But that is you, "Karen"! You and all the rest of your denier chums are the real sheep. Look at you all, milling around in your sheep-pens like Nova and WTFUWT and all the rest. Baa! Baaa! So frightened by reality that you embrace foul politics, paid shills and do-it-for-free cranks - and reject science.!
Baaa!
Always remember that denial arises from fear. Deniers flock together and bleat fearfully at the science, encouraged by their manipulative and unscrupulous shepherds. They are the epitome of gullible stupidity, not of objective and independent thinking!
As dear Lotharsson has mentioned in passing, it's always projection!
I have informed my friends in Wagga Wagga that arctic sea ice extent rose dramatically compared with last year.
Conclusion: Al Gore has lied that by 2015 there will be no arctic sea ice in summer. He lied as the IPCC has lied that by 2035 Himalayan glaciers will have disappeared due to "global warming". hahahahahaha, what a ridiculously stupid lie by the IPCC greenpisser ignorants who spoil real science.
Harvey: You should be more cautious to call US Presidents "war criminals"!!!!!!!!
Are you accountable of what you excrement in your incredibly primitive and hateful words. You are a zero performer and ugly greenpisser who hates our western civilization.
Conclusion: Al Gore has lied that by 2015 there will be no arctic sea ice in summer.
Freddie seems to have a problem with past and future tenses, and with indicative and subjunctive moods. Perhaps they don't exist in his native language.
Mind you I don't believe Gore ever said anything about 2015, or that it would have particularly mattered if he had, since he is not a climate scientist, but I suppose a cite would be too much to ask. Kai, how about it?
"Harvey: You should be more cautious to call US Presidents “war criminals”!!!!!!!!"
Not at all, dopey. I call it as I see it. Nixon gave the orders to bomb Cambodia leading to half a million deaths. Ford gave the OK for Suharto to annex East Timor, leaving a quarter of the population there dead. Reagan armed, aided and abetted death squads across Latin America in the 1980s, calling mass murderers like Rios Montt the 'moral equivalent of our founding fathers'. Bush Sr. invaded Panama, leading to an other 3,000 deaths, and then committed a whole gamut of war crimes in Iraq. Clinton was no better; bombing the Al Shifa Pharmaceutical Plant in Sudan in 1998 led to 'several tens of thousands of deaths'in the country according to a German study., Bush junior and his neo-cons were probably the worst of the lot, overseeing mass murder on an industrial scale in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has merely carried the torch of mass killing to the next presidency.
Given that you are virtually brain-dead, Berendaneke, and clearly don't understand anything about recent history, its a bit rich of you to lecture me on anything. Truth is that every US President since (and including) Truman could be indicted for crimes against humanity. Many of them should have dragged before the international criminal court, and would be if there was any justice in this world. Same goes for the leaders of many nations states, but since our lying governments perpetually lecture us about human rights, freedom and democracy, they tend to be more hypocritical than most, given their atrocious human rights records. Its all a farce. Look at Tony Blair - another criminal who should be being tried in the Hague.
So yes, Berendaneke, IMHO many US Presidents are utter war criminals. Nothing less. And the record proves it. So you can take your opinions and put them where the "sun don't shine".
Stu 2 asks a good question: what has happened to this blog?
A good question. Two things: Tim Lambert is clearly very busy elsewhere and has not really been involved with it for a long time. For that reason there haven been very few defined threads; just open threads where the discussion goes everywhere. Second, its been largely taken over by an ignorant troll collective, involving people who clearly downplay (or deny) the effects of AGW and who cherry pick, mangle or distort the data to support their arguments. Many of these trolls are bombastic and try to give the impression of being deep-thinking intellectuals, but when called out resort to the usual smears, invective and vitriol that characterizes the anti-environmental community as a whole. I've lectured on it as universities and elsewhere for more than 10 years, and people like Luke, Karen, Berendaneke, Olaus etc. are straight out of the playbook. Each has their own defined style, if one can call it that, but ultimately they arrive in mass in order to encourage each other. Not one of them is a scientist or has been anywhere near a university lecture theater, workshop or conference, and none of them publish anything in scientific journals. That being said, they do not hesitate to smear, ridicule, and belittle senior scientists with years of experience in climate science. They get away with it because (1) they are anonymous, and (2) because, to be honest, the scientific community ignores them. They are laughingstocks for the most part. The only reason I write in here is because there are a few honest brokers who are interested in knowing more about the ecological effects of warming and other anthropogenic stresses. I am happy to discuss that, and leave the debate over climate forcing climate to the experts who broadly agree that the human combustion of fossil fuels is the primary driver. The fact that every major scientific organization on Earth agrees leaves the deniers out in the metaphoric cold. The consensus is a touchy subject with them, because it is their Achilles Heel (or one of many). You'd be surprised (or not) at some of their responses to it. One self-righteous legend in his own mind (Jonas) could only feebly retort that the conclusions reached by every National Academy on Earth was possibly based on the votes of just a few of its members. Seriously, he said this. Very little else needs to be said in response to this. Its pure desperation.
Sure there are a few exceptions - you mention Judith Curry - but for every exception there are hundreds and hundreds of scientists defending the positions of their National Academies. Given the well organized and well funded denial lobby uses everything in its disposal, if there were more prominent scientific deniers we sure as hell would know all about it. But the denial lobby has effectively relied on the same bunch of people for over 20 years - the Idso's, Balling, Soon, Balinuas, Carter, Ball, Michaels, Singer, Lindzen, Spencer, and a few others. Many of these scientists haven't published much in many years and in some cases ever. But if you look back at the early 1990s the names were the same, with a few added.
I will be honest with you and say that becoming a denier is a great way to advance one's scientific career, especially if you've slogged away for years and been hardly recognized. It worked wonders for Bjorn Lomborg, who on the basis of a single, error-filled book became an instant celebrity. Up until the book he had published a single paper.
I'm pretty sure that if I phone a right wing think tank and told them that I had had a soul searching conversion, and that I now fervently believed that deregulation of the economy was a good thing and that we should empower corporations more, that I would have a great chance of landing a very good position in one of them. Heck, I have 134 publications, over 3000 citations, and I was a former editor at Nature. A lot of people know me since I co-reviewed Lomborg's book for the journal. Besides, there are virtually no ecologists or environmental scientists who support the corporate/think tank views on environmental issues. They would love to have some qualified scientists in these fields in their ranks; its great PR for them.
You also asked earlier how we can deal with AGW is there is such acrimony between people in the different sides. But you are ignoring the fact that this is exactly what the denial lobby wants. They don't need to win any scientific debates (they never will). They just need to sow enough doubt as to render any action to deal with GW mute. They are procrastinators; that is all they need to do. Delay/postpone/fudge. That is what they do.
Okay, all pretense is gone now. Luke, Olaus, KarenMackSunspot, Stu 2 are now openly and admittedly trolling. I'll give Gordo the benefit of the doubt and assume he's truly as dumb as a sack of hammers.
To all the other ones: thank you for fully conceding the issue.
Harvey: You should be more cautious to call US Presidents “war criminals”!!!!!!!!
Jeff pretty well nailed it in his reply but I'll remind you of a suggestion I made up-thread which was to go and read Aussie reporter John Pilger, and yes I can quote from his books too (as I can from Dawkins, EO Wilson, Jared Diamond amongst others along those lines and numerous climate scientists).
The ignorance of this nutter brigade here (that's you, Luke, OP, Karen, el goldilocks etc) is so broad that one has to wonder if you ever got an education at all. If you had any experience of higher education then you would know about chasing down sources, it is amazing what one can learn through serendipity by exploring notes to texts, bibliographies and 'Other Reading'. There is a joy in finding things out this way. It is a bit like those old text based computer adventure games where one follows a clue from one place to another and on to another etc. etc.
My suspicion is that instead of studying texts you get your world view by reading opinion columns in the mainstream media and watching the likes of Faux New and its other counter-factual programming. That is why you like WUWT and Nova - no need to challenge the little grey cells.
@Harvey, yes we know that greenpissers, pathological pacifists, lefties and other strange individuals like to call US Presidents "war criminals" although no juridical court has ever issued such a sentence, but on the other you greenpissers show infinite love and sympathy for mass murders like Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, etc.
You greenpissers hate our western world and you adore the primitive other nations without democracy. YOU ARE ILL IDIOTS, just disgusting people. Piss off from here you traitors if western civilazation.
"but for every exception there are hundreds and hundreds of scientists defending the positions of their National Academies. "
Oh fuck off Jeff. In reality the actual domain experts to the very important WG1 report for which all else is derivative is a handful for each section ! If you believe in the hundreds of scientists line you probably also believe in Jack's Beanstalk.
In reality the actual domain experts to the very important WG1 report for which all else is derivative is a handful for each section ! If you believe in the hundreds of scientists line you probably also believe in Jack’s Beanstalk.
Deniers routinely make the claim, but strangely never offer any evidence for it. What we do know is that would-be challenges led by cranks like Happer at the APS peter out after little more than a grandiose press release.
You know very, very little about the physical science basis. You are a posturing liar with a grab-bag of stupid denier memes and a big mouth. You fool nobody except the muppets.
You know this. We know this. Time to move on. Go back to wherever you came from. Or have you been banned there? Is that why you pitched up here? Is that it?
The Freddy/Kai/Boris/Berendaneke troll has been profoundly tedious since appearance weeks ago. It still repeats stupid denier memes long debunked as if this constituted an argument or even a discussion. It doesn't.
For pity's sake go and waste your breath elsewhere.
It's interesting watching Luke pick up the terminology as he goes along. Lotharsson used the term "domain expertise" recently, and now it reappears in Luke's mouth. Luke thinks we don't notice such things, but Luke has no idea what he is dealing with!
"Deniers routinely make the claim, but strangely never offer any evidence for it." - well that shows you know nothing doesn't it. As I said you probably believe in Jack's Beanstalk.
BBD has a massive tug "It’s interesting watching Luke pick up the terminology as he goes along." The level of BBD's fuckwittery. Could have answered some of my pertinent questions about the massive holes in the hypothesis.
"but Luke has no idea what he is dealing with" yes I do - a bunch of stupid cunts. This is BBD "you're dealing with the big boys now", "I'm gonna shred you" and then he came a gutser. Fucking clown. Shouldn't you be getting some sleep so you can take little fuckhead Johnny to school tomorrow. "Daddy why are you so cross and mean in the morning" "Well Johnny I've been up all night be called a cunt and saving the planet from evil fossil fuel users. Now shut up while Daddy looks at a graph. Did you like the handful of sticks I got you to play with?"
Anyway make way - we're probably due for another 500 word chew-your-arm-off in boredom rant from grandpops eco-Jeff. "But but but I know about the devastating consequences to species - look this meadow butterfly is appearing 0.064373478 days earlier each decade. I'm at a university you know. And I go to eco-conferences where we have the biggest tugs ever" DO fuck off Jeff.
First, our resident psychopath says: "you greenpissers show infinite love and sympathy for mass murders like Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, etc."
Ya gotta love this false analogy. There's no need for me to explain in detail the serial crimes committed by the US over the past 60 years. The evidence speaks for itself. The only refrain dickwads like Berendaneke have is to dredge up this kind of shit. If one dares criticize vile acts committed by 'our side', then one MUST by definition support vile acts committed by officially designated enemies. Thats their logic. They have nothing else. Funny that Berandaneke doesn't mention US support for Saddam through the period he committed his worst crimes. And how the US and UK supported Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in 1982 after Cambodia was invaded by Viet Nam. There are many similar examples. Funny he doesn't mention Mbutu, Marcos, Suharto, Montt, Pinochet, the Duvaliers, the Shah, and a long list of other torturers and mass murderers who were aided, abetted and supported by the US for years in full knowledge of their crimes. But then again, Berendaneke is as thick as two planks.
As for our polite resident legend in his own mind (Luke), witness his feeble attempt to dismiss official positions of every National Academy in every nation on Earth as well as other very prominent scientific bodies in their position on GW (e.g. that the combustion of fossil-fuels and attendant increase in atmospheric concentrations of C02 is the main driver for increasing surface temperatures). Instead, Luke has a rather unhealthy fixation for Joanne Nova and greatly exaggerates her influence on the GW debate. He also seems to think that real science is discussed over there; my brief sojourns to that den if iniquity reveal a bunch of lunatics.
One last point Luke: your flippant butterfly remark just proves my last point. You really are a dipstick. Can't debate yourself out of a soaking wet sack of paper. If this is the best you can do, and if this is the intellectual depth you think flourishes over at Nova's blog, then you can have it.
Oh no - Jeff's droning on again. It's Vogon poetry. "very prominent scientific bodies" - full of old codgers who don't know shit about climate.
Unlike you leprosy afflicted dickless wonders here on Pitcairn Island, Jo baby gets traffic while you don't. Anyway I only go over there coz she looks hot - I don't give a stuff what she says really.
Listen to BBD splutter "but sir I didn't - but but but" Grow some balls you little fucker. DO you like me towing you around the pond. Now shut the fuck and change Johnny's nappy.
But chek had to respond. See all you cunts just can't help yourselves responding. Little kiddies stamping their feet. The difference between this a serious blog where inmates might know something is that I would be drowned out by the detailed scientific discussion.
But you guys are wannabe flakes. You're actually playing tag with me. Is this the level of your pathetic fuckwittery.
And playing dicks with some guy called Karen. More your expertise.
Actually, she's rather plain even by MILF standards. You really need to get out of that basement and meet some real people, not expend all; those tissues over your TV goddess memories of many a yesteryear ago.
If there's one thing I've learned BBD, it's that cranks and driven nutters don't do self-examination. Purely my opinion of course, but any avenue that might lead them to doubt themselves is securely closed off, as we can see by the reaction (i.e. ignoring) reasoned evidence..
“very prominent scientific bodies” – full of old codgers who don’t know shit about climate
Gimme some evidence for this vacuous remark, Luke, you stupid clot. Or is it like everything else you say - off the top of your head.
Besides, talk about calling the kettle black. Singer, Lindzen, Spencer, Ball, Carter, et al. Can't get much older codgers than this bunch of AGW deniers
Chek@#49.
Tony Abbot will undoubtedly win his own seat on Saturday. Whether the coalition wins is a different issue.
This is not an American presidential campaign, it is an Australian election and whichever party wins the most seats is the winner.
It is quite obvious by the Rudd/Gillard antics that a prime minister can be changed without a vote from the electorate.
I believe Rudd's seat is more precarious than Abbots?
Jeff Harvey,
Thank you for your response.
I guess the major reason this blog has degenerated is Tim Lambert's absence.
I am wondering why people like you and Lotharsson defend exactly the same behaviour that you criticise.
Most of the time it looks like this blog is barracking for different football teams and sledging each other according to which team they barrack for.
And BBD @#54 if you're referring to me then I disagree with you. Chek's acerbic comment @#49 was definitely about tomorrow's election in Australia.
Lothy..... "Well, more precisely it’s supposed to discuss (bad) media reporting and politically motivated misuse and misrepresentation of science, but close enough."
"The scorekeepers of global-warming alarmism, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, is about to release its fifth Assessment Report, which is said to admit that the planet has been cooling, not warming. A leaked draft version of the report concedes the very inconvenient truth, and casts doubt on the claim that man plays a role in triggering “extreme weather.”
I guess the major reason this blog has degenerated is Tim Lambert’s absence.
Yes. People that have admitted to trolling and/or sockpuppetry would be banned (Luke, Berenwhatever--it's Freddy, mike, Karenwhatever, Olaus) and perhaps then we could address the issues.
"I guess the major reason this blog has degenerated is Tim Lambert’s absence."
degenerated ?
I wouldn't say that Stu 2, previously Timmie ruled the blog in an extremely one sided manor, his realization that co2 wasn't a powerful global incinerating toxic gas changed that.
Previously people who didn't fully support the co2222 meme would constantly have their post's either disemvowel'd or deleted merely for speaking to other posters who spoke to them in the same tone, and of coarse the many post's that demonstrated the abundance of weaknesses in the co22222 meme were dealt with severely.
Thankfully, things are more even now :)
Many of the people that posted here in the past have also woke up and have moved on.
On the matter of the election, there is no doubt about tomorrow's result. The hasn't been for several years, and I myself called it back in late 2010.
Australia is a 'small' country and I'm only two degrees of separation from Abbott - he's literally the friend of a friend. And going by this morning's corridor conversation with that intermediate friend the Abbott camp is cock-a-hoop about taking over the government, to the extent that some are little different to the bargain hunters banging on the shop doors at an end-of-year sale. Watch some of the reactions tomorrow around 10:00pm...
The sad thing is that this is not an election based on informed democracy. It's about an economically-privileged, spoiled and self-indulgent populace ignorant of scientific and economic fundamentals, and who are largely willingly captured by a media monopoly designed to funnel wealth and power to a small cadre of privileged ideologues. Ironically Australia ceased to be the "Clever Country" at about the same time that the internet and mobile 'phones gained wide traction - it's as if the majority of people ceded their thought processes to advertising and search engines that return popular hits rather than accurate ones.
Australia is a nation of TV zombies, rapidly losing the ability to critically and competently analyse issues and to maintain balance in their expectations of others compared with themselves. They complain about assistance to those in unfortunate circumstances, but are happy to hold out their hands for middle-class (and upper-class) welfare, for subsidies for large industries, for new football grounds but not for the arts, and all the while expecting that their taxes will be continually reduced. It's the Magic Pudding all over again.
And the Australian media across the board has has completely abrogated all responsibility for impartial scrutiny. The free runs that Abbott and the Coalition have had on dissing the science and the economics underpinning global warming is a classic example, but the media are as asleep on the job when it comes to unquestioningly promoting the logical fallacies of lobbyists, spin doctors, industry representative and other vested-interest groups. Even the ABC has capitulated in this. Some people suggest it's all to keep controversy and interest in public consumption of media, but the sacrifice of the security of generations of future Australians does not justify this disgraceful behaviour.
I said it years ago, but I'll repeat it - denialism is not "correct", and denialists have no moral mandate in spite of collecting the numbers, but denialism won the battle against science years ago because all that was necessary was to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt in the minds of the average stupid Joe and Jane on the street. We'll all pay dearly in the long-term for this national self-indulgent ignorance, and I suspect that even then those who supported the anti-scientific nonsense will not shoulder the blame for their actions and decisions.
