is detailed.
If you have not already posted on John's comments section I am sure that you will address this omission. Please post the link here once you have posted - I will follow with great interest your conversation with John Mashey.
Now, now, Bernard - just as you don't tell your 5-year-old that there is no tooth fairy, you really shouldn't be spoiling Cox's comforting fantasies like that.
Your link doesn't work thommo.
BJ, once thommo gets his link working we'll both have a look at the report. Why bring Mashey into it, you're a big boy with plenty to say.
Berendaneke (Freddy) is off his meds again. He writes this gibberish:
"You greenpiss idology idiot misunderstand one fundamental thing: science is not that somebody – like your idols Hansen, Mann, Trenberth or other idedolgy-driven eco fundamentalists – knows more than anybody else and that your idols words have more weight than anybody elses"
Really. So tell that to the doctor the next time you go for a check-up. Tell your doctor that you are consulting with a shaman or a witch doctor or your local loony who has no formal training in medicine. Go onto say that their expertise in medicine is every bit as good as the doctor who went through medical school.
This analogy applies to thousands and thousands of professions. Otherwise, why have universities? What is the point of pursuing a field of research and becoming an expert if formal training is not required?
Of course qualifications matter, you brainless fart. And of course I trust the opinions of the said experts in climate science a million times more than dolts who write on blogs and whose opinions run counter to the mainstream view.
Berendaneke, or Freddy, or whoever the hell you are, bugger off. Your posts are utterly appalling in terms of grammar alone; throw in your political bile and they get even worse.
The Idos's have a long, sordid history of links with the coal lobby through the Western Fuels Association. They have a web site which argues that putting more C02 into the atmosphere is (1) not affecting climate, but (2 is good for nature.
Strange that Western Fuels in all likelihood shares this perspective. Moreover, the main strategy of their shitty web site is to take existing studies and to distort their findings to support 1 and 2 above. A colleague where I work had a paper published in Nature in 2003 that went through the Idso's re-interpretation grinder. The paper had nothing to do with the alleged benefits of C02 on soil organisms, but that's they way they spun it. My colleague and her co-authors were appalled, of course, that their paper had been abused in this way, because their views on C02 effects are very different from the Idso's and Western Fuels.
Yet Fatso loves the Idso's. The more he writes, the more he cannot help but wear his idealogical blinkers on his sleeves.
'Arctic sea ice extent is only the 5th-lowest on record.'
At least we can rest assured the global warming tipping point has come and gone.
'They have a web site which argues that putting more C02 into the atmosphere is (1) not affecting climate, but (2 is good for nature.'
I agree with their sentiments.
What, you call yourself a lawyer and you can't even figure out that it's the NSF link itself that's borked, and not Craig Thomas's duplication of it?
And you can't even find the html version in G00gle cache?
Are you sure that you're a lawyer?
By the way, as a lawyer you'll understand that I should be billing you for my time doing work on your behalf. What's your rate for tracking down a document for a client?
Why?!
Perhaps it's because my original post on the subject was simply an observation that Mashey had made Carne Deshebrada of Salby's sorry arse. If you have a dispute with Mashey's forensic deconstruction of the tale why wouldn't you take it up with him?
Unless you're too scared to pit your wits, such as they are, with Mashey's obviously meticulous and highly informed research of the case.
I can see why you're running on a two-bit ideologically-driven political ticket cohenite. Real professional work is much more difficult and requires much higher standards than those you exhibit in your current role.
Right BJ, that's 2 exotic beef dishes you've served up to me; what are you saying, is this a date; do you want to go out with me; how do I know your intentions are honourable; I've heard about you alarmists, hyping people about the end of the world and then taking advantage of them.
Well let me tell you mister, you're going to have to do better than some fancy, savoury meat dishes to get me to the table.
Works fine for me.
I guess one excuse to avoid loooking at the facts is as good as any other....
But, my, is *does* make interesting reading...
Here are a few highlights:
Oh well, I guess when you're having to scrape the bottom of the barrel in search of somebody!, anybody!, please to back your idiotic ideas up with some kind of veneer if science, you are pretty much guaranteed to end up with egg on your face.
How is it "borked"? I just clicked on it, and a pdf comes up just fine.
Hey Cohers and El Gordo - how about we attack each other. I'm bored with these guys. They really aren't very good.
http://poama.bom.gov.au/poama_workshop.shtml
The first 6 topics are pretty interesting and down the bottom the "Downscaling for hydrological applications" as it doesn't use an analogue year approach.
Also of note http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/IMOP/publications/IOM-109_TECO-2012/S…
Yeah, Luke, let's change the subject.
What happened to all cuntfucking tourettes shit, anyway, Luke?
Given up trying to get yourself banned?
No dishonourable exit for you, laddy, you're just going to have to keep eating these shit sandwiches.
Meat, with the hebrews taken out of it?
Now don't go using that language - Luke1 has gone back to the States - you now have Luke2 - I'm waiting here for my friends and listening to some quiet music. Deltoids just go and chatter among yourselves about things that amuse you. Don't mind us - we just thought we'd use the venue given it wasn't being used for anything else of note.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCscCN-FPz0
"Meat, with the hebrews taken out of it?"
What does that mean scumbag?
Let's talk about the seasonal accuracy of the models. A cool PDO, a neutral ENSO, warm waters around Australia, cool and wet in south east Oz.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/temps_ahead.shtml
Totally believable.
Attention Craig, its been flat for 200 months... just sayin'.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:2001/to:…
Lets talk about the accuracy of your summary, Gordo.
Your link doesn't say that. You failed on one line of text. Totally unsurprising...
Oh yeah, I took that as a given. I was more interested in the seasonal models and not one half of a 60 year cycle.
But you will also notice the simulation of the IOD and ability to resolve extreme events given the full GCM implementation.
But note the novel downscaling mechanism of 8 regions, 6 predictors and the output of historical rainfall for “most similar” day as the forecast rainfall. This is a very new approach.
Additionally multi-week MJO predictions in the one system.
While we are in the Pacific, cyclone activity hasn't been this quiet in 5000 years.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113002849
Oh gordolocks, you little b***** cherry picker you:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996/plot/rss/from:1996/trend
and
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996/plot/hadcrut4gl/f…
and
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1996/plot/gistemp/from:19…
guffaw
So Lionel you didn't think scumbag was being racist?
Of all the professions lawyers most support the AGW meme; what does that tell you Lionel?
That you are an exception, if your statement is true. IIRC there were quite a number of lawyers on the OPP roll call.
Oh! And BTW I passed no comment on any racism.
Excellent obfuscation and weaselling Lionel!
Vince.
It's a bit odd. I tried on two separate computers, and the first didn't open up from Craig's link or from the NSF's link (which is not surprising as they are one and the same) but both work fine from my home computer.
Still, cohenite's inability to find evencached files is demonstrated, as is his fear of confronting John Mashey about Mashey's extremely detailed research.
It seems that cohenite doesn't want to admit that Salby is an unreliable witness.
'The whole issue of uncertainty seems to be growing in importance. Skeptics are increasingly getting their papers published (including some that have emerged from the skeptical blogosphere).
Judith Curry
Oh BJ, you are a hoot; yes, you have discovered my innermost fear; fear of confrontation with John Mashey, he whose surname is the onomatopoeic summary of AGW.
Really?
If you must have it your way I must have picked up that technique from
some lawyer.
So.....Cohenite hasn't commented on
http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/I06090025.pdf
yet....why would that be, I wonder?
And if carne deshebrada doesn't mean, "meat, with hebrews taken out of it", I guess my Spanish isn't quite up to his standards.
I'm sure the "scumbags" doesn't come out of the same innermost recesses that his mate, Joanne Codling, gets her "international bankers" conspiracy theories from.
Stunningly, Gordo's summary is not what his link says. Again.
Gordo is an interpreter of interpretations. Why interpret, Gordo? Why not just RTFP. Its not difficult.
Don't deflect Vince; your real self came out; don't blame others; how pitiful.
NSF accused Salby of fraud; Salby said they had no proof to sustain that claim; they agreed and admitted so on page 30 of the report.
So you're saying you had to wade through 29 pages before being able to find the tiniest bit of justification for Salby's state of denial over his undeniable disbarment by the NSF?
Oh, and does Joanne Codling have a problem with "international banking families", or not? Who is "deflecting"?
Even Andrew Bolt drew the line at the nutty "international banking families" conspiracy theorising.
And that's saying something.
"tiniest bit"; ha, ha, ha, ha. They accused him of fraud then admitted they had no proof! That is just dumb.
I see you haven't read the document yet, Anthony, still basing your belief on what you read on the Jo Nova kook-blog.
Why don't you read the document?
Quite apart from the fictitious timesheets, the following is stated:
The Subject provided deceptive and incomplete information to NSF about his affiliations with Company 1, and inaccurate information to NSF OIG about his affiliations with Company 1 and Company 2.
The Subject provided deceptive or misleading statements to the University on his conflicts of interest forms and financial disclosure forms, and provided false and deceptive information to the University during the investigation about his additional external remuneration
Oh, and,
Just imagine if Michael Mann had ever been caught faking a timesheet? The hullaballoo we'd have heard from the Murdoch media, eh?
Sheesh, the rampant denialism - complete with bonus non sequitur - come tumbling out after you prod and poke a bit at the guy who swears he's not at all in denial. Whodathunkit?
(And is it just me, or is Luke smelling more and more like a wannabe BK without the latter's great charm, elegantly restrained commenting style, clear prose and incisive wit?)
He smells like another Jonas, but with much more cunt.
If I only had a bitcoin for every time some ignorant denier loon put their fantasy world on show and declared it to be the real world...
Indeed, maybe his own thread 'Luke's Cupid Stunts'.
Defending a criminal convicted of theft and claiming he is innocent, because the court ultimately did not find him guilty of assault. That's Cox' argument in a nutshell. Forget that theft thingie, he was not guilty of the assault, and therefore innocent of everything!
Gordy #57 previous page
No, it's deliberate and serial misrepresentation. I showed this to you days ago.
Why will you only ever look at fossil-fuel funded liars and other cranks?
Try again. In good faith, this time.
Craig Thomas provides plenty *more* evidence at #74 and #75, to which you made a characteristically witless response.
Jeff Harvey contributes further at #90.
I have hammered this point home with you for days only for you to ignore it completely.
You are a tool of the shills, Gordy.
A tool. But now, you are a witting tool because we've shown you the truth.
Yet still you continue your behaviour. Now that is sickening, immoral and contemptible.
Amazingly, Luke is still posting here but has not yet answered my questions. Although I note that he is now claiming to be somebody else, so perhaps he is insufficiently sane to answer my questions.
Anyway, here they are again:
* * *
An updated list of things Luke urgently needs to do:
1/ Link to a study that “proves” that the models are “FALSIFIED”
2/ Link to the blog discussion with Kellow
3/ Link to the quote where I am exposed as an OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIAR.
