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.
4001
Again victory
I am proud, on behalf of all decent climate realists, to have won the race for the 4000th and 4001st comment on Deltoid against all the slow and computer-illiterate CAGW greenpisser inhabitants of leper island of nihilism. No wonder that all greenpissers are sooooo retarded. Fuck off from this blog.
All the usual vague claims and unspecified influence and handwaving from Curry. And if she had anything solid enough to publish in the literature, she'd do so but she hasn't so she blogs it, where it's only going to be seen by her coven of confused denier nutters in their misplaced search for an authority figure.
Yep, AR5 will give deniers the shits, hence the advance noise.
Congratulations Berendaneke :)
What a sad excuse for a person.
"President Ollanta Humala announced the emergency for seven provinces in Puno – Carabaya, Sandia, Lampa, San Antonio de Putina, Melgar, Puno and El Collao.
Hundreds of families have been affected and more than 250,000 alpacas have died due to freezing temperatures and snow storms."
http://elcomercio.pe/actualidad/1623460/noticia-puno-zonas-afectadas-ne…
hmmmm,,,,,,,,,,,does Peru have a carbon tax ?
if so maybe they had better reduce it a bit :)
Congrats Beren.
me tinks shrek is jealous,
never mind shrekie, we will let you get it next time honey :)
"A rare snowfall in Chile's Atacama desert has delighted visitors to one of the world's driest areas.
Residents of San Pedro de Atacama say the weekend snow was the heaviest in three decades for the desert city, which is 750 miles north of the capital, Santiago.
But local officials say they are concerned that the snow and rain that fell over the weekend could cause some rivers to flood as has happened in the past."
http://news.sky.com/story/1133717/chiles-atacama-desert-sees-rare-snowf…
Oh golly gee wizz.........that blooody tax !!!!!!!!
You're projecting again SpamKan. Splashing shit wall to wall over hundreds of comments may be admirable from your brainless perspective, but it's not what sane people either do or congratulate.
But I'll take it as a metaphor for your collective denier psychosis.
"I am proud, on behalf of all decent climate realists, to have won the race for the 4000th and 4001st comment"
Tells you all we need to know about you, Freddy, when you have to write this. Get a life, loser.
"Once the UNFCCC treaty was a done deal, the IPCC and its scientific conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy. The entire framing of the IPCC was designed around identifying sufficient evidence so that the human-induced greenhouse warming could be declared unequivocal, and so providing the rationale for developing the political will to implement and enforce carbon stabilization targets. National and international science programs were funded to support the IPCC objectives.
Were [these] just hardworking scientists doing their best to address the impossible expectations of the policy makers? Well, many of them were. However, at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise."
"When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC. Some are mid to late career middle ranking scientists who have done ok in terms of the academic meritocracy. Others were still graduate students when they were appointed as lead authors for the IPCC. These scientists have used to IPCC to gain a seat at the “big tables” where they can play power politics with the collective expertise of the IPCC, to obtain personal publicity, and to advance their careers. This advancement of their careers is done with the complicity of the professional societies and the institutions that fund science. Eager for the publicity, high impact journals such as Nature, Science, and PNAS frequently publish sensational but dubious papers that support the climate alarm narrative.
Especially in the renascent subfields such as ecology and public health, these publications and the media attention help steer money in the direction of these scientists, which buys them loyalty from their institutions, who appreciate the publicity and the dollars."
Did you miss the bit where I claimed both things were happening in the same place? Thought so, seeing as I never claimed that.
So, ignore the substance of the post and throw up a red herring apparently based on your own authority, disagreeing with other data ? Of course you did.
(Never mind the obvious fallacy: over-stated (even if accurate) doesn't mean "not serious".)
...which has no bearing on my point. Putting your head in the sand doesn't make the threat go away.
(You're reliably crap at this, which is interesting. You seem like you're not smart enough not to be, so it seems deliberate.)
Yes SpamKan @ #12 & 13, we already know Curry is a mediocre scientist whose bitterness at bigger talents has been nurtured for so long it's now permanently etched into her face.
Unfortunately for you and her, her rant doesn't change the laws of physics, or what more able scientists and their professional bodies recommend.
100% Of Climate Models Overpredicted Temperature Rise
"Climate scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that they don’t understand the climate, yet they want us to believe their latest crap about missing heat at the bottom of the sea."
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/100-of-climate-models-ove…
"Why adopt an alarmist meme – WHY coz some fucktard like Jeff has put his shitty GM output plus or minus a barn into his shitty ecology models and produced some …. shit !"
Nothing shitty about the empirical evidence is there, Luke. But then again, since you don't do science and are a bonafide 'fucktard' (your own term), you don't understand it. The ecological literature is full of studies showing effects of warming on a range of ecophysiological processes - its too bad that you're such a numbskull and thin that the evidence is thus far circumstantial and based on models. The new Nature Climate Change article not only explores the projected effects of increased ocean acidification on marine biota, but on effects already well described.
Like most deniers, you can't debate yourself out of a dripping wet paper bag. But in your own mind you are something of a witty expert. Truth is that you are a witless crank. You're also a liar - how many times have you said that you won't post here any more and then to come back? I've counted at least 3. Must be more.
So get off your backside and do some reading. Or else go and cozy with hacks like Nova, who are similarly saddled with superiority syndrome - while lacking any real evidence to support it.
The Luke writes up this utter tripe: "Unlike El Gordo I see AGW as a significant risk. But how much? How does one play that off against many other deserving needs for research and investment"
Its the old Lomborg priority investment gambit. But of course the money is there. Its just that the will isn't, not when this conflicts with the interests of investors and the privileged few. The US alone has a military budget of close to a trillion dollars a year. They spend huge sums killing people. Imagine what that money could do if it was invested into helping people and creating a just future. Throw in tax evasion/avoidance and the entire military-industrial state, governments that are beholden to the corporate sector etc. and its clear to see why the interests of the poor and of the environment have never been high up on the agenda. Read quotes from the likes of important politiicans/planners like Smedley Butler, George Kennan, Henry Kissinger and Thomas Carrothers over the years and the real agendas become clear - or should. The argument that 'there isn't enough money to deal with multiple problems' is bullshit. Certainly elites use it to justify quite abhorrent policies aimed at ensuring capital flows remain largely uni-directional (poor to rich) and in support of expansionist foreign policies, but its pure garbage. Kindergarten level stuff. Trust old Luke to use it.
Inflows to Perth's dams would be a starter.
Recent.
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/dam-levels-at-record-low-despite-delu…
Historical.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=perth+dam+inflows+1970+graph+image&s…
Gordo, how many years have temperatures been "flat" again? Can you go an entire day without contradicting your own stupid lies for once?
Fatso.
I'm still waiting for you to take my money from me.
Anyone else on this thread who is posting in support of the plateau/hiatus/halt/cooling is welcome to jump in ahead of Fatso if he's too scared to stand by his own position.
Bernard, shame on you. What about all those proponents of the "tipping point" for a period of cooling? They should get their chance, surely.
Adelady.
Oh, they have their chance too. I've offered Mr Monckton a wager based on that very thing, but so far there's been no response.
As it always is. When push comes to shove I can never get a Denialatus to defend their anti-science claims with cash. I suspect that deep down they all know that they're peddling snake oil...
It's consistent with that, which if accurate would imply that they are trying to convince other people of propositions that they aren't personally convicted by.
Hah, hadn't seen the latest tomfoolery from Monckton. Shades of McLean's spectacularly ludicrous cooling prediction. I wonder whether Monckton's "math geek with a track record" is McLean, or even Monckton himself?
Or Piers Corbyn maybe or even Joe Bastardi.
Freddiot
Now that you've delighted yourself by posting the 4000th/4001st comment, will you *please* stop the DOS bollocks?
It is a pain in the effing arse.
And another day crickets from Luke on the little problem of simultaneous OHC increase in all major basins...
I think he's hit the wall with this one!
:-)
Given the usual outpouring of bollocks about Fyfe et al. and Kosaka & Xie by people who didn't understand (and didn't read) the studies but *do* get their scripts from disinformer blogs, it's encouraging to find a lucid, correct discussion of both by John Nielsen-Gammon.
Recommended to all!
:-)
Jeff revealed as a true communist - tax them more - redistribute wealth. What a prick. Hope you're giving all your salary away on not sitting in a nice little house somewhere in the Netherlands like a massive hypocrite.
Mate we do our own research on ecophysiological processes and only a bullshitter would not put forward the sheer complexity of issues here.
Ocean acidification - where? You mean slight change in alkalinity impossible to detect against background variation. The last refuge of scoundrels. Dissolution of shells is chemothermodynamically impossible. Unless you're hydrochloric acid pouring mesocosm douche bag.
And which journal(s) do you publish it in?
In the world's oceans, as recognised and named as such by oceanographers
Note, not as misunderstood by some douchebag denier of the calibre Gordon would know braying and pontificating outside whatever limited and minor expertise he has, if any.
Your juvenile political sloganeering is to be expected, and you fail to recognise that wealth is always redistributed, although usually in an upward direction. Wealth derives from appropriating the effort and ingenuity of millions of common people.
I suspect you have a problem with those common people being compensated for their share of The Commons being treated as a free garbage dump literally and ecologically, but no problem whatever with people shouldering losses incurred by those far richer.
And so the common people bail out mismanaged banks and corporate entities while those entities simultaneously extract ring fenced 'profits' to redistribute to their shareholders.
Objecting to that process is not 'communism'. You however are an active apologist for plutocracy leading to oligarchy.
chek
I hope it goes without saying that I agree with your #32 and yawn when chemistry denial rears its cross-eyed and drooling head.
But if you are there, are you having intermittent problems loading this site?
Hi BBD - it's been a pig just seeing pages all day, and worse when uploading a comment - it often taking three or four attempts. I'm hoping a bunch of duplicates don't suddenly appear!
It's not quite as bad this evening, But still not back to 'normal'.
Thanks. Confirms not browser-specific (you are IE; I am FF). Teh Freddiot, I suspect.
Interesting the trouble some people will go to to shut down the debate!
When they have lost it!
:-) :-) :-)
Incidentally BBD, there's an interesting discussion here with Mike Mann regarding Curry's latest do-nothing bleatings.
JC is so badly adrift over this it moggles the bind.
Is there a #JCWTF?
If not, there should be!
:-)
Czeck greenpiss communist
Your juvenile political sloganeering is to be expected, and you fail to recognise that wealth is always redistributed, although usually in an upward direction. Wealth derives from appropriating the effort and ingenuity of millions of common people.
I suspect you have a problem with those common people being compensated for their share of The Commons being treated as a free garbage dump literally and ecologically, but no problem whatever with people shouldering losses incurred by those far richer.
And so the common people bail out mismanaged banks and corporate entities while those entities simultaneously extract ring fenced ‘profits’ to redistribute to their shareholders.
Objecting to that process is not ‘communism’. You however are an active apologist for plutocracy leading to oligarchy.
You are really a communist and angry that you don't belong to the rich, like Lionel, Marco, Stu, BBD, and all other greenpissers. You don't deserve to belong to the rich since you are devoid of any significant talents with which you could make money. Even your scribble isnt worth penny so ridiculously irrelevant and annoying is your evil greenpiss sloganism full of hatred against mankind. Piss of from this blog.
Who is the 'we' therein? Not you yourself for your statement about 'dissolution of shells' shows you for the ideological ignorant bigot that you are.
As for wealth distribution, chek nailed that in his following posts.
What are you Luke? One of those hired to protect the real leeches of societies, i.e. those who make private fortunes with society at large shouldering the losses and degraded environments. Look what has happened to mountain tops in Appalachia for just one example. And fracking is another environmental destroyer in action.
And bottled water has to come from somewhere. Now where did I hear about the Shrubs buying up land in South America with large aquifers beneath. What these idiots don't realise is that when ecosystems completely fall apart it isn't going to be fun for the even few left thereafter as the food chain dominoes fall. This after even their guards have turned on them.
We are arguing against you, and your blinkered kind, so that this is not the future that eventuates.
#38
I'm not "rich", Freddy, but I bet 10 troy oz 24ct gold that I've got more personal wealth than you!!!
:-)
After all, I am the King of Old Siam!
;-)
'how many years have temperatures been “flat” again?'
There is little doubt that its been flat for 13 years.
Gordy
Read The Friendly Links!
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2013/08/learning-from-the-hiatus/
Try to understand!
:-)
Even the rich don't belong to the rich anymore, Freddyfred Despite what you may have been led to believe with stories about the poor being 'irresponsible' with mortgages on ticker-tape box homes, the intent of the on-going bailout is to preserve the derivatives market. How many common people do you think have options on futures?
Your Cold War (i.e. prehistoric) political views don't begin to address the situation we're in, the so-called rich having mortgaged the future with a wonderful selection of financial instruments to the tune of between $750 T and $1.4 Q (Quadrillion). By way of comparison., global GDP is approx. $60 Trillion per annum.
Tell me about your 'communism' again, Freddyfred and The Lukes. I'm interested in anything that can be a greater threat to society than the derivative bubble. Like Climate Change for one..
A question for those who think that we can shift agriculture aware from the equator to "take advantage" of global warming. Where's the infrastructure?
Supplementary questions: where are the farmers? When will they start producing meaningful quantities of crops? What are you going to eat in the meantime? How much will it cost?
Shockingly, Luke has no fucking clue what communism is.
I'm sooo surprised.
#44 TB
Very important questions. And before we build a single railway or road, what about the soil in this miraculous Terra Nova oop North? Crops are fussy about soil pH and drainage. Not to mention photoperiod and temperature!
It all has to be hunky dory to feed the world!
Big gamble with high stakes!
:-)
This 'fortress' mentality is seemingly gaining round Lionel as desperation takes hold. Dana N is also discussing Curry's latest nonsense here and one commenter is convinced that investing in UK East Anglian sea-level defence is the answer as far as we're concerned.
I saw a film (movie) recently which highlighted the perception problem in play here. It was called The Purge (yeah, I know, but it had Ethan Hawke in it, so me and my sons being huge sci-fi fans I thought maybe ...) in which the inhabitants of a protected enclave seemed to think that steel shuttered doors and windows were an adequate investment.
If only they'd consulted the owner of a local sink estate shop on my bus route to work! He could have told them that all that happens is they come through the roof tiles instead. That wasn't considered by the writers, just as a thousand-and-one other things aren't considered by the fortress mentality proponents.
As you say, what the idiots don't realise is that there are no shortcuts to a liveable world. Which is easily within our grasp once long-term priorities are sorted.
There have been posts from Jeff over the past few years explaining how the acid soils of the Canadian Shield are totally inappropriate for crops.
I once actually began calculating how many trainloads (at 10KT per train) of compost, sand, potash etc., etc. would be required to even make a dent, but gave up when the numbers just became stupid.
It's funny how the wheels on my little lad's Lego vehicles are better attached than those of certain "arguments"!
:-)
'There’s no “natural variability only” run to compare to.'
Pity.
Try to understand, Gordy.
At least try.
Before you deny!
:-)
We're not talking about the rich - we're talking about the middle class. If you fucks want to give all your money to poor countries and become like them go right ahead. "The noble poor" - pigs bum. I know what we contribute in aid collectively as a society and what I do personally. I know what nations national parks are in good condition and what parks are being pilfered, trashed and poached. Want nature conservation - you won't be paying for it with the poor's money nor defending it. Fucking Dana and Cook living the high life at University of Queensland and fucking off all around the world on their massive carbon footprint while lecturing us about cutting back. I hope all you cunts have given all your worldy goods away, are wearing sackcloth and are sitting there with a candle and a Negroponte One Laptop Per Child powered by a bicycle. So hypocrites go and get straight fucked.
And as for ocean acidification (really imperceptible alkalinity tweaking) - as a combatant once remarked.
"Aragonite (the form of calcium carbonate secreted by corals) and calcite (the form of calcium carbonate secreted by calcareous forams i.e. the phytoplankton known as cocolithophores) CANNOT begin to dissolve unless they are thermodynamically permitted to do so i.e. their Saturation Indices (SIs) must be less than zero.
For an ocean fully equilibrated with the atmosphere, it would require an increase in the partial pressure (concentration) of CO2 in the atmosphere 6.4 times the current level to 2455 ppmv (presently 384 ppmv) to drive the SI of aragonite down from its present +0.61 to zero.
pH of the seawater would then be 7.52 (expressed at 25 C, the standard temperature for expressing pHs).
For an ocean fully equilibrated with the atmosphere, it would require an 8.8 times increase in the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere to a level of 3388 ppmv ppm (presently 384 ppmv) to drive the SI of calcite down from its present +0.73 to zero.
pH of the seawater would then be 7.39.
These values are based on over 200 years of the study of (and parameter measurement in) solution thermodynamics and can be easily obtained in about 15 minutes using any standard geochemical model such as USGS PHREEQC.
The established paleoclimatic literature shows quite clearly that the occurrences of corals and calcareous phytoplankton in the geological record over the last several hundreds of million years are fully consistent with the above thermodynamic facts.
Thus the modern level of CO2 in the atmosphere of 384 ppmv would have to double 2 – 3 times before corals and calcareous plankton would begin to disappear.
Until we approached such a condition any field observations are highly likely to be instances of natural, complex ‘noise’ restricted to specific species or other local factors."
Aragonite (the form of calcium carbonate secreted by corals) and calcite (the form of calcium carbonate secreted by calcareous forams i.e. the phytoplankton known as cocolithophores) CANNOT begin to dissolve unless they are thermodynamically permitted to do so i.e. their Saturation Indices (SIs) must be less than zero.
For an ocean fully equilibrated with the atmosphere, it would require an increase in the partial pressure (concentration) of CO2 in the atmosphere 6.4 times the current level to 2455 ppmv (presently 384 ppmv) to drive the SI of aragonite down from its present +0.61 to zero.
pH of the seawater would then be 7.52 (expressed at 25 C, the standard temperature for expressing pHs).
For an ocean fully equilibrated with the atmosphere, it would require an 8.8 times increase in the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere to a level of 3388 ppmv ppm (presently 384 ppmv) to drive the SI of calcite down from its present +0.73 to zero.
pH of the seawater would then be 7.39.
These values are based on over 200 years of the study of (and parameter measurement in) solution thermodynamics and can be easily obtained in about 15 minutes using any standard geochemical model such as USGS PHREEQC.
The established paleoclimatic literature shows quite clearly that the occurrences of corals and calcareous phytoplankton in the geological record over the last several hundreds of million years are fully consistent with the above thermodynamic facts.
Thus the modern level of CO2 in the atmosphere of 384 ppmv would have to double 2 – 3 times before corals and calcareous plankton would begin to disappear.
Until we approached such a condition any field observations are highly likely to be instances of natural, complex ‘noise’ restricted to specific species or other local factors.
Who the fuck is DOS attacking this site. Please desist.
Well, Luke, it's either you and your chums or "Freddy"!
Who knows!
But do please stop, whoever you are!
:-)
'At least try. Before you deny!'
The models would all work perfectly if CO2 was taken out of the equation.
[citation needed]
#57
No, Gordy, that is rubbish!
Please at least *try* to understand!
I know AR4 is nearly old hat now, but I have a strong feeling nothing has changed!
You're actually incapable of seeing beyond your spoon-fed, suburban Republican nutter horizons, aren't you The Lukes.
"You’re actually incapable of seeing beyond your spoon-fed, suburban Republican nutter horizons, aren’t you The Lukes."
Don't verbal me - I'm not a Republican or Conservative voter. You see more and more verballing - goes to the heart of your objectivity as I keep telling you. You've bought into the whole CAGW meme replete with politics. What else have you made assumptions about? Maybe I'm in the bush - why am I in a suburb. Maybe I'm in that van parked across the street from you?
But next time you're slagging try "Tea Party libertarian extreme deregulation fucks". Works better but still wrong.
And yet, there's you railing and gnashing away about the 'high life' as lived by ... junior academics?
I'm not 'verballing' you The Lukes. You actually are a moron.
Luke, you are overlooking something very important with respect to the issue of calcifer shells.