And pay we will, because a balanced capacity for governance in the Coalition disappeared about the time of John Hewson - since then it's been largely populated with strident laissez faire maniacs and rabid conservative fundamentalists who want white picket fences and below-the-knee skirts everywhere, and free rein to chop, dig, and scoop every last resource that can be reached, without any thought for the future of anything except the ledgers of big business.
Dunning and Kruger could set up a whole Institute to catalog the psychology and sociology of the decline of a previously-vibrant nation.
'But when we test your hypothesis we find that I can provide physical mechanisms for my arguments and you can’t So who’s been brainwashed?'
There hasn't been any grants handed out for global cooling for three decades, which puts me at a scientific disadvantage, but finally the worm has turned.
If Svensmark is correct, we are on the threshold of a revolution in climate science.
Bernard J, look at what you have written here about your fellow Australians.
"... the majority of people ceded their thought processes to advertising and search engines..."
"...the average stupid Joe and Jane on the street?"
"Australia is a nation of TV zombies, rapidly losing the ability to critically and competently analyse issues and to maintain balance...." ?
"The decline of a previously-vibrant nation?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where's your proof of these assertions and what's your alternative Bernard J?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lotharsson @#65. Read your own and Jeff's posts. After lecturing to me and advising me to not engage in and therefore encourage poor behaviour, you then go ahead and do it yourselves and/or ignore remarkably similar behaviour from others ;presumably because you agree with their reasons for said behaviour. Ultimately it proves nothing anyway.
After lecturing to me and advising me to not engage in and therefore encourage poor behaviour, you then go ahead and do it yourselves and/or ignore remarkably similar behaviour from others...
I don't think you fully understood what I said. I've re-read my comments and yours on page 44 and I don't see where I did what your quote claims. The first relevant comment I find is on page 45 where I write this:
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.
This is most definitely NOT advising you not to engage with the bad faith participants - as I had previously explained.
One needs to distinguish between suggestions I gave you because you were apparently complaining that the signal to noise ratio was too low to meet your needs, and suggestions for behaviours that need to be manifested by at least some commenters in order to deal with the bad faith participants. These are two different things. The quote above is of the former type; the following is of the latter:
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.
...
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).
This quote is not advocating against all engagement by anyone with people who are arguing in bad faith. It's saying the opposite! And it's pointing out that in the absence of strong moderation, the presence of that kind of engagement is a necessary feature if you want to have a blog where it's possible for individuals to have good faith conversations they are interested in. The price you pay to have those conversations is that you tolerate that material - and maybe you even actively contribute to the health of the blog by participating in pointing out the bad faith tactics.
(And I elaborated further in #61 and again at #81 on that page.)
You appear to have not only misinterpreted my "advice" to address your signal to noise complaints, but to have read a generalisation into my suggestions that I wasn't making and thus tried to apply it to other people such as Jeff.
how boring, unethical and false your whining is. get out from this blog to do everybody a favor. Nobody will miss you Greenpeace ideologists with your politically incorrect pagan faith in god gaia. piss off you enemy of decent science.
Bernard, BBD, Lotharsson, Stu, Lionel, Chek, Harvey et al.
You constantly demonstrate your inability to understand the reasons for the fierce opposition to your ideology of CAGW which you face here and elsewhere, eg from the next Prime Minister of Australia.
It's not as if it's not there in our faces. Anyone who has taught at the tertiary (or even secondary) level for the last several decades will no doubt have seen a lamentable increase in the mediocre proportion of the educated public.
But don't take people's words for it. There is hard data...
The tottering state of science understanding in Australia was widely discussed several months ago, for example:
and I suspect that literacy sophistication would be plummetting, especially if the Australian trolls on this thread are any indication. More objective is the soon-to-be-released final outcome of an ABS survey which shows the population in quite a bad light:
If one considers prose literacy as a coarse proxy for sophisticated thinking then at the current time we have less really debilitating literacy but also less high-level literacy:
or in crude words, there is a higher proportion these days of stupid people but not quite as many in the really stupid category. This is a very blunt proxy to be sure, but when it comes to political decisions ignorance and stupidity are largely congruent.
Those underlying literacy trends are also reflected in these data:
and one doesn't need to look at the third graph on that page to know that compared to older generations today's young adults are far less likely to be able to multiply two two-digit numbers or to do long division (especially without an Excel spreadsheet or a mobile 'phone), or to explain the concept of a logarithm, or to work out compound growth problems.
...and what’s your alternative Bernard?
1) Decent education
2) a change in societal attitudes that includes a greater preparedness to think with the cerebrum rather than with the amygdala or "lizard brain".
We're not complete hostages to our evolution, but these days we seem to be forgetting that being smart takes work.
The regional cooling in the UK must be of great concern to the inhabitants of that small Isle, having never witnessed a tipping point of this magnitude.
having never witnessed a tipping point of this magnitude.
Where's the graph or other presentation to show where/when/ how this "tipping point" is showing itself? And what it's magnitude might be.
I've tried the Mean Maximum, Mean Minimum, and Rainfall amount versions of this page and they're all much of a muchness. The recent years are very different from any earlier period - just look at the last 10 years and any previous 10 year period - and I cannot see where you're getting this "tipping point" from. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/climate-anomalies/#?tab=clim…
Tipping point in the UK? We had a wobbly jetstream induced two week freeze over Christmas 2010 but if anything average winter and summer temperatures have been warm with warm air giving excess precipitation caused floods in some western areas, and droughts in the east.
As a general rule of thumb, if Goddard says something, he's mistaken/wrong /a liar. Given his past history, I prefer the latter description.
If Mr Abbott wins the vote I assume that there will be a shake up at the ABC and BOM, and a reevaluation of the gravy train science funding will be on the list also....
So you weren't interested in the Jennifer Francis talk about the jetstream posted a while back then Spamkan. It must get tiring avoiding every opportunity to learn something.
Fascinating link, Adelady. Going on Goddard's graph, showing a steep drop indicated regional cooling. If Goddard is wrong I'll recant on the tipping point.
Chek the run of cold winters is indicative of a change in the pattern and failing to see a clear signal I'm falling back onto what we know is happening.
I accept the wayward jet stream is responsible, but where to from here?
In Australia the weather is glorious at the moment, after mild winters here and in NZ, so naturally the common folk are talking about global warming. Even the incoming Oz PM said he knew it had been a warm winter.
Its the same wobbly jet stream in the SH which is responsible, so this negative feedback dominates the AGW signal.
I dunno, BJ, I don't want it to have it appear that I'm, like, too obviously enjoying the unseemly Schadenfreude of the moment, but--what the heck!--I'm gonna call-out your above, little fevered-cant greenshirt-rant as a real, humdinger "beaut"--let's even call it a "milestone"--in this blog's distinguished history of "meltdown" freak-outs.
I mean, like, I especially admire, B. J., how you manage to keep your riled-up, fuss-budget rage, that's fairly bursting at the seams of that last (no. 69), Jeremiah-wannabe, agitated-dork comment of yours so iron-sphincter constrained in language and so message-disciplined and so well-crafted and so...well...decorous!, despite all its huff-and-puff high-dudgeon!
I mean, like, your last, BJ, was so, so much better than, let's say, that amusing, little, "F"-bomb-laden, vulgar, pinko-pissy, valedictory (sort of) comment of wow's that was the best part of his histrionic, door-slamming departure scene, here, a couple of a months or so ago.
Indeed, BJ, I'd like to commend your no. 69 to the other Deltoids, as a model, as they, too, begin to realize that they're lookin' to be weaned from the public-tit, big-time and real-soon, and there, then, in them arises the felt-need to give vent to their sore-loser, parasite-foiled outrage at the cosmic injustice of it all in frantic, primal-scream, self-therapy comments of their own. In other words--good stuff, BJ!
A few problems with your analysis of "things", though, BJ. That is, it was not "denialism" that frustrated your little make-a-greenwashed-buck/make-an-eco-gulag hustle. Sorry about that, guy--but you're deluding yourself. Rather, you hive-bozo's failed to "close the deal" for other reasons:
-A signal reason you lefty nerd-pukes are about to be handed your smarty-pants pompous-asses, is that arrogant, total-turn-off, complete-asshole contempt and disdain of yours for the "little guys" you've been targeting as the "suckers" of your slicko enviro-scams. You know, BJ, how you aspiring Philosopher-Kings and Cull-Masters spout locutions like "...the mind of the average stupid Joe and Jane on the street" and all. That sort of thing--know what I mean, BJ?
-Then there's the total, off-putting, unsettling, geek-ball, space-alien invader weirdness of you hive-flakes. Again, BJ, drawing on your last comment, we find some good examples of the above with "...subsidies for...new football grounds but not for the arts..." and "...fundamentalists who want white picket fences and below-the-knee skirts everywhere..." Don't you realize just how much you come across as a whiny, jerk-off, creep-out, weirdo, little, tentacle-writhing "EBE" when you say things like that, BJ? And "denialism" has nothing to do with it.
-And, finally, there's the one big reason, BJ, you lefty, "crusher" retards failed to "push the ball" into the end-zone (oops!--I mean "win the"premiere prix de luxe" at the local community hick-art exposition"--sorry for that regular-guy, low-class, stupid "Joe on the street", ball-game, metaphor slip-up there). And that is? C'mon, BJ, you know the answer! Just say it! Don't be afraid! That's right, BJ! That's it!!! Did everyone hear what BJ just said? O. K., BJ, say it again, but a little louder this time:
"The reason we blew it Comrades, is because we FAILED TO PROVIDE LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE!!!--WE FAILED TO PRACTICE WHAT WE PREACHED!!!!
You know, Deltoids, it's like the hoi-polloi saw us, pounding the pulpit and fulminating against demon-carbon, on the one hand, while, on the other, they saw us jetting about the globe, incessantly attending in-your-face, hypocrite, party-time, carbon-piggie, CO2-spew eco-confabs where we brazenly schemed and plotted ever more grasping, tax-payer rip-offs in the name of carbon-reduction, all the while failing to realize that the sly, cunning, despised peasant-types were actually taking careful note (who'd a thought "stupid" serfs to be capable of such a thing!) of the discrepancy between what we said and what we actually did.
And then the uppity, insubordinate peons had the unmitigated gall to presumptuously tag the hive's outlandish, obscene, conspicuous-carbon-consumption bacchanals as some sort of "proof" that we were running a CAGW, scare-mongering SCAM!, and all, and, with that, the unwashed, verminous, stupid, "Jane and Joe on the street", rabble turned on us!!"
Very good, BJ! A much better assessment of "matters" than your first, blame-the-deniers try. And, oh by the way, BJ, might we also conclude that "Joe and Jane on the street" aren't so "stupid" after all. Right, guy?
Chek the run of cold winters is indicative of a change in the pattern
What 'run of cold winters' is that Gordon?
I'd recommend rejecting anything Goddard touches/abuses/misuses and get the Met Office data direct as Adelady was sensible enough to do.
Of course if you prefer fantasy and AGW denier drivel, go with Goddard.
Ah, Gordy, regional variability such as cool winters in N Europe is offset by warmer weather elsewhere - eg Australia, which has just had the warmest 12 months since records began!
Goddard is an idiot and a liar who is misleading other idiots who cannot separate a (small) region from the globe.
While some places were cold, the northern hemisphere was warmer than average in March, and indeed across the winter, consistent with long-term warming trends. The US National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC) has recently described such conditions as “pockets of cold in a warming world”.
The last time the northern hemisphere recorded a month — any month — that was cooler than the 1961-1990 long-term average was in February 1994. The last time a whole northern hemisphere winter was colder than average was 1984.
Thanks for that. Not. I wouldn't have looked except that you recommended it. Still, I suppose it gave someone with a ruler and one of those gigantic boxes of crayons an hour or so's entertainment to draw all the various lines before they found the combination they liked best.
Interestingly, "Goddard's" graph appears to be absolutely dishonest, as in made-up shite.
The correct method for examining England temperature anomalies is to use the full England data set and a stated baseline - here the 1981 - 2010 climatology.
An *informative* view of the data is provided by looking at each month, not lumping together (averaging? WTF did he do?) Jan - August. Anyone interested in comparing "Goddard's" deliberately deceptive pig's breakfast with actual Met Office monthly data can easily do so, thus proving to themselves that "Goddard" is a liar.
By far the hardest part is finding the right page on the Met Office web site, but I've done that for you!
On the up side Adelady, I hadn't seen those Met Office visualisations you linked to, so I found something new to play with, at least. Gracias! It turns out even the Gourd is not a completely ill wind.
Shut up. Stop posting shit you don't even understand and go back to the previous page. I've shown you how to review the England temperature data properly. So fuck off and do it.
But BBD, if you know stuff, you can't be a denier or entertain whacko theories like 'global cooling'. Those kind of entertainments are only viable for the ignorant, and the more pig-ignorant the better. Not caring when anonymous liars are shown to be so helps enormously too.
And whatever you do, don't trust government information sources compiled by competent professionals. They only spoil the fantasy.
Well, Labor said something about climate science, so Tony has to pronounce it to be wrong. Same thing goes for all sorts of other policies (right up until the moment Tony adopts them as his own).
Doesn't matter if it actually is wrong or not, because all he cares about is grabbing power by opposing. Simplest thing in the world, if you're happy to deceive half of Australia and then put your hand on your heart and try to fake a sincere looking "trust me". And saves all that pesky consideration of inconvenient stuff like "evidence" and "logic" - or even "finances for emissions mitigation".
That's terrific Loth, Opposition leaders in a democracy are expected to offer an alternative, to sway the public imagination to elect them over the incumbent.
Climate change was not an election issue, Abbott had already been talking for years that he was running on a platform to get rid of the carbon tax. Hip pocket nerve stuff, makes the subject less complicated.
Gordon, think about your question.
Information is never of no value, even when outdated. Where you're going wrong is applying it incorrectly. If you want to know how things have been in the area around Birmingham England, it's fine. If you want to know how things have been in the whole UK, it's not. Nor the British Isles, nor Northern Europe.
Now imagine the degree of numptiness required to apply it to the entire Northern hemisphere, because that's what happens frequently when misapplied in denier fantasy land.
Now think about your original question again, then consider how stupid it was.
The correct method for examining England temperature anomalies is to use the full England data set and a stated baseline – here the 1981 – 2010 climatology.
- Pick mean temperature from the “Climate variable” list.
- Use the “Period” option to view monthly anomalies, seasonal anomalies or the annual anomaly.
If you look at the monthly anomalies JFMAMJJA you will see that “Goddard’s” graph is a false representation.
Likewise you will see that the CET isn't representative of England as a whole, still less the UK and not at all of the Northern Hemisphere. Both "Goddard" and WTFUWT are engaged in blatant misrepresentation. And you've just demonstrated this to yourself!
Bravo!!
Why not continue in this vein? Educate yourself instead of allowing yourself to be tricked by liars and shills? Debunking misrepresentations is fun! You never know, you might get a taste for it and end up like us!
Opposition leaders in a democracy are expected to offer an alternative, to sway the public imagination to elect them over the incumbent...
Someone really should tell Tony that. He's been doing it wrong. No real alternative offered, simply a lot of shouting that the government is illegitimate and incompetent, whilst his own team engage in a massive comedy of policy errors.
(Did you hear the one about the Internet filter that was defended by Turnbull and Abbott, before being withdrawn the same day? You know how they have said for months that their policies are all completed and properly costed just waiting to go...er, seems like they weren't entirely truthful about that.)
Climate change was not an election issue...
Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuulshit! It clearly played a significant role - three years of lying about the science and the carbon tax and its impacts, backed by major media, had a clear impact.
And on that front the Guardian is reporting that Tony will screw voters who want to elect him to "save them money" by removing the carbon pricing mechanism. It's apparently going to cost several billion dollars to remove it, rather than save money. And taxpayers will pay.
And that's before we add in the waste of money on Direct Action. Which taxpayers will also pay for.
And Australia has just had the hottest 12 months since records began. And the UK is *tiny*. And you are a cretin for repeating this out-of-context rubbish!
While some places were cold, the northern hemisphere was warmer than average in March, and indeed across the winter, consistent with long-term warming trends. The US National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC) has recently described such conditions as “pockets of cold in a warming world”.
The last time the northern hemisphere recorded a month — any month — that was cooler than the 1961-1990 long-term average was in February 1994. The last time a whole northern hemisphere winter was colder than average was 1984.
The facts.
Why do you keep ignoring them? Why am I forced to type this out again?
Lothie said: "It’s apparently going to cost several billion dollars to remove it, rather than save money. And taxpayers will pay."
wrong Lothie.......
"But the Coalition will also lose out on $13.51bn in forgone revenue from businesses that no longer have to pay for their carbon emissions. Therefore, removing the carbon price will cost Australia a net $6.04bn in the period until 2016-17."
"forgone revenue" means the tax payer saves, no more co2 extortion tax.
There is no cost to government, it just means that they won't be stealing $6.04bn off the taxpayer.
You are being quite appallingly shit-headed today. Read the fucking words. I even emboldened them for you and *still* you play the twat with me:
The last time the northern hemisphere recorded a month — any month — that was cooler than the 1961-1990 long-term average was in February 1994. The last time a whole northern hemisphere winter was colder than average was 1984.
“forgone revenue” means the tax payer saves, no more co2 extortion tax.
Er, no, Karen. You're conflating "individual taxpayer" and "business taxpayer" as Joe and Tony hope voters will.
"Revenue" here is revenue to the government. The government gets $13.5 billion less than it would otherwise have got and spends about 7 billion less than it otherwise would have spent. That means the government has 6 billion less than it would otherwise have. In this situation businesses have paid less tax, but this isn't saving ordinary taxpayers any tax, nor is it giving them any extra benefits. (They've actually taken away some shared national benefits to get this far.)
Are you really going to rely on businesses passing on the tax savings to consumers to make up the difference?
Indeed. And you won't be able to say things like that next year if this devious bill passes and becomes law. The first red flag was its launch date, the day before the Summer recess began - little wonder we should be suspicious.