4/ PAGES 2k validates MBH99. By doing so, it *invalidates* the claims that MBH99 was profoundly flawed. Yes or no?
To recap, that is:
1/ ?
2/ ?
3/ ?
4/ ?
* * *
You'd better get stuck in, Luke. Otherwise people might start to think that you can't provide this information and have (yet again!) been show to be a liar, poseur and intellectual lightweight!
#29 Lotharsson
It's almost - but not quite - enough to make me feel nostalgic for BK.
BBD @ itsnotnova I think Jhon Masdhey pinned the Idso and JoNova nonsense for what it is in a reply:
As for Murray Salby and 'his science gathering is sound', another marker for the way it is not is here:
Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle where we find this which opens with a Salby quote:
Sound! My ****!
I'm constantly amazed that anyone in 2013 could still by trying to pretend that the increase in CO2 *isn't* human-caused.
That is pure flat-earth denialism. Too stupid to merit further discussion.
Why am I not surprised to find out that funding from *anonymous donors" (!) has been directed by the HI to Codling.
Yet you can show these tools commenting here everything from ExxonSecrets to the exposure of the Donors Trust and they *still* keep on repeating the lies produced by the shills and vehemently deny that they are now just tools.
Hilariously, they then spray their rancid projections right back at the rest of us as festering conspiracist ideation, the barely disguised belief that "climate scientists" are faking data and fooling the public for financial and political gain.
As Lotharsson says...
Sourcewatch sums up Joanne Nova pretty well:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joanne_Nova
@Harvey greenpisser
I give another chance to take of reality, which you ideology greenpisser don't like:
The scientific evidence for the validity of the AGW hypothesis is weak:
1) A global surface temperature increase has not been convincingly shown so far due to methodological weaknesses
2) Consequently a part of a hypothetical temperature increase – which could not be shown so far – due to anthropogenic CO2 is not demonstrated so far by climatology
3) GCMS do not provide any evidence for CO2 warming in reality. It’s only virtual reality and clouds cannot be modeled so far. Therefore this is methodological crap.
4) Harveys insect biology is irrelevant regarding the CO2 hypothesis. Life is always adapting to environment, but Harvey does not like this.
You greenpissers on deltoid are poor ideologists, far away from science. You are a shame for mankind. Try to remove your ideological greenpiss dirt and work hard to become decent citizens instead of staying unethical idiots.
With an organ grinder of that calibre, that explains the quality of her monkeys.
Cobblers!
You damn yourself to the crank bin with your very first claim.
Good work, Freddy!
BTW Freddy, blatant sock-puppetry.
I suggest that you revert to calling yourself Freddy/Kai and leave it at that.
'Why not just RTFP. Its not difficult.'
Ta, my bad, that paper didn't say cyclone activity is the lowest its been in 5000 years. What they said was....
'Longer records show tropical cyclone activity was higher from 5000 to 3800 and 2900 to 500 yrs BP.'
There is a subtle difference.
AGL says 9GW of baseload fossil fuels no longer needed
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/agl-says-9gw-of-baseload-fossil-fuels-n…
Or even: baseload? We don't need no stinking baseload
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/11/1230558/-Sunday-Train-The-Myth…
'You are a tool of the shills, Gordy.'
If you say so, but by comparison you have been brainwashed by the Klimatariat into thinking increasing CO2 is going to make the planet inhospitable.
If temperatures had continued to rise this century the Warmista would have had the world in their pocket, but the Oz people are fundamentally sceptical and will vote against the motion that CO2 is a pollutant.
The Oz people can vote freely as is their democratic right. And they will. However, their beliefs on this matter won't alter the way physics works. What troubles me is your incessant misrepresentation of scientific evidence in support of nothing more than a political position.
* * *
I haven't been brainwashed by anybody, Gordy. My position is derived from topic knowledge, not political leanings.
We're now entering King of Old Siam territory, but I have never belonged to, or consistently voted for, any political party. I am not, and have never been, a member of any ENGO or a supporter of one.
This is about physical climatology for me. This is why we have such fruitless conversations.
What Gordon means of course is: the Oz people are fundamentally scepticaldumb and will vote against the motion buy our anti-scientific bullshit that CO2 is a pollutant. cannot warm the planet.
Incidentally, re Toomey et al. and going from the abstract only, as you doubtless are yourself, the authors point to precessional forcing and ENSO as possible mechanisms for the higher frequency of tropical cyclogenesis in the central Pacific. Precessional forcing was the main driver of early-mid Holocene warmth. Precessional forcing fell from a peak ~10ka right across the Holocene. Summer NH insolation declined by ~8% at a stable rate so it was ~4% above modern levels ~5ka. As Toomey et al. appear to acknowledge.
This study is of little comfort to those claiming that a warming climate *won't* affect tropical cyclogenesis.
'This study is of little comfort to those claiming that a warming climate *won’t* affect tropical cyclogenesis.'
The impression I get is that a cooler world may see less cyclones.
Temperatures have remained flat for 17 years, it really is a disgrace.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/clip_image0024.jpg
The impression I get is that a cooler world may see less cyclones.
So what do think will happen a sit gets warmer?
I'll let you into a secret TB.
They have no contingency against the next El Niño, or the one after that or the one after that etc etc.etc..
Beat me to it, Turboblocke!
I have asked Gordy - who apparently believes GAT will fall - to provide a physical mechanism for this when the climate system is subjected to a sustained increase in forcing.
He has not, so far, responded to this question!
They all do that, don't they?
Odd.
I must say that the tone of the discussion has not improved. One must assume that the Deltoid fraternity is not able to undertake a science discussion of any level and surrounds itself with pseudo-political rhetoric - a great pity that a blog so strong on themes has become day care facility for 6 or so highly eccentric and likely deeply psychotic individuals who seem unable to discuss any contemporary science without some slavish appeal to authority. Hardly a recommendation for inquisitive minds. What would a lay visitor gain from visiting here - certainly no level of public discourse worth the bandwidth.
Rather disappointing for a blog with such history.
Meanwhile lets play a track while waiting on some friends.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKLVmBOOqVU
If it gets warmer then we might expect cyclones to increase, but we are at the tail end of the Holocene and CO2 is not the main driver of temperatures so.... here's something more on the Pacific by highly respected Mojib latif.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00626.1
A little exercise for Gordon and pals is to look at the global temperature data over the past 130+ years and work out (using a simple straight edge) how long it took for a previous extremes to become the average.
"here’s something more on the Pacific by highly respected the crank Mojib latif.
Corrected that for you Gordon. Your sources, as ever, are less than impeccable.
A serious question Gordon.
Do you really think even the Aussie public are going to buy your freakshow?
The difference is not subtle at all.
There could be 20 different levels of cyclone activity and we are currently in 3rd position.
Your "lowest in 5000 years" is uttterly incompatible with the research you misunderstood and misquoted.
#51
:-)
The RSS surface temperature record again!
1/ It's not the surface temperature!
2/ It's TLT!
3/ RSS is an outlier!
4/ The start year is a cherry pick!
5/ So it's all bollocks!
:-)
Utter crap, El Gordo - the last La Nina year was the hottest La Nina ever.
The energy imbalance is still present, therefore heat continues to accumulate.
Still problems with that multiple personality disorder Luke?
I'm sorry to hear it.
Can one of you answer a few questions for me?
* * *
An updated list of things Luke urgently needs to do:
1/ Link to a study that “proves” that the models are “FALSIFIED”
2/ Link to the blog discussion with Kellow
3/ Link to the quote where I am exposed as an OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIAR.
4/ PAGES 2k validates MBH99. By doing so, it *invalidates* the claims that MBH99 was profoundly flawed. Yes or no?
To recap, that is:
1/ ?
2/ ?
3/ ?
4/ ?
* * *
Thanks.
Latif is a strong supporter of the notion that CO2 causes global warming.... here's more on the great climate shifts.
'The winds change the ocean currents which in turn affect the climate. In our study, we were able to identify and realistically reproduce the key processes for the two abrupt climate shifts.'
'We have taken a major step forward in terms of short-term climate forecasting, especially with regard to the development of global warming. However, we are still miles away from any reliable answers to the question whether the coming winter in Germany will be rather warm or cold.'
Mojib Latif
Thanks for the Philipona paper luke; alas I have to leave you; I'm out of the country meeting with some of my clients; first the various drug cartels in Mexico; then some of the money laundering organisations in Europe diverting money from various carbon trading shonks and then on to SE Asia to wrap up the next strategy for the boat smugglers.
UNlike the virtuous climate scientists who vet their financial sources so carefully I believe money is the ultimate expression of democracy!
BB, you're my hero; I'll be passing through the Casbah: let's Rock the Casbah together BB; we'll have such a time. Drop me a line if you can get here at:
Middle-Eastern Imports and Exports; our motto; dead or alive we come through, at Burqa PD, C- US embassy.
Hope to see you soon; pack some poetry books; you can give me a reading as we drink hibiscus tea laced with arak at sunset.
And no fucking links for good reason, eh Gordon?
We're just supposed to take the word of a senile old fantasist.
Another post from Luke, and another post with no discernable content.
I'm starting to think Luke is even more of a waste of time than El Gordo is.
Whereas El Gordo is unerringly wrong, Luke just has nothing to say.
Hey, how come nobody's talking about Murry Salby anymore?
Hmmmm?
'...the last La Nina year was the hottest La Nina ever.
The energy imbalance is still present, therefore heat continues to accumulate.'
You're clutching at straws, the reality is that in a cool PDO there probably (going on previous) won't be many El Nino in the next couple of decades.
Temperatures will most likely imitate the 1947-1976 great climate shift. Can we talk about the 60 year cycle now?
With Salby's value to the deniers now hovering somewhere around zero, presumably we'll be back to Boretti next, the "coastal engineer" from an inland university, who isn't a coastal engineer and whose name is sometimes Albert Parker.
Come on El Gordo, your great wheel of nonsense hasn't landed on Boretti for ages.
Top-notch stuff.
If only this were true. From what I've seen here, you must be a dreadful lawyer, and the cartels are notably impatient with failure!
:-)
Got any references for that?
That would be a 60-year cycle concocted from a broken model that goes completely pear-shaped if hindcast past 1920, right? The cycle that doesn't actually exist.
Next!
Mr BBD - please stop being disingenuous and take that up with Luke1 - BTW - as saw it you called him twice and he responded. That puts you in the bad faith zone I'm afraid. You don't get another turn if you've been caught out twice in a row. Your incrementalist campaigning style could be replaced with some intelligent comment to Luke1's initial inquiry and list of issues but it's not my problem that you're not sufficiently intelligent to undertake a discussion.
I'm only here to discuss serious contemporary science with intelligent people and and waiting for Cohenite to return.
That and providing great tits.
Luke
Does your little picture change each time a sub-personality takes over?
Page 31 #52:
This makes for amusing reading:
http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/tag/anthony-cox/
Do you suppose Cox will develop some self-awareness at some stage?
Go for it!
Dig!
And congratulations for the most absurd evasion I think I have ever seen.