The critical thing for most calcifers isn't how quickly their calcium carbonate shells/skeletons dissolve, but rather how easily they can be formed. The closer to the saturation index that the environment moves in response to acidification, the more energy is required to fix the calcium from solution. Many species are already on tight energetic budgets and simply don't have the ability divert more energy to draw the more-difficult-to-obtain calcium that results from an acidified ocean.
And as individual of most calcifer species have lifespans on the order of days to months, and perhaps to several years at the most, the compromised ability to properly form new calcium structures is what the problem is all about.
Your dissolution argument is a red herring.
Ever visited the University of Queensland. It's a tough gig - sub-tropical, Staff Club with a la carte menu, cinema, leafy suburb on the river, nearby restaurants and barista bars. Just like sub-Saharan Africa.
Fatso:
So put your money where your mouth is.
Ever visited the University of Queensland. It’s a tough gig – sub-tropical, Staff Club with a la carte menu, cinema, leafy suburb on the river, nearby restaurants and barista bars. Just like sub-Saharan Africa.
Universities are 'built' by politicians and beaurocrats. What does the design of a campus have to do with the implications of the science conducted therein?
Bugger. Closed the opening tag...
Universities are 'built' by politicians and beaurocrats. What does the design of a campus have to do with the implications of the science conducted therein?
The ocean is isn't acidified - it's still alkaline !
Bernard - good call - at least someone's awake - but as lovers of palaeo I wonder how the fauna survived previous epochs of high CO2. Yes is is about rate but why does the meme bang on about dissolution? How does the current fauna survive the daily variation in pH?
John Cook suffering at UQ
http://www.scmb.uq.edu.au/images/images/images/uq-campus.jpg
Are you sure Bernard?
The Lukes have after all read a page (maybe two!) on some blog and know everything required to start telling us all and instructing professionals such as yourself as to why OA is an imaginary problem.
BJ its better to avoid betting, because one of us is going to lose and it would be sad to spoil a friendship.
I'm prepared to give up my membership with the Denialati in a couple of years if we don't spot a tipping point going south, then join the sceptics who believe there maybe a little positive feedback from increasing CO2, but nothing like the alarmists are predicting.
Waiting for AR5.
Sigh. Luke doesn't understand the term "communist" and deploys "redistribute wealth" in almost precisely the fashion the rabid US Tea Partiers don't understand it, regardless of his denial of being a Republican or Conservative voter.
And Luke uses that to avoid rebutting any of Jeff's points about how the human world works, especially how the first world derives a huge amount of wealth from exploiting the rest.
Then goes off on tangents like this:
Which still has nothing to do with how the first world massively exploits the rest, and fuck all to do with how the very rich privatise the profits and socialise the costs (CO2 in the atmosphere being one of the poster children for that ploy).
Goes to his lack of objectivity, I say ;-)
I seem to recall they are also fussy about the microbiology of the soil which varies geographically and AFAIK we have no industrial scale mechanism for transplanting from one region to another.
Speaking of chemistry, we now have this bit of denier chum:
Good grief. Luke apparently doesn't understand that the term "acidification" doesn't imply "became acidic", but feels qualified to comment on shell chemistry. Add that to Luke's growing DuKE list.
Straw man. No-one is saying that the oceans are "acidified".
They are, however, acidifying.
Many marine calcifers didn't.
In fact many other species didn't either.
Probably because the lay public understand it better in this form than they would if they were told of compromised deposition rates and patterns.
And when it comes to community structures such as the Great barrier Reef, then over its lifetime dissolution is actually a factor to be considered.
Red herring.
It's no different to how plants fix carbon each day - they do it when diurnal conditions are conducive, when the energy requirements are optimal.
If the regular availability of deposition conditions changes, as happens when mean ocean acidity increases, then the issue of energetic inability to properly fix calcium manifests. It's little different to a seedling being shaded by a more quickly growing tree.
Do you really need pictures drawn in order to work this out?
Graph CO2 emissions versus infant mortality.
Lotharsson if you're troubled - give all your money away. Have you?
Meme bullshit on "ocean acidification" - same bullshit with "CO2 pollution". Alkalinity reduction is the correct term.
Get real Bernard - you'll find corals doing well in a range of pH environments. It's just bedwetting.
Look over there, a squirrel!
The answer doesn't affect Jeff's observations nor your inability to rebut them, not what that says about your inappropriate use of political terminology (never mind the science). So we'll add that to your growing list of points on which you have ducked, dodged, weaved and ignored. It's becoming quite a pattern with you.
Nope. "Acidification" is ALSO correct terminology.
You are really determined to show that you don't know what you are talking about on a whole range of issues, aren't you?
Gack, close tag failure. Sorry folks.
You are confabulating. An increse in ocean acidity has different physical and chemical sequeæ compared to an increase in atmospheric carbon disoxide concentration.
Further, you haven't proven that “CO2 pollution” is bullshit, so your sprious comparison is doubly spurious.
Lotharsson, greenpisser and marxist
Which still has nothing to do with how the first world massively exploits the rest, and fuck all to do with how the very rich privatise the profits and socialise the costs (CO2 in the atmosphere being one of the poster children for that ploy).
Karl Marx would excrete your crap similarly. Your ideology leads to war, poverty, cilization decline, mass murder. Therefore you are an immoral silly ideologist.
All: ... it's lotharsson's idiocy
You are confabulating. An increase in ocean acidity has different physical and chemical sequeæ compared to an increase in atmospheric carbon disoxide concentration.
Further, you haven't proven that “CO2 pollution” is bullshit, so your spurious comparison is doubly spurious.
No it's not. You're flat-out wrong.
The alkalinity of the oceans remains the same (and may enve increase), as alkalinity refers to the cation concentration. The basicity of the oceans decreases in lock-step with the increasing acidity.
And as a loss of basicity is exactly the same as an increase in acidity, "acidification" is a competely valid term. It simply means that the concentration of hydronium ions is increasing, which is indisputable from a hard, chemistry point of view.
Once again this is a straw man.
Different species of coral "do well" in different environments. This does not mean that it is beneficial to alter all environments so that the corals are favoured that "do well" at one extreme of the range in which corals survive. Some fish survive at close to freezing point - would you advocate letting the world's ocean cool to that temperature if such was happening and humans could act to avoid it?
You've be vociferous in your demands of exact science and high logic Luke, but your arguments are falling over at the first hurdle every time. You're using piss-poor memes and outright fallacy to make your claims, and I really doubt that you are at all interested in promoting the consensus understanding.
I stand by my Stockholm metaphor.
On the AR5
'Revolutionary climate science is under way. The question now is whether the IPCC is up to the challenge.'
Barry Brill (guest post at Watts)
Luke:
Bernard J:
Earlier Luke described himself as a "practising scientist", in what might have been interpreted as a desperate appeal to his own authority. But seriously...a practising scientist who does not know enough basic chemistry to know the difference between alkalinity and basicity?
Consider my credulity well and truly stretched....
Well looks like we hit a nerve with Lotharsson - probably living the high life in a nice house with all the mod cons like the rest of you fucking hypocrites. Hands up who's not !
And yes very tedious it is basicity but the issue is still the same - ocean acidification is simply alarmist speak to conjure up visions of oceans of acid in a gullible public. As an aquarist I may have gathered some appreciation of alkalinity, well the kH component. As for desperate - do shit on Frank - appeal to authority - you're the fuckers engaging - says a lot about your own objectivity.
ENSO processes are not well understood, yet is considered a CC driver. so the race will be on to define its true impact on temperatures.
'The temperatures in different zones in the world do not show significant changes due to El Nin ̃o except when measured in a restricted area in the Pacific Ocean.
'We find, in contrast, that the dynamics of a climate network based on the same temperature records in various geographical zones in the world is significantly influenced by El Nin ̃o. During El Nin ̃o many links of the network are broken, and the number of surviving links comprises a specific and sensitive measure for El Nin ̃o events.
'While during non- El Nin ̃o periods these links which represent correlations between temperatures in different sites are more stable, fast fluctuations of the correlations observed during El Nin ̃o periods cause the links to break.'
Yamasaki et al. 2008
'Your comment is awaiting moderation.'
Good afternoon mod.
Since we were tangentially discussing Michael Mann earlier, his defamation lawsuit against National Review and Mark Steyn is once again allowed to proceed. The latest motion to dismiss was denied because the judge says that “The evidence before the court indicates the likelihood that ‘actual malice’ is present.”, and furthermore indicated that the NR/Steyn lawyers seem to be less than entirely competent in that particular jurisdiction. As Eli says, maybe they're using the lawyers Monckton frequently relies on for his legal opinions?
I predict much covering of oneself in martyr's garb, cries of oppression, gnashing of teeth whilst decrying "activist judges" and obsessively repeating "1st Amendment" if the lawsuit succeeds.
Luke's reply tells us exactly where he is coming from.
What's clear is that he clearly support expansionist corporate wars. He sees nothing wrong is hyper-bloated military budgets aimed primarily at securing investors rights, and has nothing more in his bankrupt arsenal than to claim that anyone arguing that many corporations are literally and financially getting away with murder is a 'commie'.
Note that he couldn't argue a single point I made in my last post. But since he's never heard of any of the prominent people I mentioned, with the possible exception of Kissinger, he was left with nothing more than a smear as a riposte.
What a loser. And given he is a legend in his own mind,. that makes it even worse.
Luke claims that the rapid increase in atmospheric C02 concentrations is not harming marine biodiversity. The vast bulk of the empirical evidence says something else completely.
Where are Luke's publications in the field? Indeed, has he ever studied it? of course not. Yet our new blog 'legend' spews out more bullshit.
ROFL!
A) Apparently your English comprehension and mind-reading skills are both as deficient as your understanding of chemistry. (And deploying them doesn't remove the fallacious presumption and inappropriate conflation at the centre of your attempted distraction.)
You really are crap at this, aren't you?
B) It's always projection! Have you ever stopped to ponder why you responded to Jeff's comment taking issue with some of your positions by ignoring the argument and attempting to shift the focus to other people ? And responded to my comment pointing that tactic out by trying to do the same again? In what world did you imagine that someone who saw through it the first time wouldn't see through it the second time?
I suspect that the majority of our readers are smart enough to see the pattern of behaviour in (b) as an acknowledgement that you can't answer the argument. They've had a lot of practice over the years with people who've used that tactic far more skillfully than you do. And that's what's rather sad - you're not only mediocre at understanding the scientific landscape when you appear to have sufficient cognitive abilities to do much better, but you're also mediocre at being a contrarian. Most people can manage one or the other if they put their mind to it, even if they are working with limited abilities. Look at some of our regulars!
Meanwhile, your catalogue of unadmitted errors and unsubstantiated claims grows ever longer, oddly in almost direct proportion to your deployment of denialist memes. It's a bravura performance from someone who claimed to be a practicing scientist, although if you actually expected people to believe that on the evidence you provide here...
So after having had the correct terminology explained to him, and subsequently claiming to have (retrospectively!) understood the basics of chemistry in apparent opposition to the earlier comment where he ballsed it up, Luke argues that the correct terminology shouldn't be used on the basis that it is "alarmist".
Why, it's almost like he's not a scientist at all, given their well known penchant for (a) getting explanations - especially the really basic ones - right the first time, and b) precision in communication. (And it's far from the first time he has tried to wheel out a retrospective and difficult to believe justification for some of his earlier ill-considered comments.)
A few more of these unscientific episodes and my credulity will be stretched as far as yours, FrankD! ;-)
Considered a climate change driver? Who said that? I've never heard it.
As for ENSO not being understood, it turns out it's a very ordinary consequence of geography/ meteorology/ physics. When climate models are spun up from nothing (no specified starting points, just the standard equations), ENSO starts appearing all of its own accord. So we have at least one confirmation that the physics/ meteorology equations are a pretty good representation of the climate system.
From Luke:
1) It is not "tedious". It is about correctness, and your incorrectness, and it is about understanding what the issue is.
2) Oceans are acidifying, and the rate of acidification that is occurring is starting to have discernible effects, and if continued for several more decades it will have significant deleterious effects. Tanties to the contrary won't change the science - all that they might achieve is to impress the ignorant, although given that the world is thick with ignorants (and ignorance) that in itself is an achievement of sorts I suppose.
As an aquarist myself for the last four decades, in both a home context and for a number of years in a research context stemming from my work as a professional biologist, I can tell you that if you had a decent understanding of pH, gH and kH you wouldn't be as sanguine as your make out.
You'll have to excuse me if your protestations leave me more than a little underwhelmed.
From Luke:
1) It is not "tedious". It is about correctness, and your incorrectness, and it is about understanding what the issue is.
2) Oceans are acidifying, and the rate of acidification that is occurring is starting to have discernible effects, and if continued for several more decades it will have significant deleterious effects. Tanties to the contrary won't change the science - all that they might achieve is to impress the ignorant, although given that the world is thick with ignorants (and ignorance) that in itself is an achievement of sorts I suppose.
As an aquarist myself for the last four decades, in both a home context and for a number of years in a research context stemming from my work as a professional biologist, I can tell you that if you had a decent understanding of pH, gH and kH you wouldn't be as sanguine as your make out.
You'll have to excuse me if your protestations leave me more than a little underwhelmed.
I would have thought you would have got him onto the Pirate Ship by now BBD.
I've still got one somewhere in the garage. Its in bits, some missing and no instructions. Now there's a challenge
'Considered a climate change driver? Who said that? I’ve never heard it.'
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/pause-tied-to-equatorial-pacific-surf…
Apart from farmers, gardeners and fish enthusiasts and anyone who's ever watched a gardening show on teev as well as the smaller group of people keen on preserving their own foods.
"Acidifying" soils and solutions is quite common language for many activities for many people.
The oceans aren't acidifying - where's the empirical evidence?
And it looks like the bludging whingers are all living high on academic hog never having worked a hard day in their lives enjoying the full western lifestyle yet sooking about it. What hypocrites !
As for correctness let's remind ourselves of the tally
(1) models invalidated as far a replicating GMT
(2) no trop hotspot and no santa claus
(3) evap trend the wrong direction
(4) no consensus on any trends in tropical cyclones
(5) unexplained centennial internal GCM variability
(6) multi-model mean projection simply bogus
(7) GCM models subject to major architectural precision errors.
(8) no evidence of ocean change in acidity
(9) obsession and bias in research that any AGW will be bad for all ecosystems
(10) Deltoidians hypocritical wealth redistributors yet living high on the hog in the full western lifestyle
Those farts in the corner are becoming increasingly incoherent, and I didn't think that possible at the beginning.
Luke, there is one well respected Aussie who gets it straight John Pilger (go read him), so why can't you?
Couldn't be because you are an ideological crippled bigot by any chance.
Your education needs expanding in so many directions, so much to learn, so little time. Little wonder that you flake.
The oceans aren’t acidifying – where’s the empirical evidence?
As for correctness let’s remind ourselves of the tally
models invalidated as far a replicating GMT
no trop hotspot and no santa claus
evap trend the wrong direction
no consensus on any trends in tropical cyclones
unexplained centennial internal GCM variability rivalling AGW
multi-model mean projection simply bogus
GCM models subject to major architectural precision errors.
no evidence of ocean change in acidity
obsession and bias in research that any AGW will be bad for all ecosystems
Deltoidians hypocritical wealth redistributors yet living high on the hog in the full western lifestyle
And it looks like the bludging whingers are all living high on academic hog never having worked a hard day in their lives enjoying the full western lifestyle yet sooking about it. What hypocrites !
Jeff:
I quite agree Jeff. We all reveal more about ourselves in our posts than we intend, and Luke is no exception. Turns of phrase, repeated typos and so on all reveal something about us (such as obvious sockpuppetry in the case of FreddieKaiBorisBerendaneke). For example, I believe the Climategate releaser has given enough inadvertent clues in his emails to definitively identify him, if the police were interested in pursuing him. People may want to reread his bloviation for semantic clues and see if they can also pin the tail on that donkey.
Luke expressed the desire a few pages back to see us all "put on diminished performance". While, conceptually, I think we all knew what he meant without even really thinking about it, semantically, I found this specific phrasing quite unusual - indeed, more interesting by far than anything else he has said here.
While I can't guarantee others will find it so, I personally found googling that phrase interesting - the uses I saw of it in the sense Luke meant, I found to be rather instructive.
Adelady the Kosaka and Xie paper is bound to be mentioned in AR5... it essentially says that ENSO is responsible for the hiatus in world temperatures.
The contrarians are already suggesting that ENSO may have had a significant influence on the warming of late last century. This puts the warmists in an invidious position, as I'm sure you can appreciate.
Sheesh, Luke's not even trying any more (although arguably he never tried very hard in the first place). Complete disregard for valid points made in response to some of his more fatuous claims, asserting "no evidence" when some was linked up thread, repeatedly declining to sketch out what sort of import he attaches to other claims, and now jumping to conclusions about readers (just like he jumps to conclusions about evidence), equating academia with "living high on the hog" which is moronic, and apparently now presuming that repeating unpersuasive and incomplete "arguments" will be more persuasive the sixth time around.
He started out badly and had only got worse, now doing a stronger and stronger impression of someone with a Tea Party mentality. My bingo card is looking good for the win...
And other scientists, as previously linked up thread, are quite dubious about that. But in either case, it may not make much difference, except to reduce the pockets of uncertainty about relatively short term behaviour that contrarians can pretend imply uncertainty about the longer term evolution of the climate system.
That appears to be jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
If ENSO "causes" some warming, and also "causes" some cooling, and on average those two effects pretty much cancel out...then the long term warming isn't caused by ENSO. I haven't seen any credible argument that ENSO is responsible for any significant portion of the long term warming trend. (The previous discussion of the recent vs not quite so recent La Ninas vs El Ninos should have given you a hint that that argument is quite challenging to make...)
No it won't; it is too late for WG1 and no it doesn't. You haven't bothered to read the link I provided. Again.
Why don't you just shut the fuck up, Gordy? Because your ignorant bullshit and literally endless wrongness is becoming very, very tedious indeed.
Luke still bollocking on with his Gish Gallop of false claims I see.
You are fucked, Luke. Tropospheric warming will resume because the laws of physics require that it does and all the desperate denial in the world won't stop it. And in your heart of hearts, you know it.
Then God help the deniers and their political allies. The electorate won't forget who did what in the climate wars.
I see that Luke and chums or the Freddiot is still trying to shut down this blog with incessant DOS attacks.
The behaviour of a loser.
Someone who has been demolished on the page and now tries to lock everyone out of the conversation.
Scum.
And now *I* am in moderation.
Oh well.
:-)
All of my comments today have been in moderation. I suspect policy has changed site wide.
And ironically that last comment didn't go into moderation.
So much for that hypothesis!
Lotharsson
Most odd, isn't it? BTW can you see my #5 ("Luke still...") and #6 (I see...")?
Am I?
Yep:-)
L - forget #11 - all comments are now showing.
I think where Luke blew it big time was with his avatar. It revealed a most peculiar quirk.
I doubt that it's either of those parties (although you never know). ScienceBlogs has had serious problems on occasion in the past, and over the last couple of days I've seen problems loading other ScienceBlogs pages outside of this blog.
You could not be more wrong about that also.
I would not go so far as to say that you don't work hard for it is patently obvious that your are working very hard at being an ideologically crippled tosser of a jerk and crap artist out of touch with reality.
FrankD
WRT “put on diminished performance” all I see are four hits
one to couriermail
two to m news com au
and one to thegrandstand
Should I be seeing more?
I notice that Luke still doesn't include in his gotcha list the one outstanding failure of modelling - the Arctic sea ice extent/ area/ volume dropping like a stone so that it's no longer anywhere within range of the very worst projections based on the standard models.
Still not entirely sure why that is so. It is a glaring, egregious failure so why doesn't he mention that? Or perhaps I'm being as silly as he is.
#14
I hope you are right. I've only had trouble here though. Other SB blogs fine. Hence my strong suspicion that somebody is playing silly buggers.
Clukoo asks:
It's in the peer reviewed scientific literature, something which is too complicated for the neuronally challenged deniers.
A good starting place is here:
http://eprints.uni-kiel.de/7474/2/Sabine.pdf
Sadly, Luke denies the very existence of questions about OHC increase, so presumably also the data. Therefore presenting him with referenced rebuttal to one of his Gish of false claims will be fruitless.