The like of same will be coming to Oz soon if the Wizard of gets control. Except its the hands up his 'cough' that will really be in control. Unless you are amongst those latter gordolocks, spamcan, loopy-luke (isn't there a song 'Here we go loopy luke, here we go loopy lie) then you had better watch out too.
With all due respect Luke... what are you doing here? You haven't tried to contribute to the debate. Just posting a bunch of links and adding no content is not very productive is it? What is your aim?
I know you think I'm a Cainozoic (Cenozoic, these days!) Creepy, but this is an ad hom rather than a response to *all* the questions I have asked you about Cenozoic climate change and CO2!
So let's have some substance out of your for once, big mouth!
FFS, how many irony meters does it take to get through a week here?
I dunno, about the same number as the jars of cream to soothe the inflammation from all the head-desking and face-palming. And, btw, who knows how to word the insurance claim for the damage to my lovely antique table from all this?
The signal you are blanking is in plain view. Regionally and globally. Australia has just had the warmest consecutive 12 months since records began. 2012 was the hottest year in N America since records began.
Bernard J @#79 previous page.
I agree that higher education standards have slipped but I think you need to actually hold the education system itself responsible for that problem, not the people who have gone through that system.
As you also pointed out, general literacy standards have improved in Australia.
Unless you are advocating that people below some pre determined IQ or education level should be banned from voting you are essentially just opining a drop in higher education standards.
I don't really think that has done anything to change the voting/electorate behaviour in Australia.
I don't wish to be offensive, but much of the commenting at that site looks to be what Luke and Jeff called 'old codgers' whinging about the younger generation.
BB we have to stick with trends and then analyse the weather around it.
In the US this year a lot of summer temperature records were broken on the cool side. Its clearly a wobbly jet stream, but still doesn't give us much to hang our hats on.
In the US this year a lot of summer temperature records were broken on the cool side. Its clearly a wobbly jet stream, but still doesn’t give us much to hang our hats on.
NH and SH records broken 2012 and 2013. Plus lots of data linked for you above. Do fuck off with your nonsense!
These 'lags' of yours seem to be some kind of explain-all as far as I can see from your usage of the term.
Inconvenient data? That'll be 'lags'.
Incontrovertible warming trend? Another lag before the cooling.
Unsynchronised warming over the globe spread over 400 years? Yep, it's those lags at it again.
You can see why what seems a cast iron, 'get out of jail free' card to you is an utter fucking joke of the order of magic beans I trust, Gordon? What you dearly wish will explain everything, explains nothing except your willingness to embrace gullible tripe.
Rational people study the data and then build a case. Nutters have a case then pick the data that fits. And if it doesn't, they invent stuff. Like 'lags', that will hammer that square peg into that round hole come what may.
All of which is getting way over your pointy head Gordon so I'll desist.
I get this nagging feeling that our star has a bigger part to play.
A recent dissertation by Czymzik et al. refutes the claim by Mojib Latif that the flooding in Germany earlier this year is related to AGW.
'We present a 5500-year record comprising 1573 flood layers in varved lake sediments. Microfacies data from two sediment profiles enabled deciphering depositional processes.
'Shifts towards higher flood intensity occurred at ∼5500, 2800, and 400 varve years BP. Proposed triggers are gradual reduction in NH orbital summer forcing and solar activity minima.'
No, this doesn't "refute" anything. The slow waning of precessional forcing over the last ~10ka has nothing to do with climate change over the last century. In fact recent warming bucks the astronomically-forced trend. This is a conclusion of Marcott et al. (2013):
Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard 5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard 5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P.
El Gordo - you're dealing with MWP deniers. I wouldn't bother. McIntyre has so shredded all this crap now that only Deltoid dickless lepers isolated here on island still believe. The MWP wasn't global - hahahahahahahaha - fucking clowns.
Fancy a clown called BBD who spends late night hours haunting this blog, too tired the next day to look after Johnny, would be bothered pointlessly arguing for years with blow-ins with more common sense than him. He could of course have actually manned a post and done something useful but instead he's wasted his miserable life here picking up dicks dropped by Deltoid lepers. Jeez. Couldn't you cuntz have written a comprehensive Wiki or something useful. At least John Cook has some text to read.
Yes, well as I was sayin', Lake Ammersee in southern Germany has a good paleo record of flood activity and what Czymzik et al. are suggesting is that solar minima is the trigger.
Following on from Svensmark, the increased development of low cloud because of cosmic ray bombardment ties in very nicely.
McIntyre has so shredded all this crap now that only Deltoid dickless lepers isolated here on island still believe.
Interesting. I'm guessing this is what Luke calls "objectivity" when he claims that no-one else here except the el gordo and Karens of this world has any.
He's right. He's talking about a very special kind of "objectivity" that isn't ... well, objective and isn't anywhere near up to date with the research.
Although that use of the word would explain why his comments keep breaking my latest irony meter.
OK, I'm gonna whine for a while. But not about anyone here.
I am sick to d.e.a.t.h. of these stupid How many elephants? comparisons for things that are perfectly sensible. We are now reduced to "Toastie-nomics" - how many toasted sandwiches can you make for a certain amount of power and how many times would a stack that high go round the equator or go towards the moon. Brings out all my incipient old-fartness, I'm afraid.
In an article which talks about how much power was generated in the past month, that is real, not hypothetical, it's actually happened, and saying how many Opera Houses, toasted sandwiches or annual household uses that was equivalent to.
Why not say how many households were attributable to that power supply for the period it was supplied? What a novel suggestion. Something real related to another something real? What a concept, it'll never catch on!
These people are supposedly trying to promote wind power. Surely saying something like 'last month's wind power production was enough to supply almost 2 million of Australia's households for the month' or however you want to express it plainly before you go into comparisons and analogies. All this malarkey about how many toasted sandwiches might get part of the way to the moon is just nonsense. Though I might put it into materials for schools so that teachers can put together nifty graphics for kids to ooh and aah over. (Though most kids would think it's just as daft as I do.) http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/cec/mediaevents/media-releases/Sep…
Constant data manipulation of "scientists" of post-normal "climatology" towards AGW ideology compliant directions:
temperature data
ice data
tide data
weather station data
etc.
etc.
Is anybody of the AGW ideology church addicts (Lothasson, BBD, Linel, chek etc.) interested to get informed about incredible climate data manipulations by IPCC related ?
@Gordo: for fuck's sake, Scafetta has been addressed before.
For the lurkers, a recap. First some background, courtesy desmog:
"Scafetta was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's Sixth International Conference on Climate Change."
"It appears that Scafetta refused to release the code to the software he used in this study. This meant that his results could not be replicated by climate scientists."
Anyhoo.
This is Scafetta's "model". It's a goddamned joke. Behold the first graph here:
Is anybody of the AGW ideology church addicts (Lothasson, BBD, Linel, chek etc.) interested to get informed about incredible climate data manipulations by IPCC related ?
Yes, do tell sweetheart. Lay it all out for us. I'll be right back after I make some popcorn.
"McIntyre has so shredded all this crap now that only Deltoid dickless lepers isolated here on island still believe"
If Luke truly believes this, then no wonder most of us here think he's a complete idiot. And the reference to 'lepers' is duly noted. Berendaneke (Freddy) uses it all the time. You shits aren't even original. You cut and paste your insults for each others use,
Jailed for what exactly? Doing exactly what our democracy is set up to do by negotiating agreements including policies with other parties to attempt to form a minority government? Just like Mr. Abbott was doing at the very same time?
(You seem to have failed to recall that Gillard also said, as reported by The Australian, that she was determined to put a price on carbon. Meanwhile Tony Abbott had also advocated for a "simple carbon tax" in preference to a trading scheme which was what Labor instituted.)
It's amazing how easy it is to mislead a significant portion of the population, even about basics like the workings of our democracy.
That's nice. Have you thought about what that graph would look like if you tried to extend all of those pretty coloured lines back a decade or two further? What about a century or more?
I strongly, heartily, recommend that link to Tamino's takedown of this climastrology.
Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?
A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.
Got that?
In case you missed it, I repeat:
. . . the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes . . ."
Karen repeats the clarification Marcott put out specifically to correct the mistaken interpretation of denialists so favoured of Karen, in the mistaken impression it supports her position.
It's difficult to learn to clown troll like this, you have to be either very determined to be stupid, or be born to it.
Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.
Got that?
Shall we check?
and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.
They don't base any of their conclusions on the "uptick". They do not use it.
You fucking clown!
Pielke had his thick head up his arse over this too.
This, dear Lurker, is how the denial machine works. Large amounts of faux-controversy are generated by prominent "sceptics" whenever something they really don't like emerges, such as Marcott et al. (2013).
The not-very-bright-but-always-on spammers and trolls then infest every blog from which they are not actively barred with repetitions of the half-baked nonsense they have been fed by their ringmasters.
Despite endless correction, they then repeat the balderdash for ever, and ever, amen.
This is anti-science propaganda being used to create confusion and doubt.
Can't believe SpanKan tried to misrepresent that Marcott et al comment here, complete with the underlining "Got that?" interrogative. Do they really think everybody is as stupid as ... oh wait, I guess that's one of the measures of clowns.
I read a story that Romney pulled the plug on his election office funding as soon as the 2012 US results became apparent. Credit cards stopped and accounts closed forthwith, so much so that some of his hapless staffers who'd stayed behind to tidy up their offices found their taxis home were not paid for and had to stump up the cash themselves.
Can't be done, Lionel. But should the surface be scratched it'll be their 'hockey stick is broken' myth that sustains the alternate reality they live in.
Well, form the WUWT post, its clear exactly wear Watts and his cronies wear their political colors - and Olaus and the other ass**** who contaminate the blogosphere. Far-right libertarian free market absolutists. Writing, "Open for Business" is merely a metaphor for "Open for deregulation and environmental plunder". And its not just a reference to climate change denial. Oh no. It goes way beyond that. It includes any area dealing with environmental protection: pollution laws, protecting natural forests and wetlands and other critical habitats. All of this will be wiped away. The environment is private property to be used and abused as necessary to maximize profits. And, as Olaus ignorantly points out,. this is what the new Oz government will pursue.
Well done Ollie. You just demonstrated what a right wing twit you, WUWT and the other climate change denial blogs really are.
As for the election result in Australia, Sou has some mollifying words here, worth a read for those, like me, who know little about the Australian political structure.
Well. Astonishingly, we have not one single taker for the Freddy Challenge, which (as gentle lurkers and fellow combatants may by now need reminding) was to answer this question:
If GHGs are an inefficacious forcing, what physical mechanism explains the PETM?
Indeed, Freddy simply vanished and hasn't been seen since. Luke's big mouth abruptly closed and hasn't been heard since. Gordy and Karen remain uncharacteristically silent. And so on.
This would have to be the most stupid fuckwitted comment from the blog devotee who professes to be very smart
"Bye bye wetlands, bye bye forests, bye bye biodiversity, bye bye vital ecosystem services…
hello inflation as goods increase in price as a result…"
What an amazing amount of utter dogshit. What rot. What tripe. How does a small insignificant action by Australia affect anything except the level of dementia in Jeff's brain. What utter drivel.
BBD - you putrid little creep - unlike yourself we have a life and don't need to be here 24x7 - so if we're not here 24x7 with you to answer your every thought fart - "we've disappeared". BTW I quote PETM to El Gordo all the time - so fuck off. I don't read half the crap you write and at this point I am totally amused and your ongoing conspiracy theories.
Well. Astonishingly, we have not one single taker for the Freddy Challenge, which (as gentle lurkers and fellow combatants may by now need reminding) was to answer this question:
If GHGs are an inefficacious forcing, what physical mechanism explains the PETM?
Indeed, Freddy simply vanished and hasn’t been seen since. Luke’s big mouth abruptly closed and hasn’t been heard since. Gordy and Karen remain uncharacteristically silent. And so on.
As far as I know there is no Freddy as commenter here active, so you talk to a wall, typical for you.
Your stubborn fixation on paleoclimatology is ridiculous since this happened long time ago and nobody was there to watch. Forget this crap. It's boring, irrelevant and wrong.
You shoud provide some evidenc that CO2 heats the air by x degrees Celsius. Try it, greenpisser
@Jeff: it's hard to bet against a denialist being libertarian, bigoted and a MRA.
Oh, and I forgot publicly educated and almost certainly depending on some sort of government assistance. Not that there's anything wrong with these last two, but it's hard to ignore he hypocrisy, lack of self-awareness, general dickholishness as well as the stupendous irony of it all.
Your stubborn fixation on paleoclimatology is ridiculous
So anyone saying "the climate was warmer before", "Eemian herpa-derpa" is ridiculous? Have you told your fellow denialists, cupcake? They seem determined to bring it up over and over.
Now what puzzles me is why you are sceptical about the scientific consensus that a very rapid increase in GHGs will cause significant warming on a centennial scale. Why is that?
It's also odd that you allow the constant stream of physics denial by certain commenters here to pass uncorrected. Why is that?
And one other thing. When did you last comment at Jo Nova's? I don't recall you answering that question, which is peculiar given that you constantly exhort commenters here to go to JN's.
"constant stream of physics denial by certain commenters here to pass uncorrected" well who cares really - fucks will be fucks - getting the consensus shortcomings sorted is more important. You guys swing at every wide ball and allow yourselves to get towed around the pond and you also love to chase rabbits. You can show some leadership you know.
When did I last comment at Nova's - truthfully not sure. If you go too hard you get snipped. My Dead Agro's drive-by was recent but maybe not the last. Dunno - is it important?
"Why exhort commenters to go over there" - well don't care that much really - but on some issues - like power generation you'll get a decent debate. And you need to immerse yourself in the opposition milieu - but you don't need to get too upset over it. Half the time I'm just fucking with ya.
So, unser Swiss freund is a creationist as well? Who knew?
Freddy, there have been numerous sensitivity studies. Look them up. They say its 3 degrees for a doubling of CO2.
*That* is the best answer currently available to us - an answer provided by science.
How does a small insignificant action by Australia affect anything except the level of dementia in Jeff’s brain. What utter drivel.
Because, oh brain of small disconnected parts, Australia happens to be sitting on enough 'black diamonds' (Jules Verne) the burning of which would cause a greater than doubling of CO2, tons of toxic sludge and great distress to one of the worlds natural wonder 'The Great Barrier Reef' through plans to transship the stuff through it. Then there is the development along the Indian Ocean coast of Western Australia which will now probably be pursued with even greater vigour.
One really has to have their head deep in the sands of the outback to not appreciate all this.
You are the one that writes ill-informed drivel luke.
Scientific knowledge is always imperfect. That is not an argument for dismissing the scientific consensus that a rapid increase in RF will cause a significant warming on a centennial scale. Which is what is at issue here. Rather, it is nit-picking. Nit-picking is not a robust scientific counter-argument to the scientific consensus. That is notably lacking.
But there's a hell of a lot of nit-picking.
Half the time I’m just fucking with ya.
Perhaps a better use of your time would be correcting the arrant shite spewed out by others?
'That would mean he would have to call another election.'
I want a double D election because it would be over a single issue.... climate change. The MSM would be full of it and how the people will laff when they realise CO2 is a harmless trace gas.
When did I last comment at Nova’s – truthfully not sure. If you go too hard you get snipped. My Dead Agro’s drive-by was recent but maybe not the last. Dunno – is it important?
Open admission of drive-by trolling on another blog. Luke, most trolls are smart enough to keep this to themselves.
I'm sure you'll be at pains to point out that your "harmless trace gas" supports the entire vegetable kingdom (I'm putting this in terms Gordon can understand, unlike the Plasticene Easyplan Thermador Maxipop that he and The Lukes are forever rabbiting on about down the pub) as well as acting as a thermal storage equaliser that helps stop the night side of the Earth from freezing.
Yes, I'm sure you will. It's at the top of the cretins' list of what 'harmless trace gases' do.
No Gordon, Svensmark hasn't gained any traction for over ten years and only cranks like you keep hanging on like grim death to his minor-league hypothesis. Lockwood showed no solar correlation and Sloan showed the same for GCRs.
If fossil fuel corporations didn't fund the anything-but-CO2 circus, you'd never have heard of him, let alone pretend to have any understanding of what he's talking about.
Actually, no, it doesn't. Do look up the Laschamp excursion sometime. If you want a solid piece of evidence that the GCR/cloud effect does not produce a significant change in climate, that is it.
Failing that, there's a pile of recent studies that say the same thing.
The theory that a quiet sun allows more cosmic rays to bombard earth, makes sense. This in turn sees the increase in microscopic cloud nuclei, forming clouds, which reflect solar radiation back into space.
Awww, man - I recall rocking my two month old son around the room to that (he's a 26 year old microbiology PhD student now). And it became a cynical catchphrase (yes! even back then!) in response to grandiose post-privatisation pronouncements the BT office where I worked at the time.
All post the BBC's Threads film, and Schell's Fate of the Earth book and Chernobyl of course.
"The theory that a quiet sun allows more cosmic rays to bombard earth, makes sense" to my pig-ignorant, anti-scientific, poorly informed, wishful-thinking, no science knowledge whatsoever, politically charged alcohol damaged brain that is incapable of admitting that what's been sold to me as a harmless trace gas is responsible for more than I could ever imagine.
Despite over 35 years of constant satellite-based measurements of cloud, reliable evidence of a long-hypothesized link between changes in solar activity and Earth’s cloud cover remains elusive. This work examines evidence of a cosmic ray cloud link from a range of sources, including satellite-based cloud measurements and long-term ground-based climatological measurements. The satellite-based studies can be divided into two categories: (1) monthly to decadal timescale analysis and (2) daily timescale epoch-superpositional (composite) analysis. The latter analyses frequently focus on sudden high-magnitude reductions in the cosmic ray flux known as Forbush decrease events. At present, two long-term independent global satellite cloud datasets are available (ISCCP and MODIS). Although the differences between them are considerable, neither shows evidence of a solar-cloud link at either long or short timescales. Furthermore, reports of observed correlations between solar activity and cloud over the 1983–1995 period are attributed to the chance agreement between solar changes and artificially induced cloud trends. It is possible that the satellite cloud datasets and analysis methods may simply be too insensitive to detect a small solar signal. Evidence from ground-based studies suggests that some weak but statistically significant cosmic ray-cloud relationships may exist at regional scales, involving mechanisms related to the global electric circuit. However, a poor understanding of these mechanisms and their effects on cloud makes the net impacts of such links uncertain. Regardless of this, it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds.