:-)
What, no cunthook?
I feel cheated, Luke.
#75
No.
Deniers are fundamentally insane - as shown on this very thread.
Still chortling about this:
I mean, really. It's just not cricket.
Yes, that's a zinger from Luke de Kook (Gordon's go-to climate intellectual).
But then this thread is an entire cornucopia of denier fantasy, insanity and bingo points.
Just had a look on Austlii - there are two Anthony Coxs: one works for Centrelink, pursuing pathetics, the other works for Philips Fox, exclusively engaged in work for Dept of Immigration, also pursuing pathetics.
Could be the same guy, I guess.
Either way, he's not exactly Geoffrey Robertson or Stuart Littlemore, that's for sure.
Also ironic that this "sceptic" isn't out there fighting for the little man, but is in fact a small cog in a large government machine.
Climate change denial must be the little escape into fantasy that helps him forget the tedium of his minnow status within the legal fraternity.
Yes, apart from a 50 year old photo, there doesn't seem to be much trace of the character known as Anthony Cox.
"CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL" ??????????
hahahahahaha!
Craig is just shooting messengers and in the process manages to shoot himself in the foot.
I can sort of see why your new friend 'Luke of the changing avatars' can't resist poking fun at you people.
He appeared here to try and help you and you're all so intent on being spiteful and rude that you have comprehensively and completely missed it.
Craig!!!!! Luke is correct and it is in fact the Deltoids who are attempting to escape into fantasy.
Your tactics are better suited to a school yard.
You are merely playing dirty politics.
That should of course be: a 50 year old photo
Mr Chek - well you could start with Luke1's various lists that he has made and say
Point 1 is wrong because "......" and continue 1 through n
and that would be in your own words not a cite nor appeal to authority or dismissal. Should take you probably 10 minutes if you are gun - but alas we will be disappointed.
Of course if you really want to impress us you could tell us how the greenhouse effect works at a molecular level. In your own words please.
Craig they are fairly convinced there are cycles within cycles.
Zhen-Shan and Xian (“Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years”, Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Vol.95, 2007 [http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28u12g2617j5021/]):
“A novel multi-timescale analysis method, Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), is used to diagnose the variation of the annual mean temperature data of the global, Northern Hemisphere (NH) and China from 1881 to 2002. The results show that: (1) Temperature can be completely decomposed into four timescales quasi-periodic oscillations including an ENSO-like mode, a 6–8-year signal, a 20-year signal and a 60-year signal, as well as a trend. With each contributing ration of the quasi-periodicity discussed, the trend and the 60-year timescale oscillation of temperature variation are the most prominent.”
Luke
Nobody believes your latest and most risible evasion. So keep it up!
Dig!
:-)
Luke
Every time you pretend it wasn't you the laughter gets louder.
So one of the Gadarene herd needs to deal with this:
* * *
An updated list of things Luke urgently needs to do:
1/ Link to a study that “proves” that the models are “FALSIFIED”
2/ Link to the blog discussion with Kellow
3/ Link to the quote where I am exposed as an "OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIAR".
4/ PAGES 2k validates MBH99. By doing so, it *invalidates* the claims that MBH99 was profoundly flawed.
Yes or no?
To recap, that is:
1/ ?
2/ ?
3/ ?
4/ ?
* * *
Or the mockery will never cease.
And you nutters *hate* being laughed at, as we have seen!
:-)
Why stop at the molecular level when you've got the quantum level, you ignorant faking moron? What really gripes you Luke is that you and your anti-science chums are impotent when faced with the science.
Don't bloviate on a blog - go ahead and disprove that CO2 is warming the atmosphere. You can't, as we know, which is why you do what you do.
So far on this thread I've detected the following memes:
1) CO2 is not a 'greenhouse' gas
2) CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is not increasing
3) Humans are emitting CO2 but this is not increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere - natural processes are doing that
4) Mean global temperature is not increasing with the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere
5) Mean global temperature is not increasing very much
6) Mean global temperature is increasing but warming is Good
7) Mean global temperature is increasing and it won't affect biodiversity
8) scientists are liars
9) scientists are frauds and conspirators
10) scientists are incompetent
There may be others but I'm already puzzled as to which of the memes above is the favoured meme of each of the Denialati that are engaged in the anti-scientific defæcations on this thread.
* CO2 is a ghg.
* CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere at an alarming rate.
* With the warmer temperatures a lot more CO2 has been liberated from the deep oceans, but its undeniable that humans have contributed to the increase.
* Mean global temps have stalled, as CO2 continues to rise at a hectic and alarming pace.
* Biodiversity is not endangered by a shift of 2 degrees from where we now stand at the end of the Holocene.
* Scientists are not liars, frauds, conspirators, or incompetents, except those at the top of the Klimatariat in every country.
Hey chek!
Yr. no. 79 "deniers...insane...bullshit....blah...blah...etc."
You know, chek, it's a real disappointment that wow, your sibling-rival, that mummy always liked best, has "cheked-out" of this blog--the little bug-out, wimp-toid weenie!--and left you as my prime inspiration for hive-abuse rants and tirades.
Frankly, I resent having to deal, on an "insprational" basis with a zit-spawn, suppurating, horror-story, flatulent-vegan-small-intestine-attached malignant-polyp-growth, like you chek! You know what I mean, guy?
It just gets more and more tired and old as you have less and less to say li'll mike. And considering you started with nothing, well you do the math as you'd say.
Another CAO in the South American tropics and I was thinking about the significance in relation to the extended Antarctic ice sheet.
http://wxmaps.org/pix/sa.00hr.html
Mr BBD - please stop clogging the blog and desist - Luke1 is well aware of your issues but they have been dealt with above - you don't get 3 goes. .
Chek - well I'm very sorry that nobody here seems to be able to explain the greenhouse effect. I would have thought a quick summary or even treatise would be a mere triviality.
An unkind person - certainly not me - might you guys were unable to supply such information.
I can help you out there, Luke: look up absorption spectroscopy. That will be your first clue.
Incidentally, will you explain atomic structure to us, in your own words?
Only, there's a possibility that I've figured out something that all the physicists in the world had missed, but I just want to check things with you first, before I go public.
There you go again.
Of course you weren't "thinking" about anything.
It's a complete mystery what your drivel is all about, but it is universally recognised that "thinking" is not part of the puzzle.
Feel free to piss off any time you like and find a forum more suitably grateful for your particular "contributions". Apparently Jo Nova needs more traffic, as someone named Luke has been strongly implying here...
...but do try to stick the flounce this time.
You're a good straight man and if I was a wit we would make a great duo. Maintain your quiet rage and frustration, it works well.
I'm pretty sure we discussed this a couple of weeks ago, and much laughter ensued.
El gordo trots it out again in the hope that everyone will have forgotten that debacle and that this time it won't seem so shoddy. Or maybe this is simply more evidence of his inability to absorb information contrary to his pre-existing beliefs?
So really the blog isn't useful for explaining or debating anything?
It's an intellectual leper colony of nihilism
Luke, you've completely dismissed discussion of some of your points and related issues to the point of denying it has happened. You show no signs at all of being willing or able to discuss in good faith, or even to recognise "explanation or debate" when it happens.
You entered with great fanfare and made a loosely connected set of statements with leaps of logic and argument by implication that you have almost entirely refused to make more rigourous, despite people generously giving you at least some benefit of the doubt in the beginning. You've indulged in conspiracy theorising, repeating widely debunked denialist memes, childish - and I do mean primary school level - taunting in a transparent attempt to manipulate people (who by and large here aren't that easily fooled), shilling for traffic at "skeptic" sites and fluffing our little collection of trolls. And you've pretended that it wasn't your duty to make your contrarian case but rather other people's duty to jump to it to debunk your Gish Gallop.
If you want to discuss science - and are actually capable of making a coherent scientific argument without the bullshit and childish behaviour despite your apparent inability to do so here - then there are no doubt far more appropriate forums and it's revealing that you prefer to stay here and complain that people won't jump when you lift a finger instead.
Then again, as the joke says, you didn't come here for the hunting, did you?
Loth I believe in the 60 year cycle, its real and cannot be denied.
Hi guyzzzzzzzzz :)
I have been to a few farmers meetings over the past few days and they are referring to your scary meme as the.......
New Millennium "Greenhouse Defect"........ lol
They truly are experts in the field :)
Just checking which method we think would give the best results:
- check all the literature and devise a theory that matches the maximum of known facts
- devise a "theory", discard any facts that contradict it, and then pick through the fringe literature to find one or two facts that fit it
??
El Gordo?
Lotharsson - the indelible impression however is a complete inability step up. A complete total inability to step up. So much time spent on sledging and no science discussion. If I look back at the other open threads they are the same.
What is achieved here? Seriously? What?
The compelling value proposition for the continuation of this blog and it having any significant influence on the issue and debate is what?
Anyone who finds a 60-year cycle in a dataset of 120 years needs to check his methodology. Easy to do: just cut off 20 years on either end and do the same analysis. If you get a 50-year cycle, your method is not doing what you think it was doing.
Hi Karen, these boofheads have been insinuating that you're a sock puppet. Is this true?
Good point Marco.
hi el :)
I must be........lol
Dopey detective barnturd once observed that I leave a space between the end of a sentence and an exclamation mark, apparently Mack and another lady did the same,.......lol
No, no, and no again. The only extended ice in that region is the seasonal sea ice - not the continental ice sheet. (Though some people suspect that part of the increased sea ice extent is in fact increased outflow from the land ice.)
no no no !!!!!
the Antarctic ice sheet has got thicker !!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21692423
Yes, I know. Even after you've been asked to stop, think and reformulate whatever it is you're trying to claim as a well-formed and coherent evidence-based argument, and stop denying valid points made in response.
Indelible it certainly is.
I think that's a reasonable question, although a little disingenuous coming from someone who has commented in as bad faith as you have. But first we need to reframe your question without the fallacious presumptions that the value proposition needs to be compelling or that influence needs to be significant in order to be worth continuing. You seem to have spent much of your time here attacking a strawman blog of your own creation. It is what it is, not what you project on to it.
Secondly, the blog was set up to post about about media (mis-)portrayal of science, but without regular posts on the matter it's not doing that anywhere near as much. In that case, one might legitimately ask whether it should continue in its present form.
Nowadays most of the (limited) value is provided by commenters posting material of interest to what remains of the former community, and (generally idly) slapping down the ongoing repetitions of debunked claims provided by the regular trolls. Whether that's sufficient to keep it going, noting that the marginal costs of continuation are small, really depends on the blog owner.
As is par for Karen, that's not what the article she linked to says.
"It’s an intellectual leper colony of nihilism"
And Nova's blog isn't? I went there last evening and looked through the comments in response to a few of her posts. And what do I think? That "It’s an intellectual leper colony of nihilism". The vast majority of posters there make up the intellectual equivalent of a Tea Party shindig. its the usual smears and innuendo, and little substance. But what would one expect from a blog run by a mediocre right wing science writer?