He will cling to his stupid list because it's all he's got to fend of a reality that he cannot cope with. But it will get him in the end, along with organised denial in general. Physics and the passage of time will ensure that.
And when the end comes for organised denial and a frightened, angry public turns on these people, it will be something to see. Bye-bye science-denying right and all the rest of the right who failed to throw the liars out of the nest when they had the chance.
Ian! Remember! That's about becoming less alkaline, not acidification! Our resident practicing scientist Luke told me that those are completely different things, and with his impeccable credentials, how can you dispute him?
As expected, no response in 24 hours to yet another straightforward question prompted by an assertion:
I repeat, Which journal(s) do you publish it in?
The Lukes are only designed to fool dimwits like Gordon.
Outside that protected environment, they expose themselves as the lying low-lifes they actually are.
Goddard's exactly the same.
So the bludging Doltoids living high on the hog in western comfort but all so very keen to sell us out - the evil little fuckers.
No answers to my original questions - we've had the verballing, it's a gish gallop, there's no papers, oh well there might be journal papers, experts aren't arguing that, oh well maybe there's some experts arguing but they're right, straight belief in Santa Claus, personal attack as a diversion.
Anything but don't answer the fucking questions.
Now they can't defend that ocean has acidified. Bullshit ! Put up the evidence.
But really the Doltoids are just a bunch of layabout academic communists who've never does any real work in their stinking fetid little lives.
BBD being such a shit father he'd rather play with his personal obsession than spend time with his children. All so typical."Oh you go sonny ..."
So instead of an answer to #22 we get this:
Nasty! And untrue! Most of my commenting is done after my child (singular) is in bed! As now! Popping out the odd response during the day isn't hard and takes no time. Hardly makes me a crap dad!
What a loathsome shit you are, Luke!
* * *
(1) models invalidated as far as replicating GMT
Silly binary logic ignoring influence of transient variability in OHC on tropospheric warming in the single instance of climate running on the Real Earth model! Will look stoopid when tropospheric warming resumes!
(2) no trop hotspot
False claim - goes beyond the data into polemical assertion.
(3) evap trend the wrong direction
And what might cause a global change in surface wind speed? How does this invalidate the standard position on AGW? Clue: it doesn't.
(4) no consensus on any trends in tropical cyclones
Give it time.
(5) unexplained centennial internal GCM variability
So what, see paleoclimate behaviour! See Hansen and just about everybody else. False framing - models are not the primary source of concern.
(6) multi-model mean projection simply bogus
False claim.
(7) GCM models subject to major architectural precision errors.
Gross exaggeration and red herring that was dealt with pages ago. Never did see you in comments at Stoat. Seems you are a hypocrite!
(8) no evidence of ocean change in acidity
False claim contradicted by observations.
(9) obsession and bias in research that any AGW will be bad for all ecosystems
False claim. Polemic.
(10) Deltoidians hypocritical wealth redistributors yet living high on the hog in the full western lifestyle
Oh FFS. Polemic. And stupid.
So let's have an straight answer out of you, for once, Luke!
I repeat, which journal(s) do you publish it in?
Of course we both know that this is just another self-aggrandising lie, like your claim to be a "working scientist".
But this rhetoric is all you have. And you wonder why you are mocked.
" Popping out the odd response during the day isn’t hard and takes no time. " No you're camped out here you obsessed zombie. Get a life.
"Now off you go sonny - Daddy's blogging like an obsessed fuck, and even though we're living a comfortable life I'd like to swap that for sub-Saharan Africa. Now go away as Daddy is saving the planet. Hope you grow up OK - you might even get a bludge job like Daddy and then lecture the rest of humanity"
NOT A SINGLE ANSWER you lying cunt. No how about you try.
And nothing on ocean acidification - where's the empircal measurements.
Luke is now best only spoken of in passing and otherwise ignored. He has totally lost any respect he may have started with by not answering direct questions way up thread and long before he asked his ill-founded, ill shaped and sometimes incoherent and vague at that punts.
He is the real loser here, he lost it long ago. This is not a personal attack just stating the facts as can be found by inspection of this thread.
Fascinating, the Lukes @ #24, absolutely fascinating.
I had no idea any one person could be compiled from so many different types of shit.
With you as Gordon's go-to intellectual back up, how can the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics Party but fail to bomb spectacularly. But I hope you kept your receipts. I hear Rove is still trying to explain his own massively expensive fail to his (ex) backers.
Two comments in moderation while The Lukes get a free pass? WTF?
Read the recent thread, Luke!
Lying, again. One of your stalwarts, too! [Whining tone:] "Nobody answers my questions". Bollocks, Luke!
It's dark here, Luke! 22:35. Child long since in bed. But you are posting in the daylight! You are a hypocrite, Luke!
And an increasingly ridiculous, even clownish figure here!
:-)
Lionel A ducks it - can't answer the questions.
As for Stoat's withering defence on reproduceability, more perceptive commentators said its a growing problem that the climate community is becoming increasingly aware of. And fancy the journal obsessed BBD quoting a green blogger as source. Wreally !
'...somebody is playing silly buggers.'
I assumed its Tim, we have no new fred for September.
Two comments in moderation at this point, not sure why.
Greg Laden on ScienceBlogs DOS
It seems my suspicions were not unfounded! But who would do such a thing? And why?
:-)
'Stabilizing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would require more than 90 percent of the energy we consume to come from carbon-free sources like nuclear, wind, or solar. Policymakers often discuss reducing annual emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels. But emissions today are already more than 45 percent higher than in 1990, so that higher level implies a need to cut by more than 90 percent from today’s levels.
'Put another way, in round numbers, we could keep at most 10 percent of our current energy supply, and 90 percent or more would have to be replaced with a carbon-free alternative. Today, about 10 percent of the energy that we consume globally comes from carbon-free sources — leaving a long way to go.'
Roger Pielke Jr
The argueing of Lotharsson, BBD and other greenpiss activists on leper island of nihilism about the reasons of SB performance shows
1: that CAGW Doltoid greenpissers have as terrible subterranean knowledge about computers and programs as of "climatology"
2: are mean, unethical scoundrels because they suspect innocent citizens of criminal acts (cyber attacks on SB) without any evidence
you greenpissers are really bad and evil underperformers with nasty character traits. Fuck off from this blog.
The argueing of Lotharsson, BBD and other greenpiss activists on leper island of nihilism about the reasons of SB performance shows
1: that CAGW Doltoid greenpissers have as terrible subterranean knowledge about computers and programs as of “climatology”
2: are mean, unethical scoundrels because they suspect innocent citizens of criminal acts (cyber attacks on SB) without any evidence
you greenpissers are really bad and evil underperformers with nasty character traits. Fuck off from this blog.
Test1
Test2
Test3, sorry
Still connection problem
Can anybody call IT at science blogs to repair the server
Test4
still no connection, sorry
Funny how the other lot is getting through. Makes one wonder.
I think its confirmed, Boris and Beren are one and the same.
I guess that Boris just copied my text to create irrutation.
A Sherlock Award for Gordy!
Now add in Kai and Freddy!
There was a similar incident (before NG assumed ownership of SB) some years ago when DOS attacks were emanating from Turkey, of all places. The management at the time instituted blocking of IP ranges which unfortunately included those of several UK based ISPs for several weeks.
As to who or why - well, I don't know that any nutter blogs were affected, just Science blogs.
A Sherlock Award for Gordy!
Now add in Kai and Freddy!
"This is our blog now"
Well, if at first you fail miserably, try DOS!
Yeah, a moron might buy that. Keep racking that braincell genius.
Did you see BBD, how easy it was to copy a "comment" of yours, moron
barnturds grandiloquence fail..........lol
"chemical sequeæ"
"You are confabulating. An increse in ocean acidity has different physical and chemical sequeæ compared to an increase in atmospheric carbon disoxide concentration."
LOL........that was barnturd trying to look smart, :)
chemical sequeæ................ :)
disoxide concentration............ :)
She said it TWICE, crawl back down your hole barnturd, nuffie
And nothing on ocean acidification – where’s the empircal measurements.
Read the recent thread, Luke!
Lying, again. One of your stalwarts, too! [Whining tone:] “Nobody answers my questions”. Bollocks, Luke!
No you’re camped out here you obsessed zombie. Get a life.
It’s dark here, Luke! 22:35. Child long since in bed. But you are posting in the daylight! You are a hypocrite, Luke!
And an increasingly ridiculous, even clownish figure here!
Sadly, Luke denies the very existence of questions about OHC increase, so presumably also the data. Therefore presenting him with referenced rebuttal to one of his Gish of false claims will be fruitless.
He will cling to his stupid list because it’s all he’s got to fend of a reality that he cannot cope with. But it will get him in the end, along with organised denial in general. Physics and the passage of time will ensure that.
And when the end comes for organised denial and a frightened, angry public turns on these people, it will be something to see. Bye-bye science-denying right and all the rest of the right who failed to throw the liars out of the nest when they had the chance.
--------
Sorry, Luke, I only took the role of BBD for a second to show this moron how easy it is to take the role of a greenpiss activist. Maybe his mental capacities are not sufficient to understand this.
All: ... it's Lotharsson!
two more comments in moderation, WTF
barnturd you are such a wanker....lol
Just look at the nuffie trying to impress everybody with a crack at grandiloquence.
"You are confabulating. An increase in ocean acidity has different physical and chemical sequeæ compared to an increase in atmospheric carbon disoxide concentration."
lol ..."chemical sequeæ"........... :) ..........fail
lol......."carbon disoxide".......... :) .........fail
hehehe, barnturd, you really are striving for the biggest clown award at dumtoid.............lol
Loth I came across some of your old associates on the blogosphere, this from IPA at The Daily Trash.
'Just as a historical aside and curiosity, here’s one of the threads in question. Lotharsson stars as himself, with yours truly as Tony of South Yarra. A few other names you might recognise are scaper, Adrian of Nowra (Mobius Ecko), James of Elwood (Ol’ Sancty), Tom of Melbourne, TB Queensland, Min, reb of bangkok(!), and Meta (in various guises, including ‘Discovery, invention, and storytelling’, ‘On the Science of Climate Change’, ‘Chillies Are Hot’, ‘ 1492…’, and ‘Hypothetically Speaking’).'
All:
Barbecue!
Sausage!
[...] ?
:-)
"Tung & Zhou[2] reported that the “underlying net anthropogenic warming rate has been steady since 1910 at 0.07-0.08°C/decade, with superimposed AMO-related ups and downs ..”. The sharply increased CO2 concentrations of recent decades has not caused warming to accelerate, as was predicted by the models."
Barbecue!
Sausage!
CO2!
Barbecue!
Sausage!
”chemical sequeæ”……….. :)
”carbon disoxide”………. :)
This blog is becoming too unwieldy and September didn't come, so I may stay at my old haunt until things improve.
This is an open invitation ....
http://thedailytrash.wordpress.com/co2-and-you-ii/
Seriously KarenMackSunspot? I dash off a hurried post and you're reduced to anorak nitpicking over a few typos? How rich - especially when you had such a mess of hissy fits after I pointed out that you habitually bungle basic punctuation.
Ah, of course...
My guess is that you're just jealous that your truncated education didn't extend to providing you with an adequately functional adult degree of literacy. I can see why you'd leap at any chance to spit at those who can wield language more adroitly than you yourself are able to wield it.
Keep at it though, Ol' Tranny. I'm fascinated by your displays of petulance - on top of those other displays of ignorance, misogyny, coprolalia and ideological blinkeredness. They only go to show that I am getting to you.
"The Daily Trash"? What would inspire one to visit such a place?
“The Daily Trash”? What would inspire one to visit such a place?'
Its an open thread, where the Deltoid refugees could gather and carry on as if nothing has changed... until things get back to normal here.
Robustness and colourful language is acceptable.
No, that's still bollocks.
You're a moron if you think you can determine whether another commenter here is bludging or not. (And if it's always projection...hmmmm.) And you're a bigger moron if you think your tactics here aren't a huge red flag waving above your head saying "I can't support my position from the evidence so I'm trying to play the man instead".
And these and other recent attempted distractions from your very public failures of argument here using the "youse are all hypocrites" tactic rely on the false presumption that one cannot legitimately advocate for a system to achieve certain goals in a better way without first entirely cutting all ties with the system in question - which is just moronic. And again, constitutes a really obvious big red "I can't support my position from the evidence" flag to most of our readers who are more savvy than you are deceptive.
But even worse is the presumption embedded in your quote that on these issues, advocating for a better way - e.g. based on standard risk management practices implied by the range of ECS that you yourself gave, practices that you reject without any good reason - is "selling us out" and makes one an "evil little fucker" is completely arse-backwards. The ones selling us out are the ones socialising the costs and privatising the profits by dumping fossil fuel CO2 into the commons of the atmosphere and climate system - and those like your good self who are clearly smart enough to figure out that the evidence for this is good enough to draw that conclusion, should you put your mind to it, but who instead claim the opposite using a battery of highly dubious claims. (Remember, it's always projection....)
No wonder you're running distraction for all you're worth - it's probably aimed as much at yourself as anyone else. But all of your frenetic dancing around the point - and flat out lying - and raising "issues" that you falsely try to imply affect this big picture, don't change this picture in any way.
You really are trying to make yourself look moronic. That's denialist chum, and not even vaguely plausible denialist chum. It's Moncktonesque, IIRC. And yet another big red flag...
Luke, I don't know why, but you've clearly drunk the denialist Kool-Aid. Take a long hard look at your own glaring lack of objectivity. You seem to lack an effective internal filter to keep yourself from typing out stupidity, and you are stubborn enough to reject feedback about your stupidity from other sources.
They are exactly where they should be.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596239/
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3058/
http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/ocean-acidification/arcticcruise2012/
http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=1234
https://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/AnthropogenicCandOce…
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6103/27.summary
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/Hawaii+Carbon+Dioxide+Time-Series
etc...etc...etc...
Speaking of ocean acidification, maybe Luke was just trying to get out ahead of this article and the related papers? ;-)
They are exactly where they should be.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596239/
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3058/
" I dash off a hurried post and you’re reduced to anorak nitpicking over a few typos?"
No barnturd, you had two goes at it, it looks like this was maybe your first failure http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/08/01/august-2013-open-thread/comm…
Followed by this, http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/08/01/august-2013-open-thread/comm… your second failure at trying to pretend that your IQ is higher than 60.... lol
" How rich – especially when you had such a mess of hissy fits after I pointed out that you habitually bungle basic punctuation."
lol... I habitually ignore you barnturd.
"Keep at it though, Ol’ Tranny."
Everybody can blame you for me being here barnturd, after a couple of months posting in here I decided to dig my high heels in after you called me a trollop.......you hate being smacked around by a girl, don't you barnturd.....so, maybe you are the girlieboy !
No doubt this will languish in moderation but it does appear that your new friend Luke (with strange avatars) is correct and that policy makers are asking some serious questions about the 'hiatus' and that it has been acknowledged as such?
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/us-europe-seek-more-cl…
And yes Karen, Bernard most definitely has a misogynist or sexist streak as evidenced by his pathetic sledging of me a few months ago.
DOS. It might be this blog, but my prime contenders would be Respectful Insolence or hofnagle's denialism blog. They both attract their fair share of interest from a variety of people with frantic bees in their bonnets.
I haven't seen a more amusing lie here for quite some time!
"you hate being smacked around by a girl, don’t you barnturd"...
Problem is, Karen, you are the one being smacked around. Too bad that in your self-righteous haze, you don't see it. You are an obnoxious clown.
Zwally found...........
During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change.
The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495_201201…
"ugust 31 (Day 243) saw the 35th Daily Record of the Year for Antarctic Sea Ice Extent.
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is 19.03105 million sq km."
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/09/01/35th-daily-record-of-year…
I know that you all were hoping that the prediction/divination for an ice free Arctic in 2013 would prove the syence for y'all, but it seems that the Northwest Passage appears to be closed now.
(PFL) Prediction Fail List gets looooonger........ :)
So you don't really have any direct measurements of ocean pH over time. You have models based on assumptions. Such as Science 305, 367 (2004);
Christopher L. Sabine et al.
The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2 and the all too important methods supplement.
I wonder what the assumptions and error rates are? hmmmmm
Lotharsson hope you've given all your worldly goods away.
Whatever, Ol' Tranny Trollop. If you can't understand that sometimes folk are distracted and in a hurry that's no skin of my nose.
I'm quite pleased that you and your troll mates stick around, spraying on the walls as you do. Nothing makes you Denialati look more stupid than your own pronouncements here, which are a catalog of air-headed ignorance.
Oh, the self-parodying irony...
It would take a special kind of idiot to suggest that elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere would fail to cause elevated CO2 levels in the oceans.
But it takes an altogether other kind of idiot to ignore links that have been provided, eg,
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/Hawaii+Carbon+Dioxide+Time-Series
which show, among other things, a time series of CO2 measurements in the ocean which show (unsurprisingly to anybody who understands any amount of chemistry) an increase.
Comments stuck in moderation.
Think we are all affected by DOS attack.
As for the Sunspot nutter with its 5-year-old links, how about reading your links to see the size of the error bars...?
uh-oh....
How about checking more recent, more precise work...?
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html
Uh-oh......Sunspot-nutter suffers yet another KO. Time to throw in the towel, I think.
The NOAA in the USA is collecting pH at 13 sites now, I believe.
Here is Hawaii, again, with more recent data:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/WHOTS
Here's one in California:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/CCE+1
Seems to show a measurable CO2 increase in just a few years.
Twirybird #84
Dr Ivins, who also coordinated the project, said: “The rate of ice loss from Greenland has increased almost five-fold since the mid-1990s. In contrast, while the regional changes in Antarctic ice over time are sometimes quite striking, the overall balance has remained fairly constant – at least within the certainty of the satellite measurements we have to hand.”
Most of my comments stuck in moderation.
DOS attack.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/WHOTS
lol
Luke still blowing hard and absolutely refusing to answer any questions I see.
Karen "fluffy sock" Sunspot still moronic and insane.
Chemistry denial still ongoing.
SciBlogs still under attack. Ho hum.
BAU.
Oh FFS you idiot!!!
Here's an up to date pretty picture from VW's link.
I know you are far, far too stupid to understand the primary literature, but not even you can *deny* this!
Lionel - sorry for the delay in responding. I saw more, but I tried a few variations on the theme. If you read those links, though, you'll see what I saw.
The point is that this term - specifically in the context used - only exists as an administrative punishment for recalcitrant shiny-bums in the Queensland public service, and is probably unknown to any practising scientist, regardless of their employer. The use of the term says much about the user. I found it amusing, and rich with implication. YMMV.
@#1. Well spotted Frank. Given Luke's performance on this (until yesterday) unmoderated thread, the inescapable conclusion is that he is a tech, who was ejected from UQ for "diminished performance", and is now interning at Menzies House while trying to gain a paid spot in the Koch Sucker Circus Ltd. (Oz Science Whore Division). Imagine having him work in one's own lab ("Hey, Joanne, want to buy some dodgy results? No? What about some credibility?"). He's just smart enough to realise that he can't cite his supposed education, publication and institutions without it being bloody obvious that he's lying about all, or that the academic world in Oz is small enough to identify him fairly easily.
As far as the other irritants in the longest thread: Fatso remains the credulous drunk in the corner, applauding the pseudo-pre-pubertal tranny and the Freddiot (excellent term BBD), who are both still horking up smelly denier memes like sarcocystic sea lions. The Freddiot was so distressed that he might not be able to shit in the ruins that he took off his Boris sock and sniffed his own finger. Learn to love it Freddiot - it's all you have. Funny how Cox didn't hang around long either.
On the other hand, rebutting the Troll Circus brings out the best in the stalwarts, even in Tim's absence. I suspect that I speak for legions of lurkers when I congratulate Frank, Loth, TB, BJ, chek, Jeff, adelady, Craig, and the redoubtable BBD for continuing the struggle against the Rupertarian Horde. One day we will all dine on dead Rabbott (even Eli).
chek #52
Turkey, eh? How interesting. On 17 November 2009, RC was hacked from a server in Turkey and the UEA stolen emails file FOIA.zip uploaded from that location.