A search has been made for a contribution of the changing cosmic ray intensity to the global warming observed in the last century. The cosmic ray intensity shows a strong 11 year cycle due to solar modulation and the overall rate has decreased since 1900. These changes in cosmic ray intensity are compared to those of the mean global surface temperature to attempt to quantify any link between the two. It is shown that, if such a link exists, the changing cosmic ray intensity contributes less than 8% to the increase in the mean global surface temperature observed since 1900.
@58 You'll be OK I think, from what I've gleaned so far.
Although I'd counsel with the utmost gravity to avoid divorce whatever it takes and no matter how unlikely it seems now
.
Certainly my sole regret in a somewhat colourful life, in that it affects others in ways beyond imagining,
'Evidence from ground-based studies suggests that some weak but statistically significant cosmic ray-cloud relationships may exist at regional scales, involving mechanisms related to the global electric circuit. '
Trolling = anyone who disagrees with you according to Deltoids. Sock puppet - using any tag. Nova comments were appropriate and on-topic. Get straight fucked Stu! and and and - how perfect - now disagreeing with Nova is "trolling"
"Perhaps a better use of your time would be correcting the arrant shite spewed out by others?"
why bother here - you utterly obsessed 24x7 circle jerkers can do that quite well all be yourself. Who could get a word in? Taken Johnny to the park lately BBD - tried not blogging for a few weeks?
Given the paleoclimate evidence, why are you sceptical about the scientific consensus that a very rapid increase in GHGs will cause significant warming on a centennial scale. Why is that?
"Scientific knowledge is always imperfect. That is not an argument for dismissing the scientific consensus that a rapid increase in RF will cause a significant warming on a centennial scale. Which is what is at issue here. Rather, it is nit-picking. Nit-picking is not a robust scientific counter-argument to the scientific consensus. That is notably lacking."
I DON'T THINK SO !
oh do play with your dick - a consensus of 2.4 to 6.4 broad as a barn. Without as I have well demonstrated a bunch of key points under questions. And an emerging debate that sensitivity might be even lower.
Your task is to realise how government science works - I hope you are not some cossetted idealistic university fuck like Jeff? - how the whole meme is crafted and learn not to believe absolutely everything served up to you.
The poor behaviour of the models should be enough to have you massively concerned. (Storch etc)
It's a blog. It's not the IPCC Working group meetings. It's for discussion.
And if you are to convince people - well I'd just disagree with you coz you behave like a cunt. Try exploring other people's issues and convince them without the tiresome appeal to authority.
Just to pile on, Gordo: what makes sense to you doesn't make a lick of difference. Rational scientific behavior is to examine the evidence and accept where it leads you, whether you like it or not.
You don't like climate change. You ignore evidence for it even when we slap you around with it. You pretend nothing was said and go right back to your default "well, this is what I want to believe so this makes sense to me" position.
It's worse than religious apologetics, because at least most religions are smart enough to be untestable (by design) -- so in any semi-honest conversation the apologist bows out with some form of "well, you can't prove a negative, it's all about faith anyway, goodnight".
This is a little different. Denialists range from the clinically insane (Monckton), to the I CAN PLAY WITH EXCEL! crowd (Scafetta, Tol), to the monumentally stupid (Watts, Montford), to the just-pay-me-Exxon (the Idso clan), to the should-know-better-but-probably-looking-for-that-paycheck (Curry)... but there's no "agree to disagree" here. Nobody LIKES AGW, but the evidence is simply overwhelming.
Accept it.
Maybe then we can have the far more interesting conversation on what to do about it. And no, carbon taxes are not necessarily the perfect answer.
I'm far from convinced by the palaeo evidence.You love it as it suits your misery guts cataclysmic personality. I simply see it as a foggy window into a foggy past.
The consensus isn't certain ! The consensus has a range. The models are fucking not working. Santa has stolen the trop hotspot. Antarctica is gaining ice. Antarctic sea ice is growing. Extreme events droughts and floods are not getting worse. Evap is going the wrong way. The hockey stick is utter crap. The models are full of parameterisations and drift corrections. Multi-models averages plus or minus a barn are shit. Regional nesting is crap and masturbation.
Take Johnny to the park and give up worrying about the world for a few weeks.
Given the paleoclimate evidence, why are you sceptical about the scientific consensus that a very rapid increase in GHGs will cause significant warming on a centennial scale. Why is that?
Given the paleoclimate evidence, why are you sceptical about the scientific consensus that a very rapid increase in GHGs will cause significant warming on a centennial scale? Why is that?
I think El Gordo is wrong but strangely I don't feel the need to engage him. In fact later I'm going to leave the house and go outside where I may touch plants and animals. I may even engage in social conversation with friends and ask about their ordinary lives.
All your palaeo crap is built on proxies and models. The more you look the more we don’t don’t know. It’s all just an assembled apocalyptic meme.
Argument from incredulity and argument from ignorance. Argument from false assertion.
Given the paleoclimate evidence, why are you sceptical about the scientific consensus that a very rapid increase in GHGs will cause significant warming on a centennial scale? Why is that?
Why are you rejecting the scientific consensus? You are not qualified to do so, nor do you have a coherent scientific counter-argument. So what the fuck do you think you are doing?
'CLIMATE change is a hotly contested issue in Australia. An overwhelming majority of Australians, 84 per cent, wants to do something about it, yet a clear majority is against the present carbon tax.
'While Australia has brandished its good intentions in wanting to tackle this real problem, Labor and Coalition governments of the past 20 years have done little to tackle it.'
Nobody gives a shit about what you think, Luke. Or what I think, for that matter. That's not how science works. You pretending to be a scientist was truly one of the more pathetic overreaches seen here yet.
Evidence, Luke.
oh do play with your dick
You really, really don't get out much, do you.
– a consensus of 2.4 to 6.4 broad as a barn.
Nirvana fallacy. You really suck at this, Luke.
Without as I have well demonstrated a bunch of key points under questions.
Obvious ans stupid lie. You've posted a ridiculous talking point manifesto that you obviously worked very hard on and are very proud of.
It has been addressed, in full, repeatedly. Just because you didn't like the answers does not mean they were not valid. Stop blaming others for pointing out your points are made of red herring in false dichotomy sauce with a sprinkling of outright lying. Stop pretending it wasn't addressed.
Again, Luke, you suck at this.
And an emerging debate that sensitivity might be even lower.
Emerging debate? You're a clown. All of it has been vigorously debated for decades, and continues to be vigorously debated every single day by actual scientists.
You don't like what they're saying. Hey, you have a right to do that. You even have the precious right to lie your pathetic basement-dwelling ass off about it. Just as we have the right to call you on your pathetic bullshit.
Your task is to realise how government science works
Oh, I know. I spent quite some time around it. You obviously did not.
I hope you are not some cossetted idealistic university fuck like Jeff?
Yes! Screw all those damned scientists at their damned universities and shit! So which one is it, Luke... were your grades too low to go? Did your parents not let you? Did you flunk out hard? Your education envy is palpable, Jonas Jr.
how the whole meme is crafted and learn not to believe absolutely everything served up to you.
Dumbest. Conspiracy. Theory. Ever.
If an actual university scientist found proof climate change is a hoax, they'd be flying to Oslo within the year. You know it, I know it, but it just doesn't fit your conspiracy theory.
The poor behaviour of the models should be enough to have you massively concerned.
As has been pointed out to you multiple times now, every single climate model in the world could be wrong by a factor of 543728 (they're not, of course, they're doing very well, thank you). That's not the whole of climate science. There are these things called "measurements" that still point to unprecedented warming. And again, pretending that you're the only one who figured this out in between mawing down Doritos is sad and delusional. This is an active discussion between actual scientists.
If you like, please go back to computational inaccuracy. I could use another guffaw on my own turf.
It’s a blog. It’s not the IPCC Working group meetings. It’s for discussion.
So why are you trolling? You've admitted to doing it here, you've admitted to doing it on Nova's rag...
Wait, you're not here for the hunting, are you?
And if you are to convince people – well I’d just disagree with you coz you behave like a cunt.
Bravo. That's the most incoherent and least self-aware attempt at tone trolling I've seen. Ever.
Try exploring other people’s issues
Even if I were a shrink, I wouldn't work for free. Besides, you have so much cognitive dissonance, misanthropy, delusions of grandeur and pathological lying going on that I don't think it would help.
and convince them without the tiresome appeal to authority.
*kapow*
Yeah, that broke even the industrial-strength irony meter. I'll have to see if the military makes a stronger one.
Remember, Luke? Remember when you said that you talked to your "bloke" and that he said OHC was crap?
Remember that? I do.
For the record, you have a "bloke" to fix your car. Or to mow your lawn. Or to get you weed. You don't have a "bloke" to tell you about climate science, you utter pillock.
@Gordo: maybe if I put it in bold, you'll actually read it. Stop being intellectually dishonest. Your family might read this.
You don’t like climate change. You ignore evidence for it even when we slap you around with it. You pretend nothing was said and go right back to your default “well, this is what I want to believe so this makes sense to me” position.
Stu the science is never settled, even more now that the models have failed.
The models haven't "failed" and what about paleoclimate? You don't seem to understand that irrespective of the models paleoclimate behaviour is solid evidence that S/2xCO2 is *at least* ~2C and more probably around 3C.
Evidence denial. Physics denial.
Remember to tell you grandchildren what you did in the climate wars.
Whatever Stu - must have stoked your engine though to spew out all that vitriole. Anyway for fucktard Stu - troll = anyone he disagrees with.
But anyway don't you just hate http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/07/australia-liberated-from-their-lo… and pretty well all the right wing freaks that post there. Just a wafer thing scratch and the right wing shit just bubbles. Fuck off WUWT ! Mind your own political business. The triumphalism is sickening.
"paleoclimate behaviour is solid evidence" what crap - palaeo is simply whatever science meme gets through into selective chunked up reports. More models and proxies (more models again) which get overwritten with every issue of GRL and Geochimica.
"Remember to tell you grandchildren what you did in the climate wars." gee Dad what did you do? I pulled my dick on a climate blog son. And how did that help Dad. More Walter Mitty stupidity from an idiot.
"If an actual university scientist found proof climate change is a hoax,"
Let's create an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
But here we go again ....
"The models are fucking not working. Santa has stolen the trop hotspot. Antarctica is gaining ice. Antarctic sea ice is growing. Extreme events droughts and floods are not getting worse. Evap is going the wrong way. The hockey stick is utter crap. The models are full of parameterisations and drift corrections. Multi-models averages plus or minus a barn are shit. Regional nesting is crap and masturbation."
Stu - try to sound convincing and stop being such a shit cunt.
And Luke continues to argue from ignorance and incredulity while refusing to answer the question:
Given the paleoclimate evidence, why are you sceptical about the scientific consensus that a very rapid increase in GHGs will cause significant warming on a centennial scale? Why is that?
No you cunts LOVE it. It makes your entire day. Go on admit it.
You really don't get it do you. For a very long time, I just took the science for granted.
I started reading about it back in the days when the ozone hole was becoming a big issue - late 70s early 80s. The Montreal Protocol was eventually signed and implemented in 1989. I honestly thought that climate change was just another one of these issues and that the process would be much the same and take a similar time.
If you can remember, or have read about, all the scientific / technical issues of the late 20th century that were solved by international agreements or coordinated international action, acid rain, clean air, asbestos, phasing out CFCs, Y2K, you might understand how someone might think that climate change was "just another technical problem". That's how I thought about it. I really didn't take much interest in the nitty gritty details of the science itself until the last 10 years or so once the opposition to the idea stepped up.
If we could have arrived at sensible transition away from fossil dependence beginning in the 80s, climate change could have turned out as just another bullet we dodged with a bit of hard work by people who knew what they were doing. We dodged the Y2K issue - got to work on it in plenty of time and the result was no major problems at all and a few minor problems that only people involved in the industry ever got to hear about.
That opportunity has long passed us by for climate change.
It's nice that the US has reduced its CO2 emission to 1990 levels but it is also irrelevant since all human CO2 has no measurable effect on air temperatures or on the ocean in any respect. Crap scientology with faked values from nature (eg temperature homogenisation frauds like intentional decreasing of old temperature readings etc etc) with crap "models" which prove nothing but show what computer programmers were told to produce as results, and everything hailed as consensus by wannabe world saviors who engage in fanatic political eco fundamentalism to worship god gaia: YOUR DIRTY DELUSION IS CRAP. Your constant appeal to authority shows nothing but all your weaknesses:
1. Lack of any evidence of what you maintain
2. Lack of decent behavior when your scientific stance is so weak
3. Lack of own logical thinking of accepting the obvious: it's the sun, stupid, we don't know much about clouds, water is infinitely more important than CO2 and you idiots don't like to speak about the water, you idiots.
YOU GREENPISSERS ARE TRUE IDIOTS WHICH MISUSE SCIENCE FOR YOUR NASTY CRAP IDEOLOGY AND RELATED ROTTEN POLITICAL GAMES.
Shut up and get away from this blog, you drunken idiots.
'A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.
'The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.
I
'Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.'
Funny that only one greeny won a seat, even funnier is the fact that he lives in a concrete jungle.
You have no idea how incoherent and stupid you sound, do you? I don't even understand what the dire implication is here. Are you saying that it is impossible for people who live in a city to give a shit about the environment?
Stu - I have given you citations a number of times before - don't ask again! OK
You can sit there and say "lie" but you've been quoted but perhaps you were on your knees sucking someone's dick and missed it. So how about you wipe your watermelon mouth off and start paying attention.
A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent
And while we're looking at facts and resources that the reporter failed to notice ... look at the bottom four lines on this graphic. No matter what the ice does for the rest of the year, there is no chance of it being within cooee of the average of just the decade of the 2000s, let alone any earlier period. (The relevant numbers, the minimums, are the ones in the furthest right column.) https://sites.google.com/site/pettitclimategraphs/sea-ice-area#asiammdp…
This is all recent stuff, since 1979 only, satellite only.
I know some people are doing some interesting stuff with old ice edge maps but none of that is in the standard reports of extent, area and volume of Arctic sea ice.
"What an amazing amount of utter dogshit. What rot. What tripe. How does a small insignificant action by Australia affect anything except the level of dementia in Jeff’s brain. What utter drivel"
Gotta love Luke's level of intellectual discourse. Couldn't get much lower. Listen Luke, you arrogant little shit, the new government is going to push for environmental deregulation. Like other right wing government, that means eviscerating public constraints in the pursuit of private profit. The results will mean more forests are opened up for clear-cutting, more wetlands will be drained for development, and as a result you will see more local declines and extinctions of native biota. When Reagan came to power in the US, the economy switched from being one with a largely Keynsian approach to a system characterized by free market absolutism and mass deregulation. The result to natural ecosystems was immediate. Logging operations ran amok, wetlands were drained at record rates and the number of species listed as threatened or endangered has increased. Many songbirds in the UShave seen their population decrease by 50% or more since the 1970s. At the same time, wealth became more and more concentrated at the top. By the late 80s we had some of the world's leading ecologists - Dan Janzen, Edward O. Wilson, Peter Raven, Tom Lovejoy and others - saying that we were headed in the wrong direction and that we were running out of time to get it right. Since that time, if anything we've gone in reverse. The Global Ecosystem Assessment laid out the nasty details in 2006, arguing that a full 60% of vital ecosystem services were being used unsustainably. At present, the prognosis for nature is dire, whether you want to believe it or not. Up to 20% of well known species - vascular plants and vertebrates - are threatened with extinction. Pollinator populations are in free-fall across much of the world. Coastal marine ecosystems have been devastated. Jellyfish are now at the top of the food chain in parts of coastal southern European waters. Aquifers across the world are being drained at rates far exceeding their recharge. The consequences of all of this are going to be reflected in economics at some point or other.
A lot of this has happened because, for some inane reason, the public in much of the west has increasingly embraced far right governments who support and bolster policies that exacerbate these problems. They probably think that more socially minded left wing governments want to take away their SUVs and their comparative luxury when one in nine people in the world receive such little nutrition that their minds are literally wasting away. So many countries in the developed world have embraced right wing governments or else the political right has co-opted the electoral process (as in the USA). In any event, the results have been to see the poverty gap grow ever wider, for corporations to have gotten away with murder, and for nature to have become less of something to protect unless it provides a profit incentive. Heck, that's what the 1992 Biodiversity Summit in Rio ended up being. More about patenting biodiversity for profit than protecting it.
You're just a dumb-ass idiot who thinks he's smart and clever. Normally I wouldn't give a moron like you the time of day. But since Deltoid has become the latest stomping ground for fully-fledged idiots like you, wanted to hep retain the balance. About a dozen times you've promised to say you'd leave this site only to come back with more vitriolic garbage. Why don't you keep your promise for once, you arrogant twerp?
Adelady, excellent points. And one the deniers never mention is ice thickness. The new ice is going to be thin, of course, as it is was retained from last winter. This means that another warm Arctic summer will see it gone again.
'The results will mean more forests are opened up for clear-cutting, more wetlands will be drained for development, and as a result you will see more local declines and extinctions of native biota.'
This is most unlikely to happen under Abbott's watch, he has promised a 15,000 strong green army to keep an eye on environmental management.
No. It's all about inappropriate and unsustainable use, and expansion of those uses, of land and other resources.
AGW is just the biggest and baddest of them all - because all countries and processes are affected even if the citizens of any given country are responsible and sensible in the way they manage their own resources, transport, power generation and the like - their agriculture and their coastlines and their water will be affected regardless of what they do.
That seems to be the basic problem with this place ... even when you folks notice that you're arguing with some of the stupidest people on the planet, you then promptly forget it.