"Bedmap2's new figure for the volume of ice is 4.5% more than previously thought."
lol
JeFfeRy, it must be so frustrating for you sweety, being in the wrong wing.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:2001/to:…
Thanx adelady, I meant the increase in sea ice might be prividing a springboard for CAOs to reach the South American tropics.
**providing**
Karen, do you actually have a brain?
Antarctic ice hasn't become thicker, you mega-doofus, it has got thinner, but it happens to be thicker than previously thought, which means it will melt faster.
On closer inspection it doesn't amount to much, so I'm imagining the CAO are turning up because of atmospheric blocking.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_bm_extent_hire…
"Antarctic ice hasn’t become thicker, you mega-doofus, it has got thinner, but it happens to be thicker than previously thought,"
hahahahaha, you guyz really don't know, lol
I notice that you did not actually deny your sock-puppetry.
For Fatso's information, KarenMackSunspot also shared idiosyncratic ellipsis incapacity with socks Sunspot and Mack, and also a peculiar overlap of posting session times when the socks first emerged. They all post(ed) links to abstracts that don't mean what they think they mean. They all use the same language style, and the same way of referencing me. They all hate my guts with the same spiteful venom because I have pointed out innumerable errors on the puppeteer's part. Sunspot especially was eviscerated on countless occasions and couldn't handle the fact and forgot to turn off his peculiar brand of spite when he put on subsequent socks...
Further, one sock always appeared when another had been soundly whipped, and in the case of "Mack" when Sunspot was first confined to a dump thread. For a while whenever one sock needed some moral support another would chip in with astonishingly vapid praise, completely divorced from any grounding in logic, science or basic mathematical understanding.
I documented other tells but I'll be stuffed if I can be bothered to find the original post. It's sufficient to say that Karen is Mack and Sunspot, and he has never once put forward a counter to the professionally-produced science of climate change that has withstood more than 30 seconds scrutiny.
barnturd, Timmy L knew that I wasn't a sock, and you were the only nuffie that thought that.
Admit it barnturd, you are just embarrassed because you keep getting beaten up by a sweet little girl :)
Jeff, to be fair, neither side of this debate are nihilists. Its become a highly charged academic debate which has spilled over into the political arena.
" and stop denying valid points made in response." gee I must have missed them all !
"But what would one expect from a blog run by a mediocre right wing science writer?" the opposite of a blog run by a left wing science writer especially given she's fallen out of love with the greens - the old rebound harshness
So the plot so far
(a) no answers to Luke1's questions
(b) inmates afraid to chance their arm at Novas - never leave the island
(c) value proposition for the blog found wanting - pointless
Luke continues to lie and deny in his latest comment.
And makes the case for his own non-participation here, but can't seem to accept it.
News at 11.
Stunningly Gordo's reinterpretation of his interpretation of the interpretation is still wrong,
Gordo's context free original comment was "cyclone activity hasn’t been this quiet in 5000 years." By implication referring to some wider region (South Pacific at a minimum, possibly hemispheric). Having at least read the abstract, Gordo will surely be able to tell us over what area the study is based.
Gordo?
El Gordo - their response is Pavlovian isn't it. Nary a meaningful comment. Just an ongoing flak barrage of quips and appeals to authority. Is there a value add? Hard to see? Plus they're creeps.
Heh.
How does El Gordo go for "meaningful"?
Where is there anything of the sort?
Hint: Curry's crank-blog isn't "academic".
"the opposite of a blog run by a left wing science writer especially given she’s fallen out of love with the greens – the old rebound harshness"
Here we go again. The old greens canard. The anti-environmental lobby and climate change denier lobby never tire of using it. Fact is, Codling/Nova has probably always been on the political right. More importantly, she lacks the scientific acumen to be able to establish which science is 'sound' and which isn't. She's a hack - nothing less. And a pretty lousy one at that.,
If Luke thinks her blog is full of rigorous analyses, then let him stay there. My brief sojourn there yesterday showed me a site full of bitter hardened climate change deniers with very little science on display. Her latest post had been a feeble attempt to denigrate Clive Hamilton - par for the course.
If you are so smitten with Nova, Luke, then leave us alone here and cozy up to your heroine there.
Say what you like KarenMackSunspot - you might even learn to believe it, but I know the truth.
And as for the pretense to be a female: every time you take a squirt you'll know that you're a liar - the evidence will be right there in front of you...
Defective barnturd........lol
All together now: it's always...
Jeff - sorry and you are someone who uncritically stuffs GCM runs up your eco-models with their plus of minus multi-model mush.
All I know is Nova has made some good points and posts. And some crap usually when she ventures into the biology - e.g. recently buying into a CSIRO/ANU MODELLING paper (yep same stable that brought you declining evap) that reckons CO2 fertilisation was greening the savannas - if you knew anything you'd know it's a change in fire regime on sub-climax tree/grass associations.
As does Realclimate have excellent posts. Skeptical science is a bit variable. Tamino and Rabbet are great. James Annan good when he's no taking piccies. Science of Doom - information on steriods. Wattsup is mostly trash but alas a bad news source of what the next skanky attack will be. Bravenewclimate has blown past renewables to nuclear.
At least on Nova you can debate a real power engineer not some Zero Carbon Australia flake.
I've fully immersed myself in the debate and am looking for the truth. I'm not going to find any here.
I sit in climate change seminars. I have immediate colleagues running GCMs on HPC infrastructure. And I drill them too.
Many of the questions I asked originally here simply cannot be well answered. The system glosses them over. And government is a machine that carefully edits its message. And the more you look the more you find the domain has only a few players who really really know.
And don't think I'm standing up for Bob Carters, Archibalds and most of the climate sceptic movement either. Cohenite bless his socks is probably one of the more informed sceptics you'll come across but has gotten himself politically so immersed I'm not sure he's going to find what he needs.
And I was teasing before - most people can't explain the greenhouse effect at all - yet they talk about it non-stop.
the greenhouse deffect :)
Well said Luke, but its a little early to write off Archibald and Carter.
And yet he keeps coming back. Inquiring minds wonder why.
Luke I think Abbott should sack two of these and replace them with Carter and Salby. Do you have any objection?
http://climatecommission.gov.au/about/science-advisory-panel/
So what Luke's now saying is that he knows where there are a bunch of other good science discussions, but he currently spends time here complaining about his perception of the quality of discussion (whilst simultaneously engaging in a bunch of tactics that can only decrease that quality).
I think he's quite confused, if only as to why he's here.
Hasn't been a week yet Frank. "Inquiring minds wonder why." But none here!
Cater and Salby????
Its too early here for that..my sides are hurting.... the pain, the pain....
Lotharsson - its an experiment
How about Wenju Cai and Barry Brook?
Luke, The problem with debates is that Tim has taken a hiatus. There are no new posts up here and instead we have endless open threads. This leads the discussion all over the place.
Nova uses her platform to attack people like Clive Hamilton. That recent post on her site wasn't about climate science - it was a character attack. She won't be taken seriously when she resorts to this kind of puerile descent.
As for debates, you'd think that climate science was being done on blogs and not at universities and research institutes. Blogs are interesting places to discuss issues, but thankfully they have no influence on public policy - or shouldn't have. Certainly, the far end of the political right and their corporate funders love blog science, and hate the real kind. That's because the real kind does not fit in with their pre-determined world views.
Paul Ehrlich once told me that he loathed writing his book, "Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future" because as a senior research scientist it meant tackling issues that should not at all be controversial, like the effects of habitat loss on extinction rates, climate change and other contemporary issues. However, powerful vested interests have catapulted these issues into the public mainstream by making them appear to be controversial when to the vast majority of scientists only the potential consequences of these processes is uncertain - the mechanisms themselves are not. And it also means that scientists are deviated form their research when confronted with a veritable army of well funded agenda-driven think tanks, blogs and astroturf groups.
As a working scientist, of course I think a lot of the blogs are shite. I read some of the denier weblogs and its clear that no amount of empirical evidence will ever sway them. Fifteen years ago, AGW was a doomsday myth. It wasn't happening according to the deniers. Then ,as the data continued to accumulate, many shifted their positions to OK, OK, its warming but its due to natural variation. This became the mantra until a couple of years ago when the "It's stopped warming!!!", cries began to echo across the denialosphere. I still see a mix of all three positions on some denier blogs. One day they put up a commentary about solar forcing, then the next day there is no warming anyway, followed by it was warmer in the MWP, then its on to we are into a cooling phase, and so on and so forth. There is no continuity in causation or extent, but there is continuity in one area: we humans are innocent. We have little or no influence. Or else we are involved but the changes are minor.In every instance the prognosis: DON'T ALTER COURSE.
The deniers are thus expert shape-shifters. Anything goes as long as we don't do anything about climate change. In this regard I view them as anti-science liars; dishonest brokers who do not deserve to be heard.
To get back to an earlier point, you can harp on all day about debates so my advice is get of your ass and get to a conference where these debates really matter. Write up your stunning ideas for a peer-reviewed journal where scientists will read it. Most climate scientists have probably never heard of Joanne Nova (and I don't blame them) and most don't give hacks like her, Watts, Milloy, and other blog deniers that time of day.
The more Luke wanks on, the more he sounds like a boganised Bradthing*.
Actually its been 12 days. 12 days of some of the most relentlessly uninteresting posturing, blokey-ness and evasion ever endured on this blog.
Perhaps this answers my question as to why he keeps coming back - it's like the one where Rimmer is doing his slide show of his rambling holiday on the diesel decks isn't it? Luke's trying to make us want JoNova's liquid nitrogen volcanoes and baking soda rockets, just to relieve the tedium of him...
*people who have been here longer than a week are more like to be familiar with this reference.
Gawd all freakin' mighty. Some of us lurkers are losing the will to live waiting for el gordo to explain the physical basis for his 'lag' theory from way back up-thread. Where the hell is it gordo!! Please, just post the page and comment number where you lay it all out so it can be read it in all it's glory ...
'How about Wenju Cai and Barry Brook?'
Wenju Cai is fine but not Brook, because of his nuclear ambitions.
Karoly, Pitman and England are a disgrace and should be replaced.
That was my early impression and it hasn't diminished in the slightest.
Not 12 days of Luke2 yet Frank.
Jeff "To get back to an earlier point, you can harp on all day about debates so my advice is get of your ass and get to a conference where these debates really matter. Write up your stunning ideas for a peer-reviewed journal where scientists will read it." Jeff I've been quoting literature to you. You don't listen. You're thick. Conferences are stage managed. Surely you know that. Vetted - cossetted - reviewed. Come on.
You're so much into the suck game you've can't see daylight.
And you've made on answers except tiresome political lectures. No science from Jeff. NONE ! So why are you here Jeff - filler - bored - cheer squad - wife left you?
"Most climate scientists have probably never heard of Joanne Nova" well I can tell you they HAVE. And they're pissed about it.
It will see the demise of the Australian carbon tax and termination of much of Australia's climate change program.