I wonder where the loathsome little shits are this time?
Forgot to include Lionel & Vince in the honour roll.
In other words your behaviour is rather petty and spiteful.
People like me are not your enemy.
Too right about that honour roll rhwombat !!
Have to say I'm still trying to come to terms with the fact that Luke, who's posts I used to enjoy reading over at Marohasy's (when I visited every so often), is in reality a complete and utter fuckwit.
Bit sad really.
Attaboy, Luke. Keep pointing out that you have no argument!
Thanks @ rhwombat for your kind words!
I'm particularly amused that Luke apparently thinks academics are generally well paid and lazy, and that somehow that calls their work into question.
Apart from the teaching load, which seems to have only risen and risen over time and that you can't ignore in order to get your research done, there's the fact that you're generally judged on whatever research you manage in the time left after handling your teaching load.
Then there's the truly decadent levels of compensation! Here's the UQ salary schedule for academic staff - and that's assuming you can actually get on to staff, rather than a contract for a year or three before you reapply for your position. An awful lot of academics in Australian unis are on short term contracts these days and it can be quite a challenge to get employed rather than contracted.
Full time salaries start with Associate Lecturer Grade 1 at a highly generous $57k p.a. Bear in mind that academics spend typically 4-7 years after their undergraduate degree doing postgrad qualifications, and then a few more years doing a post-doc somewhere, and the earnings during those years are usually pretty ordinary before you can get on the lucrative Lecturer gravy train!
Then, if you can make it through the academic gauntlet over a bunch of years to reach Senior Lecturer status you can earn a truly massive $100-115k, easily beaten by half the tradesmen out there (and most of them have been earning that kind of money for years and years while you've been slogging it out to get that far in acadaemia so they are way ahead of you in the wealth stakes).
And if you go long enough and hard enough for a bunch more years and are fortunate enough to beat out the horde of others and snag one of a very small set of coveted Full Professorships you reach the pinnacle of earnings at a truly whopping $155k! (And should you hire an electrician and get talking about earnings, he will laugh at your salary if he's any good.)
Any science academic worth their salt could go to industry and earn a shitload more than they do in academia, especially if they are prepared to do a little bit of shilling for certain motivated industries, or apply their brains to (say) the finance sector. (Quite a few Wall Street quants came out of acadaemia, for example, and their earnings skyrocketed...)
The "argument from academic salary" that Luke tries to make is an argument FOR taking their scientific opinions seriously, because unlike industry sponsored researchers you can be damn sure they're not doing it for the money.
On a personal note I can attest that after my Ph.D. and changing my mind about becoming an academic, I've earned a lot more than the Full Professor does over the same time period, and if I'd gone into acadaemia I would have had to start out somewhere near the bottom of the ladder earning much less than the Professor does for many years.
'Fatso remains the credulous drunk in the corner, applauding the pseudo-pre-pubertal tranny'
Is that your professional opinion doc? I like your bedside manner, but I'm on the wagon and won't be requiring your help.
What is the name of that regional hospital you work for?
Lotharsson like I said.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/08/01/august-2013-open-thread/
Interested in the responses to this one.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/us-europe-seek-more-cl…
And this one
So according to The Lukes ineffable (actually, make that fully effable) "logic"™ only Kalahari bushmen or similar may insist on changing climate policy with a clear conscience.
The Lukes' become ever more abject useful idiots.
Of course when it comes to hockey sticks then the 'crazy gang' here are trying to avoid noticing how Mann's case against The National Review Online.Peter Sinclair joins The Rabett in bringing this to wider attention with this Judge Drops Hammer on Deniers: Climate Scientist’s Case against Slander Goes Forward .
Scan the whole comment thread, now who does Rick Spung remind you of? I am not pointing at anybody specifically but there are several heads around here that fit the same hat. They always reveal themselves by their vacuous, fact free, prating.
Of course when it comes to hockey sticks then the 'crazy gang' here are trying to avoid noticing how Mann's case against The National Review Online is going. Peter Sinclair joins The Rabett in bringing this to wider attention with this Judge Drops Hammer on Deniers: Climate Scientist’s Case against Slander Goes Forward .
Scan the whole comment thread, now who does Rick Spung remind you of? I am not pointing at anybody specifically but there are several heads around here that fit the same hat. They always reveal themselves by their vacuous, fact free, prating.
That should be a fun game. Everyone join in!
Only those not benefiting from the government (i.e. non-resident non-citizens?) can criticise wasteful government spending. Note that this excludes all duly elected representatives, so cancel those Senate Estimates hearings forthwith!
And only those who don't own a car can complain about road congestion or suggest that issues arising from roads warrant improvement to public transport.
And only those who have no scientific training and don't benefit from any application of scientific knowledge can criticise scientific claims ;-)
Criticising government how dare we, not during the shooting electoral season if the UK Bill discussed here is passed we won't in the UK.
This bill was sneaked before parliament the day before the Summer Recess began, now that alone should make one suspicious, and is early meat in the new session whilst attentions are turned to Syria.
Watch your backs in Australia people. Whilst I agree with curbs on industrial and commercial lobbying I don't think this bill is tuned for that target somehow. I could be forgiven for thinking this development is connected with UK energy policy, in other words frack the land and sod the people.
Is it that anything containing a link goes into moderation?
Used to be more than two links, but now lots of comments are going in to moderation.
On the other hand, they're coming out of moderation a lot faster than they used to - minutes instead of half a day or more.
This really is a pain in the arse now. I can barely load the site, and every comment posts but results in getting dumped with a "service unavailable" message from SB.
Most comments go into moderation. Links or not makes no difference.
Can somebody as SB sort the fucking script kiddies out please?
Wow! It posted!
Let's see how we do with another one.
Did anyone notice Lying Luke's pathetic fibbing on the last page where he kept claiming his comments were in moderation even though he clearly wasn't responding? Because, well, he can't.
Soddit. Another comment in moderation and another "Service unavailable".
So reload the site.
And try again.
Who here thinks this shite will magically stop once the Australian election is over? Or is this merely wishful thinking?
:-)
Dry drunk syndrome:
1. Grandiosity, put very simply, is an exaggeration of one's own importance. This can be demonstrated either in terms of one's strengths or weaknesses. In either case it is blatantly self- seeking or self-serving, putting oneself at the center of attention, from the "big me" who has ask the answers to the "poor me" whose cup of self-pity runneth over and wants all of our attention.
2. Judgmentalism is mutually related to grandiosity. It means that the alcoholic is prone to make value judgments - strikingly inappropriate evaluations - usually in terms of "goodness" or "badness".
3. Intolerance leaves no room for delaying the gratification of personal desires. This is accomplished by gross confusion of priorities with the result that a mere whim or passing fancy is mistakenly given more importance than genuine personal needs.
4. Impulsivity is the result of intolerance or the lack of ability to delay gratification of personal desires. Impulsivity describes behavior which is heedless of the ultimate consequence for self or others.
5. Indecisiveness is related to impulsitivity in the sense that while the latter takes no realistic account of the consequences of the actions, the former precludes effective action altogether. Indecisiveness stems from an unrealistic exaggeration of the negative possibilities of the action ; so one wavers between two or more possible courses of action, more times than not- nothing gets done.
Tamino on <a href="http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/el-nino-and-the-non-spherical-co… misrepresentation of Kosaka & Xie!
Do look. Especially those who don't quite grasp what JC did!
Yet!
:-)
To head off the "derpa derpa that link don't work" excuse:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/el-nino-and-the-non-spherical-co…
Perfect description of CAGW acolytes:
$£¥£$££¥$£¥¥
Dry drunk syndrome:
1. Grandiosity, put very simply, is an exaggeration of one’s own importance. This can be demonstrated either in terms of one’s strengths or weaknesses. In either case it is blatantly self- seeking or self-serving, putting oneself at the center of attention, from the “big me” who has ask the answers to the “poor me” whose cup of self-pity runneth over and wants all of our attention.
2. Judgmentalism is mutually related to grandiosity. It means that the alcoholic is prone to make value judgments – strikingly inappropriate evaluations – usually in terms of “goodness” or “badness”.
3. Intolerance leaves no room for delaying the gratification of personal desires. This is accomplished by gross confusion of priorities with the result that a mere whim or passing fancy is mistakenly given more importance than genuine personal needs.
4. Impulsivity is the result of intolerance or the lack of ability to delay gratification of personal desires. Impulsivity describes behavior which is heedless of the ultimate consequence for self or others.
5. Indecisiveness is related to impulsitivity in the sense that while the latter takes no realistic account of the consequences of the actions, the former precludes effective action altogether. Indecisiveness stems from an unrealistic exaggeration of the negative possibilities of the action ; so one wavers between two or more possible courses of action, more times than not- nothing gets done.
$£¥£$££¥$£¥£
#17 Stu
Thanks for fixing the borked link. Normally, I'd have reposted, but things are far from normal at SB and Deltoid in particular!
:-)
Freddy, that's fucking pathetic, even for you. Jesus Christ.
Very interesting:
Arctic sea ice extent is high for the season. No reason at all for alarmism. Furthermore it s very cold at the North Pole. Very good!
Berendaneke (Boris, Freddy) cracks me up he writes: "Grandiosity, put very simply, is an exaggeration of one’s own importance" in describing his view of the vast majority of the scientific community (e.g. those who agree that humans are the main drivers of GW).
Talk about hypocrisy. The deniers have the biggest bloody egos amongst any people I have ever met. What you find amongst the denier ranks are a hoard of pseudo-scientists for the most part on the academic fringe who have been given veritable megaphones by corporate funded think tanks. Many of the most quoted deniers in media circles would be complete unknowns were they to have to stand up on the 'merits' of their scientific records. Look up the CVs of many of them and you'll find they are mediocre at best and stink at worst. Holding views that run counter to the mainstream is a great way to bolster one's academic career and to jump the queue. Look at Lomborg. Until he wrote hs error-filled book TSE, he had one - ONE - peer reviewed paper in a scientific journal, on Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. Suddenly he's writing op-eds. appearing in magazines everywhere, giving after-dinner lectures, and getting all kinds of media attention, simply because he claims that environmental problems are exaggerated. Heck, he became more famous than experts like Edward O. Wilson and Tom Lovejoy in the space of a few years.
Truth is, that being a contrarian is a ticket to becoming a media celebrity. Helps puff up the old ego when the science is lacking.
No it actually isn't and you remaining two sparking synapses couldn't begin to make a case even if you thought you hadone.
Fucking barbecue acolyte parallel sausage moron.
The Freddiot
I have not renounced the booze!*
I refute it thus!
:-)
* To pre-empt the inevitable fuckwittage, this is not an admission of alcoholism! Read the words, children!
Jeff is sadly correct:
It is to weep.
[citation required from bleating cretin]
The anti-AR5 Alternative Reality Roadshow is underway.
But remember to ask Fatso Rove about how certainty of outcome to spending ratios actually work out in the real world.
Oh yes. AR5 must die!
Because just like its four predecessors, it will provide policy-makers with further confirmation that CO2 is a greenhouse gas!
The physics deniers won't like that at all, so they will be busy looking for trivia to gibber over while physics carries on doing what it does.
The only rather bitter juice I can wring from this is that the future is very bleak for organised denial and its political affiliates. Because as they will discover, physics trumps dishonest rhetoric every time!
I suspect the public will remember who lied, and they will be angry as they approach the ballot box. And it's all downhill from there!
;-)
As denying the physics becomes more and more untenable the deniers tactics are turning to denying that the policies are tenable. I've already noticed articles and blog posts claiming that the German Energiewende is ineffective and expensive.
Water is the biggest greenhouse gas, known to make the world warmer or cooler depending on your bias. On Saturday the Australian public will reject the alarmism of the IPCC and vote for a man who says "the science of climate change is crap".
And that's exactly why the honest, the decent and the truthful will prevail. The ones out of step with reality are those represented by their fuckwitted sprites that infest this place and others who can only traduce honest work in order to make their case, such as it is. They never have their own, although they sometimes construct grotesque simulacra for the benefit of their sheep.
But like all collaborators throughout history have found, the future and its aftermath will not be kind or gentle with them.
Thanks for the weather report, Freddy. Do you have a point?
The laws of physics depend on MY bias? You're a fucking idiot, Gordo. Please scroll up. The symptoms fit to a tee.
Yeeees.....I see in that link ocean CO2 concentration going up.
What do you see, Sunspot, to make you "lol"?
Anything?
Yes. To clarify what he means, here is what his study concluded:
It's the 7th-lowest extent on record, you see, therefore climate change is crap.
Average thickness is now the lowest on record:
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01910490a0d9970c-pi
therefore, climate change is, er, nevermind.
http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/#prettyPhoto
I meant this one!
That is @ comment #7 I have not linked correctly.
Yes, Stu 2, you could go that crank website which has interviews by various non-scientist cranks and industry-paid PR-merchants.
Alternatively, you could visit the reputable websites run by respected and professional scientific organisations, eg,
http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding.aspx
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Climate-change-tr…
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators
Also, "Stu #2" is TOTALLY not a sockpuppet.
Pathetic.
The Laws of Physics do change, apparently.
Stu's alterego has surfaced ....lol
The thought has crossed my mind, but I imagine that Deltoid hasn't had anywhere near a big enough influence on the election to merit it. Although one can't entirely rule out the possibility that some of our new "friends" are here because someone with motivation and means wants them here during the election, so who knows.
Funny, the scientists would have never taken that into account, right?
(Interesting how almost all of our trolls (Hi Luke!) indulge in the practice of throwing out random claims and factoids and hoping people draw the implications they want drawn, without trying to connect the dots in a logical and coherent argument. Did they try connecting the dots and fail but go ahead anyway, or just don't think it's necessary? Inquiring minds want to...nah, they don't really care.)
In regards to the false flag chemical attack in Syria.
Will Keven Rudd's obvious abject cringing subservience to the US change anyone's vote for him ?
Or are morals in here only counted in PPM ?
Only if you lie. And lie. And lie. Like you do. Have you honestly reviewed the symptoms I laid out above, Gordo?
Oh hai, "Karen".
False flag: [citation needed]
Kevin Rudd: [reason needed why anyone would give a flying fuck] [citation needed what the flying fuck this has to do with global warming] [fuck your political shit, you troll] [politics are morals now? that's so cute -- you're what, 12?]
"Only if you lie. And lie. And lie."
Was that Stu, Stu 2 or Stu 3 ?
Or all three of them ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder
Stu, Stu 2 & Stu 3 you three are a pommie, the qwestion was put to the Aussie contingent in here.
The Himalayan glaciers will not have disappeared by 2035, as fraudulently lied by the IPCC.
Wow. So fuck global warming right? As long as it doesn't affect Australia? I
Freddy. Please tell me you're ESL. Or mentally challenged. Or both. Those are not even sentences, you jackass.
As a random aside, this is how pathetic denialists are. They get caught at sockpuppetry. Over, and over, and over. They deny it, deny it, deny it to the point of pathological idiocy (Freddy, KarenMackSunspot, there is no way you actually believe you fooled anyone...)
Anyway, when it is obvious the blog owner isn't looking, the new winning strategy is to start sockpuppeting people they don't agree with. You know the saddest part? They're trying to sockpuppet me, full-on ESL, and they are so pathetically inept at forming a coherent sentence in their fucking native language they can't even pull that off.
Just FYI guys. You are that pathetic.
I should have made that "whinging pommie"
With the DoS issue, Tim has the ability but I can't see a motive.... unless he is quietly offended and wants to see an end to it.
KarenMackSunspot.
Australians gave up any right to use the derogatory "whinging pom" epithet about the same time that they elected John Howard, when they emerged as a nation of "me, me, me" navel-gazers.
The current situation in this country reflects the new "whinging Aussie" stereotype:
- complaining about the allegedly parlous state of the national economy whilst it in facrt towers in structural strength over most of the rest of the world
- thirsting for tax reductions whilst simultaneously holding their hands out for subsidies for their own uncompetitive businesses and for their middle/upper class health fund contributions
- demanding that a storybook about sky fairies and mythic folk heroes be used as justification for preventing individuals from deciding who they marry or how they die or how they treat their own bodies
- ignoring hard science that warns that the laws of thermodynamics are coming to kick us and our decendents in the collective arse, in spite of the conservative adherence to the fantasies of eternal growth and Magic Puddings
- mewling at suggestions that we temper our own rapaciousness so that future generations have at least the shadow of a chance at the same quality of life that we enjoy now.
Yep, Aussies are now some of the whingiest whingers in the world if they don't have the beneficence of laissez faire economics presented to them on a platter.
Splinters and planks, Ol' One-eyed Trollop...
Concentrated UHI
http://www.cityam.com/article/1378091289/exclusive-walkie-scorchie-melt…
If the speculative warming effect of anthropogenic CO2 to warm the air 2m above the Earth's surface were as clear to verify as Earth's gravity, why the fuck you CAGW Doltoid greenpissers is your AGW pseudoscience church unable to provide unambiguous, undisputed evidence of your emotional eager belief of evil harm western mankind does to the rest of the planet? YOU CANNOT PROVIDE UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE BECAUSE THERE IS NONE, deltoid greenpissers and envying losers.
Concentrated UHI. Really?
More like one of these I suspect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_lens
We have apalling symptoms of infiltration of organised criminals groups (OCGs, like the mafia etc.) especially the renewables energy sector:
Link: http://www.energytribune.com/78768/wind-energy-the-greenfellas-connecti…
Link: http://www.energytribune.com/78768/wind-energy-the-greenfellas-connecti…
What a terrifying world, the greenpisser adored world, full of criminals
What's next Freddiot - citations from Stormfront?
No Stu that is not correct, my name is Stu but I noticed that there already was a Stu here.
Craig Thomas, do you have any evidence that the site is a " crank website which has interviews by various non-scientist cranks and industry-paid PR-merchants." ?
The credentials of most of those interviewed seem to be valid.
I was actually asking for a response to both of the links.
So far all that has happened is some personal abuse.
BTW Karen, I am an Aussie and Rudd's comments re Syria will not affect my vote on Saturday.
I can't speak for the other Stu.
I think it is disgusting what has happened in Syria but I also don't believe Australian politicians will have much influence.
My vote is influenced by Australian issues and Australian policies and unfortunately they have been mostly reduced to infighting, sound bites and parochialism.
It looks like most voters will have to decide which is the least worse option.
Gawd, Stu 2 is KarenMackSunspot.
The ventriloquist can't even stop his lips from moving when he talks to his dummy - and in this case it's one dummy with it's hand up the arse of another...
These 3 have qualifications and expertise Craig.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ergas
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Essex
They have all worked at reputable academic institutions and for government organisations as well as in the private sector.
That does not mean that I think that everything they say must be right, but I do question why you called them:
" various non-scientist cranks and industry-paid PR-merchants."
Hi Stu 2, welcome to dumbtoid. :)
I did recognize that you were not a sockpuppet, I apologize for using you to stir up the paranoid pommie Stu, I couldn't help myself ......lol
Everybody new that posts in here is accused of being a sock, what you have in here is a mob of mentally retarded and paranoid CO2 conspiracy freaks.....lol barnturd is at it already....ha
5 years ago they thought that the planet would have melted by now...:)
now they think it will sssssoooonnn...........
Bernard. Would you like to make a comment on those links? I am not interested in your very poor interpersonal skills.
Speaking about Australian politics, Clive Hamilton frames it quite well:
http://theconversation.com/the-power-of-the-fragment-why-politicians-ha…
In some ways the best thing* that could happen would be for Abbott to get in and be seen to stuff up the country and the future so much that people realise that they were conned in their self-indulgence by promises of manna from heaven.
If it happens sooner rather than later then perhaps a repair can be instigated that salvages something from the inevitable Abbott mess. If not, then it's all moot and the suffering of future generations which the Liberal-National parties will have played a part in bringing about will not be compensated for by the Conservatives' eventual political obliteration.
[*The fact that Turnbull's fibre-to-the-node/copper-to-the-house broadband network will cost the country billions in the future, as well as placing us in a technological side-street, is always a good reason to not vote the Lib-Nats in, no matter their other policy catastrophies.]