And it' not just the stupidity ... consider Luke, a vile philistinic troglodyte psychopath and all around asshole who he thinks he can maintain that he's not a denier while rattling off a list of denier talking points. Antarctica is gaining ice and Antarctic sea ice is growing? That verges on Karen/sunspot-level stupidity. Of course the latter is a consequence of AGW and the former is false, but if it weren't that would be a puzzle, not something that throws AGW into doubt, as Luke would realize if he weren't bereft of any understanding of science. But really, there's no reason to care about garbage like Luke and what they think.
This is most unlikely to happen under Abbott’s watch, he has promised
This is probably the first time that el fuckhead has ever believed a politician's promise. Oh, wait, he doesn't really believe it, he's just a fuckhead. A fuckity fuckity fuckhead. Not worthy of any of our time.
You don't understand the difference between sea and land, do you, moron? You're too fucking stupid to even grasp that the difference matters. The real question is why you think that, as stupid and ignorant as you obviously are, your beliefs about these things have any relevance. Stupid fuckhead.
"I don’t even understand what the dire implication is here. Are you saying that it is impossible for people who live in a city to give a shit about the environment?"
I would say most of them don't know what the environment is outside of their concrete, brick and asphalt world, nature is something they see on the telly.
"Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading."
"The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter climate change.
Those predictions now appear gravely flawed."
"Only six years ago, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013, citing a scientist in the US who claimed this was a ‘conservative’ forecast."
However Australians do know we have to pay for maintenance of our national parks - which are still subject to attack by ferals, pest plants and inappropriate fire regimes - this needs need money. A healthy economy is the best way to pay for such things. And don't assume that I'm in the root it, shoot it and chop it brigade either.
"consider Luke, a vile philistinic troglodyte psychopath and all around asshole '
WOW - I really like that - its' me to a "T". I have printed it out large for my wall. I like ianam - a highly aggressive little fucker. Quality abuse for a change.
Moreover - "You still don't understand what you're dealing with, do you? Perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility."
"You admire it.?"
"I admire its purity. A survivor... unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality."
...getting the consensus shortcomings sorted is more important.
Just like it's more important to correct the "shortcomings" in my understanding of what happens if I crash this here car at 100km/h into that there brick wall than to factor in what we already know, right? Do I die in my car from massive impact injuries, survive the impact but die in my car from the resulting fire, or get "lucky" and merely become quadriplegic by breaking my neck after being ejected through the windscreen?
Until those "consensus shortcomings" are sorted out, less "important" responses to my suggestion such as "don't be a fuckwit" and "it can only end badly" and even "ya might wanna do everything ya can to avoid that wall" should be ignored, right?
Luke, you're a liar or you are not sufficiently intellectually equipped to be drawing conclusions on these kinds of matters. Your call.
This is most unlikely to happen under Abbott’s watch, he has promised a 15,000 strong green army to keep an eye on environmental management.
Awwwww, your cute faith in Abbott's ever so robust concern for the environment even in the face of big $$$ to be made and the efficacy of his underfunded promises to do something about CO2 via his "green army" (but not about the general environment) is touching!
It does, however, explain how you can be "towed around the pond" (to use Luke's turn of phrase) by politicians and corporate propagandists who butter you up using your own preconceptions. When you're not actually skeptical, but ever so proud of your skepticism, they will use it against you to make out like bandits at your expense.
Better give the Deltoids a leg up - dear resident deniers - if they were any good they'd tell you what is happening over Antarctica is complex - a combination of forcing from stratospheric ozone depletion and tropospheric gas increases.
Additionally the ozone forcing may be antagonistic to the GHG forcing which should be overcome mid-century. Thus a contradictory interim situation may be eventually overcome with net Antarctic melting. A more positive Southern Annular Mode dynamically isolates heat transport to the pole.
and Lotharsson - yes fuck it all - Abbott will develop northern Australia and rush through a few port developments. Kimberley coast may be a battleground - will you be on the barricades with us? Queensland government is rolling back some land clearing controls, wild rivers legislation and grazing leasehold land controls. Lamentable but fucktards want right wing governments so one tries to work within the parameters and save some furniture.
Overall though I'd be more worried about cats, toads, weeds and crap fire regimes (too hot late season).
That sounds like sour grapes Lotharsson. Very sour indeed.
It doesn't matter how you frame it, Australia has voted and Labor & the Greens have been put out into the political wilderness.
Your summation of the Australian electorate is as creepy as Bernard's.
...if they were any good they’d tell you what is happening over Antarctica is complex...
Been there, done that - multiple times. (So, apparently I am "any good" according to your criteria.) They simply ignore it, wait a few days or weeks and then make the same bad claims.
But if I respond to it this time around you'll probably accuse me of "being towed around the pond" or "swinging at a wide ball". Double standards, much?
...as the audience may not be able to tell who’s who.
And that says more about the audience than the arguer, which reiterates my point.
Lamentable but fucktards want right wing governments so one tries to work within the parameters and save some furniture.
Agreed - on all the issues you mention.
In contrast, your "consensus issues" undermines efforts to do that on AGW. It doesn't make any sense - not even politically, where it concedes framing to the ignorati and those that exploit them for gain.
You've omitted the most obvious difference between the Arctic and Antarctica, which is that the former is a sheet of ice floating on seawater, and the latter is a large continent where most of the ice is plonked on top of the land.
That has rather a significant impact on how ice dynamics progress, and the more so when atmospheric moisture is affected by the increase in concentration of 'greenhouse' gases.
I actually tried several months ago to repeatedly press KarenMackSunspot and his cronies on this point, but they didn't want to admit to it. It simply demonstrates that trying to get even basic scientific understanding into the skulls of such as the troglodytes here is more fraught than trying to thread a needle with soggy spaghetti.
As proof watch Mackulus - he will recycle this Antarctic ice meme again and again, either in ignorance of the physics or ignoring the physics.
'Awwwww, your cute faith in Abbott’s ever so robust concern for the environment '
Abbott's 15,000 strong green army is about conservation, not CO2 mitigation.
Anyway its a waste of taxpayers money and I imagine he'll start off slowly and see how it goes, then he'll scrap it. He was very impressed by Conservation Volunteers.
Lotharsson my problem is that I do want to nail the outliers and that may mean going to war here to do so. Well at least an attempt.
Bernard J - agreed. However the dichotomy of the ozone and GHG forcing over Antarctica is most interesting. My guy has simulated it and it flips mid-century - OK more correctly GHG forcing increases and ozone hole recover somewhat. (But of course he'd probably tell me anything). Our problem with the Antarctic situation is that it is counter-intuitive and does rely on extrapolating obs with models.
If they don't accept that as reasonable - well that's OK. Their call. A reasonable person would however be interested in SAM behaviour and East Antarctica gaining ice while glaciers losing. Says something.
SAM also probably affects rainfall and drought in southern and south-western Australia - my personal obsession being drought. Although sub-tropical ridge intensification and SW Indian Ocean phenomenon makes it hard going conceptually. Multiple issues. But worrying trends may reverse as ozone hole recovers. The denailiti will never believe us. I'm not totally convinced myself but who'd listen to me..... blah blah blah
...my problem is that I do want to nail the outliers...
There's nothing wrong - and much right - with wanting to understand more than we currently do. It's the classic scientific motivation, for one thing.
However, we already know enough to have a very strong case for concern so wanting to know more shouldn't dissuade us from strong action, now (if we're basing our actions in rationality and evidence).
We dodged the Y2K issue – got to work on it in plenty of time and the result was no major problems at all and a few minor problems that only people involved in the industry ever got to hear about.
I have noted some who claim the Y2K issue was a hoax because nothing bad happened. Knowing the origins of this issue, indeed I worked around it myself in the early 1990s on a project when I recognised the coming problem, and the amount of work involved by those at the coal face that sort of talk makes me cross, but not as cross as I am about the delayers/deniers on climate change.
I often wonder if dodging the Y2K was a good thing, as a crash then may have taken the heat out of the burgeoning global economy. Maybe somebody with more time and energy on their hands will one day look at this alternative history facet.
But alas Lotharsson we have not convinced the populace. nobody with vote for austerity or competitive disadvantage.
Why I'm bullish on advancing Thorium reactors. Barry Brooks systems analysis has reached same conclusion.
It's a tough gig - therefore quality arguments refuting outliers need to be made to save the science furniture under the current state and Federal govts in Australia. Interesting trend
in yesterday's elections - bigger swing Tasmania - to LNP but in Queensland no where near as big a swing as voters have tasted the full right wing exposition. In fact most Labor seats retained.
So you can rail against it all and howl at the moon but some of us are trying to work within the bounds of possibilities and keep going.
I'm not at all sure that's true. The last survey I saw a solid majority wanted action; the same now seems to be the case in that bastion of denialism, the US. (I haven't gone looking for multiple surveys though, so it's possible I'm recalling outliers.)
However those who are against it are highly vocal and have disproportionate access to media megaphones and this gives the impression that there are more of them than there are.
I haven't been following it closely, but last I saw thorium reactors looked a long way from industrial realisation. Is there reason to think that has changed?
This what the DM story says: The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was due in October to start publishing its Fifth Assessment Report – a huge three-volume study issued every six or seven years. It will now hold a pre-summit in Stockholm later this month.
This what the IPCC said at the beginning of the year:
IPCC WGI-12 and IPCC-36
Stockholm, Sweden, 23 - 26 September 2013
Letter of invitation to Focal Points and Ministries of Foreign Affairs
Letter of invitation to International and other Organizations
Documents for the 12th Session of the Working Group I (23 - 26 September 2013)
WGI-12: Doc. 1 - Provisional Agenda
Documents for the Thirty-Sixth Session of the IPCC (26 September 2013)
IPCC-XXXVI/Doc. 1 - Provisional Agenda
IPCC-XXXVI/Doc. 2 - Draft Report of the 35th Session of the IPCC
INFORMATION FOR PARTICIPANTS
Information Note for participants (22 May 2013)...
Yup. Checked. Luke is pretending that "his guy" is either Drew Shindell or Gavin Schmidt! and cut'n'pasting from their work: Shindell & Schmidt (2004).
It's not the language that's shocking here, Karen. It's the combination of dishonesty and stupidity.
On which point, your latest comment will no doubt cause you to shoot up in rhw's daughter's estimation. Fancy posting a nasty little jibe like that somewhere where the target's child might see it.
What utter fucking rubbish. Who the fuck is "Jim Steele"? This tripe has never been near a scientific journal because, well, because it is tripe. FFS reference the published literature.
"Our conclusions are of fundamental importance in rectifying
the failure of present climate models to hindcast the recent
increase in Antarctic sea ice"
No Luke, I caught you lying about "your guy" - your fantasy modeller/colleague in your fantasy world where instead of a loathsome, lying fuckwit you are a "working scientist".
Who hasn't read the paper? Fucking clown. You're a stupid fucking galoot mate. A fucking pawn who sits up all night after ignoring his kid all day. You have no influence and no effect on anything. Fuck off and get a life loser. You're on a backwater blog having no influence on anything. Try to contribute to society instead of being a net sink.
I don't think you know very much about parenting, Luke! In fact I doubt you've had any practical experience at all! Which is why I don't take your jibes very seriously!
Luke, one of the many things I know that you don't is that people who indulge in self-aggrandising fantasies are driven to do so by profound insecurity about their self-worth.
Your constant harping on about influence and so forth is a massive tell, along with your various attempts to spin fantasy credentials and fantasy sources in the modelling community.
You are desperately easy to read, Luke. See - I'm doing it now and I am exactly correct.
Feel the shame, Luke. Some things can't even be papered over with a smiley!
Ah, excellent. Homophobia, bigotry, misogyny, pathological lying and now threats. What a lovely human being you are, Luke. Truly an asset to your mother's basement.
I have just been reading over at Sou's an excellent take-down of the ever mendacious David Rose and continued on into the spot on 'Quote of the Week - Anthony Watts himself sums up the scaredy cat deniers at WUWT' where there is presented, borrowed from Alternet, the rationale for what we see here from the usual suspects:
Research suggests that conservatives are, on average, more susceptible to fear than those who identify themselves as liberals. Looking at MRIs of a large sample of young adults last year, researchers at University College London discovered that “greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala”. The amygdala is an ancient brain structure that's activated during states of fear and anxiety. (The researchers also found that “greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex” – a region in the brain that is believed to help people manage complexity.)
This thread stands as testament to the truths expressed therein, look at how narrow luke's questions are and how he flips if he gets a complex answer. el gordolocks just keeps chuntering out the type of baseless factoids discovered in Christmas crackers, demonstrating that he is in turn crackers. He should be proud having turned into a cross between Monckton and Corbyn.
And hey, stupid, fuckwit, troll, you can't answer this question:
If GHGs are inefficacious forcings, what physical mechanism caused the PETM?
You can't answer it because you are a stupid, fuckwit troll and a physics denier and a know-nothing.
Why don't you just fuck off, Freddiot? Seriously. Your shit-headed blethering is just boring these days. So go on nutter, fuck off. You make the place stink of rotting teeth and filthy socks.
You dupe. Spencer, immediately after Gavin Schmidt leaves, comes right out and waves the 'poverty kills' flag. As if anybody thought that it does not! Sorry but Spencer is a 'slithy tove who did gyre and gimble in the wabe' (Dodgson):
Well yes poverty does kill but the truth of the matter is that dirty energy production kills more people than simple poverty. It is the poor who are massively disadvantaged by fossil fuel extraction as anybody aware of what has happened with mountain-top removal will tell you.
Then there is the fact that many more poor people live in the margins around river deltas and other low lying areas as this report warns BBC Misses The Point On Climate Migrants, the BBC may have missed the point but media in the US and Australia would have ignored this completely.
"The researchers also found that “greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex” – a region in the brain that is believed to help people manage complexity."
haha the reason why right wing people are simple minded bigots that don't understand complex problems, and generally get things completely wrong. like cutting carbon tax.
It's endlessly amusing the way these Clowns wave Spencer and Lindzen about as if their ideas had a shred of credibility. The problem for the Clowns is twofold, because wheeling out S&L demonstrates that the Clown itself hasn't got the slightest clue what it is talking about. Or it would know all about Spencer and Lindzen!
It's quite simple, BBD. They decry all figures of authority (Hansen, Mann, Santer etc., etc.), except when they need an authority figure (Linden, Spencer, McIntyre etc., etc.).
Once you get your head around that, assuming it hasn't exploded) ...
Freddy/Berendaneke opines, "I don’t like Gavin Schmidt, because"_________________________________
I'll fill in the blank.
1. I am a right wing idiot who believes in unregulated free markets and unlimited corporate profits;
2. His views on climate science are sensible and I hate common sense;
3. He speaks for the vast majority of the climate science community when he argues that humans are the main driving force behind AGW while like to believe a few pseudo-scientists on the academic fringe.
Remember, this the SAME Freddy/Berendaneke who demands that we all show immense respect for all US presidents, irrespective of their foreign policy agendas and the industrial numbers of dead as a result of those agendas.
Doltoid dwarfs, look how NOAA and GISS climate scoundrels cheat the public by manipulating original temperature data handed over to the climate scoundrels:
Doltoids, don't waste your energy for searching excuses for your scoundrel brothers, as there no excuses. Do you really like to support these scoundrels?
1. I am a right wing idiot who believes in unregulated free markets and unlimited corporate profits;
2. His views on climate science are sensible and I hate common sense;
3. He speaks for the vast majority of the climate science community when he argues that humans are the main driving force behind AGW while like to believe a few pseudo-scientists on the academic fringe.
Remember, this the SAME Freddy/Berendaneke who demands that we all show immense respect for all US presidents, irrespective of their foreign policy agendas and the industrial numbers of dead as a result of those agendas
Your crap has to be invalidated due to intolerable idiocy.
Your conspiration theory that only right-wing political opponents would object your insanities is utter crap, typical for you nutter.
So GISTEMP has been tampered with in order to bring it into extremely close agreement with the UAH satellite data curated by outspoken sceptics Roy Spencer and John Christy?!
#84 BBD - yes and I hope you keep thinking that. Tell you what though - you're keen, you're fascinated - and you can't leave it alone. There's that nagging thought - what if he's right.
So GISTEMP has been tampered with in order to bring it into extremely close agreement with the UAH satellite data curated by outspoken sceptics Roy Spencer and John Christy?!
And the UK HadCRUT4 dataset has been got at too!
Look at the linked graphs, idiot and don't play your preferred cheating game of mixing cherrypicked methodologies, you nutter: sarellite data is not temperature readings of thermometers 2m above the surface, you big idiot. Why the fuck is your brain so limited to understand this, full-blown bollocks moron.
There’s that nagging thought – what if he’s right.
There's that nagging thought that paleoclimate behaviour - not models - demonstrates that CO2 is an efficacious forcing. Paleoclimate behaviour is hard, if not impossible to explain if S_ff to 2xCO2 is less than ~2C. Paleoclimate behaviour is strongly suggestive that S_ff/2xCO2is probably closer to ~3C.
I knew that the nutter BBD is unable to understand the linked graphs showing NOAA and GISS data manipulations, and scoundrel BBD justifies the fraud with a totally different cherrypicked satellite dataset from a creationist, BBD fool and mentally impaired idiot. Your intelligence is the lowest of any participant here on deltoid. You lost the climate war already, idiot and your son will call you a scoundrel and will be ashamed of such an awful spin father. Piss off, you unspeakable idiot and some decent work to earn some little money., unstead of hanging around in the internet 24x7 and giving such a miserable example for your son, idiot.
I'm repeatedly impressed, based on some of Luke's scientifically clueless comments (hey look, another one on this page!), that he apparently thought he could get away with passing himself off as a "working scientist".
If we presume for the moment that he actually wanted the claim to be taken seriously, what kind of thought process must he have gone through (if any) in which he pondered whether he could pull the wool over the eyes of this blog's readership...and then concluded that he could?
The Lukes, workin'. those index fingers as if it means something. Other than being the universal bray of moron deniers whose grey matter has been drained dry..
I'm looking forward to the first anti-government demonstration to come in Canberra - I am picturing a large banner with a picture of an old pervert holding a gimp on a leash, with the following words,
TONY ABBOTT:
RUPERT MURDOCH's BITCH
chek, how long is your hair and what colour is it ?