So if you REALLY cared Jeff baby - you'd be off your arse and into the fray - but you're sitting there pre-retirement waiting for the pension to kick in. Having a little sook here on the island.. You're not going to rock the boat. It's easy just to say tut tut tut.
"the more he sounds like a boganised Bradthing" well that was the aim !
'Where the hell is it gordo!!'
The sun was very active late last century and it was coupled with a warm PDO and some serious El Nino.
This century we have a quiet sun, a cool PDO and more La Nina. The warmth has gone out of the atmosphere and the remnant can be found in the ocean, its the damper.
The OHC is a hot topic of conversation, with scientists like Trenberth suggesting the missing heat will soon rebirth and put the planet on a Venusian trajectory. Which is bollocks.
So the AGW lag is in the oceans, where it will mix with colder water and disappear.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Luke
You are really confused for it is yourself who has shown psychotic tendencies.
Well at least we rely upon qualified, capable and honest scientists who have peer reviewed papers checked by other competent scientists in their own and related fields. And, by contrast you rely upon she with no qualifications of relevance (another interpreter of interpretations) who has a proven track record of association with the fossil fuel industry. You are a bloody joke man, if you are a man at all, at all.
Which reminds me of this dropping (V or N take your pick) from you:
Hard core ref's, really! That's strange I never noticed any.
Whatever, what a hand waving ducking and diving evasive, and abrasive, person you are. The book I had in mind is a broad based introductory text, but with some challenging concepts, which I was trying to help you out with. After all you have demonstrated how narrowly ignorant you are about many of the processes, also the implications and attributions of same.
The book 'Earth's Climate Past and Future' by William Ruddiman is far from a coffee table being a thorough examination of the many aspect with REFERENCES TO ACCREDITED MATERIALS produced under the peer review process.
A process incidentally which some playing the denier/delayer game have tried to pervert by setting up their own houses of journals when the established and recognised ones refuse publication on the grounds of poor research. This as various sleights of hand to get published in established journals has resulted in fallout.
Your lines of argument, in general, reveal yourself as having a very shallow knowledge base not only WRT the science but also the back-story of THE HISTORY OF DENIAL.
This and the aggressive and abrasive tone of your responses, not to mention the foul terms that you litter your posts with (perhaps you need a litter tray - like another thread of your own) make it unpleasant to track through your posts. Thus if any questions you ask are not answered then you have only yourself to blame.
As for this blog being, 'an intellectual leper colony of nihilism', then that is what you have tried to turn it into. This is probably your game, and that of Cox, to wreck this resource that so easily shines light on the 'roaches of the story and is thus a danger to the FF industry and their lackeys, like yourself.
You have been sent here to destroy, not to have intellectual discussion, for your droppings are intellect free as is your favourite source.
What's wrong with nukes?
Here's a post that will make some of you numbskulls smack your chops with anticipation.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/26/breaking-bad-weather-cooking/#mor…
Just proves that things haven't changed much over the centuries.
We still have the same religious fanatics that believe the same totalitarian groupthink nonsense.
Not an individual thought between the lot of you.
'What’s wrong with nukes?'
With so much coal underfoot, state of the art coal fired power stations will be cheaper than going nuclear.
Brook is blatantly selling nuclear power to stop global warming, he's a fuckwit.
Ruddiman - pffft soft indulgent Anthropocene paff.
"to wreck this resource that so easily shines light on the ‘roaches of the story and is thus a danger to the FF industry and their lackeys, like yourself."
don't tug it too hard - REALLY? Nobody has noticed.
Lionel get help - You sound like a raving madman -. You're in Walter Mitty mode on a dead blog. Get a grip.There's nobody here except a handful of deluded rusted-on Kool Drinkers.You think you're saving the world - in reality you're clogging it up. But in sheltered workshop like this it probably doesn't matter.
El Gordo - which is why we need to advance Thorium reactor technology ASAP. You see no risk. I do.
'You see no risk. I do.'
On the evidence (after 17 years of no warming) the scraping of coal fired power stations and replacing them with renewables or nuclear is not warranted.
Thorium is OK, they are testing one in Norway, also Fusion is looking promising now that Bill Gates has thrown money at a test plant in California.
I see these breakthroughs in energy in the same light as mass transport, its better to go with the Hyperloop and bypass the VFT.
Sigh. Altogether now: ...
Lionell greenpisser
Well at least we rely upon qualified, capable and honest scientists who have peer reviewed papers checked by other competent scientists in their own and related fields. And, by contrast you rely upon she with no qualifications of relevance (another interpreter of interpretations) who has a proven track record of association with the fossil fuel industry. You are a bloody joke man, if you are a man at all, at all.
it's irrelevant on what you psychotics rely. the only thing which counts is that the evidence for CO2 waming is weak and not convincingly shown. end of debate
you all insane detoids are silly greenpissers without ethical background and you hate decent, conservative, politically correct people. you are infested by ill gaia ideology, which is utter crap and decadent until hell.
I see that Luke is still pretending that he's not himself in order to evade my questions.
I have never seen a commenter do this before, and it is gratifying.
Luke, you are a liar and a childish liar at that.
Now, drop the silly pretence and step up!
1/ Link to a study that “proves” that the models are “FALSIFIED”
2/ Link to the blog discussion with Kellow
3/ Link to the quote where I am exposed as an "OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIAR".
4/ PAGES 2k validates MBH99. By doing so, it *invalidates* the claims that MBH99 was profoundly flawed. Yes or no?
To recap, that is:
1/ ?
2/ ?
3/ ?
4/ ?
Come on, coward!
Step up!
Fuck off Freddy!
it’s irrelevant on what you psychotics rely. the only thing which counts is that the evidence for CO2 waming is weak and not convincingly shown. end of debate
you all insane detoids are silly greenpissers without ethical background and you hate decent, conservative, politically correct people. you are infested by ill gaia ideology, which is utter crap and decadent until hell.
Oh will you stop repeating this silly lie, Gordy?
Silly lie debunked:
GAT 1996 - present
And OHC. Can't even be bothered to link again.
@All Deltoid AGW greenpissers:
You greenpiss idology idiots misunderstand one fundamental thing: science is not that somebody – like your idols Hansen, Mann, Trenberth or other idedolgy-driven eco fundamentalists – knows more than anybody else and that your idols words have more weight than anybody elses (because those greenpiss ideology proagandists are your gods and you want all other decent people to believe in your decadent and immoral greenpiss faith). No, Harvey and other greenpiss ideologist, science works only on the basis of scientific evidence in the real world -regardless of what your idol Hansen tells you to believe.
The scientific evidence for the validity of the AGW hypothesis is weak:
1) A global surface temperature increase has not been convincingly shown so far due to methodological weaknesses
2) Consequently a part of a hypothetical temperature increase – which could not be shown so far – due to anthropogenic CO2 is not demonstrated so far by climatology
3) GCMS do not provide any evidence for CO2 warming in reality. It’s only virtual reality and clouds cannot be modeled so far. Therefore this is methodological crap.
4) Harveys insect biology is irrelevant regarding the CO2 hypothesis. Life is always adapting to environment, but Harvey does not like this.
You greenpissers on deltoid are poor ideologists, far away from science. You are a shame for mankind. Try to remove your ideological greenpiss dirt and work hard to become decent citizens instead of staying unethical idiots.
Oops!
Sorry!
Forgot to include the RSS top of lower troposphere (TLT) product!
You know - the one that Monckey pretended was surface temperature (!) and used because, well, it's the outlier. He *hid* all the other data from you because he's a liar! And you didn't spot this because you are credulous nit-wits who couldn't be bothered to check!
Actually, I suspect most of you are incapable of checking because even a simple data viewing tool like WfT is way too complex for you.
Sharp-eyed peeps will notice that without the very careful cherry-pick that Monckey did with the start date, the trend is actually positive even for RSS TLT.
He's a cheeky Monckey!
:-)
Link failure:
RSS TLT 1996 - present
The flaw in your ... ahem ... argument is that none, as in not a single one of you deniers has been able to devise a theory that fits the data as consistently as AGW.
You bitch and piss and moan as you've done for years, but you haven't got anything that is remotely capable of superceding AGW.
You just can't do it and your post-normal, past-stupid blogscience never will.
Oh boring BBD has woken up. Another Walter Mitty fool. BBD wakes up. Get on blog. Says same stuff. Goes to sleep. Wakes up. Get's on blog. Says same stuff. Goes to to sleep. Wakes up ..........
BBD the Cainozoic creepy
Absolute and utter bollocks!
Stop repeating this crap. It makes you look insane!
Oh...
:-)
chek - and it was going well until the 2000s ..... then ???
"your post-normal, past-stupid blogscience never will." so why are you here on the Isle of the Dead?
That Groundhog Day of blogs where every day is the same.
Hello Lukes!
Who do you want to be today!
What's that? Okay, Luke wants to be a liar and a coward who has been ripped up so badly here that he has to pretend to be several different people in a desperate, final attempt to evade inconvenient questions!
Big hand for Luke, folks!
He's so crap it hurts!
It is truly remarkable. Is it the Bart Simpson Defence or the I'm Schizophrenic Defence?
#56 Gordy
You are wrong and you have been corrected many times already Gordy, so why are you repeating the same old shite?
You have yet to explain why OHC is still increasing.
If what you argue is correct - and it isn't! - then OHC should be decreasing!
Underneath all this is some very profound physics denial. You are denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Whatever you claim to the contrary. The underpinning of your argument requires this.
Think it through and try again!
#77
It's the I'm so desperately screwed I'll try anything and anyway I'm a blog nutter so I don't care defence.
To witness preening morons like you make utter arses of themselves in the name of furthering their political goals, but achieving the polar opposite.
Hey Lukes!
Why don't you rip Gordy a new one about this "no warming for 17 years" horse shit?
You are supposed to be the science whizz, so get fucking whizzing, eh?
Walk him through the ABC of physical climatology in your own inimitable rat-fucking style!
Show him the error of his foolish ways!
Explain that only c**thooks confuse the troposphere with the climate system. Grab him by the throat and ram his head into the OHC data!
Step up!
Come on!
:-)
“no warming for 17 years” horse shit?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.2/trend/plot/gist…
:-*
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/gist…
ht wuwt
Karen can't even count to 17. Classic clown trolling.
:)
:)
:)
:)
:)
:)
:)
:)
:)
:)
:)
:)
:)
:)
:)
:)
:)
:) :):):):):):):):):):):):):)
:) :)
:) :)
:) :)
:) :)
:) :)
:) :)
:) :)
muffed it......... lol
That is the most egregious piece of cherry-picking I've seen all week Karen! Look at all those month-specific start points! My oh my :-)
LOL!
See #68 for a clear representation of the data!
If you would like an informal tutorial in preparing honest, clear graphs, just let me know!
:-)
Or simply copy what I do!
As a general note, few things underline the raw intellectual dishonesty of the denialist mindset better than deliberately misleading data representations such as the one from WUWT KarenMackSunspotSockpuppeteer links at #84.