What "credentials"?
You have a junior science-show performer who runs a crank blog, her husband who did a big of accounting work for the public service and calls himself a "modeller", a uni-drop-out ex-weatherman who runs a crank blog, then a whole swag of other cranks all with a long history of making faulty assertions way beyond the reach of their rather limited credentials and mostly - if not all - as paid agents of energy lobbygroups.
On the other hand, I have suggested you consult,
CSIRO,
BoM
NASA
These three organisations employ properly-credentialled scientists who conduct professional research.
Here's a good article:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-03/llewellyn-smith---abbott-climate-…
Fred Singer is an 88-year-old who has been running political lobby-groups receiving funding from Exxon (etc..) for over 20 years. He has a 20-year history of mistaken assertions about science as it relates to climate change.
Ergas is not a scientist. On Economics he says what his Menzies house and IPA friends want to hear, plus Garnaut says Ergas is wrong. I'm happy to go with Garnaut.
Essex is another non-scientist with no climate-related research to his credit despite a history of (wrong, obviously) assertions about climate change, a subject in which he is non-expert.
Bottom line, Stu 2, is that I inform myself from the experts, while you seem to want to inform yourself from a bunch of fringe-dwelling cranks who are nowhere near being relevant experts.
This is (implied) fallacious logic. One may have valid credentials and simultaneously act as a crank and/or an industry-paid PR merchant.
To demonstrate that someone is not a crank or industry-paid PR merchant, one has to ... well, demonstrate that they aren't acting as a crank, and aren't acting as an industry-paid PR merchant.
Stu 2, any scientist who demonstrates that there is a crack or flaws in the climate bible is .......
"a crank or industry-paid PR merchant"
lol
Stu 2, any sane and rational person who recognizes that there is a crack or flaws in the climate bible is …….
“a crank or industry-paid PR merchant”
:)
Another paper blames ENSO for global warming pause, calling it ‘… a major control knob governing Earth’s temperature.’
Update of the Chronology of Natural Signals in the Near-Surface Mean Global Temperature Record and the Southern Oscillation Index
"ABSTRACT
Time series for the Southern Oscillation Index and mean global near surface temperature anomalies are compared for the 1950 to 2012 period using recently released HadCRU4 data. The method avoids a focused statistical an..........."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/another-paper-blames-enso-for-glo…
So Luke and Fatso disappear, and up comes Sock2, complete with reasonable tone, begging for an opinion on the latest denialista meme and citing the Fred Singer (!) as a credible source. Cue mutual masturbation from the pseudo- pre-adolescent tranny sock. As my 14 yo daughter says " that is soooo creepy.". Serves me right for not mentioning Stu (the real Stu) in the honour roll of sock-slayers.
Good afternoon wombat, beautiful weather. This global warming thingy has a lot to offer.
Elsewhere data manipulation is of concern.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/03/the-very-high-price-of-no…
I agree to my friend, Tony Abbott, the next Oz Prime Minister, that "climate science is crap". Tony is very knowledgeable and wise, as GW Bush or Dr. Klaus, the former president of the Czech Republic. The number of corageous statesmen who dare and condamn the insane greenpiss warming ideology of pagan hallucinant CO2 devil worshippers is increasing. This gives hope for the survival of mankind from the world's most dirty and insane delusion ever.
Even a stopped clock...
For sure, much wiser than you, Loathsome, as you are only a poor envying greenpiss ideologist who hates his home country and western civilization.
Not really Wombat bum - comments in moderation and blog unresponsive. Conspiratorial creeps.
BOM: The last 12 months were the warmest on record in Australia.
Meanwhile, Tony Abbott: climate change is so important we'll just give up on our over-priced Direct Action scheme if the allocated money runs out.
"Tony is very knowledgeable and wise, as GW Bush"
Oh, you mean the unindicted war criminal who didn't know the leaders of Pakistan or India leading up to the 2000 election? Who once claimed that 'Man and fish can co-exist peacefully'? The guy who talked about 'subliminable' processes? The same fellow who claimed to have learned to read thanks to books like 'The Hungry Green Caterpillar ' - which was published when he was 22? I won't even go into Klaus...
Berendaneke, you are one complete fruitcake...
Fatso: Steven Goddard? Steven Goddard? Oh! You mean this Steve Goddard:
http://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard . Idiot.
Today it was 30 in Adelaide - must be your vaunted global cooling cutting in. Where's your mate Luke? Frank got his tongue? Oh well, you still have the Freddiot.
Speaking of the Freddiot, anyone (sane) want to speculate on the origin of the fetid foot within the sock. Clues so far point to a mitteleuropean script kiddie with pronounced fascist tendencies and unresolved daddy issues. Panics (and gives away his sockdom) when his spittle-flecked, drive-by shit-slinging gets delayed by moderation or glitches. Likes Rabbott, Shrub & Vaclav Klaus, so is likely to be a raving right-wing sociopath (like Betty Birch), but can't be lil'mike, despite the coprolalia, cause his English (while not as bad as he pretends) is definitely not North American. He's too ignorant of academic detail to be Lubos Motl, though the politics fit, and I don't think Breivik has unfettered access to the web. So: a latter-day sturmabteilung. Probably just a Scandinavian Troll Collective wanabe, but some clues from his invocation of demonology suggests the fascist end of catholicism or orthodoxy. Ustashe? Arrow Cross? NOP/Niklot? One of Vlad Putin's little friends? Come on Freddiot - come and play.
lol....if you like a bit of comedy then this worth read...
http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml
BOM...troooly wooooly they will get worserer, lol
urrrmm..........we just don't know or how?
bbbut.... co3 means that...........ooopsie... I mean you know, that see o twoooy stuff really duzz MEAN that they will worssera.......sumday?
lol
rhwombat!
Today's temp in Adelaide is most DEFINITELY weather and NOT climate!
Your post at 85 which will probably be 86 or above because of the over moderation here is a classic example of shooting oneself in the proverbial foot or maybe placing oneself's foot in the proverbial mouth!
Absolute hypocricy to sneer at those who put up cold weather events and then put up warm weathef events.
Your new friend Luke has pegged you all perfectly.
Looks like Wombsie went to a proper private school.
Jo is just so hot http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pgMZegvtXB0#t=11
Wow so sexy and so skeptical.
Some classes on ocean acidification starting with Revellation @ The Rabett.
Be sure to follow some of the links at the bottom and early on Nick Stokes (like Tamino's 'Open Mind' always worth a visit) in 'Buffers, pH and ocean acidification' lays out why you should steer clear of faux-science hovels:
Luke, you were saying?
Several people on this thread are the fortunate recipients of a decent education, Lying Luke. It's obvious that you aren't and your chippiness about your intellectual shortcomings is amusing.
Mind you, we are sneering at you, you ignorant little thug!
:-)
Liar!
:-)
Amazing how your tripe now appears in real time! And none of these non-existent comments "in moderation" have subsequently appeared, even though everybody else's did!
Pants on fire!
:-)
'Today it was 30 in Adelaide –'
Unseasonal warm weather.
#93
Oh, it's a bit more than that!
Australia - warmest 12 months since records begun!
From The Age:
Yeah, its been warm, but its only weather.
Second paper points to ENSO as a main driver.
'All other things being equal, a period dominated by a high frequency of El Niño-like conditions will result in global warming, whereas a period dominated by a high frequency of La Niña-like conditions will result in global cooling.
'Overall, the results imply that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to temperature variability and perhaps a major control knob governing Earth’s temperature.'
de Freitas and McLean 2013
Hum! Yes. Nova and Evans make a good team, if you are into comic woo-science skits.
Nova - sexy. You really don't get out much do you Luke. She reminds me of Wendy Wright, another poor benighted brain. I feel sorry for them both.
Jeff Harvey, small greenpisser and stealing the money for senseless research from decent taxpayers
I demand you express all due respect for the former President of the United States of America. In which degree of sanity must you be to excrement such insane lack of respect for the former head of the mightiest nation earth, you small-scale greenpisser.
Citing de Freitas & McLean as reputable sources, Fatso?! Go back up thread a bit and find out Watts wrong with that. Major knobs indeed. You are like the pathetic desperadoes who confess to crimes they know nothing of, just to get a little bit of the attention they crave. You still don't get this "science stuff", do you? You never will.
As far as Luke goes - I see no rebuttal to Frank's hypothesis at 42#1 (or my elaboration @ 42#97), just more of your fanboi enthusiasm for a children's entertainer. I think that proves the hypothesis.
Now, now rhw, I advanced no hypothesis - people are free to draw whatever conclusions from those facts and Luke's response to them. :)
As Buffy Summers once put it: "I didn't jump. I took a tiny step and there conclusions were."
Craig at #71 - you missed Stu2's opening gambit, a (fubared, but corrected at # 40) link to Topher Fields latest exercise in pan handling. While Topher is not untalented as a writer and director of Tropfest films, his claims to understanding climate are very limited. His "gotcha's" have all the nuance of the Bradthing in full "reductio ad absurdum" mode.
So you can add "ill-informed and unsuccessful actor" to your rogues gallery....
"I demand you express all due respect for the former President of the United States of America"
You can 'demand' whatever the hell you like, Berendaneke, but I won't comply. Bush, like many of his predecessors and Obama, are war criminals. The Pentagon-White House-corporate-bank cabal are all working together to promote the Washington Consensus and its attendant free market absolutism and nakedly predatory capitalism - policies aimed at subjugating the capital of other countries, nullifying alternative and more human/equitable systems and outright expansionism. Just because the corporate/state media is part of this and mass produces ignorance doesn't mean I have to swallow. it.
So, Berendaneke, you can piss off with your 'demands'. Go jump in the lake, you shallow moron.
"I demand you express all due respect for the former President of the United States of America."
Freddie's such an authoritarian. You'd almost think he was opposed to free speech or something. :)
Freddyfred's just a barbecue Bush acolyte sausage.
Freddiot @43#97: OK, that has to be a Poe. "All due respect for" GWB? Other than novelty toilet paper, I can't think of a more appropriate fate for him (and Darth Cheyney) than to have Freddiot as a supporter.
El gordo vs el gordo (reminiscent of Plimer vs Plimer), who will win? And how long will it take him to realise he's arguing against himself?
Lotharsson, you should know by now.
When it's unusually warm, it's just weather. When it's not - that's climate.
Well look what the cat dragged in: Chameleon's finally made it back past moderation @42#100. The trolls are digging deep.
Lotharsson@#4: in Fatso vs Fatso there are no winners, only victims.
ALL OF YOUR MISUNDERESTIMATIONS ARE BE MINE!
:-)
Gordy
It's not the sun. It's not clouds. It's not the moons of Jupiter. It's not "lags". It's not the torched flatus of vengeful pinnipeds bent on the destruction of mankind at any cost. It's not weather and it's not ENSO!
If you would just read the links I provide, you would improve your understanding immensely!
:-)
One final point with respect to Berendaneke's, "“I demand you express all due respect for the former President of the United States of America” and I'll leave it at that...
Try asking the hundreds of thousands of victims of US wars and proxy wars under Bush to express their 'due respect'. But of course they can't - they've either been blown to smithereens by cruise missiles or cluster bombs, have died horrifically slow deaths from the effects of depleted uranium, or died from malnutrition or disease as a result of US economic policies.
So again, Berendaneke, you are in no position to make demands. Go stink up one of your far-right blogs and leave this one alone.
That Tamino link appears to be devastating to Judith Curry's reputation for competence (what remains of it) when blogging, rather than publishing in a peer-reviewed journal.
So this site is supposed to be a forum that discusses science and the environment.
So far all I have observed is politics and crude character assassinations.
Craig? What does someone's age have to do with their expertise and what is wrong with an economist speaking about economics?
It is possible to dismiss people like Flannery, Cook, Gore and Lewandowsky in exactly the same way you have dismissed Singer and Ergas.
That would not prove anything about anything scientific or political or environmental either.
& rhwombat? A warm day in Adelaide in September is just weather isn't it? If nothing else, climate science has been very clear that there is a difference between weather and climate hasn't it?
It's likely to get cold in Adelaide in September too. It's still just weather.
& why is this still an August thread?
No it isn't! Don't be ridiculous!
And why, oh Sock, can't you RTFLs?
Hottest 12 months in Australia since records began.
Go back to the previous page and read the words!
Well, more precisely it's supposed to discuss (bad) media reporting and politically motivated misuse and misrepresentation of science, but close enough.
Well, (a) there's an election on, (b) much of climate science denial is politically motivated, (c) you've cited at least one person who has been proven to routinely make unreliable arguments, and who almost entirely relies on making their arguments outside of the peer-reviewed literature now (in large part because he knows that they won't survive peer review, whether before or after publication, and because his aim is not to affect scientific understanding but to influence politics and policy).
Also, you've apparently missed seeing the comments that do discuss science. Try again.
Not exactly.
Flannery and Gore are certainly not climate scientists. However they both mostly present the current understanding of the climate science community - and yes, they both sometime get it wrong when doing so (and are and should be called on it when it happens). But they're both far closer to what the science says than all of the contrarians put together. Furthermore, the case for concern provided by climate science does not rely on anything either of those guys says. It existence is independent of their statements.
Lewandowsky is an expert in his field, and as far as I know does not act as a paid PR shill for industry. If he's talking about his field, then you can't dismiss him in the same way. Which then means that you need to rebut his argument if you are so inclined.
It depends in what field you are trying to dismiss Cook. If you're trying to dismiss the whole of the Skeptical Science website as so many contrarians wish to do, it's the argument and evidence presented that count, not "John Cook said it". Argue the evidence, not the Fallacy of Argument From Authority. If you're talking about solar physics, that's his postgraduate topic, so...
The blog owner has had very little time for the blog for quite some time now. New monthly threads are quite often several days late.
The intellectual dishonesty of denier trolls eh?!
Don't like a fact? Pretend the comment didn't exist and repeat the lie on the next page!
Tedious beyond belief!
Australia – warmest 12 months since records begun!
From The Age:
Stu2,
You just said interested in responses, so my response is:
1. Hollow posturing by an out of work actor who knows there is a buck to be made in bagging out the government, any government. Note that no practising experts are cited in the video.
2. Hollow posturing by unqualified faux-experts on something that is little more than a denialist meme. Note that no practising experts are cited in the article.
If you have more specific questions I, or others here, will do our best to engage, subject always to the good faith rider.
Your turn.
Strewth that is some collection of straight out deniers at Topher is it not:
Joanne Nova aka Codling
David Evans
Anthony Watts
Christopher Essex
Donna Laframboise
Marc Morano
Fred Singer
Henry Ergas
Singer is one sad person for such a once clever scientists to have sunk to such low company. Fruits, nuts and cherry pickers just in time for making the Christmas pud'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/
Well no actually Lotharsson, it appears that Judith Curry does have plenty of credibility and is regarded as competent.
She appears to be more highly regarded in the climate field than Tamino aka Grant Foster who also is a blogger anyway and seems to have less published work than Curry?
http://tamino.wordpress.com/
I did intend to imply that Cook, Lewandowsky, Flannery etc are bad people or that they don't possess any qualifications, I was just pointing out that Craig's response (and now Frank's) were not really a response to either of those links they just were character assassinations. The others that you're now defending have had their character's assassinated too. It doesn't prove anything.
I agree with you that none of these people mentioned are always correct or conversely always incorrect.
BBD, you have linked to a media release unless I did miss a specific published science paper in regard to Australia's weather in 2013?
An excellent article on a Tough Summer for North Cascades Glaciers .
Now pay attention to this para' Luke et.al.:
Do you see what it is about now, more than just models, although these latter can tell us much about how systems respond to varying inputs.
It is about collecting data which confirms the underpinning physics and chemistry.
Now no more of your cupid stunts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/
Well no actually Lotharsson, it appears that Judith Curry does have plenty of credibility and is regarded as competent.
She appears to be more highly regarded in the climate field than Tamino aka Grant Foster who also is a blogger anyway and seems to have less published work than Curry?
http://tamino.wordpress.com/
I didn't intend to imply that Cook, Lewandowsky, Flannery etc are bad people or that they don't possess any qualifications, I was just pointing out that Craig's response (and now Frank's) were not really a response to either of those links they just were character assassinations. The others that you're now defending have had their character's assassinated too. It doesn't prove anything.
I agree with you that none of these people mentioned are always correct or conversely always incorrect.
BBD, you have linked to a media release unless I did miss a specific published science paper in regard to Australia's weather in 2013?
Sorry!
In an attempt to edit didn't for did, that comment came up twice. The correct word is most definitely DIDN'T.
Stu 2
The difference between Grant Foster and Judith Curry is that the reputation of the former is rising whereas the latter is doing everything she can to torpedo hers.
Well, no, Stu 2, when she blogs she does not have much credibility because she makes (and allows) dubious claims. Furthermore she doesn't have much competence for that reason, and because she continues to make fairly basic errors, as a little bit of Internet research would demonstrate (and Tamino's article appears to demonstrate). Her "Italian flag" metaphor is a classic early example, and she clung to it after it was demonstrated to be dodgy - a bad habit she appears to indulge in on the blog.
This is why I drew the distinction in my comment between her blogging and publications in peer reviewed journals. Especially since as far as I can see she routinely steps outside of her scope of professional competence on her blog.
Tamino is a professional statistician with peer reviewed papers and academic books. On statistics it appears that he is far more competent than Curry, and statistical analysis is germane to large parts of climate science. Curry has particular expertise in one segment of climate science (although I think she hurt her own reputation a bit a while back with a paper that received strong pushback after publication for claiming more than the data supported).
If you're genuinely new here, you might not realise that we've seen LOADS of denialism over the years, almost all of it conducted in bad faith. Regulars are by and large tired of repeating that experience and have a fairly low tolerance for it now. Accordingly when someone new comes along and gives off the same vibes as all of those previous experiences, they tend to get a short-cut response.
If you're genuinely new here and genuinely interested in a good faith discussion, persist a little longer so that your interactions can be seen to be of a different nature than the usual. Generally you'll find that you'll get a reasonable discussion, although the place is a lot less frequented than it used to be because the blog owner hasn't posted much lately.
You asked for a response and you got it. You cannot seriously expect a substantive deconstruction of a 9.5 minute movie that fits into a blog comment. What specifically interested you about it that you felt it worth linking to here?
As to the article you linked to, I gave it the attention it warranted. It is entirely substance-free. Let me see if I've parsed it correctly:
Some unnamed people want something that is not happening to be discussed at a conference next month, because if it was happening it would be a reason not to do something that we are not doing anyway (panicking). People who actually know about the subject declined to comment. A non-expert adduced several factoids which were pointed out to be inconsequential by people with more domain expertise.
Did I get that right? Oh and Stu, if I didn't, raising substantive issues will be taken as good faith. Fishing with tone trolling chum will be seen for what it is.
Over to you.
So child neglecting BBD seems to be able to post with the living high on the hog Deltoids. Meanwhile the thought police and perimeter have made the place Service Unavailable. Most comments going into moderation.
Fucking hypocrites living their nice little cozy cossetted lives while wasting their living blog sooking about imaginary problems. Watermelons and commies. Get a real job you layabouts.
"If you’re genuinely new here and genuinely interested in a good faith discussion" hahahahahaha
If you're new here realise the perimeter guards are simply cunts - they won't attempt to answer your questions, They'll appeal to authority and label you a denier. Followed by verballing and all sorts of assumptions about you. Good faith discussions mean you essentially must agree. You must believe in the coming apocalypse.
... and there goes yet another military grade irony meter.
Seems The Lukes are crumbling into nothing but ravings about their fantasies now, like a street corner wino. It's a sad sight, isn't it Freddyfred?
Writes the arch verbaler of verbalers and assumer par excellence. Simply read back through the very recent posts from that quarter for evidence.
As Lotharsson says, 'it is always pr******** with these twerps'. I figure we all know the missing characters by now.
Sock 2 #18
It's the BOM. Your national reference data.
Don't be a tedious fuckwit.
Lying Luke strikes again!
We know you aren't commenting here much any more Luke!
You fool nobody!