#97
But that is you, "Karen"! You and all the rest of your denier chums are the real sheep. Look at you all, milling around in your sheep-pens like Nova and WTFUWT and all the rest. Baa! Baaa! So frightened by reality that you embrace foul politics, paid shills and do-it-for-free cranks - and reject science.!
Baaa!
Always remember that denial arises from fear. Deniers flock together and bleat fearfully at the science, encouraged by their manipulative and unscrupulous shepherds. They are the epitome of gullible stupidity, not of objective and independent thinking!
As dear Lotharsson has mentioned in passing, it's always projection!
Baaa!
;-)
BBD: "TL hasn’t banned the small army of socks that pop up and down here"
And I tell you greenpissers which socks are meant:
Harvey
Lotharsson
BBD
Chek
Stu
Lionel
Thomas
Forza Abbott, the next Prime Minister of Oz
I have informed my friends in Wagga Wagga that arctic sea ice extent rose dramatically compared with last year.
Conclusion: Al Gore has lied that by 2015 there will be no arctic sea ice in summer. He lied as the IPCC has lied that by 2035 Himalayan glaciers will have disappeared due to "global warming". hahahahahaha, what a ridiculously stupid lie by the IPCC greenpisser ignorants who spoil real science.
Harvey: You should be more cautious to call US Presidents "war criminals"!!!!!!!!
Are you accountable of what you excrement in your incredibly primitive and hateful words. You are a zero performer and ugly greenpisser who hates our western civilization.
Piss off from here, you nasty troll
Conclusion: Al Gore has lied that by 2015 there will be no arctic sea ice in summer.
Freddie seems to have a problem with past and future tenses, and with indicative and subjunctive moods. Perhaps they don't exist in his native language.
Mind you I don't believe Gore ever said anything about 2015, or that it would have particularly mattered if he had, since he is not a climate scientist, but I suppose a cite would be too much to ask. Kai, how about it?
"Harvey: You should be more cautious to call US Presidents “war criminals”!!!!!!!!"
Not at all, dopey. I call it as I see it. Nixon gave the orders to bomb Cambodia leading to half a million deaths. Ford gave the OK for Suharto to annex East Timor, leaving a quarter of the population there dead. Reagan armed, aided and abetted death squads across Latin America in the 1980s, calling mass murderers like Rios Montt the 'moral equivalent of our founding fathers'. Bush Sr. invaded Panama, leading to an other 3,000 deaths, and then committed a whole gamut of war crimes in Iraq. Clinton was no better; bombing the Al Shifa Pharmaceutical Plant in Sudan in 1998 led to 'several tens of thousands of deaths'in the country according to a German study., Bush junior and his neo-cons were probably the worst of the lot, overseeing mass murder on an industrial scale in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has merely carried the torch of mass killing to the next presidency.
Given that you are virtually brain-dead, Berendaneke, and clearly don't understand anything about recent history, its a bit rich of you to lecture me on anything. Truth is that every US President since (and including) Truman could be indicted for crimes against humanity. Many of them should have dragged before the international criminal court, and would be if there was any justice in this world. Same goes for the leaders of many nations states, but since our lying governments perpetually lecture us about human rights, freedom and democracy, they tend to be more hypocritical than most, given their atrocious human rights records. Its all a farce. Look at Tony Blair - another criminal who should be being tried in the Hague.
So yes, Berendaneke, IMHO many US Presidents are utter war criminals. Nothing less. And the record proves it. So you can take your opinions and put them where the "sun don't shine".
Stu 2 asks a good question: what has happened to this blog?
A good question. Two things: Tim Lambert is clearly very busy elsewhere and has not really been involved with it for a long time. For that reason there haven been very few defined threads; just open threads where the discussion goes everywhere. Second, its been largely taken over by an ignorant troll collective, involving people who clearly downplay (or deny) the effects of AGW and who cherry pick, mangle or distort the data to support their arguments. Many of these trolls are bombastic and try to give the impression of being deep-thinking intellectuals, but when called out resort to the usual smears, invective and vitriol that characterizes the anti-environmental community as a whole. I've lectured on it as universities and elsewhere for more than 10 years, and people like Luke, Karen, Berendaneke, Olaus etc. are straight out of the playbook. Each has their own defined style, if one can call it that, but ultimately they arrive in mass in order to encourage each other. Not one of them is a scientist or has been anywhere near a university lecture theater, workshop or conference, and none of them publish anything in scientific journals. That being said, they do not hesitate to smear, ridicule, and belittle senior scientists with years of experience in climate science. They get away with it because (1) they are anonymous, and (2) because, to be honest, the scientific community ignores them. They are laughingstocks for the most part. The only reason I write in here is because there are a few honest brokers who are interested in knowing more about the ecological effects of warming and other anthropogenic stresses. I am happy to discuss that, and leave the debate over climate forcing climate to the experts who broadly agree that the human combustion of fossil fuels is the primary driver. The fact that every major scientific organization on Earth agrees leaves the deniers out in the metaphoric cold. The consensus is a touchy subject with them, because it is their Achilles Heel (or one of many). You'd be surprised (or not) at some of their responses to it. One self-righteous legend in his own mind (Jonas) could only feebly retort that the conclusions reached by every National Academy on Earth was possibly based on the votes of just a few of its members. Seriously, he said this. Very little else needs to be said in response to this. Its pure desperation.
Sure there are a few exceptions - you mention Judith Curry - but for every exception there are hundreds and hundreds of scientists defending the positions of their National Academies. Given the well organized and well funded denial lobby uses everything in its disposal, if there were more prominent scientific deniers we sure as hell would know all about it. But the denial lobby has effectively relied on the same bunch of people for over 20 years - the Idso's, Balling, Soon, Balinuas, Carter, Ball, Michaels, Singer, Lindzen, Spencer, and a few others. Many of these scientists haven't published much in many years and in some cases ever. But if you look back at the early 1990s the names were the same, with a few added.
I will be honest with you and say that becoming a denier is a great way to advance one's scientific career, especially if you've slogged away for years and been hardly recognized. It worked wonders for Bjorn Lomborg, who on the basis of a single, error-filled book became an instant celebrity. Up until the book he had published a single paper.
I'm pretty sure that if I phone a right wing think tank and told them that I had had a soul searching conversion, and that I now fervently believed that deregulation of the economy was a good thing and that we should empower corporations more, that I would have a great chance of landing a very good position in one of them. Heck, I have 134 publications, over 3000 citations, and I was a former editor at Nature. A lot of people know me since I co-reviewed Lomborg's book for the journal. Besides, there are virtually no ecologists or environmental scientists who support the corporate/think tank views on environmental issues. They would love to have some qualified scientists in these fields in their ranks; its great PR for them.
You also asked earlier how we can deal with AGW is there is such acrimony between people in the different sides. But you are ignoring the fact that this is exactly what the denial lobby wants. They don't need to win any scientific debates (they never will). They just need to sow enough doubt as to render any action to deal with GW mute. They are procrastinators; that is all they need to do. Delay/postpone/fudge. That is what they do.
Okay, all pretense is gone now. Luke, Olaus, KarenMackSunspot, Stu 2 are now openly and admittedly trolling. I'll give Gordo the benefit of the doubt and assume he's truly as dumb as a sack of hammers.
To all the other ones: thank you for fully conceding the issue.
Jeff pretty well nailed it in his reply but I'll remind you of a suggestion I made up-thread which was to go and read Aussie reporter John Pilger, and yes I can quote from his books too (as I can from Dawkins, EO Wilson, Jared Diamond amongst others along those lines and numerous climate scientists).
The ignorance of this nutter brigade here (that's you, Luke, OP, Karen, el goldilocks etc) is so broad that one has to wonder if you ever got an education at all. If you had any experience of higher education then you would know about chasing down sources, it is amazing what one can learn through serendipity by exploring notes to texts, bibliographies and 'Other Reading'. There is a joy in finding things out this way. It is a bit like those old text based computer adventure games where one follows a clue from one place to another and on to another etc. etc.
In that spirit here is a starter on late 20th Century War Crimes found by searching on John Pilger, one page of suggestions from seventeen.
My suspicion is that instead of studying texts you get your world view by reading opinion columns in the mainstream media and watching the likes of Faux New and its other counter-factual programming. That is why you like WUWT and Nova - no need to challenge the little grey cells.
@Jeff: Mossadeqh, bin Laden, the fun goes on and on.
Oh, I forgot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_…
Maybe he speak 'Streetistan'.
@Harvey, yes we know that greenpissers, pathological pacifists, lefties and other strange individuals like to call US Presidents "war criminals" although no juridical court has ever issued such a sentence, but on the other you greenpissers show infinite love and sympathy for mass murders like Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, etc.
You greenpissers hate our western world and you adore the primitive other nations without democracy. YOU ARE ILL IDIOTS, just disgusting people. Piss off from here you traitors if western civilazation.
@Harvey, your problem is that there is no unambigous proof that anthropogenic CO2 warms the air 2m above the surface by x degrees Celsius.
All: "it's always speculation"
"but for every exception there are hundreds and hundreds of scientists defending the positions of their National Academies. "
Oh fuck off Jeff. In reality the actual domain experts to the very important WG1 report for which all else is derivative is a handful for each section ! If you believe in the hundreds of scientists line you probably also believe in Jack's Beanstalk.
France and Belgium have both called for GW Bush to be called before the Hague.
"Conclusion: Al Gore has lied that by 2015 there will be no arctic sea ice in summer. "
He never said it would.
Lies? From trolling deniers?
Deniers routinely make the claim, but strangely never offer any evidence for it. What we do know is that would-be challenges led by cranks like Happer at the APS peter out after little more than a grandiose press release.
Luke
You know very, very little about the physical science basis. You are a posturing liar with a grab-bag of stupid denier memes and a big mouth. You fool nobody except the muppets.
You know this. We know this. Time to move on. Go back to wherever you came from. Or have you been banned there? Is that why you pitched up here? Is that it?
The Freddy/Kai/Boris/Berendaneke troll has been profoundly tedious since appearance weeks ago. It still repeats stupid denier memes long debunked as if this constituted an argument or even a discussion. It doesn't.
For pity's sake go and waste your breath elsewhere.
It's interesting watching Luke pick up the terminology as he goes along. Lotharsson used the term "domain expertise" recently, and now it reappears in Luke's mouth. Luke thinks we don't notice such things, but Luke has no idea what he is dealing with!
:-)
Actually, I tell a lie!
:-)
It was FrankD!
Interesting too after SpamKan's revealing little outburst over rhwombat's avatar the fixation on what Rorschach blots are, rather than what they're for.
As the old joke goes, "You're the one who keeps showing me the dirty pictures
For the record,to me it depicts someone rock climbing, but perhaps RW can clarify before I appear to be yet another nutter.
Weirdly, I too see someone scaling a rock face, shot from above!
Is this a consensus?!
:-)
"Deniers routinely make the claim, but strangely never offer any evidence for it." - well that shows you know nothing doesn't it. As I said you probably believe in Jack's Beanstalk.
BBD has a massive tug "It’s interesting watching Luke pick up the terminology as he goes along." The level of BBD's fuckwittery. Could have answered some of my pertinent questions about the massive holes in the hypothesis.
"but Luke has no idea what he is dealing with" yes I do - a bunch of stupid cunts. This is BBD "you're dealing with the big boys now", "I'm gonna shred you" and then he came a gutser. Fucking clown. Shouldn't you be getting some sleep so you can take little fuckhead Johnny to school tomorrow. "Daddy why are you so cross and mean in the morning" "Well Johnny I've been up all night be called a cunt and saving the planet from evil fossil fuel users. Now shut up while Daddy looks at a graph. Did you like the handful of sticks I got you to play with?"
Anyway make way - we're probably due for another 500 word chew-your-arm-off in boredom rant from grandpops eco-Jeff. "But but but I know about the devastating consequences to species - look this meadow butterfly is appearing 0.064373478 days earlier each decade. I'm at a university you know. And I go to eco-conferences where we have the biggest tugs ever" DO fuck off Jeff.
Got you again, Luke!
You need to get a grip on that reflexive outburst thing!
My best advice:
- Avoid participation in business negotiations
- Avoid card games where money is at stake!
'I’ll give Gordo the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s truly as dumb as a sack of hammers.'
That's not fair, years ago at Deltoid I was nominated a 'concern troll' and that still stands in my book.
I have always been a denier of AGW warming, there is no doubt, but nevertheless I'm a big supporter of the approaching mini ice age theory.
First, our resident psychopath says: "you greenpissers show infinite love and sympathy for mass murders like Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, etc."
Ya gotta love this false analogy. There's no need for me to explain in detail the serial crimes committed by the US over the past 60 years. The evidence speaks for itself. The only refrain dickwads like Berendaneke have is to dredge up this kind of shit. If one dares criticize vile acts committed by 'our side', then one MUST by definition support vile acts committed by officially designated enemies. Thats their logic. They have nothing else. Funny that Berandaneke doesn't mention US support for Saddam through the period he committed his worst crimes. And how the US and UK supported Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in 1982 after Cambodia was invaded by Viet Nam. There are many similar examples. Funny he doesn't mention Mbutu, Marcos, Suharto, Montt, Pinochet, the Duvaliers, the Shah, and a long list of other torturers and mass murderers who were aided, abetted and supported by the US for years in full knowledge of their crimes. But then again, Berendaneke is as thick as two planks.
As for our polite resident legend in his own mind (Luke), witness his feeble attempt to dismiss official positions of every National Academy in every nation on Earth as well as other very prominent scientific bodies in their position on GW (e.g. that the combustion of fossil-fuels and attendant increase in atmospheric concentrations of C02 is the main driver for increasing surface temperatures). Instead, Luke has a rather unhealthy fixation for Joanne Nova and greatly exaggerates her influence on the GW debate. He also seems to think that real science is discussed over there; my brief sojourns to that den if iniquity reveal a bunch of lunatics.
Luke, face the truth: you're a dipstick.
'Actually, I tell a lie!'
Well, you have been severely brainwashed so we'll take your plea into consideration.
Oops, missed a bit:
No I didn't Luke! You are lying again! But there's nothing left in the silly denier memes bag, is there Luke?!
Oh noes!
:-)
One last point Luke: your flippant butterfly remark just proves my last point. You really are a dipstick. Can't debate yourself out of a soaking wet sack of paper. If this is the best you can do, and if this is the intellectual depth you think flourishes over at Nova's blog, then you can have it.
Yup. You're a dipstick alright. And worse.
Oh no - Jeff's droning on again. It's Vogon poetry. "very prominent scientific bodies" - full of old codgers who don't know shit about climate.
Unlike you leprosy afflicted dickless wonders here on Pitcairn Island, Jo baby gets traffic while you don't. Anyway I only go over there coz she looks hot - I don't give a stuff what she says really.
On the contrary The Lukes, it shows you're all puff and zero evidence.
"What you say", The Lukes, carries less weight than a photon going flat out.
You came here with diddlysquat and you've contributed even less.
BTW Luke
I can't seem to see you over at Nova's but I really haven't looked very hard.
Can you link to the last thread and comment you made there?
I'm interested to see you in action in a different environment.
Thanks.
Listen to BBD splutter "but sir I didn't - but but but" Grow some balls you little fucker. DO you like me towing you around the pond. Now shut the fuck and change Johnny's nappy.
But chek had to respond. See all you cunts just can't help yourselves responding. Little kiddies stamping their feet. The difference between this a serious blog where inmates might know something is that I would be drowned out by the detailed scientific discussion.
But you guys are wannabe flakes. You're actually playing tag with me. Is this the level of your pathetic fuckwittery.
And playing dicks with some guy called Karen. More your expertise.
Actually, she's rather plain even by MILF standards. You really need to get out of that basement and meet some real people, not expend all; those tissues over your TV goddess memories of many a yesteryear ago.
The Lukes are conceivably crackpot and fixated enough to be Mr. Evans Codling.
Dear Luke
I can’t seem to see you over at Nova’s but I really haven’t looked very hard.
Can you link to the last thread and comment you made there?
I’m interested to see you in action in a different environment.
Thanks.
@ bag of hammers
But when we test your hypothesis we find that I can provide physical mechanisms for my arguments and you can't So who's been brainwashed?
Seriously. Ask yourself.
;-)
chek DO NOT say bad things about my Jo - she's very attractive. Don't be offensive.
If there's one thing I've learned BBD, it's that cranks and driven nutters don't do self-examination. Purely my opinion of course, but any avenue that might lead them to doubt themselves is securely closed off, as we can see by the reaction (i.e. ignoring) reasoned evidence..
chek
I know, I know. It's like talking to the cat. But still, one does it!
:-)
"See all you cunts just can’t help yourselves responding. Little kiddies stamping their feet"
Look in the mirror, pal. You're the kid stamping his feet. Good grief, read your posts. Nothing but invective-filled tantrums.
“very prominent scientific bodies” – full of old codgers who don’t know shit about climate
Gimme some evidence for this vacuous remark, Luke, you stupid clot. Or is it like everything else you say - off the top of your head.
Besides, talk about calling the kettle black. Singer, Lindzen, Spencer, Ball, Carter, et al. Can't get much older codgers than this bunch of AGW deniers
Sock puppetry, Luke?
Dead agrostologists society
? :-)
Ah well, we can but hope that Tony de Stupid loses and on Sunday night they'll all climb into their bathtubs and slit their wrists in protest.
They're still following me around. Desperate and dateless.
Jeff the eco-scientist of world fame is bothering to chase me around. What a tool.
Look boys there's a rabbit.
No answers *again* Luke!!
:-)
One wonders if the word 'disintegration' means anything to The Lukes or his credibility.
Chek@#49.
Tony Abbot will undoubtedly win his own seat on Saturday. Whether the coalition wins is a different issue.
This is not an American presidential campaign, it is an Australian election and whichever party wins the most seats is the winner.
It is quite obvious by the Rudd/Gillard antics that a prime minister can be changed without a vote from the electorate.
I believe Rudd's seat is more precarious than Abbots?
Sock 2
This isn't about elections. It's about physics.