One other little fact-ette overlooked by the brains-in-their-bums brigade is that the response to CO2 forcing is *lagged*. Hence the existence of two separately-defined terms:
Transient climate response (TCR)
Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)
What Monckey and others are doing is pretending that there is no lag - effectively they are misrepresenting TCR as ECS. Now they know they are doing this, so it is simply another detail in the way they are lying to Teh Stupid, of which KarenMackSunspotSock and Gordy are such definitive examples.
You poor, lost souls. Children playing in the middle of the motorway.
Berendaneke is into "idedology".
Whatever the hell that is. This guy isn't only stupid - he's totally illiterate.
As for this blog being, ‘an intellectual leper colony of nihilism‘, then that is what you have tried to turn it into
And Tim is letting them.
No, not letting.
ENCOURAGING them.
"Jeff I’ve been quoting literature to you. You don’t listen. You’re thick. Conferences are stage managed. Surely you know that. Vetted – cossetted – reviewed"
Oh come on now, Luke. How much into the anoxic benthos can you dig yourself? Conferences are stage-managed? Really? I've been to dozens - been keynote speaker at a few and Plenary speaker at one - and I didn't see men in black suits hanging around the venue and cue cards on display.
To be honest, I've hardly read such utter shit in my life as this statement from you. Clearly conferences - unless run by the Heartland Institute - aren't your thing. Have you ever been to one where climate change and environmental science are major themes? NO, I thought not. You are one big paranoid conspiracy freak.
"“Most climate scientists have probably never heard of Joanne Nova” well I can tell you they HAVE. And they’re pissed about it."
In your dreams, pal. Besides, where is your evidence? Of course, you have none. The only reason they would have heard of a hack like Nova is because her shit has been rammed down their throats. Otherwise they wouldn't give a third-rate science writer the time of day.
You have been comprehensively shellacked here Luke., Get over it and go back to your shills.
Now where has 'meteor dust' gone when you want him?
So,
Well lookee here, here is another exception similar to you , any difference is only by degrees.
One for the Lukes who dismissed the importance of ecology research is the latest at the Rabett's
Dano on Bees - Lack of Same.
Now note the links in my comment, but first remove your blinkers.
@BBD:
My statement based on current best scientific evidence:
" 1) A global surface temperature increase has not been convincingly shown so far due to methodological weaknesses"
Your "Comment":
Absolute and utter bollocks!
Stop repeating this crap. It makes you look insane!
Fuck off from this blog you dishonest idiot full off greenpiss ideology. You are a shame for mankind.
@BBD:
My statement based on current best scientific evidence:
” 1) A global surface temperature increase has not been convincingly shown so far due to methodological weaknesses”
Your “Comment”:
Absolute and utter bollocks!
Stop repeating this crap. It makes you look insane!
Fuck off from this blog you dishonest idiot full off greenpiss ideology. You are a shame for mankind.
Fuck off you liar and greenpisser!!!
Freddy
Balls.
Present it.
Meanwhile.
You are a nutter Freddie!
:-)
It's starting to dawn on me that Jeff isn't a top flight researcher but in another sort of institution. One wonders what a top flight guy like Prof Jeff is doing here on the Isle of the Dead in the Twilight Zone. Instead of having Walter Mitty moments shouldn't he be writing his next Nature or Ecologia paper and getting ready for the next conference?
The fun thing to do with wankers is see how long you can keep them arguing. How much sheer stupidity you can get them to swing at. How long can you tow them around the pond.
Why? As it goes to the heart of their objectivity. Never argue with a fool as the audience won't know the difference.
Fancy being towed around the pond and STILL arguing the point.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Given that you are insistently repeating complete and utter bollocks I'm going to ram this home a little harder.
This graph compares gridded surface temperature GAT with satellite-based reconstructions of tropospheric temperature at ~14,000ft.
Different instruments. Different methodologies.
Same results.
GISSTEMP, HadCRUT4, UAH TLT linear fits
As I said, you are spouting egregious nonsense.
Get a grip, Freddy!
:-)
Lukes!
Well, you got shredded when you tried to argue so now you have descended into pure trolling. Makes sense. You are the chap who is pretending to be someone else because of the utter mess you made upthread!
And Lukes - that braying thing again!
It's a bit of a tell Lukes!
Stupid lies Lukes!
:-)
#1 Oops - that should of course be GISTEMP.
Did somebody just fart in the corner again? Do I detect an odour of Luke. Question is which one done it.
A few pages back I mentioned that there humans were pushing ecosystems by 'a hundred and one ways', that being a figure of speech, well here is one culprit in one method this being the use of insecticides River Kennet pesticide pollution prompts call for ban the pesticide in question being Chlorpyrifos. This to add to the trouble being caused by Imidacloprid implicated by an earlier post citing articles WRT bees.
BBD greenpisser: your monger bollocks is annihilated:
Given that you are insistently repeating complete and utter bollocks I’m going to ram this home a little harder.
This graph compares gridded surface temperature GAT with satellite-based reconstructions of tropospheric temperature at ~14,000ft.
Different instruments. Different methodologies.
Same results.
GISSTEMP, HadCRUT4, UAH TLT linear fits
As I said, you are spouting egregious nonsense
You insane greenpiss troll are unwilling to learn, how global temperature is calculated. Fuck off from here you ignorant ideology greenpisser
@Lionell
A few pages back I mentioned that there humans were pushing ecosystems by ‘a hundred and one ways’, that being a figure of speech, well here is one culprit in one method this being the use of insecticides River Kennet pesticide pollution prompts call for ban the pesticide in question being Chlorpyrifos. This to add to the trouble being caused by Imidacloprid implicated by an earlier post citing articles WRT bees.
Your bollocks has nothing to do with the unproven CO2 warming speculative propaganda. Piss off from here, you primitive and unethical greenpisser.
By what, Freddy? You neglect to provide any evidence supporting your claim.
Using the html strike tag doesn't have any effect on either radiative physics or temperature reconstructions. It just makes you feel better ;-)
Surface vs. satellite. Two different methodologies. Different instruments.
Same result.
GISTEMP, HadCRUT4, UAH TLT 1979 - present; linear fits
Look at the data. Go on. Click the link and look.
Based on what you have said before, Freddy, I *know* you haven't got the first clue how GAT is calculated!
But on exactly this point, the killer here is:
Surface vs. satellite. Two different methodologies. Different measurement instruments.
Same result.
If you were even remotely conversant with the way science works, this would tell you something important.
* * *
Funny how *all* contrarians resort to repeating debunked bollocks in the end.
I wonder why?
:-)
"Funny how *all* contrarians resort to repeating debunked bollocks in the end."
But even funnier how they couldn't answer my questions.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
'You have yet to explain why OHC is still increasing.'
I read Nic Lewis and Judith Curry on the 'sensitivity' issue, the increase in OHC from AGW appears to be insignificant.
What does the AR5 say? More importantly, what does Luke think?
Funny thing, hypocrisy. Luke earlier said that he agrees that the recent warming is largely down to human activities, and that his guru Nova, the science hack, also does not deny this. Then he demands that we all debate - get this - factors driving GW (if indeed there is any GW).
He also states that his (and Nova's) main beef is that the predictions exaggerate the seriousness of the predicted warming. Now this is where I come in, with a background that would skewer Luke and Nova on a stick - the ecological consequences. But Luke does not go down there, or hasn't yet (I wait with baited breath). And Nova hasn't got the first clue about the field. She hasn't published anything in any field in a peer reviewed journal, as far as I know.
But of course, to Luke, any old excuse will suffice. Conferences - which he has never apparently attended - are 'stage-managed'. I'm sure he also believes that peer-reviewed journals are similarly 'rigged'. He makes Mel Gibson in "Conspiracy Theory" seem downright lucid.
But of course, I assume that he thinks that blogs run by right wing hacks are, in his eyes, 'objective forums'. I'm sure Luke thinks that Watts and his team are all fair-minded in their approach to climate science, that Morano and Milloy are decent enough, and that even the Idso's are only 'seeking the truth'. Forget the old adage to follow the corporate money - that's merely a coincidence.
The Nutty Luke Collective will obligingly think whatever some crank blog told him to think.
BBD greenpisser: again you show your mean character in refusing to learn
BBD greenpisser: your monger bollocks is annihilated
Using the html strike tag doesn’t have any effect on either radiative physics or temperature reconstructions. It just makes you feel better
Surface vs. satellite. Two different methodologies. Different instruments.
Same result.
GISTEMP, HadCRUT4, UAH TLT 1979 – present; linear fits
Look at the data. Go on. Click the link and look.
You insane greenpiss troll are unwilling to learn, how global temperature is calculated.
Based on what you have said before, Freddy, I *know* you haven’t got the first clue how GAT is calculated!
But on exactly this point, the killer here is:
Surface vs. satellite. Two different methodologies. Different measurement instruments.
Same result.
If you were even remotely conversant with the way science works, this would tell you something important.
Funny how *all* contrarians resort to repeating debunked bollocks in the end.
Your task is now to show why the global temperature construction is so fraudulent. Small hint for such an disabled greenpss idiot like you: your beloved satellite data is no surface temperature measurement with a thermometer. YOUR PREFERRED BUSINESS IS METHOD MIXTURES TO BETRAY the public with your damned devil greenpiss ideology. Fuck off from here you betrayer and evil greenpisser.
But we did Lukes!
But you never managed these:
1/ Link to a study that “proves” that the models are “FALSIFIED” per your repeated claim
2/ Link to the blog discussion with Kellow. This I want to see!
3/ Link to the quote where I am exposed as an "OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIAR". Want to see this, too!
4/ PAGES 2k validates MBH99. By doing so, it *invalidates* the claims that MBH99 was profoundly flawed. Yes or no?
Instead of answering, you choose to pretend to be somebody else instead! Which is somewhere between childish dishonesty and barking mad!
Not encouraging, Lukes!
:-)
That's right, have another bray and keep on running!
@BBD SMELLER
Instead of answering, you choose to pretend to be somebody else instead! Which is somewhere between childish dishonesty and barking mad!
Inappropriate argument. Piss off from here.
Here's a list of the blogroll on Nova's blog. Every single site is a deniers. site. No excerptions. Many are libertarian and aimed at eviscerating public constraints in the pursuit of private profit. My word, Nova can't help but wear her ideological heart on her sleeve. I also notice that in several posts she refers to Morano's comedy sire - Climate Depot. Denial doesn't stopp much lower than Morano. I deconstructed an article he wrote on the Amazon Forests a decade ago. Before he switched his far-right allegiances to climate change, Morano was in Rush Limbaugh's camp. The he started writing articles downplaying any environmental threats. His Amazon piece was a real hatchet job of non-science. In it he claimed that only 12% of forests in the Amazon basin had been cleared. Of course, he failed to say how much primary forest was left, as well as how much secondary forest had been damaged by high grade logging and ground level fires which totally alter low-level forest microclimate and make the forests highly susceptible to future fires.