:-)
Lying Luke
You previously admitted - grudgingly - that this term has overtly racist connotations. Why are you using it again? This doesn't look good. In fact I'm going to have to upgrade you from plain thug to racist thug if you keep it up!
:-)
No, she is not. She's a lying shill, and a stupid one at that.
Here's why (not that you'll read it, of course, just for the lurkers), AGAIN:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/el-nino-and-the-non-spherical-co…
Scroll down to the last graph. Credibility my foot.
"Watermelons and commies"
Oh, here we go again. The same old bulls***. Luke is an ignoramus, and further reinforces that fact when he has to resort to these kinds of depths.
Climate change deniers and anti-environmentalists like Luke, Karen, Freddy etc. just can't resist telling us what we already know: that they are trying to hide their far right libertarian affiliations behind a fake scientific wall. These clots don't give a damn about scientific 'truths'. Never have. But if they were to be honest just for once in their miserable lives, they'd admit that they hate science but find it necessary to take the road they have to provide cover for their political views.
Stu2 #20
BBD, you have linked to a media release unless I did miss a specific published science paper in regard to Australia’s weather in 2013?
How on Earth can there already be a published paper?
This entire watermelon saga is so ni-CLANG, it's not even funny.
'Good faith discussions mean you essentially must agree. You must believe in the coming apocalypse.'
Yep, this appears to be the state of play.
Only the child neglecting, blog-obsessed, living the high life, leech BBD would think that watermelon was racist.
Why does Jeff say I'm a climate change denier - see more verballing - fuck off Jeff. In fact I'm the only objective one here.
Big Bad Dominic,
Just stop with your BS "watermelon comments are racist" tripe. In this context, they aren't. If southern blacks were being discussed, perhaps. But not the way it is used to define so-called "greens". The commie red component isn't racist, it's a political jibe.
And speaking of political, since you have shown us all that the physical science of AGW is pretty much undeniable, perhaps you could use some of your valuable intellect, and time, discussing and suggesting reasonable and feasible solutions to the issue rather than banging your head against the proverbial wall with the lowest of the blogospheric low--on both *sides*--on endless, meaningless open threads. Just a suggestion. Shame to waste such talent. Unless, of course, this is all just a game for you. Which I suspect it is.
Stu, I'm interested, just who is Judy Curry "a lying shill" for?
'These clots don’t give a damn about scientific ‘truths’. Never have.'
The irony burns.
Lying Luke says:
Immediately after saying:
Which demonstrates that Luke is not being objective at all!
For example, Luke has no evidence that I am a bad parent! But he now asserts this as fact! Repeatedly!
Not very objective, Luke!
;-)
And of course, "watermelon" is profoundly racist!
Even Luke was forced to admit this earlier!
See Page 31 #87:
So Luke is inconsistent, which is hardly objective!
Please in future refrain from using the offensive, racist term "watermelons" and instead refer to those who differ with your rather odd views as "lying cunt commies".
:-)
Please stay "objective" Luke!
This is Jeff the bludging academic spending his life swanning around to conferences putting dodgy GCM input into dodgy species models and proclaiming the end of the world. Come and stand a post Jeff and shoot some feral cats if you're serious. Shouldn't you be protesting in front of a rainforest clearing bulldozer in Indonesia - why are you here.
BBD we know little Johnny is neglect while you're obsessively blogging. You said so yourself. "Off you go to bed as Daddy has to discuss the end of the world" FAaarrkkkk !
Gordy
Your #39 is fuckwittage. You don't have the first clue what irony is. Which is, of course, ironic.
As I said earlier - if watermelon offends you we can substitute lying cunt commie instead. Why would a fruit or analogy to green left politics be considered racist. Well we've already answered that haven't we.
Just for fun, let's compare this:
With Lying Luke's Fabled Objectivity Machine!
UK local time now: 23:30! I made the same point last night as well, Lying Luke!
You smell of poo!
"Cooks ’97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors
UPDATE: While this paper (a rebuttal) has been accepted, another paper by Cook and Nuccitelli has been flat out rejected by the journal Earth System Dynamics. See update below. – Anthony
“0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a…
lol
"The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus."
:)
Well, it's apparent that Stu 2 is obviously more linguistically competent than Mackulus now that the sample size has increased, but he's either new to the game or starting in Chapter 1 of Denialism if his arguments are any indication.
Apart from that he seems rational though, which is more than can be said for Luke who has gone completely off the rails and now obviously inhabits his own hypocritical alternative reality.
There are two things you should get your head around, El Gordo:
The current record heat is occurring despite us not being under any El Nino influence.
McLean predicted last year would be, "the coldest year since 1956". Reality is diametrically opposite to McLean's garbage.
Additionally, McLean is the guy who used to seem to be claiming to have a PhD, until he was caught out. He is some sort of IT technician with no relevant qualifications, and a history of fringe-published nonsense that has been shown to have been completely wrong by subsequent events and now spends his days polluting the pages of The Drum with his uneducated and utterly wrong opinions.
*Nobody* sensible believes McLean has any credibility at all.
Karen "Fluffy Sock" Sunspot
Oh noes! The laws of physics are about to be invalidated by Legates, Soon, Briggs and [trumpets and drums!] Monckton!
LOL!
:-) :-) :-)
John McLean
John McLean is an Information Technology specialist who has made an intense study of climate matters since 2003. He brings skills in analysis and data processing to a data-intensive subject. His critical review of CSIRO climate reports, published in Energy & Environment, was a first for Australia and his analysis of the peer review of the latest IPCC assessment report has been raised in the US senate. His website http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm contains a number of articles about climate, with emphasis on data rather than opinion.
#49 BBD
[trumpets and drums!]
lol
Oh, I missed this Luke gem the first time around. Thank you for quoting it, Gordo!
Good faith discussion means (for starters) not lying your stupid ass off over and over again, especially after you've been repeatedly exposed. Luke and Gordo, you both lie. Pathologically.
[doop-dee-doop-dee-doop]
Yep, for at least the past 8 pages (I only have so much time and patience), there are multiple instances of you lying. After being corrected. And these are "wow, let's see, let me Google this, they wouldn't say this if it weren't t"---BANG, stupid, obvious, douchecanoe tripe.
No sense of shame at all. Gordo, you lie about warming having stopped over and over. You think you saying so makes it true. You're on the wrong wagon, Gordo.
Now, let's go to Luke "I'm not pathetic, you are!" Clownshoe.
You forgot commie, cupcake. Or did you actually look it up this time and realize that was too fucking dumb even for you?
"Child-neglecting": border-line libel that has been repeatedly refuted. Repeating it is childish, churlish, asinine and very, very sad.
"blog-obsessed": simply looking at timestamps makes this a case of, all together now, IT'S ALWAYS PROJECTION.
"living the high life, leech": right up there with "how dare Al Gore have a big house". Pathetic.
On the other hand, some people would realize the world extends beyond their own borders. Some people would not persist in using a racial stereotype AFTER IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO THEM REPEATEDLY. Other people would not be assholes on purpose. Listen, you jackass. "Jafa" doesn't mean squat where I'm from, but I don't use the term. It's common courtesy. It's that CIVILISED DISCOURSE you're so big on. Which, of course, you're actually not, because you're a fucking liar.
Wait, what? Didn't you use to claim you were a practicing scientist? I might be confusing my trolls here.
Anyway, it seems like your main issue with scientists is that after working their asses of for two decades, they get a free trip every now and then? Childish, churlish jealousy is your main motivator? You truly are a sad, sad little man.
Maybe you should learn a trade, Luke. I'm just a code monkey and my boss pays for my week-long trips every six weeks or so. Have you ever considered the possibility that you're just jealous because you simply suck at whatever the hell it is you do, Luke?
Wait, do you even have a job?
Yes, the field of ecology has yet failed to research the impact of invasive species. At all.
Is there a prize for making a complete ass out of yourself somewhere you're shooting for?
Why all this anger, sweetheart? Did someone fine you for setting your trailer on fire or something?
*knock knock*
What is it dad?
Well, Johnny, I need to talk to you.
What about?
Well, I need to tell you something.
About what, dad?
Something about you.
What is it, dad?
Well, this guy on the Internet really pegged you for what you are.
What I am, daddy?
Yes, yes he did. He's really smart.
How do you know, dad?
He said so.
Oh, okay then. So what am I dad?
Are you ready?
I guess so.
Sure?
Yes, dad.
Son, you are........ NEGLECT.
Luke, you're a fucking moron.
I will send you $100 of my own money if you can find a quote that even remotely implies such a thing, you idiotic pathological liar.
Yes, sexism is much better. Also, I have to take back what I said earlier... you have no fucking clue what communism is, do you Luke? None. Same for Marxism, socialism... to you, it's all "things someone told me are bad, so they are bad, so there".
Your original (and I suspect actual) profile picture of a juggalo in his mom's basement increases in explanatory power with every comment.
Because it is. As has been explained to you. AS ANY FIVE MINUTE GOOGLE SEARCH WOULD TELL YOU. Not knowing why it is racist by now is A) Willful ignorance or B) An obvious and stupid lie. After this comment, B) is your only option left.
Do go on and feign ignorance some more, you utter clot.
Holy shit, "Karen"! Thank you for posting that link! Actually, let me post it again!
http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm
I stumbled upon this a year ago and lost it sometime thereafter. It's absolute GOLD though. Go look at it, it's fucking hilarious.
From the front page:
" A more complete picture of our paper of 2009 and how the journal refused to publish our response to the flawed criticism."
Seriously, nobody whines like this clown. Go look. It's epic.
Thanks again, "Karen".
By the way, is there any reason you posted a link to a crackpot site that hasn't posted anything new for the past two years? I ask merely for information.
Oh man, thanks again, "Karen".
I almost forgot how epically WATB that entire site is. I mean, this is just... precious:
I mean, forget the bucket of Fox-style implicating weasel claptrap. The implied conspiracy, the twelve stages of denialist victimhood, and my personal favorite "WITHIN DAYS". Think about what that means. I don't even think they're trying to imply additional conspiracy here, I truly think they cannot possibly fathom how a professional statistician can take a random rainy afternoon and shoot big, loud, gaping holes in this precious thesis [sniiiiiiirk] that took them months to put together.
Your bus is short for a reason, cupcake.
Just so the resident dills on this site (looking at you Lukes, Gordo, Karen) have the opportunity to demonstrate that they don't understand the notion of cherry picking yet again, the following from News.com.
NEW Zealand basked in its warmest winter on record, with South Islanders in particular being warmed well above the norm.
Despite a cold snap from June 19-21 which brought snow to much of the South Island and winds which wreaked havoc in Wellington, the rest of the winter was a warm one, the national climate research body Niwa says.
Nationally the mean temperature was 9.5C, 1.2C above the winter average, based on Niwa's seven station temperature series measurement method, which began in 1909.
This was 0.3 degrees warmer than the previous warmest winter of 1984, making it the warmest on record by a considerable margin.
Temperatures were particularly high in Southland, Otago, inland Canterbury, coastal Canterbury north of Ashburton, and isolated parts of the lower half of the North Island.
Several places in the South Island had mean temperatures more than 1.5C higher than average, with Gore a whopping 2.2C above average.
In the main centres, temperatures were well above average in Christchurch and Dunedin, above average in Wellington and Tauranga, and about average in Auckland and Hamilton.
It's amazing how vehemently determined the Luke DuKE Collective is in demonstrating that they are arguing in bad faith. I'd like to thank them for stepping it up a level and making it obvious to everyone with just slightly higher comprehension and cognitive abilities than el gordo - who himself pushes out a false definition of "good faith" because he can't accept what the real definition implies.
@Malamuddy: "cold snap"! Ha hahaha ha global warming is a joke ha ha greenpiss commie ha ha ha :-) :-) :-)
(That's how it goes, right?)
'No sense of shame at all. Gordo, you lie about warming having stopped over and over.'
That's what a majority of scientists are saying and I'm inclined to believe them.
Malamuddy its also been warm in Oz over the winter and we have an early Spring over the whole island.
Do you think this warmth will remain regional?
Warming of various kinds, seasonal, climatic, storm/monsoon weather patterns moving around isn't like cooking. It doesn't start somewhere, like close to the flame, and move into the rest of the contents of the stockpot for as long as the flame is on.
Are you sure you're not falling for the rather empty notion that global warming means that always and everywhere the temperature should be increasing - setting a new high record - for each and every day of the year? And if that's not happening always and everywhere, then it's not happening at all?
As for "regional" in Australia. We have several distinct climate regions here. If it gets to 41C in Adelaide, there's no good reason to think that will automatically relate to conditions in Brisbane or Perth. Even when it's the same weather system, the impact of a stream of moist, coolish air from the east over Brisbane can become a hellish hot dry dusty wind if it does an anti-clockwise sweep across thousands of kms of desert to send Adelaide residents indoors.
What has happened to deltoid?
I can remember visiting this site in the past and being able to read some solid debate. It was sponsored by National Geographic then.
All I see now is character assassination, personal attacks personal abuse and attempts at character assessment of me or other commenters or character judgement of others or character comparison of me or others by sample size courtesy of comments like Bernard's.
Stu's contribution @#32 being one excellent example but only one of many.
I am sure that Judith Curry does not care much about your assessment Stu:
" No, she is not. She’s a lying shill, and a stupid one at that."
I think she is about as publicly credible as Tamino aka Grant Foster. They have both contributed correct and incorrect assessments. They both run blogs. They both work in academic institutions. They both have high level qualifications in their respective fields. Neither of them are stupid as a quick perusal of their respective careers and qualifications demonstrates.
The strengthening of the Subtropical Ridge is a global warming signal and its been keeping the cold fronts well to the south.
Hey Stu!
Yr no. 36 "The entire watermelon saga is so ni-Clang, it isn't even funny."
Right on! Stu, ol' buddy! I mean, like, this "watermelon", ni-Clang, so-racist-it-makes-me-want-to-barf, right-wing-nutter "ideation" business is no laughing matter--let me tell you! I mean, like, it's infecting the whole HUMAN RACE!, even as we speak!!!!
I mean, like, I "googled" the terms "watermelon wiki", and you're not even going to begin to believe the horror-story wiki-entry that came up! Under the seemingly innocent heading of watermelon-related "Cultural references", I got this:
-"In Vietnamese culture, watermelon seeds are consumed during the Vietnamese New Year, Tet, as a snack." I mean, like, talk about ni-Clang up the wazoo, and all! I mean, like, these hard-core, VC, "scientific-socialists" who claim "History" as their ally and all, aren't just racially "offensive"in the ordinary "watermelon" sense of the term--NOOOO!--they're "TET OFFENSIVE!!!"
-"The Oklahoma State Senate passed a bill on 17 April 2007 declaring watermelon as the official state fruit, with some controversy over whether a watermelon is a vegetable or a fruit." Think Senator Inhofe!!!--Senator from Oklahoma--right? Do I need to say more?
-"The citruline in watermelon (especially in the rind) is a known stimulator of nitric oxide. Nitric oxide is thought to relax and expand blood vessels, much like the erectile dysfunction drug Viagra, and may even increase libido." Wow! Something so head-spinningly offensive as this appearing in a Wiki-entry, no less?!!! I mean, like, you don't have to be a hive-trained, PC-gotcha! enviro-ninja to spot the thin, Lysenkoist veneer of "scientific respectability" used here to dress up this apalling bit of of ni-Clang, watermelon-racism "ideation". I mean, like, talk about the ultimate in sexually-threatened, teeny-tiny-weenie, can't-get-a-date, mummy-obsessed, privileged-white-dork bigot-fantasies (shame on you Deltoids!) aimed at falsely and maliciously attributing the parntner-choices of so many of the shockingly uninhibited hive-babes to some mythical and repellent stereotype of the hyper-sexed black-stud!
-"[watermelon] is the symbol of the Turkish city, Diyarbakar." Yes! the germ of "watermelon-racism" has spread to even the Middle East!
-And, most especially, hang your head in shame Australia! "The town of Chinchilla in Queensland, Australia, holds a biannual festival celebrating all things melon." "All things melon"--Yep! That's right, Deltoids, ni-Clang code-language for WATERMELONS!!! (check it out!).
-And then there's the truly sorry case of Canada. I mean, like, I'm super-sized shocked--SHOCKED!--at this part of the wiki entry. "Fans of the Saskatchewan Rough Riders of the CFL started a tradition of hollowing out a watermelon and wearing it as a makeshift football helmet." Can totally-out-of-control, ni-Clang-to-the-max, "watermelon-racism" ideations get any worse than this?
-And then, finally, there's this one: "Stereotypical caricatures may depict African Americans as being inordinately fond of eating watermelons". And of all the "Cultural references" that invoke watermelons, this last is the hive's preference. Why? Obvious, isn't it, Deltoids? The "watermelon" epithet that's been so neatly affixed to you lefty greenshirts (green on the outside, red on the inside) really stings. Right, guys? And so you've come up with that little, "watermelon-racism" canard of yours as your sad, truly pathetic, agit-prop, back-chat stratagem, desperately hoping it will deprive your detractors of their "watermelon" truth-prod that makes you little hive-bozos so wince. You know, like, how you guys are attempting to equate "watermelon" references to you lefty nerd-pukes with racist stereotyping--and to hell with how improbable, forced, unconvincing, and transparently humbug the whole propaganda flim-flam of the "meme" might be.
Sorry, guys. "Watermelons" you are, and "WATERMELONS" you'll remain--green on the outside and red on the inside!
Here's Luke:
"In fact I’m the only objective one here"
Then this:
"if watermelon offends you we can substitute lying cunt commie instead"
Enough said, really. Luke is a complete raving idiot. In his myopic little world, this is 'objective' discourse. In academia he's be tarred, feathered, and thrown out. He'd be a laughingstock. His 'science' has already been demolished here. When confronted with new facts, he dismisses them and ignores dozens of empirical studies. Witness his initial response to the Nature Climate Change article on ocean acidification, which was to dismiss it out of hand for lacking evidence. When other posters provided links to many other studies providing that evidence, he switched from chest pounding to casual dismissal to, eventually, silence on the issue.
Luke's a hollow vessel. But he is a classic example of the climate change deniers I've encountered on Deltoid over the past 10 years. They all greatly over-estimate their scientific qualifications and expertise. Every single one of them. No exceptions. Not a single one of them is, in fact, a scientists with any standing in any field. They all resort to invective-laden sears when called out.
Luke's just par for the course. He demands to be heard, and believes he's some kind of scientific guru. Truth is, he's a schmuck.
I always enjoy your post's mike :) ....and they have been a bit easier to read since Timmy flipped sides.. lol
Adelady, that's a brief but fair summary of Australian weather patterns and their influences. Especially how Adelaide's weather can differ greatly from somewhere like Brisbane, even though they may be under the influence of the same high pressure system.
I'm not as impressed about anything in regard to your happening or not happening comments.
Adelady, that’s a brief but fair summary of Australian weather patterns and their influences. Especially how Adelaide’s weather can differ greatly from somewhere like Brisbane, even though they may be under the influence of the same high pressure system.
I’m not as impressed about anything in regard to your happening or not happening comments.
"Every single one of them. No exceptions. Not a single one of them is, in fact, a scientists with any standing in any field."
I almost have to agree JeFfErY, no syencyst here is qualified enough to understand the climate.
Did you know that my qualifications in climate syense are the same as yours sweety :)
Then either you haven't read much of what goes on on her blog, or you aren't any good at assessing what is or is not credible.
She recently gave a platform for Craig Idso's lies. I haven't bothered going back.
You're more patient than I am. I gave up long ago when she was still allowing open slather for the iron sun and centrifugal force cranks.
"Did you know that my qualifications in climate syense are the same as yours sweety"
Two replies: First, your qualifications in environmental science are nowhere close to mine - and this is where the effects of GW are being manifested.
Second, your qualifications don't come anywhere close to the vast majority of climate scientists who broadly agree that humans are the main drivers of the recent warming. Which makes me wonder how a total neophyte like you possesses the acumen to understand a field in which you have precisely zero pedigree. All I am doing is deferring to the views of the bulk of the climate science community. You and the other deniers here are bucking the trend. If you were properly trained I would be more inclined to listen, but you aren't.