* * *
A suggested modification to Lotharsson's Law:
It's always projection and politics.
"And playing dicks with some guy called Karen. More your expertise."
lol....... so say's the fat fuck pretend biker with the ruptured arsehole !!!!!!
Tell me Puke, how could you have an infatuation for Jo?
In your home video you obviously have a relationship with a little gay boy that wears a dog collar.... lol
Leave me out of your rants from now on, and please answer BBD's question's.
hi chek :)
Jeff Harvey,
Thank you for your response.
I guess the major reason this blog has degenerated is Tim Lambert's absence.
I am wondering why people like you and Lotharsson defend exactly the same behaviour that you criticise.
Most of the time it looks like this blog is barracking for different football teams and sledging each other according to which team they barrack for.
And BBD @#54 if you're referring to me then I disagree with you. Chek's acerbic comment @#49 was definitely about tomorrow's election in Australia.
"This isn’t about elections. It’s about physics."
How long have you been here BBD?
Lothy..... "Well, more precisely it’s supposed to discuss (bad) media reporting and politically motivated misuse and misrepresentation of science, but close enough."
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/08/01/august-2013-open-thread/comm…
EDITORIAL: Reality intrudes on a hot dream
The globe cools, and Al Gore’s ‘Climate Reality’ does, too
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/5/editorial-reality-intrud…
lol
oh..... I needed to add this
"The scorekeepers of global-warming alarmism, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, is about to release its fifth Assessment Report, which is said to admit that the planet has been cooling, not warming. A leaked draft version of the report concedes the very inconvenient truth, and casts doubt on the claim that man plays a role in triggering “extreme weather.”
:)
.. and thus we see how the moron contingent is controlled by opinionated rhetoric, because they're too dumb and lazy to understand data,
SpamKan really couldn't illustrate it more clearly if they tried.
Yes. People that have admitted to trolling and/or sockpuppetry would be banned (Luke, Berenwhatever--it's Freddy, mike, Karenwhatever, Olaus) and perhaps then we could address the issues.
@chek: who needs science when you can just read a totally unbiased doucherag editorial you like?
I must have missed that bit. Perhaps because it was all in your head? (Come to think of it, that would explain a lot...)
The line is getting shorter and shorter and shorter...
Citation needed. Or clarification.
"I guess the major reason this blog has degenerated is Tim Lambert’s absence."
degenerated ?
I wouldn't say that Stu 2, previously Timmie ruled the blog in an extremely one sided manor, his realization that co2 wasn't a powerful global incinerating toxic gas changed that.
Previously people who didn't fully support the co2222 meme would constantly have their post's either disemvowel'd or deleted merely for speaking to other posters who spoke to them in the same tone, and of coarse the many post's that demonstrated the abundance of weaknesses in the co22222 meme were dealt with severely.
Thankfully, things are more even now :)
Many of the people that posted here in the past have also woke up and have moved on.
ok......I know........
manner
Stu, are you finally ready to admit that you are a member of Greenpeace?
Please don't lie for once. At least try to be honest and decent.
On the matter of the election, there is no doubt about tomorrow's result. The hasn't been for several years, and I myself called it back in late 2010.
Australia is a 'small' country and I'm only two degrees of separation from Abbott - he's literally the friend of a friend. And going by this morning's corridor conversation with that intermediate friend the Abbott camp is cock-a-hoop about taking over the government, to the extent that some are little different to the bargain hunters banging on the shop doors at an end-of-year sale. Watch some of the reactions tomorrow around 10:00pm...
The sad thing is that this is not an election based on informed democracy. It's about an economically-privileged, spoiled and self-indulgent populace ignorant of scientific and economic fundamentals, and who are largely willingly captured by a media monopoly designed to funnel wealth and power to a small cadre of privileged ideologues. Ironically Australia ceased to be the "Clever Country" at about the same time that the internet and mobile 'phones gained wide traction - it's as if the majority of people ceded their thought processes to advertising and search engines that return popular hits rather than accurate ones.
Australia is a nation of TV zombies, rapidly losing the ability to critically and competently analyse issues and to maintain balance in their expectations of others compared with themselves. They complain about assistance to those in unfortunate circumstances, but are happy to hold out their hands for middle-class (and upper-class) welfare, for subsidies for large industries, for new football grounds but not for the arts, and all the while expecting that their taxes will be continually reduced. It's the Magic Pudding all over again.
And the Australian media across the board has has completely abrogated all responsibility for impartial scrutiny. The free runs that Abbott and the Coalition have had on dissing the science and the economics underpinning global warming is a classic example, but the media are as asleep on the job when it comes to unquestioningly promoting the logical fallacies of lobbyists, spin doctors, industry representative and other vested-interest groups. Even the ABC has capitulated in this. Some people suggest it's all to keep controversy and interest in public consumption of media, but the sacrifice of the security of generations of future Australians does not justify this disgraceful behaviour.
I said it years ago, but I'll repeat it - denialism is not "correct", and denialists have no moral mandate in spite of collecting the numbers, but denialism won the battle against science years ago because all that was necessary was to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt in the minds of the average stupid Joe and Jane on the street. We'll all pay dearly in the long-term for this national self-indulgent ignorance, and I suspect that even then those who supported the anti-scientific nonsense will not shoulder the blame for their actions and decisions.
And pay we will, because a balanced capacity for governance in the Coalition disappeared about the time of John Hewson - since then it's been largely populated with strident laissez faire maniacs and rabid conservative fundamentalists who want white picket fences and below-the-knee skirts everywhere, and free rein to chop, dig, and scoop every last resource that can be reached, without any thought for the future of anything except the ledgers of big business.
Dunning and Kruger could set up a whole Institute to catalog the psychology and sociology of the decline of a previously-vibrant nation.
'But when we test your hypothesis we find that I can provide physical mechanisms for my arguments and you can’t So who’s been brainwashed?'
There hasn't been any grants handed out for global cooling for three decades, which puts me at a scientific disadvantage, but finally the worm has turned.
If Svensmark is correct, we are on the threshold of a revolution in climate science.
Quick, head to your bunker, the end of the world is near.
and all because nobody would listen to barnturd.
poor little barnturd, sob sob
Bernard J, look at what you have written here about your fellow Australians.
"... the majority of people ceded their thought processes to advertising and search engines..."
"...the average stupid Joe and Jane on the street?"
"Australia is a nation of TV zombies, rapidly losing the ability to critically and competently analyse issues and to maintain balance...." ?
"The decline of a previously-vibrant nation?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where's your proof of these assertions and what's your alternative Bernard J?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lotharsson @#65. Read your own and Jeff's posts. After lecturing to me and advising me to not engage in and therefore encourage poor behaviour, you then go ahead and do it yourselves and/or ignore remarkably similar behaviour from others ;presumably because you agree with their reasons for said behaviour. Ultimately it proves nothing anyway.
The Heartland Institute is apparently about to spend a seven figure sum in a PR blitz surrounding the release of AR5.
...which reminded someone of this epic takedown.
Go read the whole thing. The first few paragraphs aren't about Heartland per se, but then it gets on to that subject...
Regional cooling has commenced in the UK.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/temperatures-in-england-p…
I don't think you fully understood what I said. I've re-read my comments and yours on page 44 and I don't see where I did what your quote claims. The first relevant comment I find is on page 45 where I write this:
This is most definitely NOT advising you not to engage with the bad faith participants - as I had previously explained.
One needs to distinguish between suggestions I gave you because you were apparently complaining that the signal to noise ratio was too low to meet your needs, and suggestions for behaviours that need to be manifested by at least some commenters in order to deal with the bad faith participants. These are two different things. The quote above is of the former type; the following is of the latter:
This quote is not advocating against all engagement by anyone with people who are arguing in bad faith. It's saying the opposite! And it's pointing out that in the absence of strong moderation, the presence of that kind of engagement is a necessary feature if you want to have a blog where it's possible for individuals to have good faith conversations they are interested in. The price you pay to have those conversations is that you tolerate that material - and maybe you even actively contribute to the health of the blog by participating in pointing out the bad faith tactics.
(And I elaborated further in #61 and again at #81 on that page.)
You appear to have not only misinterpreted my "advice" to address your signal to noise complaints, but to have read a generalisation into my suggestions that I wasn't making and thus tried to apply it to other people such as Jeff.
@Bernard #69
blah blah blah blah
how boring, unethical and false your whining is. get out from this blog to do everybody a favor. Nobody will miss you Greenpeace ideologists with your politically incorrect pagan faith in god gaia. piss off you enemy of decent science.
Bernard, BBD, Lotharsson, Stu, Lionel, Chek, Harvey et al.
You constantly demonstrate your inability to understand the reasons for the fierce opposition to your ideology of CAGW which you face here and elsewhere, eg from the next Prime Minister of Australia.
"...the science of climate change is crap."
Tony Abbott
It's not as if it's not there in our faces. Anyone who has taught at the tertiary (or even secondary) level for the last several decades will no doubt have seen a lamentable increase in the mediocre proportion of the educated public.
But don't take people's words for it. There is hard data...
The tottering state of science understanding in Australia was widely discussed several months ago, for example:
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/07/the-five-dumbest-science-facts-believ…
http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science/australias-science-literacy-fa…
http://theconversation.com/glum-and-glummer-australia-vs-us-on-science-…
The Index Mundi describes Australians as literate, although their definition is slightly nebulous. Still, even their data says that literacy is down:
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=as&v=39
(or if Flash won't work for you:
http://postimg.org/image/xnhz3lrcp/)
and I suspect that literacy sophistication would be plummetting, especially if the Australian trolls on this thread are any indication. More objective is the soon-to-be-released final outcome of an ABS survey which shows the population in quite a bad light:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/latestProducts/4228.0Media%20Re…
If one considers prose literacy as a coarse proxy for sophisticated thinking then at the current time we have less really debilitating literacy but also less high-level literacy:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Chapter6102008
or in crude words, there is a higher proportion these days of stupid people but not quite as many in the really stupid category. This is a very blunt proxy to be sure, but when it comes to political decisions ignorance and stupidity are largely congruent.
Those underlying literacy trends are also reflected in these data:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4228.0main+features99201…
and one doesn't need to look at the third graph on that page to know that compared to older generations today's young adults are far less likely to be able to multiply two two-digit numbers or to do long division (especially without an Excel spreadsheet or a mobile 'phone), or to explain the concept of a logarithm, or to work out compound growth problems.
1) Decent education
2) a change in societal attitudes that includes a greater preparedness to think with the cerebrum rather than with the amygdala or "lizard brain".
We're not complete hostages to our evolution, but these days we seem to be forgetting that being smart takes work.
Foiled by the moderation trap.
Plan B:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/09/wtf-lets-vote.html?showComment=13784…
The regional cooling in the UK must be of great concern to the inhabitants of that small Isle, having never witnessed a tipping point of this magnitude.
Where's the graph or other presentation to show where/when/ how this "tipping point" is showing itself? And what it's magnitude might be.
I've tried the Mean Maximum, Mean Minimum, and Rainfall amount versions of this page and they're all much of a muchness. The recent years are very different from any earlier period - just look at the last 10 years and any previous 10 year period - and I cannot see where you're getting this "tipping point" from.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/climate-anomalies/#?tab=clim…
Tipping point in the UK? We had a wobbly jetstream induced two week freeze over Christmas 2010 but if anything average winter and summer temperatures have been warm with warm air giving excess precipitation caused floods in some western areas, and droughts in the east.
As a general rule of thumb, if Goddard says something, he's mistaken/wrong /a liar. Given his past history, I prefer the latter description.
If Mr Abbott wins the vote I assume that there will be a shake up at the ABC and BOM, and a reevaluation of the gravy train science funding will be on the list also....
"Tipping point in the UK? We had a wobbly jetstream"
Jeff Harvey is a spurt on the jetstream, he told us all it was going to collapse some time ago., seriously.... lol
chekie honey, use the precautionary principle, put a helmet on :)
Bernard,
that is straight out creepy!
No wonder the polls say what they say!
Oh FFS!
The moderation here is just plain ridiculous!
So you weren't interested in the Jennifer Francis talk about the jetstream posted a while back then Spamkan. It must get tiring avoiding every opportunity to learn something.
Never was, am not, will never be. Anything else, clown?
Fascinating link, Adelady. Going on Goddard's graph, showing a steep drop indicated regional cooling. If Goddard is wrong I'll recant on the tipping point.
Chek the run of cold winters is indicative of a change in the pattern and failing to see a clear signal I'm falling back onto what we know is happening.
I accept the wayward jet stream is responsible, but where to from here?
In Australia the weather is glorious at the moment, after mild winters here and in NZ, so naturally the common folk are talking about global warming. Even the incoming Oz PM said he knew it had been a warm winter.
Its the same wobbly jet stream in the SH which is responsible, so this negative feedback dominates the AGW signal.
BJ's no. 69
I dunno, BJ, I don't want it to have it appear that I'm, like, too obviously enjoying the unseemly Schadenfreude of the moment, but--what the heck!--I'm gonna call-out your above, little fevered-cant greenshirt-rant as a real, humdinger "beaut"--let's even call it a "milestone"--in this blog's distinguished history of "meltdown" freak-outs.
I mean, like, I especially admire, B. J., how you manage to keep your riled-up, fuss-budget rage, that's fairly bursting at the seams of that last (no. 69), Jeremiah-wannabe, agitated-dork comment of yours so iron-sphincter constrained in language and so message-disciplined and so well-crafted and so...well...decorous!, despite all its huff-and-puff high-dudgeon!
I mean, like, your last, BJ, was so, so much better than, let's say, that amusing, little, "F"-bomb-laden, vulgar, pinko-pissy, valedictory (sort of) comment of wow's that was the best part of his histrionic, door-slamming departure scene, here, a couple of a months or so ago.
Indeed, BJ, I'd like to commend your no. 69 to the other Deltoids, as a model, as they, too, begin to realize that they're lookin' to be weaned from the public-tit, big-time and real-soon, and there, then, in them arises the felt-need to give vent to their sore-loser, parasite-foiled outrage at the cosmic injustice of it all in frantic, primal-scream, self-therapy comments of their own. In other words--good stuff, BJ!
A few problems with your analysis of "things", though, BJ. That is, it was not "denialism" that frustrated your little make-a-greenwashed-buck/make-an-eco-gulag hustle. Sorry about that, guy--but you're deluding yourself. Rather, you hive-bozo's failed to "close the deal" for other reasons:
-A signal reason you lefty nerd-pukes are about to be handed your smarty-pants pompous-asses, is that arrogant, total-turn-off, complete-asshole contempt and disdain of yours for the "little guys" you've been targeting as the "suckers" of your slicko enviro-scams. You know, BJ, how you aspiring Philosopher-Kings and Cull-Masters spout locutions like "...the mind of the average stupid Joe and Jane on the street" and all. That sort of thing--know what I mean, BJ?
-Then there's the total, off-putting, unsettling, geek-ball, space-alien invader weirdness of you hive-flakes. Again, BJ, drawing on your last comment, we find some good examples of the above with "...subsidies for...new football grounds but not for the arts..." and "...fundamentalists who want white picket fences and below-the-knee skirts everywhere..." Don't you realize just how much you come across as a whiny, jerk-off, creep-out, weirdo, little, tentacle-writhing "EBE" when you say things like that, BJ? And "denialism" has nothing to do with it.
-And, finally, there's the one big reason, BJ, you lefty, "crusher" retards failed to "push the ball" into the end-zone (oops!--I mean "win the"premiere prix de luxe" at the local community hick-art exposition"--sorry for that regular-guy, low-class, stupid "Joe on the street", ball-game, metaphor slip-up there). And that is? C'mon, BJ, you know the answer! Just say it! Don't be afraid! That's right, BJ! That's it!!! Did everyone hear what BJ just said? O. K., BJ, say it again, but a little louder this time:
"The reason we blew it Comrades, is because we FAILED TO PROVIDE LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE!!!--WE FAILED TO PRACTICE WHAT WE PREACHED!!!!
You know, Deltoids, it's like the hoi-polloi saw us, pounding the pulpit and fulminating against demon-carbon, on the one hand, while, on the other, they saw us jetting about the globe, incessantly attending in-your-face, hypocrite, party-time, carbon-piggie, CO2-spew eco-confabs where we brazenly schemed and plotted ever more grasping, tax-payer rip-offs in the name of carbon-reduction, all the while failing to realize that the sly, cunning, despised peasant-types were actually taking careful note (who'd a thought "stupid" serfs to be capable of such a thing!) of the discrepancy between what we said and what we actually did.
And then the uppity, insubordinate peons had the unmitigated gall to presumptuously tag the hive's outlandish, obscene, conspicuous-carbon-consumption bacchanals as some sort of "proof" that we were running a CAGW, scare-mongering SCAM!, and all, and, with that, the unwashed, verminous, stupid, "Jane and Joe on the street", rabble turned on us!!"
Very good, BJ! A much better assessment of "matters" than your first, blame-the-deniers try. And, oh by the way, BJ, might we also conclude that "Joe and Jane on the street" aren't so "stupid" after all. Right, guy?
What 'run of cold winters' is that Gordon?
I'd recommend rejecting anything Goddard touches/abuses/misuses and get the Met Office data direct as Adelady was sensible enough to do.
Of course if you prefer fantasy and AGW denier drivel, go with Goddard.
The tipping point was in 2001... at least in the UK.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/clip_image0083.jpg
Can we get some better trolls? This one seems to be broken. It's stuck on full moron now.
Ah, Gordy, regional variability such as cool winters in N Europe is offset by warmer weather elsewhere - eg Australia, which has just had the warmest 12 months since records began!
Goddard is an idiot and a liar who is misleading other idiots who cannot separate a (small) region from the globe.
Regional variability != global climate!!!!
Muppets!
:-)
mike, do you think anyone actually reads your tripe anymore?
BBD, stop. Did you even look at that graph? As far as pathetic dishonesty goes, it's a corker.
Try to understand the *facts* Gordy and "Karen". Not lies from Goddard and WTFUWT.
The facts.
The facts!!
Muppets!!
@ Stu
Crikey! WTFUWT???!!!