As it turns out, add in these affects, and 35-40% of primary Amazon forests have been lost of severely altered and simplified (as of 2000). Morano's piece went on to ignore the fact that most Brazilians want the forests preserved, not felled, and that people living in areas if intact primary forest are economically better off than people living where the forests have been cleared. He also cited 2 people as 'leading scientists who challenge the conventional wisdom', without saying that neither of the two had any expertise in tropical forest ecology.
This is one of Nova's recommended people and sites. Others on the roll are equally comical. Two of them are based in Holland. One, Realclimategate, is so utterly puerile that I don't know where to begin debunking it. But, considering Luke claims that Nova is an independent writer, this blogroll alone says something completely different. As I said, she's a right wing hack.
ABCnewswatch
Americans for Limited Government
Andrew Bolt
Australian Climate Madness
Australian Climate Science Coalition
Australian Politicians Email list
Bishop Hill
Black's WhiteWash
Carbon Sense Coalition
Cheifio
Climate Audit
Climate Conversation Group
Climate Depot
Climate Sceptics Party Australia
ClimateChangeDispatch
CO2 Science
David Archibald
Delingpole
Donna La Framboise
EU referendum
Freemarket America
Galileo Movement
Global Warming Skeptics Forum
Hide the Decline
IceCap
Jennifer Marohasy
Kens Kingdom
Lavoisier Group
Listen To Us (Petition)
McLean on AGW
Menzies House
My Links & Sources
Niche Modeling
Nick Cater – Lucky Culture
Nigel Calder
NIPCC
Nir Shaviv (ScienceBits)
No Consensus
NZ Climate Science Coalition
Quadrant
RealClimateGate
Roger Pielke Snr
Roy Spencer
Science and Public Policy Institute
Storm data – Policlimate
The Skeptics Handbook
The Thompsons
Tom Nelson
Vostok Ice Core Graphs
WA politicians email list
Warwick Hughes
Watts Up With That
#10 Gordy
Wrong-o! Try expert researchers in this field instead of a retired banker and JC, who isn't qualified to discuss OHC either!
And Gordy, paleoclimate constrains S_ff/2xCO2 to a minimum of~2C and strongly suggests S_ff is ~3C. As I have pointed out here - with references and explanations for you already.
We shall have to wait and see!
Yup. A blog nutter who lies like a six year old outweighs the IPCC. Of course!
@ Freddy
And by jeepers you are stupid!
Can't you read? I compared surface data with satellite data. They are in close agreement for annual means and decadal trend. Can't you *see* that?
Hang on. You can't understand the graphs, can you?
Can you?
That explains a lot :-)
Gather round, folks, and marvel! We've got another one.
More verballing by Jeff. Just can't help himself.
Jo is kindly directing you to the full sceptic tour ! Handy eh? Don't get corrupted now.
"paleoclimate constraints " replete with its assumptions and modelled bunk
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Jeff and chek.... Luke believes CO2 causes GW, its the sensitivity question.
Even though I'm a staunch member of the Denialati I am prepared to be swayed by his argument.
Could this be a reason for denying science ?
http://www.nature.com/news/just-thinking-about-science-triggers-moral-b…
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0057…
And Luke, if I may speak personally for a moment, you need to do something about those moobs. Diet and pectoral exercise. My best advice!
And get a fucking hair cut!
Braying at decades of study doesn't exactly advance your argument, Luke!
You need to produce some scientific evidence that demonstrates, well anything really!
Off you go, Luke!
Thanx Jerry, I'll take that away.
Jeff Harvey - re your list.
I checked out Climate Audit (quite a while ago) and one of the things I could never figure out - why doesn't he ever audit any of the papers that are against AGW ( like say Gerlich and Tscheuschner 2009).
Gordy
You *still* haven't explained why OHC is increasing!
Come on!
No idea BB. I'll wait for the definitive AR5.
This from Jerry's link...
'When faced with a finding that contradicts a cherished belief (e.g. a new study suggesting that humans have, or have not, contributed to global warming), we are more likely to question the integrity of the practitioner. If science is fundamentally moral, then how could it have arrived at such an offensive conclusion? Blame the messenger.'
#21 jerryg
New to me and still skimming Ma-Kellams & Blascovich, but apparently, yes. Which is both unsurprising and yet still dispiriting.
Er, Gordy, I don't think you have understood the material you are quoting.
Gordy, were your *really* ever a journalist? For the life of me, I cannot imagine how you survived.
#26 jerryg
G&T? Rabbet-holed, so he was spared the trouble. But I sense a rhetorical question! And yes, why indeed does SM's "scepticism" only work one way?
A great mystery of our time!
:-)
Oh dear. "Rabett" of course!
Must be the warm weather ;-)
@Harvey greenpisser
STOP WHINING
Here’s a list of the blogroll on Nova’s blog. Every single site is a deniers. site. No excerptions. Many are libertarian and aimed at eviscerating public constraints in the pursuit of private profit. My word, Nova can’t help but wear her ideological heart on her sleeve. I also notice that in several posts she refers to Morano’s comedy sire – Climate Depot. Denial doesn’t stopp much lower than Morano. I deconstructed an article he wrote on the Amazon Forests a decade ago. Before he switched his far-right allegiances to climate change, Morano was in Rush Limbaugh’s camp. The he started writing articles downplaying any environmental threats. His Amazon piece was a real hatchet job of non-science. In it he claimed that only 12% of forests in the Amazon basin had been cleared. Of course, he failed to say how much primary forest was left, as well as how much secondary forest had been damaged by high grade logging and ground level fires which totally alter low-level forest microclimate and make the forests highly susceptible to future fires.
As it turns out, add in these affects, and 35-40% of primary Amazon forests have been lost of severely altered and simplified (as of 2000). Morano’s piece went on to ignore the fact that most Brazilians want the forests preserved, not felled, and that people living in areas if intact primary forest are economically better off than people living where the forests have been cleared. He also cited 2 people as ‘leading scientists who challenge the conventional wisdom’, without saying that neither of the two had any expertise in tropical forest ecology.
This is one of Nova’s recommended people and sites. Others on the roll are equally comical. Two of them are based in Holland. One, Realclimategate, is so utterly puerile that I don’t know where to begin debunking it. But, considering Luke claims that Nova is an independent writer, this blogroll alone says something completely different. As I said, she’s a right wing hack.
ABCnewswatch
Americans for Limited Government
Andrew Bolt
Australian Climate Madness
Australian Climate Science Coalition
Australian Politicians Email list
Bishop Hill
Black’s WhiteWash
Carbon Sense Coalition
Cheifio
Climate Audit
Climate Conversation Group
Climate Depot
Climate Sceptics Party Australia
ClimateChangeDispatch
CO2 Science
David Archibald
Delingpole
Donna La Framboise
EU referendum
Freemarket America
Galileo Movement
Global Warming Skeptics Forum
Hide the Decline
IceCap
Jennifer Marohasy
Kens Kingdom
Lavoisier Group
Listen To Us (Petition)
McLean on AGW
Menzies House
My Links & Sources
Niche Modeling
Nick Cater – Lucky Culture
Nigel Calder
NIPCC
Nir Shaviv (ScienceBits)
No Consensus
NZ Climate Science Coalition
Quadrant
RealClimateGate
Roger Pielke Snr
Roy Spencer
Science and Public Policy Institute
Storm data – Policlimate
The Skeptics Handbook
The Thompsons
Tom Nelson
Vostok Ice Core Graphs
WA politicians email list
Warwick Hughes
Watts Up With That
Your moron monger bollocks shows distintly that you are a green lefty worshopping of pagan god gaia. You primitive nutters are disabled from own "thinking". Fuck off from here you cheap copy troll.
BBD Smeller
default for unappropriate sexual harassment
G&T? Rabbet-holed, so he was spared the trouble. But I sense a rhetorical question! And yes, why indeed does SM’s “scepticism” only work one way?
A great mystery of our time!
What is the unethical purpose of your nasty allusion to sado-masochism. Stop throwing dirt, greenpisser and fuck off, you smeller
I get the feeling that you didn't look at the data!
Or if you did, you just saw squiggly lines!
Oh Freddy. What it must be like to be you.
"I swallowed the whole story" coz I'm a sucker. BBD pers. comm (unist)
Freddy, we crossed at your #35. What are you on about?
Rabett = Halpern!
As any fule kno.
Google is your friend, old Troll!
Use it!
The Lukes :-)
But, but... we were talking about your moobs! This is most unfair! I protest!
My name is Berendaneke, ape BBD Smeller. Your method of debunked nihilistic pigfuck speculation is discarded
I get the feeling that you didn’t look at the data!
Or if you did, you just saw squiggly lines!
Oh Freddy. What it must be like to be you.
Is your real name Ho Chu Min or Kim Il Sung, you nutter?
@Luke @ Lotharsson
Would you say there was a bat-squeak of projection in there?
@The Lukes ;-)
I am ever-more curious about the things you *don't* say. Love the stuff about c**thooks etc, but what about the deafening silence?
Page 34 #81:
Ho Chi Min fucker
you missed grandiously again your CAGW propaganda mission is deterring greenpisser acolyte
Freddy, we crossed at your #35. What are you on about?
Rabett = Halpern!
As any fule kno.
Google is your friend, old Troll!
Use it!
You fucking anti-science and anti-society troll, FUCK OFF from here, you senile bedwetter
No, you're a post hoc rationalising idiot who's only half as clever as you think you are (and about a tenth as clever as Gordon thinks you are).
Perhaps it is. But you have also posted here as Freddy and Boris!
And you know it!
:-)
#44 chek
Well, The Lukes has another chance to demonstrate that he has a basic grasp of physical climatology. He can critique Gordy's tripe'n'onions.
Or not.
@ The Lukes
What do you think about Freddy's weirdness - #41?
Climatology Lesson 1 for CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters:
Science shows you CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters that the hypothesized warming effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.
Deniers never correct a fellow traveller, BBD!
@ The Lukes
Whatever diet you are on, *stop*!
Those moobs are out of control!
Could be a hormonal thing, I suppose. Obviously I cannot ask you about your doctor's opinion, but I am concerned.
Ho Chi Min
@ The Lukes
What do you think about Freddy’s weirdness – #41?
Unbased speculation without relation to fraudulent CO2 betrayal,
#49 chek
:-)
What will The Lukes do?!
Oops! Sorry fellow Deltoids. It just slipped out!
El Gordo - I know it's only a datum point but given the sceptic rhetoric of late http://www.farmweekly.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/farewell-to-…
and in a neutral year too. Doltoids of course wouldn't be up with the STRi work from SEACI.
@Vzek nutter
Deniers never correct a fellow traveller, BBD!
Also insane speculation without relation to fraudulent CO2 betrayal! Piss off from this blog, you are a shame for everybody, not just for your parents.
BBD your gravatar-less spotty image says a lot about you and your mates - what a dour sour humourless lot.
Berendaneke - excellent slam - telling them to GET OFF their own blog really winds them up. Coz they know they've been norty little evil boys.