When you pasted that Youtube video of Green Party meeting in Australia as evidence of a global left wing conspiracy, it told me exactly where you were coming from, Karen. Like Luke and the others, you cannot refrain from letting slip this paranoid fear that climate science is some vast left-wing conspiracy. Truth is, you're bonkers. You, Luke, Freddy et al. would be at home in a Tea Party platform. Go there are spew out your lies and hysteria. Not here.
"When you pasted that Youtube video of Green Party meeting in Australia as evidence of a global left wing conspiracy, it told me exactly where you were coming from, Karen."
Step by step JeFfErY, I am soooo happy that you watched that clip of Bob Brown, Leader of the Greens, calling for a Global Parliament.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzJm-ZosEbo
Now JeFfErY, explain to everybody what the word 'conspiracy' means.
"First, your qualifications in environmental science are nowhere close to mine – and this is where the effects of GW are being manifested."
JeFfErY, comprehension ! "climate syense" sweety, "climate syense",
Environmental science does not in any way, prove or disprove, the effects of CO2 on the climate.
Environmental science may show evidence of climate change, but not the cause of it sweety..
Sooooo JeFfErY, I repeat, "my qualifications in climate syense are the same as yours sweety :) "
SpamKan "false flag" Karen seems convinced their illiterate, paranoid ravings gleaned from crank blogs and partial video quotes stand on equal terms with the understanding of a professional scientist.
I'll put that down as yet another +1 on SpamKan's nutter bingo card.
L'ill Mike your rhetorical devices are as tired as your rhetoric. Now put the l'll fella back in your pants and allow another month to recharge.
As Curry's (politically convenient) hobbyhorse of uncertainty has become her (politically convenient) sole interest over the past five years, her relevance in the field has decreased, as if it hadn't been considered previously. Her last lead authored paper was seven years ago.
She's pursuing a (politically convenient) dead end. Science advances by teasing out what can be known, not collecting up bundles of 'uncertainty'. Nor does it advance by cosying up to the fringe nutters previously mentioned, and adopting similare paranoid views herself.
"Sooooo JeFfErY, I repeat, “my qualifications in climate syense are the same as yours sweety"
Read the rest of my post, sunshine..., the inconvenient little bit where I juxtaposed your qualifications (zero) with the bulk of the climate science community who agree that humans are the main drivers of GW.
As I said, why would a complete neophyte hold views that run counter to the scientific mainstream? I explained why, above. It has nix to do with science, of course, since you are a know-nothing, and everything to do with politics and economics, of which your views concur with those on the far end of the political right.
So knock off the innocent act, Karen. We've all seen through it.
"and everything to do with politics and economics, of which your views concur with those on the far end of the political right.
So knock off the innocent act, Karen. We’ve all seen through it."
Conjecture and speculation JeFfErY,
Remind me, what are your qualifications in climate science?
zero nil nix nought zip aught zilch................................. :)
"Remind me, what are your qualifications in climate science?"
hmmm.....and frostbite does not count JeFfErY.. :)
Can't even post
Encouraging to see September has belatedly arrived.
Testing Testing 1 ... 2 .... 3
Fucking Jeff off on another interminable long rant being towed around in my wake. You're such a shit cunt Jeff - really mate - just fuck off. 10 years here eh? you sad fuck.
"Enough said, really. Luke is a complete raving idiot."
TRUE but is he/she/it wrong !?
"His ‘science’ has already been demolished here." HAHAHAHAHAA must have missed it.
"When confronted with new facts, he dismisses them" Oh I thought that's what Doltoid cunts were doing?! My bad.
"Witness his initial response to the Nature Climate Change article on ocean acidification, which was to dismiss it out of hand for lacking evidence. When other posters provided links to many other studies providing that evidence, he switched from chest pounding to casual dismissal to, eventually, silence on the issue." mate the blog is fucked - you can't post, and and unlike you fuckersI have work to do - I can't be camped out here 24x7
"But he is a classic example of the climate change deniers I’ve encountered on Deltoid over the past 10 years." NOT A FUCKING DENIER - fuck off Jeff. Stop verballing me.
" They all greatly over-estimate their scientific qualifications and expertise." DIDN'T SAY I HAD ANY
"They all resort to invective-laden sears when called out." AND DELTOIDS NEVER DO THAT !
"Luke’s just par for the course." TRUE
"He demands to be heard," well you cunt are writing tomes as I tow you around the swamp "but but but but" what whiney lil' bitches. Just shut up.
"and believes he’s some kind of scientific guru." Not REALLY but I am pretty fucking awesome.
" Truth is, he’s a schmuck." TRUE. Some would have said a hard cunt actually.
Jeff just shut the fuck up for heavens sake. Please - it's sooooo boring.
Now on acidification it's all modelly shit like the supplement to the classic (for some cunts) Sabine et al "The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2" 2004 - well the supplement shows how assumptive it all is - and I as I don't know my alkalinity from my DIC - well you get the import (or you're a dumb fuck).
And BBD I'm sure young Johnny is just fine - stop swinging at sledges - most of the time I'm only taking the piss out of you sour as fuck watermelons. or perhaps rastus chocolate drops - oh shit - sin ! Get over it. We can do white Aussie vs NZ jokes if it makes you happy. But is was only 23:30 hours - hahahahahahaha - who gives a fuck. It's like you're apologising to the headmaster. Stop it !
You're all so prissy - anyway - answer my questions. You can't. So now get over yourselves.
P.S. McLean sucks bad.
Fresh fred please, mod.
And for my political comment on the Australian Saturday election type
dont be a fucking idiot .com without the spaces. No it's not a trap !
Richard Tol has had some support from the 'usual suspects' here of late but now Tol himself undermines his arguments as Richard Tol Calls Richard Tol's 122 Papers Irrelevant.
In the comments Sou knocks the denier bogs into a batting order with Nova fit only to sit on the bench.
Some excellent articles over at Sou's Hot Whopper where in the latest he makes a case for Watts joining Nova on that bench by his promotion of complete nuttery of a similar ilk to what we have recently seen from our suspects here.
What is this nuttery, put all drinks well out of reach before proceeding further, well here is a sample in 'Anthony Watts thinks it's April the first at WUWT!:
{quote}
"This is hilarious if you're into black humour. Anthony Watts has posted yet another article (archived here) protesting the 97% consensus. What is it now, is anyone counting?
They didn't ask if it was dangerous!
Here is an excerpt:
Bloody hell! What does he think? That 97% of scientists who've attributed global warming to human activity, that warn of what will happen if we keep doing it, that already are observing Russian heatwaves and Angry Summers and acidifying oceans and signs of the sixth major extinction event and have been warning people for decades about what we can expect - and they are warning the world just for kicks?
What a bunch of utter nutters!"
{end quote}
But do go read the full article as it tells us much about how the denier brigade work - deviously. But then most of us know this already.
Other articles on ENSO & global surface temperatures plus a couple of shake-ups of Topher Field (50-1) the second over Monckton. Then there is the topical 'The Angry Year: Australia's hottest 12 months on record' article.
Its always PROJECTION!
Go lookee here and learn summat.
And it isn't just Australia.
Warmest August on Record at South Pole & Warmest summer on record in Salt Lake City, Utah and Elko, Nevada plus other outside the envelope occurrences.
New Cold Record for South Africa?
The South African Weather Service reported a low temperature of -19.5°C (-3.1°F) at Buffelsfontein on Friday August 23rd. If verified this would be the coldest temperature ever measured in the country.
The preliminary national weather extremes table for South Africa on Thursday-Friday August 22-23. Table from the South African Weather Service.
The previous record cold for South Africa ...
Bahia Blanca, Argentina, an all-time record for the month of August. This follows a reading of -7.9°C (17.8°F) recorded on August 25th, their all-time record low for the month! The site has a POR (period of record) of over 100 years. Their normal daily range of temperature during August is 9.2°C-16.0°C (49°F-61°F).
Meanwhile, a very rare snowfall accumulated in the high desert town of San Pedro de Atacama, Chile on August 25-26. Located at 2500 m (8,250’) it is not unusual for cold temperatures to be measured here, but precipitation is very rare (being in the Atacama Desert, driest region of the world) and snowfall even rarer. The last report of snow here was in 1983. Snow was also reported on the beaches near Viedma, Argentina (about 150 miles south of Bahia Blanca) on August 23-25. Again, this was a first since the early 1980s.
Then you're not reading very carefully.
Which is convenient for your whining, but starts to suggest that you're not discussing things in good faith.
#82 Lying Luke
>
Oho! They don't call him Lying Luke for nothing!
Let's see now... Here we are! Page 25 #65:
Goldfish memory and pathological mendacity do not mix well, Luke!
:-) :-) :-)
Must try harder!
Dork, ask yourself which season it is down there!
Global warming does not mean that everywhere is going to only show record high temperatures, every day. Neither does it rule out some places recording lower temperatures, that latter being in the nature of climate change.
What is happening is that average temperatures are rising there being more record highs than new lows and also a compression of the diurnal temperature difference. Think what that latter means!
Here go educate yourself:
Global Analysis - July 2013
Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
for starters.
As I recall it's stronger than that. We expect some new low records as a result of global climate change. The fact that this is counter intuitive for many people doesn't change the fact that it is expected.
" New Cold Record for South Africa?
Dork, ask yourself which season it is down there!"
It's the getting colder one........ :)
Come now BBD, surely Luke isn't lying! Might he not be merely obliquely pointing out that he misled his employer as to his qualifications on his job application, hence obtaining a position as a "working scientist" that he isn't remotely qualified for?
Or perhaps that he has an awfully rich fantasy life? (Which would explain a lot, come to think of it...)
"The fact that this is counter intuitive for many people doesn’t change the fact that it is expected."
like getting ice blocks from your toaster and snow from your kettle......lol
hahaha..........you guyz are suckerzzzzzzzzzz
Precisely NOT like that, because those aren't expected outcomes of toaster and kettle systems.
Thanks for demonstrating my point though.
The Lukes came here as Gordon's imported 'expert' and began by unsuccessfully shilling for traffic to Codling and Evan's site for whackos (itself a front to sell gold to right wing loons in prep for whatever end times scenario they think gold will help them) and has proceeded to expose himself as a liar and fantasist with zero grasp of any science at all (cf OA, references previously submitted) and a panoply of denier talking points he's been unable to defend..
One hesitates to consider just how bad things may have become had The Lukes lost control of the situation they've put themselves in. With 'victories' like this car-crash of an exhibition here, you wouldn't want many losses.
...which invokes the image of a fish on a line, too ignorant to grok that the slow reeling in won't cease no matter how frenetically it swims this way or that, tries this diversion or that tack and then another and back to the first...
#3
:-)
Luke is not, apparently, a humble student of the long game.
:-)
Give him credit - he sure can choose an appropriate metaphor.
chek - blah blah blah blah pontificate blah blah
How about you stop talking shit. It just runs out of you doesn't it. And like Lotharsson get a decent Aussie name for an Aussie blog and stop being disrespectful.
Let's ask her, for starters:
That's not quite the point though. Again, go look at the last graph here:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/el-nino-and-the-non-spherical-co…
There's no way she did that by accident.
Seriously, you little lying shit?
First, a note.
I have noticed that the DOS (if that is what it is) seems to intensify just after Luke comments, making it difficult to reply.
Luke has also been lying about having comments in moderation and these faux complaints about the DOS attack are highly suspicious.
Perhaps Luke knows more about what is going on here than he pretends.
* * *
Whatever the case, it is a mystery to me why he is back given that he has yet again been exposed as a blatant liar.
But of course, given his goldfish memory and the fact that this was on the previous page, he probably thinks we've all forgotten too. We haven't.
@ #82 page 44 Lying Luke
Oho! They don't call him Lying Luke for nothing! Because he did say he had scientific qualifications and expertise! Oh yes, he did!
Let's see now... Here we are! Page 25 #65:
You shameless, lying bastard, you!!
:-) :-) :-)
First, Karen: "Environmental science may show evidence of climate change, but not the cause of it sweety.."
Isn't this the same Karen who has been trying - and failing miserably - for ages now to show that it isn't warming? Wait a minute... so environmental science shows evidence of climate change but it isn't warming... hmmmmmm...
Seems a bit like Fatso vs Fatso has turned into Karen vs Karen.
Luke: Wash your mouth out with soap, you brainless fart. Given that your views are scientifically bankrupt, all you've got left is invective-laden witless smears as ripostes. You are about as intelligent as an amoeba. Wait.. that's an insult to all inverts.
The scientific Q regarding how sensitive the climate is to CO2 is still not answered, but the Q what made Deltoid an asylum for die hard religious climate scare nutters being spanked by less devoted intellectuals, is easy to explain: the Jonas thread.
That became a real eye opener to Tim. He understood that his side had nothing but pure faith and absurd conspiracy theories to rely on, and a guy giving Napoleon wannabees a bad name: Jeffie Hardley. :-)
All together now: IT'S ALWAYS PROJECTION.
So Bjorn and his feral fanbois are still smarting after all this time from Jeff's public humiliating of their big blonde inactivist hope. Buy yourselves new handbags and get over it lads. Jonarse wasn't banished for heresy, but because he's a dull denier with nothing to say and nothing to add, but takes a long time doing it .
Oh and one more thing Olapdog.
Jonarse's 'thing' is 'attribution', not 'sensitivity'.
Not that you'd understand the difference, but best put your best clean pants on in case he comes round to spank you for not paying attention to the master's words.
For those not here long enough, Olap/GSW/PantieZ are the Gordon equivalent, aka the Scandinavian Troll Collective, and Jonarse is/was (even nutters get tired of their own nuttery) their 'expert' figure to Gordon's The Lukes.
You wouldn't think there could be so much fuckwittedness in the world, but you'd be wrong.
BBD - true but you're one of the worst shonks and spivs I've had the displeasure of coming across. I just tell you anything to wind you up. And you bite every time you sour bastard.
You guys - always assumption, obsession and verballing.
Goes to the heart of your objectivity.
But hey you're alright. But really no you're not - so fuck off eh?
Pants on fire, Luke!!!
:-)
Believe it or not The Lukes, most people don't feel the need to lie and deceive, especially not to strangers in a comments section of a blog. They see no need for it, and would wonder what the point was.
Of course, a diseased and driven sociopathic minority with an agenda (and no, I'm not visiting Codling's blog gold selling front. Ever!) behave quite differently from expected norms.
Open admittance of trolling. And you accuse others of needing a life? You're a sad, sad little man, Luke.
Actually, credit where credit is due:
Bravo! Clown!
The flaming trousers routine was brilliant! I'm sorry I spoiled it by pissing on you, but I really thought you were on fire!
Silly me! :-)
I didn't realise it was all just a circus act. But I do get it now! You are a Clown! You set your trousers on fire because you like to make other people laugh! You've got me there. Looks like I really am just a "sour bastard"!
Will just laugh without urinating next time!
Love light & peace
BBD
Karen #93 previous page:
Meanwhile, a very rare snowfall accumulated in the high desert town of San Pedro de Atacama, Chile on August 25-26. Located at 2500 m (8,250’) it is not unusual for cold temperatures to be measured here, but precipitation is very rare (being in the Atacama Desert, driest region of the world) and snowfall even rarer.
Snow fall requires cold temperatures and moist air. Global warming allows the air to carry more water, so that's why there is more snowfall.
h/t The Guardian re@ Aussie Elections.
the Mining Party (trading as Palmer United);
No Carbon Tax Climate Skeptics;
Stop The Greens.
Good to see the nutters' vote being split three ways.
From inconsequential to fucking inconsequential.
Hopefully Gina will do a "where'd my money go?" Rovesque with menaces routine on your fat, sweaty arses.
Now you could have made some science points but alas always assumption, obsession and verballing.
Goes to the heart of your objectivity.
Now cunts after a good game of cockheads back to my list of 11 questions - where are the fucking answers. and please hurry or Jeff will be back with another long winded chew your arm off in boredom essay.
Been done, although it was ten last time, so not sure about (11)!
But here it is, again:
(1) models invalidated as far as replicating GMT
Silly binary logic ignoring influence of transient variability in OHC on tropospheric warming in the single instance of climate running on the Real Earth model! Will look stoopid when tropospheric warming resumes!
(2) no trop hotspot
False claim - goes beyond the data into polemical assertion.
(3) evap trend the wrong direction
And what might cause a global change in surface wind speed? How does this invalidate the standard position on AGW? Clue: it doesn't.
(4) no consensus on any trends in tropical cyclones
Give it time.
(5) unexplained centennial internal GCM variability
So what, see paleoclimate behaviour! See Hansen and just about everybody else. False framing - models are not the primary source of concern.
(6) multi-model mean projection simply bogus
False claim.
(7) GCM models subject to major architectural precision errors.
Gross exaggeration and red herring that was dealt with pages ago. Never did see you in comments at Stoat. Seems you are a hypocrite!
(8) no evidence of ocean change in acidity
False claim contradicted by observations.
(9) obsession and bias in research that any AGW will be bad for all ecosystems
False claim. Polemic.
(10) Deltoidians hypocritical wealth redistributors yet living high on the hog in the full western lifestyle
Oh FFS. Polemic. And stupid.
* * *
Yawn.
And Luke... you are still a blatant, serial liar!
:-)
As well as a Clown!
Olaus isn't even original: his name for me was copied from Jonas and Betula.
What a loser.
Dogs returning to their vomit. Answer the fucking questions properly.
And all the corporately sponsored horses
And all the corporately sponsored men
Couldn't put The Lukes
Corporately sponsored world together again.
..."please hurry or Jeff will be back with another long winded chew your arm off in boredom essay"
Certainly not as boring as your constant invective and drivel, Luke. BBD had shown you up for what you really are. Why you like being slapped around here is anyone's guess. I just think that you're a sucker for punishment.
My bloke's back from the US and he tells me only fuckwits would be backing OHC - best inside on the pause is natural variability plus aerosols. But fucktards here can have a good wank anyway on OHC. And ponder the current panic on how the system has to spin the pause to the UN Bureaucrats. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
"Oh well yes we knew that all along" "Yes it's all under control"
"Hey do you think they bought it"?
Jeff being slapped around by a geriatric old commie is like being ticked by a feather.
chek - sounds like a commie name doesn't it?
'Perhaps Luke knows more about what is going on here than he pretends.'
You're paranoid, we want to keep the blog going. The most likely candidate for scuttling this small log in Kensington would be Lord Lambert.
If you don't like the answers, then address them! Data denial is not a valid argument, btw! It's just a loud farting sound!!
:-)
Gordy
And you have missed the point! The Lukes says stuff. Argument and worse from assertion. He didn't respond to what I wrote, so perhaps he is smarter than you - or culpable as asserted!
Keep up, Gordy!
Only to the desperate The Lukes. To everybody else it sounds like the universal symbol for payment by trust - the cornerstone of The Mercantile Project.
"Your bloke" back from "the States" eh?.
Bearing fresh nylons, unrationed cigarettes and new ideas no doubt. God but you're stupid, The Lujkes. Never more so than when you're being 'clever'.
Energy in. less energy out. There's no way to spin that, kid.
'That became a real eye opener to Tim. He understood that his side had nothing but pure faith....'
This appears to be correct and I can't blame the blogmasta for trying to dismantle the structure.
@ Lying Luke
Chek can't be a commie because he appreciates the unique talent of Alan Holdsworth.
Commies hate Alan Holdsworth, so you are wrong!
I assert this!
:-)
In the same way as electricity seems like magic to you. Because you understand nothing apart from what you like to believe.
All the climate science in the world will never sway you Gordon, because it's like they're talking in Swahili to you. Just like the particle physicists or even your local broadband tech. It's all way over your gin-eroded head
Such is the curse of the under-educated, to know nothing and be expected to have an opinion on what is the norm. So you turn to cranks who speak a language for losers that you understand all too well, about conspiracies to do you down. As if, almost as if, anybody gives a toss about the sticks and string you've collected together in a lifetime.
#37 Gordy
TL isn't responsible for the problems here. Luke might be, though! I assert the possibility!
* * *
Anyway, The Lukes wants some sciencey stuff (as does Sock 2!) so let's press on.
How do we account for the PETM if GHG forcing is inefficacious?
Remember, this is all about physical mechanisms!
:-)
... and also the startlingly unique Guthrie Govan and his band The Aristocrats, who by virtue of their very name can hardly be communist. Now if they'd instead been The Kommisars... but they aren't. Case closed.
Don't quote PETA I've been using that on EL Gordo for years. Those animal activists.
So currently, natural variability and aerosols are temporarily counteracting the underlying warming trend caused by the increase in greenhouse gases?
Sounds about right to me - not an "inside on the pause" at all.
#41
Well, there you go!
Pay attention The Lukes!
* * *
That's rubbish music hall act banter, not physical comedy!
We want physical comedy! (Geddit?!)
Bring on the Clowns with their pants on fire! We loved that!
:-)
Svensmark has a new paper out and this is from the press release.
'The result boosts our theory that cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy are directly involved in the Earth’s weather and climate,” says Henrik Svensmark, lead author of the new report. “In experiments over many years, we have shown that ionizing rays help to form small molecular clusters.
'Critics have argued that the clusters cannot grow large enough to affect cloud formation significantly. But our current research, of which the reported SKY2 experiment forms just one part, contradicts their conventional view. Now we want to close in on the details of the unexpected chemistry occurring in the air, at the end of the long journey that brought the cosmic rays here from exploded stars.'
Aww, Luke's such a cute little troll. Jonas Jr.
Claiming to know science better than scientists (without any scientific background), excellent. Penalty points for lying about it like a fucking moron though. How long until the "real science" crap starts?
Oh, wait, never mind.
I've never, ever seen an argument from authority started with "my bloke". That is epically, monumentally, mind-bogglingly stupid. Holy shit, Luke.
Yes, good work, Gordo. It's "it's the sun! no, cosmic rays! no, something else! what do you mean I lied about all my temperatures? correlation? what do you mean?" Svensmark. I'm sure Monckton has written something recently, too.
The active star hypothesis seems plausible, in light of the fact that an inactive star has seen temperatures remain static here on earth
Lotharsson @#94 previous page. While I can see that YOU PERSONALLY have mostly attempted to keep a solid debate afloat, the general level of discourse at deltoid has overwhelmingly degraded into personal attacks and crude defensive posturing.
Most here are more interested in creating ill informed psycho analysis based on nothing but a few comments at a blog.
Jeff Harvey @#73 previous page. The Greens political party have mostly hijacked your: "the climate science" as their policies show.
For some reason this site is not allowing me to link the relevant policies but if you go to their site and type in - global governance- in the search section you will see some of it there.
It is not a conspiracy as the policies are there for everyone to see.
It has nothing to do with tea parties.
@Stu2: stop your tone trolling. It's fucking pointless, childish and annoying. All denialists have to do to return to civilized discourse is STOP LYING.
Oh wait. Is this the link you were talking about?
http://greens.org.au/policies/global-governance
Pick. Are you a moron or a liar?
Yes it is.
Thank you for linking it Stu. I don't know why this site would not let me link there but I don't think it has anything to do with your hostile and childish questions.
I support Stu2.
BBD @#20 FTW.
Luke jumped the shark a long time ago. Obsessively compulsively jumping over new and smaller sharks just doesn't have the same zing.
Somebody remarked the other day that the physics is set in concrete and cannot change, but the new Svensmark paper contradicts that assumption.
Firstly, a determined troll can almost always produce this outcome in any forum. If you decry it, then at least consider trying to sheet home the blame to the root cause.
Secondly, some "attacks" that one might consider "personal" are necessary because they are accurate, and that accuracy is the only way of countering bad faith. Luke, for example, is a self-admitted fabulist for effect, demonstrably lies when he characterises the responses to his claims, contradicts himself and then claims that he didn't, makes claims that are clearly inaccurate and continues to make them after the inaccuracy is demonstrated, and so forth. It is not possible to have a good faith debate without calling out bad faith participants and tactics (unless you have a moderator who simply removes the bad faith comments - and then you simply substitute a different set of noisy complaints from the bad faith participants for the ones you've avoided).
Thirdly, in response to being called on it, many bad faith participants try to paint this as "personal attacks" and "lowering the tone" or "avoiding debate" as a means of deflecting the accurate observations of their tactics. If you don't see the whole picture, especially who is apparently trying to act in good faith and who is trying to disrupt any good faith discussion, and instead focus on these complaints you're advancing their disruptive goals.
The thing is, given the nature of the blog and the kind of bad faith participant that it attracts, the length of time and range of bad faith tactics that most long-time readers have been exposed to here, and the breadth of bad arguments we've seen, "a few comments" is all it takes to be about 95% accurate in judging whether someone is being mendacious or not. Occasionally the initial judgement is wrong, but in most of those cases as more evidence comes in that gets corrected.
(And there's a long baseline of evidence that "it's always projection" is about 95% accurate too. The reason why projection is deployed, apart from any personal psychological "benefits", is that it is an effective trolling tactic. It tends to shift the topic from pointing out dodgy scientific claims to other participants and wastes their time and energy denying falsehoods asserted about them, and even shifts the topic to meta discussions like "this blog is full of personal attacks and not much science".)
So if you want to have a good faith discussion here, keep acting in good faith yourself and show that you don't fit the bad faith profile, and have a conversation with those who respond in kind, regardless of all of the other simultaneous conversations going on.
Ideally follow this kind of process. Be prepared to explain your evidence and argument, clarify where necessary, ask others for clarification where necessary, withdraw and/or modify your argument if it is shown to rely on unsubstantiated claims. And since this is about science, try to communicate and reason in ways that acknowledge that most scientific knowledge leads to a range of values (e.g. confidence intervals) and associated likelihoods.
(And try to assess whether other participants here are doing the same. If there are a couple who aren't, and removal of their contributions and the responses they generate would result in removal of most of what you object to...well, draw your own conclusions. And ideally ignore that part of the blog. Nobody says you have to read every comment or commenter.)
You've got it arse-backwards again.
If Svensmark's new paper is right - which isn't obvious yet despite your apparent assertion to that effect, and which would be a minor miracle given how many times he's got it wrong (but maybe this time he's cracked it!) - then physics won't have changed.
It would be our understanding of physics that would be extended. (None of which revokes our previous understanding, unless something very profound has been discovered.)
If you're a betting man, based on his past record alone, you would need long odds before plunking dollars down on Svensmark. There isn't a huge amount of variation left to explain, so if his claimed effect is large then he needs to explain why it mimics effects from other causes effectively enough to fool us up until now.
And if it's a small effect then it doesn't significantly change the case for concern, does it?
It doesn't explain the mechanisms on the ground, but that's for others to draw the dots.
If it could be shown that the LIA and MWP were influenced by the sun's activity, to a great degree, it would have a profound effect on the AGW theory.
That was disappointing Lotharsson. It is disappointing because you have offered no reason why this once interesting site has degenerated into personal and political sledging.While I do believe some of your argument has merit, I see no evidence that there is much of what you would call - discussion in good faith- operating at this site. We could also take Stu or Chek or Bernard along with Luke as an example of what has gone wrong here but it really doesn't prove anything anyway.
From my reading of the recent antics on this site, the real issue is more likely that the politics surrounding any hope of any sensible action to mitigate AGW or Climate Change has miserably failed.
"That was disappointing Lotharsson. It is disappointing because you have offered no reason why this once interesting site has degenerated into personal and political sledging."
Stu 2, they lost the debate, it's all they have.
"That was disappointing Lotharsson. It is disappointing because you have offered no reason why this once interesting site has degenerated into personal and political sledging."
Stu 2, they lost the debate, it's all they have.
All of the esoteric prophetic predictions failed alongside the temperature gauge.
eg. no warming for 17 yrs, reduced hurricane/cyclone activity, it still snows, there is no persistent and/or perpetual drought, the mass balance of Antarctica has not changed and it's sea ice extent is a bumper crop, this year the Arctic ice cap was supposed to be gone but as you can see there is as much ice there as was in 1995.
ect ect ect ect :)
personal and political sledging is all they have..... lol
oh !!!!
I pushed the submit button once and got one and a half post's ?
lol.............. It must be the magical Luke doing it :)
That is disappointing because it's a false frame, and it is a false representation of my comment.
Read what I wrote again. (If nothing else, the bit about Tim not posting here much any more.)
BTW, this site has ALWAYS had its quota of personal and political sledging. It comes with the territory, and especially with the trolls.
a) Be the site you want to read.
b) It's definitely here. The people - some of whom you go on to criticise as "examples" - who skewer the ignorant and unscientific bullshit written here are acting in good faith. Good faith doesn't mean refraining from calling a spade a spade, or even refraining from adding insults to the good faith discussion.
Complaining about the level of good faith discussion vs the rest isn't useful. Unless there's solid moderation that level is at the mercy of anyone who wants to show up and change it. If you want to contribute to changing it for the better, please do - or go find Tim and strongly suggest that it's time for some moderation, especially since trolls like el gordo are violating their conditions of participation here by commenting outside of their jail threads.
"Stu 2, they lost the debate, it’s all they have"
Really? The scientific community and every major scientific body on Earth sure doesn't see it that way. You are living again in your deluded world, Karen.
Ohm and y the way, which 'Karen' is going to contaminate this blog again today? The 'the warming is evidenced in environmental science studies but we don't yet know the cause' Karen or the 'it isn't warming' Karen? Are there any more 'Karen's' who might pop up here?
You're such a joke - you and your acolytes.
Stu 2, if you want to make a positive contribution feel free to take on Karen's unsubstantiated claims at #59. And if you want to study bad faith participation in action, watch what happens when you do.
Jeffie dear, can't be easy being you. :-) The spot on Napoleon reference really gets under your skin, doesn't it. I don't want to ruin your selfgrandeur-day even more, but if I remember this correctly (and I might not), you being identified as a emperor penguine, was my observation. ;-)
Not that it was difficult or anything, but I soon noticed how effortless your right hand found its way into your shirt. ;-)
Mr el gordo to you Lothie.
How could you call him a troll ?
el is a thorough gentleman...............
Stu 2:
Some advice. Don't take blog science too seriously. You appear to think that the field of climate science is largely restricted to the internet for some strange reason, conveniently forgetting that the scientific community by-and-large has moved on. AGW is pretty well accepted amongst every major scientific organization on Earth. Been there - done that. You'll be hard pressed to find a university or research institute that questions the science any more. We are now onto examining the ecological and physiological responses of biota - plants and animals - to regional warming, and how these responses will shape the rules governing the assembly and functioning of ecosystems. Some of this research I am involved in - we have seen large scale shifts in the distributions of species over the past 30 years i.e. shifts polewards and to higher elevations. We have also seen changes in the seasonal phenology of species and an increase in the number of generations in some insects during the growing season.
So is it warming? Yes, beyond any reasonable doubt. There are too many natural proxies to ignore. For their part, the political and ideological driven deniers or AGW down-players (keeps a dork like Luke happy) don't do science and are confined for the most part to the blogosphere. That's a good thing in that these people have precisely zero influence on the scientific discourse that ultimately drives public policy.
The truth is that AGW is very real; what we don't fully understand are the mid to longer term ecological and environmental consequences but we are working on it (by 'we' I mean working scientists like myself and many colleagues around the world). Luke has recently spewed nonsense about ecological effects being confined to models but of course that's utter nonsense. The empirical literature is replete with studies showing actual biotic responses, and in some cases demographic shifts and local declines that are certainly attributable to the recent warming.
So again, if the blog is your thing, then be prepared to be bombarded with a lot of garbage. Sadly, many of the deniers appear to glean everything they know about climate science from blogs. If one relies on the likes of WUWT, Nova, CA, ClimateDepot, Bishop's Hill et al. for their information then they are simply contaminating their brains with bilge. One has to be able to read and understand the peer-reviewed literature, which these blogs habitually either ignore, cherry pick, or distort.
Well, given that evidence indicates that there was no global synchronous MWP, you'd have demonstrated a non-existent effect of a mechanism. Profound indeed.
Olaus, you are like a stand up comedian who isn't funny. Your role as part of the the Scandinavian troll collective was forever to massage the ego of your hero. I don't recall you ever discussing real science here - in fact, all indications are that you've never read a peer reviewed article in the primary literature in your life.
Like the other dolts who deny the existence of AGW on Deltoid, you've repeatedly worn your right wing political affiliations on your sleeve. You clowns can't help it - the 'commie', 'greenpiss', bilge that your types constantly spew out is proof positive of your affiliations. Poor old Karen even had to dredge up a video of a Green Party meeting in Oz as evidence of a left wing global conspiracy.
For once in your miserable life, try and say something with content, Ollie. otherwise visit your guru and soothe his wounded ego.
Stu2, as if on cue, there's some outright trolling from Petri.
I'll defer to your handling of such, for now.
Thorough gentlemen don't repeat falsehoods after they have been demonstrated thus, unless they have cognitive issues. I admit neither possibility can be eliminated to date.
Lotharsson
Do you want me to follow this sage advice from you @# 54:
-------
"So if you want to have a good faith discussion here, keep acting in good faith yourself and show that you don’t fit the bad faith profile, and have a conversation with those who respond in kind, regardless of all of the other simultaneous conversations going on."
Or this one from you @# 63:
------------
"Stu 2, if you want to make a positive contribution feel free to take on Karen’s unsubstantiated claims at #59. And if you want to study bad faith participation in action, watch what happens when you do." ?
Because those two pieces of advice appear to be sort of contradictory don't you think?
And Jeff Harvey @#66 ?
Thank you for your comment. I am not inclined to find my science from blogs. My question was what has happened to this blog. Perhaps Lotharsson is on the money and it's because Tim lambert no longer contributes?
"Now, as the IPCC puts the finishing touches to the latest report, some of the climate scientists involved argue the mammoth effort of getting hundreds of scientists to review hundreds of journal articles – all on a volunteer basis – would be better put to studying regional impacts of climate change, or specific phenomena.
"I think myself that the IPCC has outgrown its usefulness in the way in which it does things," said Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.
Andrew Weaver, a lead IPCC author and a Green party leader who earlier this year was elected to the British Columbia legislature, agreed it was time to shift away from the blockbuster style of reports."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/04/scientists-overhaul-…
They need to restructure the scare story, the gravy train funding must be drying up as more and more people/politicians are waking up that CO2 has not caused the (natural) warming, they know that temperature's have stabilized whilst CO2 emissions have risen substantially.
"Tim lambert no longer contributes?"
Why ?
Because he woke up to the scam.
'...especially since trolls like el gordo are violating their conditions of participation here by commenting outside of their jail threads.'
Christ all bloody mighty, you want me to go back to my Dickensian gaol cell.
The world has moved on, this is an open thread and the warmists are living in the past. Its going to be hard giving up your belief system, so may I suggest my global cooling meme as a stop gap measure.
We have catastrophes too.
Stu2: Watch & learn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=047vmL6Q_4g
I wonder why Spam missed it?
I still think you are a tone troll from the denialist dimensions. This is an essentially unmoderated blog, where one can learn much by watching how denialista trolls all reveal their bias by cracking under pressure (sometimes remarkably little pressure eg the Freddiot or Luke) in the face of the sane and informed commentariat. No one forces you to participate in this forum (unless you are one of Rupert's minions), so your unilateral attempts to protest are rather hollow. Like you.
"For the past 15 years global temparatures have stopped rising. Allegedly, it's because the Pacific is cooling - but that reason doesn't quite convince German climate researcher Hans von Storch. "
" And this wasn't the case with global warming?
No. Also the story we're dealing with now, about the cooler eastern Pacific, is only being explained in retrospect - trying to explain why we haven't have any warming over the past 15 years. But these sorts of explanations always have a somewhat stale taste to them. A better one would be to say: "Okay, it could be like this - we can't rule this out - but there also could be other reasons."
On the contrary; they jump with enthusiasm to the first best explanation that doesn't shake up our worldview. But instead, we should be asking why our models don't take certain factors into consideration. Our explanation could be correct, but it might also be that our instruments at this moment are just not as good as we want them to be.
One possibility is that the natural variations in the system are being reflected too weakly. For instance, it could mean that the El Ninos and El Ninas aren't factored in enough. This explanation that we're reading in "Nature" right now is in the same category. It might also be that the models put the concentration of CO2 too high, or that there are other factors not being included - like the sun, for instance, which we haven't considered at all so far."
http://www.dw.de/climate-scientists-too-easily-jump-to-conclusions/a-17…
The faulty CO2 hypothesis is heading to the dust bin :)
rhwombat, please change your avatar.
Nobody here is interested in your amatory liaison with a wombat, I am sure that there are bestiality websites somewhere out there that would appreciate your deviant photo collection.
Try google.........
The problem with being illiterate SpamKan is you don't comprehend things, and your spoon-fed spin (and spam repeats from elsewhere) on the IPCC report periods shows that.
What Trenberth and others are saying is that all-inclusive reports six years apart don't address the accelerating nature of climate change and the reports can be out of date by the time they're released.
I think the fourth or fifth comment on the Guardian story wonders how long until deniers do just as you're doing and you're nothing if not predictable.
Don't believe them for a second Stu 2!
This comment from me will very likely languish in moderation.
What they REALLY can't tolerate is anyone asking them questions about the failed political agenda.
I got clipped and I was not ever rude or abusive.
Lotharsson is pompous lecturer who doesn't follow his own
advice: to the extreme! as you seem to have noticed.
:-) :-) chuckle.
Ask him about RIH (Ritual Intellectual Humiliation)
You're not familiar with Rorschach tests then, SpamKan.
No, I don't think they contradictory in the slightest. In addition, they are complementary. One is contributing in good faith oneself, the other is finding out for yourself how the trolls lower the signal to noise ratio of the blog - which goes to your earlier argument that seems to be saying it's not the trolls' fault there's so much "noise" accompanying the signal here. Experiencing it for yourself is far more valuable than me telling you how it goes.
And one can definitely engage in good faith oneself even if the other party is note engaging in good faith, so the second piece of advice doesn't contradict the first on that score.
"You’re not familiar with Rorschach tests then, SpamKan."
chek, so.....you are saying that rh is a blot.
Noun, blot
1/ A blemish, spot or stain made by a coloured substance.
2/ A stain on someone's reputation or character; a disgrace.
Yeah :) I'll go with number 2
No SpamKan, what I'm saying is that what you think you perceive illustrates your mental state. And it's not a pretty sight.
chek, are you a dark skinned person ?
The relevance being, SpamKan?
Just curiosity.
y or n ?
#75 rhwombat
Agreed wrt Sock 2 - denialist tone troll.
Karen WTF?
Here's you, a sock-puppeting blog weirdo who pretends to be a girl, hassling chek over his ethnicity?
It just gets stranger and stranger in here...
lol.....wrong on all counts BB
Your problem - and make no mistake Karen, it is *your* problem - is that nobody else believes you. All the non-troll regulars are who have observed you over time are convinced that you are the multisock KarenMackSunspot and most seem fairly sure you aren't even female.
Now remember that this is virtual environment. What the majority of others think is what *is*. Which is why you have a problem. Because not only does everyone think you are a multisock female impersonator, they also know you are an ignorant, spamming fuckwit who doesn't know when Greenland ends and the Eemian begins!
Jeffie, that was a long "sorry for being wrong again Olaus". :-)
Well you are a confused bunch, if I was a sock Timmy would have banned me.
The retarded idiot, barnturd, or should that be defective barnturd, was the only one that thought that, you BBD have been sucked into barnturds delusion.
Delusional perception seems to be quite the common disorder with the trolls.
Chek, what colour are your eye's ?
Yes Jeff one has to agree about the phenological response http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/abs/nature06937.html anyone who says otherwise can get straight fucked.
Seeeeeeeee?
Luke was always your friend.
Silly deltoids!
I'm not wearing any, SpamKan.
Karen
TL hasn't banned the small army of socks that pop up and down here. Your "defence" is bollocks!
Oh FFS!
;-)
That's probably right BBD.
Instead he or the moderator/s ban people who ask too many questions.
The Freddy sock stays and others who are not socks get put in perpetual moderation.
Go figure :-)
Sheep: A vulnerable person who would rather follow than make an independent decision