Repetition 1 of Lesson 1 for teh stupid greenpiss Dumbtoids (as no learning effect could be detected until now):
Climatology Lesson 1 for CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters:
Science shows you CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters that the hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.
Ho Chi Min
LIAR, LIAR, LIAR
barbecue sausage fuck!
Oops! Sorry fellow Deltoids. It just slipped out!
YOU DID THIS ON PURPOSE, YOU LIAR, BECAUSE YOU APOLOGIZED TO FELLOW GREENPISS DUMBTOIDS BEFORE YOU SUBMITTED YOUR UNSPEAKABLE MESSAGE OF VIOLATION OF CIVILIZED HUMANS.
This unspeakable rudeness of yours is unacceptable! You violate the sexual feelings of many innocent readers. Apologize for this now and then fuck off, you greenpiss idiot.
Nice links, Jerry.
Denigrators of science are immoral.
I'm wondering if this crank was educated by the OISM program which features 100 year old, out of copyright textbooks.
Ah!
The Lukes won't critique Gordy's horse-shit after all!
Thanks for nailing that one down Luke!
What is the explanation of the CAGW religion addicted Dumbtoid retards on the fact that
1: there are least 59 times more CAGW condemning climate realism internet blogs than insane CAGW worshipping blogs with only a few annoyed readers
2: that CAGW contrarians and climate realists are on overage considerably more intelligent and better educated than the monomanic CO2 greenpissers with their gaia religion of back to stoneage
@czek greenpisser:
hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.
I’m wondering if this crank was educated by the OISM program which features 100 year old, out of copyright textbooks.
Inappropate response to a scientific statement.
TRY AGAIN, YOU NUTTER
And we're off. Freddy's back in CAPS!
He's COMING BACK folks, so brace!
:-)
What will Freddy do next?!
:-) :-) :-)
Science is decided by blogs?
Who knew?
Who needs moobs?
@Czek the greenpisser
Science is decided by blogs?
Who knew?
Sit down, teh stuoud pupil, you missed the argument!
It's always abjection, you nutter.
Why can't you understand that there is such fierce objection to your insane CO2 religion? Work thru the statement again and give a better answer next time, nutter.
The next paragraph at that link puts a little more context to the global warming quote:
" It’s significantly harder to deny the import of challenging findings when you have the tools necessary to evaluate the process by which scientists arrived at their results. That new study on global warming is tougher to dismiss when you know (and care enough to check) that the methods used are sound, regardless of what you think the authors’ motivations might be. In the absence of such knowledge, the virtue assigned to “science” might also be a motivational force for ideological distortion, the precise opposite of impartial truth-seeking."
" there is such fierce orchestrated and funded objection to your insane CO2 religion including framing science as a "religion" for cranks who couldn't understand the difference if their sanity depended on it"
Corrected that for you Freddyfred.
Oh noes Gordy!
You goofed again!
If only you actually read the links, you could learn a lot!
'Looking at the trend of the past 11 months and bearing in mind that climate drivers like the El Nino-Southern Oscillation are most likely to remain neutral, temperatures will be on the warmer side of the long term norm.'
Is that because of the warm waters around Australia?
The BoM is saying Spring should be cooler than average, so the journalist is making shit up.
Why
Oh
Why
Is
OHC
Increasing
??!!
Whatever can it be?
:-)
No idea ... waiting for AR5.
-------------
Luke... Going on what we know, a cool IPO, neutral ENSO, cool IOD, sun in a slumber and surface temps stalled, can't see a hot summer.
We had a warm winter because of the strong highs, what strengthened that band?
Glad to hear that your views are influenced by the scientific consensus!
But I have an intimation that AR5 might not be quite what "sceptics" anticipate!
:-)
No need. AGL calculates we already have too many fossil generators anyway. http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/agl-says-9gw-of-baseload-fossil-fuels-n…
Apparently they need about a third of Australian. coal power stations to be closed down so they can make any profit from selling into the wholesale market.
Once the document is out there the contrarian blogs will look at it closely and we can debate it here.
----------------
Luke you may remember that I predicted the end of the great drought at Deltoid months in advance. This is the benefit of the place, especially on an open thread.
Its like the old days at Jens place.
Surplus to requirement, fair enough.
El Gordo (over their heads of course)
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/Timbal_UNSW2009.pdf time series page 5
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3492/abstract
El Gordo of course Jeff would have just uncritically applied CMIP5 to some dubious ecological model for SE Australia and he would have been wrong. (Assuming he's not on the Amsterdam hooch)
Not from Nova's
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50208/abstract
Thanks, some good stuff to talk about.
He's not here for the hunting. What he doesn't tackle, and what he doesn't critique, is one of his "tells".
Repetition 2 of Lesson 1 for teh stupid greenpiss Dumbtoids (as no learning effect could be detected until now):
Climatology Lesson 1 for CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters:
Science shows you CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters that the hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.
Lotharsson - and more than ditto for you guys. And man it really shows.
Lol! You're aiming over our heads and you think you'll hit El Gordo?
Hohoho. Luke's still a comedian.
BBD was addressing a poster named 'Freddy'. So if BBD addressed Freddy, why would you even respond to the comment with a complaint about your own name? Unless of course you are Freddy - which everyone knew anyway...
Sheesh, the deniers here are stupid. And diseased. I am actually growing more and more pleased that they piling on here, because they are a wonderful documentation of the intellectual depauperacy of the denialist cause. It's a sad indictment on the inferior abilities of too much of the human population, but at least it's being catalogued.
An interesting paper:
http://gisandscience.com/2013/05/22/bedmap2-improved-ice-bed-surface-an…
Yes, I liked that one, it was the one Karen/Sunspot-freak linked to on the misunderstanding it implied Antarctica was growing, although it turns out it says the opposite.
They're not very good, are they?
Something for everyone
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/26/i-know-im-right/
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/24/who-is-on-which-side-in-the-climate-d…
Luke, hilariously Judith Curry manages to refer to her "Italian flag" when talking about overconfidence.
Several people with considerably more statistical knowledge have already pointed out that her Italian flag is complete nonsense:
http://initforthegold.blogspot.dk/2010/10/judith-curry-born-beyond-shar…
http://julesandjames.blogspot.dk/2010/11/wheres-beef-curry.html
Note that the latter also gives some reasons why she is "thrown off the island" as she states on the second link you gave. Not that she will mention those...
Craig the Sub Tropical Ridge is important, at least in Timbal's mind, so if you nothing further to add....
The important point is that the strengthening of the STR comes about through warmer temperatures produced by AGW.
This is debatable.
"Jeff and chek…. Luke believes CO2 causes GW, its the sensitivity question"
So, Fatty, you can be swayed by Luke, a guy with no publications, no pedigree in climate or environmental science etc., but not by really qualified trained scientists with hundreds of publications. Says everything I need to know.
Oh how I defer to Luke's infinite wisdom. Please come back Jonas! All is forgiven! Even your ego doesn't match Luke's! Good Lord, the deniers on here have bloated self-opionions. And Luke is pushing for the top spot in this regard. The blogroll I provided yesterday is proof positive that Nova doesn't give a damn for objective science, but that she is agenda driven. She's a cherry picker. All deniers are. Watts. McIntyre. Morano. The Idso's. Every one of them.
All Luke could say in responding to my challenge about the ecological effects of warming was to make a snide remark about some models for Australia. Forget the huge and growing pile of studies showing effects on demographics, distribution, and mechanisms. Admittedly they are probably way over Luke's head, but his reticence to go down this road is understandable.
I agree with Bernard that, for the most part, the deniers on Deltoid are stupid and diseased. A sordid lot if ever there was one. Some of their arguments are so utterly devoid of logic that they are almost impossible to counter. Like Luke claiming, with not a scintilla of evidence, that scientific conferences are 'stage-managed'. The same with Karen's constant referral to a left wing global conspiracy driving climate and environmental science. And the constant referral of almost all of the deniers to communism/greens.
What a bunch of losers.
Tripe Jeff - I observe in-house government and university modelling of natural systems, hydrology, ecology, GCMs, climate change downscaling every week. Don't be so utterly pretentious and deceitful that' it's all neat and tidy. It isn't.
Don't worry about Jo. Just answer the question(s). You can't. So your defence is that you don't need to answer the question or people who are smarter than you know so the question doesn't need answering.
Frankly Jeff - that's weak as water. Your defence is the system and that your back is covered.
You should in a workman like fashion be able to simply rebut my points. You have had ample opportunity. The reason you can't is that we don't know it all.
And conferences are stage managed (depending on the type) - but take here locally Greenhouse 2011 and 2013 - you tell me ! Conferences set up by the system for the system paid for by the system and giving answers palatable to the system.
You're so far down the rabbit hole now that you're never going to come up. And the point is that unwittingly your utter devotion to the system makes me sure you've exceeded your objective science mandate and have signed onto virtuous noble cause corruption - unwittingly - I'm sure you're genuine in your beliefs - I'm not saying fraudulent.
However with increasingly conservative administrations anti-AGW we will be asked to more robustly defend climate science positions. Just hand waving about deniers won't get you off the hook - answering the questions will ! If you do then the denialti will be left irrelevant. If you don't the sceptic fraternity will simply have a field day.
In Australia at the moment they have comprehensively and easily won. Failure of mainstream science to engage is partially the point. However the establishment really isn't allowed to engage - governments and CSIRO are all now comprehensively politically managed and all communications vetted. If you're in some ivory tower close to retirement in some uni - you're in la-lah academic land. Come and stand a post on the front line of policy implementation/science evaluation reality.
If you're serious Jeff you would have joined on my numerous entrees about downscaling. Frankly I don't think you do any serious work in the field or you'd have been all over me. It's amateur hour isn't it?
Downscaling being how your would couple to GCM/RCM output......
"deniers to communism/greens." - it's just tit for tat - get over it and make better arguments !
Yep... that's pretty well covered it, Luke.
Bernard greenpiss ideologist
BBD was addressing a poster named ‘Freddy’. So if BBD addressed Freddy, why would you even respond to the comment with a complaint about your own name? Unless of course you are Freddy – which everyone knew anyway…
Sheesh, the deniers here are stupid. And diseased. I am actually growing more and more pleased that they piling on here, because they are a wonderful documentation of the intellectual depauperacy of the denialist cause. It’s a sad indictment on the inferior abilities of too much of the human population, but at least it’s being catalogued.
It is incredible to which deep levels of character, intellect and logic fails the greenpiss Deltoids are guilty. Apart from primitive ad hominem rants and deceiving climate fraud argueing there is nothing from this deserted leper island of nihilism where the doltoid greenpissers live. Fuck off AGW greenpissers from this blog!
Oh well, winter's nearly over.
I suppose some people think it's watermelon season already. Unfortunately they're the stale, half-rotted ones someone left at the back of the shed from last season. This little meme is well past its use by date.
BBD greenpiss addict, do I interpret you right that you swine would like to nuggle on one of tits of luke's pretty image?
Admit the truth you swine!