What bollocks these liars dish out. You'd have to be an absolute fucking moron to be fooled by that!
Oh!
:-)
Thanks for that. Not. I wouldn't have looked except that you recommended it. Still, I suppose it gave someone with a ruler and one of those gigantic boxes of crayons an hour or so's entertainment to draw all the various lines before they found the combination they liked best.
Interestingly, "Goddard's" graph appears to be absolutely dishonest, as in made-up shite.
The correct method for examining England temperature anomalies is to use the full England data set and a stated baseline - here the 1981 - 2010 climatology.
An *informative* view of the data is provided by looking at each month, not lumping together (averaging? WTF did he do?) Jan - August. Anyone interested in comparing "Goddard's" deliberately deceptive pig's breakfast with actual Met Office monthly data can easily do so, thus proving to themselves that "Goddard" is a liar.
By far the hardest part is finding the right page on the Met Office web site, but I've done that for you!
Click here!
- Now, from the "Country" list, pick England.
- From the "Climate variable" list pick mean temperature.
- Use the "Period" option to view monthly anomalies, seasonal anomalies or the annual anomaly.
If you look at the monthly anomalies JFMAMJJA you will see that "Goddard's" graph is a false representation.
As usual. The man is a liar.
On the up side Adelady, I hadn't seen those Met Office visualisations you linked to, so I found something new to play with, at least. Gracias! It turns out even the Gourd is not a completely ill wind.
el gordolocks evacuated with this:
HTF would he know?
In a way that echoes Ann Coulter or the 890 Squadron insignia.
Here you see your glorious hockey stick and my tipping point ... its the end of the Modern Climate Optimum in the UK.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
FrankD
Bookmark the page or you will never find them again!
Many venture into the Met Office website and never return!
FFS GORDY
*Will* you read the fucking links?!
Shut up. Stop posting shit you don't even understand and go back to the previous page. I've shown you how to review the England temperature data properly. So fuck off and do it.
Can't you understand that the CET isn't even England? It's just a region. It's not even representative of England let alone the UK.
You stupid arse!
Don't be unkind to witches, Lionel.
But BBD, if you know stuff, you can't be a denier or entertain whacko theories like 'global cooling'. Those kind of entertainments are only viable for the ignorant, and the more pig-ignorant the better. Not caring when anonymous liars are shown to be so helps enormously too.
And whatever you do, don't trust government information sources compiled by competent professionals. They only spoil the fantasy.
So you are saying the CET is valueless?
Well, Labor said something about climate science, so Tony has to pronounce it to be wrong. Same thing goes for all sorts of other policies (right up until the moment Tony adopts them as his own).
Doesn't matter if it actually is wrong or not, because all he cares about is grabbing power by opposing. Simplest thing in the world, if you're happy to deceive half of Australia and then put your hand on your heart and try to fake a sincere looking "trust me". And saves all that pesky consideration of inconvenient stuff like "evidence" and "logic" - or even "finances for emissions mitigation".
That's terrific Loth, Opposition leaders in a democracy are expected to offer an alternative, to sway the public imagination to elect them over the incumbent.
Climate change was not an election issue, Abbott had already been talking for years that he was running on a platform to get rid of the carbon tax. Hip pocket nerve stuff, makes the subject less complicated.
More on CET
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fi…
Gordon, think about your question.
Information is never of no value, even when outdated. Where you're going wrong is applying it incorrectly. If you want to know how things have been in the area around Birmingham England, it's fine. If you want to know how things have been in the whole UK, it's not. Nor the British Isles, nor Northern Europe.
Now imagine the degree of numptiness required to apply it to the entire Northern hemisphere, because that's what happens frequently when misapplied in denier fantasy land.
Now think about your original question again, then consider how stupid it was.
"Jeff Harvey is a spurt on the jetstream, he told us all it was going to collapse some time ago., seriously"
Another out and out blatant lie. But Karen's good at it. All of the deniers are. They've mastered the art.
The first graph in that link illustrates clearly what is happening, world temperatures have plateaued, while in the UK temperatures have fallen.
Gordy #8
What chek said!
Now, back to work:
The correct method for examining England temperature anomalies is to use the full England data set and a stated baseline – here the 1981 – 2010 climatology.
Met Office data page.
For an *informative* view of the data:
- Pick England from the “Country” list.
- Pick mean temperature from the “Climate variable” list.
- Use the “Period” option to view monthly anomalies, seasonal anomalies or the annual anomaly.
If you look at the monthly anomalies JFMAMJJA you will see that “Goddard’s” graph is a false representation.
Likewise you will see that the CET isn't representative of England as a whole, still less the UK and not at all of the Northern Hemisphere. Both "Goddard" and WTFUWT are engaged in blatant misrepresentation. And you've just demonstrated this to yourself!
Bravo!!
Why not continue in this vein? Educate yourself instead of allowing yourself to be tricked by liars and shills? Debunking misrepresentations is fun! You never know, you might get a taste for it and end up like us!
:-)
Someone really should tell Tony that. He's been doing it wrong. No real alternative offered, simply a lot of shouting that the government is illegitimate and incompetent, whilst his own team engage in a massive comedy of policy errors.
(Did you hear the one about the Internet filter that was defended by Turnbull and Abbott, before being withdrawn the same day? You know how they have said for months that their policies are all completed and properly costed just waiting to go...er, seems like they weren't entirely truthful about that.)
Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuulshit! It clearly played a significant role - three years of lying about the science and the carbon tax and its impacts, backed by major media, had a clear impact.
And on that front the Guardian is reporting that Tony will screw voters who want to elect him to "save them money" by removing the carbon pricing mechanism. It's apparently going to cost several billion dollars to remove it, rather than save money. And taxpayers will pay.
And that's before we add in the waste of money on Direct Action. Which taxpayers will also pay for.
Caveat voter.
And Australia has just had the hottest 12 months since records began. And the UK is *tiny*. And you are a cretin for repeating this out-of-context rubbish!
These are the facts:
The facts.
Why do you keep ignoring them? Why am I forced to type this out again?
What is wrong with your brain, Gordy?
Read the fucking words.
BB March is not a trend, give me a break.
Here's Spring.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/news/Manytemperatureanomaliesinnor…
Lothie said: "It’s apparently going to cost several billion dollars to remove it, rather than save money. And taxpayers will pay."
wrong Lothie.......
"But the Coalition will also lose out on $13.51bn in forgone revenue from businesses that no longer have to pay for their carbon emissions. Therefore, removing the carbon price will cost Australia a net $6.04bn in the period until 2016-17."
"forgone revenue" means the tax payer saves, no more co2 extortion tax.
There is no cost to government, it just means that they won't be stealing $6.04bn off the taxpayer.
Fuckin' bored.
@ #17
You are being quite appallingly shit-headed today. Read the fucking words. I even emboldened them for you and *still* you play the twat with me:
@ #18
No. Here's Northern Hemisphere Spring.
Go back and read #16 again.
You are mentally ill.
Well fuck of then, Luke.
But not back to Nova's eh? Because you are banned, aren't you?
Gordy
To spare us all more pain, no more of your shite about the CET please. This has all now been dealt with.
Go back to #14 and do the work yourself. Stop talking.
Er, no, Karen. You're conflating "individual taxpayer" and "business taxpayer" as Joe and Tony hope voters will.
"Revenue" here is revenue to the government. The government gets $13.5 billion less than it would otherwise have got and spends about 7 billion less than it otherwise would have spent. That means the government has 6 billion less than it would otherwise have. In this situation businesses have paid less tax, but this isn't saving ordinary taxpayers any tax, nor is it giving them any extra benefits. (They've actually taken away some shared national benefits to get this far.)
Are you really going to rely on businesses passing on the tax savings to consumers to make up the difference?
Pull the other one.
Oh is that how the scam goes down. I see. Screw the taxpayer and big business pays less tax!
How very Tory.
Come on, BBD, I know you're nowhere near as old as me, but you must know the economic imperative by now ...
Privatise your profits, socialise your losses. Win!
Indeed. And you won't be able to say things like that next year if this devious bill passes and becomes law. The first red flag was its launch date, the day before the Summer recess began - little wonder we should be suspicious.
The like of same will be coming to Oz soon if the Wizard of gets control. Except its the hands up his 'cough' that will really be in control. Unless you are amongst those latter gordolocks, spamcan, loopy-luke (isn't there a song 'Here we go loopy luke, here we go loopy lie) then you had better watch out too.
Lotharsson, BBD: weather in England
It's only weaher!!
All: "It's always AGW speculation"
Repeat:
All: "It's always AGW speculation"
Again repeat:
All: "It's always AGW speculation"
Very good, pupils. No you can sit down and be silent!!!!!!
Well go educate yourself. You have had plenty of pointers including some from here: Books of Interest.
#26 adelady
Oh I was always dismal at the dismal "science". But oddly, once one gets away from textbooks and into the real world, it's all so much clearer!
Steal by stealth and offshore the wealth!
:-)
FreddyKaiTroll
You make far too much noise without actually ever saying anything. Let's see you do some work for once.
Answer this question:
If GHGs are an inefficacious forcing, what physical mechanism explains the PETM?
Off you go!
Oooh!
You can hear a pin drop in here!
:-)
Oh come on Freddy!
Play the game!
:-)
Karen #59 previous page: you're actually quoting The Washington Times... the Moonies newspaper? How does that enhance your credibility?
Isn't that like asking a dog that's just learned to shit on the curtains how that improves its housetraining?
[Chorltes]
But it is fuckin' boring. A tiresome tirade of insults from numb nuts and Walter Mitty types. Why is BBD here - doesn't the tool have a life?
FFS, how many irony meters does it take to get through a week here?
And in other news, here's a large pdf (around 26MB) discussing climate changes contribution to some extreme weather events.
http://www.ametsoc.org/2012extremeeventsclimate.pdf
Don't you know there are gadgets that make keeping up with trivia as easy as a morning fart!
Catch up, old boy. The world is leaving you behind.
:-)
* * *
You haven't said anything for a long time, so why not take the Freddy Challenge?
Here is Germany's temperature in August for the past two decades.
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/index.php?eID=tx_cms_showpic&file=uplo…
Hmmmm..... that failed. I'll look further.
With all due respect Luke... what are you doing here? You haven't tried to contribute to the debate. Just posting a bunch of links and adding no content is not very productive is it? What is your aim?
Gordy
Here is global average temperature since 1979.
Click me!
Global. Not. Regional.
Try to understand.
And Luke, where is your response to The Freddy Challenge?
I know you think I'm a Cainozoic (Cenozoic, these days!) Creepy, but this is an ad hom rather than a response to *all* the questions I have asked you about Cenozoic climate change and CO2!
So let's have some substance out of your for once, big mouth!
:-)
I dunno, about the same number as the jars of cream to soothe the inflammation from all the head-desking and face-palming. And, btw, who knows how to word the insurance claim for the damage to my lovely antique table from all this?
The thing is BB, as Michael Mann once pointed out, the LIA began regionally and I'm looking for signals.
The come down from the MWP wasn't uniform.
Gordy
Here's the GISTEMP, HadCRUT4 and UAH TLT global average temperatures for August only 1979 - present.
The 1979 start date is not arbitrary nor a cherry-pick. It is when the satellite data record begins.
The MWP wasn't uniform, just like it wasn't global.
I wonder if Gordon will twig that the MWP myth is based on the CET record, and apply his new understanding?
Nah - I think he'd rather take out his teeth with a chainsaw than re-evaluate a cherished myth.
#47
The signal you are blanking is in plain view. Regionally and globally. Australia has just had the warmest consecutive 12 months since records began. 2012 was the hottest year in N America since records began.
SH and NH records broken!
Wake up, Gordy!
Bernard J @#79 previous page.
I agree that higher education standards have slipped but I think you need to actually hold the education system itself responsible for that problem, not the people who have gone through that system.
As you also pointed out, general literacy standards have improved in Australia.
Unless you are advocating that people below some pre determined IQ or education level should be banned from voting you are essentially just opining a drop in higher education standards.
I don't really think that has done anything to change the voting/electorate behaviour in Australia.
I don't wish to be offensive, but much of the commenting at that site looks to be what Luke and Jeff called 'old codgers' whinging about the younger generation.
'The MWP wasn’t uniform, just like it wasn’t global.'
The MWP was universal, just like the LIA, but obviously there were lags in the system from one state to another.
BB we have to stick with trends and then analyse the weather around it.
In the US this year a lot of summer temperature records were broken on the cool side. Its clearly a wobbly jet stream, but still doesn't give us much to hang our hats on.
No. And you have been shown the scientific evidence repeatedly, so fuck off with your counter-factual blether!
:-)
Summer and Winter are universal too. Oddly enough, they don't seem to occur globally at the same time.
NH and SH records broken 2012 and 2013. Plus lots of data linked for you above. Do fuck off with your nonsense!
These 'lags' of yours seem to be some kind of explain-all as far as I can see from your usage of the term.
Inconvenient data? That'll be 'lags'.
Incontrovertible warming trend? Another lag before the cooling.
Unsynchronised warming over the globe spread over 400 years? Yep, it's those lags at it again.
You can see why what seems a cast iron, 'get out of jail free' card to you is an utter fucking joke of the order of magic beans I trust, Gordon? What you dearly wish will explain everything, explains nothing except your willingness to embrace gullible tripe.
Rational people study the data and then build a case. Nutters have a case then pick the data that fits. And if it doesn't, they invent stuff. Like 'lags', that will hammer that square peg into that round hole come what may.
All of which is getting way over your pointy head Gordon so I'll desist.
Just came across an interesting blog by Isaac Held that discusses various climate related issues.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/
I get this nagging feeling that our star has a bigger part to play.
A recent dissertation by Czymzik et al. refutes the claim by Mojib Latif that the flooding in Germany earlier this year is related to AGW.
'We present a 5500-year record comprising 1573 flood layers in varved lake sediments. Microfacies data from two sediment profiles enabled deciphering depositional processes.
'Shifts towards higher flood intensity occurred at ∼5500, 2800, and 400 varve years BP. Proposed triggers are gradual reduction in NH orbital summer forcing and solar activity minima.'
CO2 input was not mentioned.
"Just posting a bunch of links and adding no content is not very productive is it?" I was just copying the watermelons here. Sorry.
No, this doesn't "refute" anything. The slow waning of precessional forcing over the last ~10ka has nothing to do with climate change over the last century. In fact recent warming bucks the astronomically-forced trend. This is a conclusion of Marcott et al. (2013):
OR "Just posting a bunch of links and adding no content is not very productive is it?" Can I help it if you're a dumb cunt and don't get the import.
Luke
What about the Freddy Challenge??
Come on, big mouth! Say something.
:-)
El Gordo - you're dealing with MWP deniers. I wouldn't bother. McIntyre has so shredded all this crap now that only Deltoid dickless lepers isolated here on island still believe. The MWP wasn't global - hahahahahahahaha - fucking clowns.
You think they'ed at least say well if it happened on top of CO2 forcing or give you a mega-drought lecture. They're just so fucking tedious. I saw this article on testicle eating fish - probably explains BBD - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/testicleeating-fish-the-pacu-found…
Obviously climate change.
Uuurrp!
What the fuck are you on, Luke!
;-)
Fancy a clown called BBD who spends late night hours haunting this blog, too tired the next day to look after Johnny, would be bothered pointlessly arguing for years with blow-ins with more common sense than him. He could of course have actually manned a post and done something useful but instead he's wasted his miserable life here picking up dicks dropped by Deltoid lepers. Jeez. Couldn't you cuntz have written a comprehensive Wiki or something useful. At least John Cook has some text to read.
Never could answer a straight question, could you, Luke!
Take the Freddy Challenge!
;-)
Yes, well as I was sayin', Lake Ammersee in southern Germany has a good paleo record of flood activity and what Czymzik et al. are suggesting is that solar minima is the trigger.
Following on from Svensmark, the increased development of low cloud because of cosmic ray bombardment ties in very nicely.
I'm a Scafetta fan.
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/scafetta-forecast.png
I can only give you a confidence interval, but I can report there's a fairly strong correlation with the number of posts by one "Luke".
Interesting. I'm guessing this is what Luke calls "objectivity" when he claims that no-one else here except the el gordo and Karens of this world has any.
He's right. He's talking about a very special kind of "objectivity" that isn't ... well, objective and isn't anywhere near up to date with the research.
Although that use of the word would explain why his comments keep breaking my latest irony meter.
The updated figs show the divergence from the IPCC projections very clearly in that graph eg.
Your comment is awaiting moderation!
Why?
Staying in Europe, looking for global cooling signals....
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/new-paper-finds-2009-2010-…
OK, I'm gonna whine for a while. But not about anyone here.
I am sick to d.e.a.t.h. of these stupid How many elephants? comparisons for things that are perfectly sensible. We are now reduced to "Toastie-nomics" - how many toasted sandwiches can you make for a certain amount of power and how many times would a stack that high go round the equator or go towards the moon. Brings out all my incipient old-fartness, I'm afraid.
In an article which talks about how much power was generated in the past month, that is real, not hypothetical, it's actually happened, and saying how many Opera Houses, toasted sandwiches or annual household uses that was equivalent to.
Why not say how many households were attributable to that power supply for the period it was supplied? What a novel suggestion. Something real related to another something real? What a concept, it'll never catch on!
These people are supposedly trying to promote wind power. Surely saying something like 'last month's wind power production was enough to supply almost 2 million of Australia's households for the month' or however you want to express it plainly before you go into comparisons and analogies. All this malarkey about how many toasted sandwiches might get part of the way to the moon is just nonsense. Though I might put it into materials for schools so that teachers can put together nifty graphics for kids to ooh and aah over. (Though most kids would think it's just as daft as I do.)
http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/cec/mediaevents/media-releases/Sep…
Constant data manipulation of "scientists" of post-normal "climatology" towards AGW ideology compliant directions:
temperature data
ice data
tide data
weather station data
etc.
etc.
Is anybody of the AGW ideology church addicts (Lothasson, BBD, Linel, chek etc.) interested to get informed about incredible climate data manipulations by IPCC related ?
...and failing to spot the contradiction in your own sentence.
Marcott et al. denies the MWP in the first sentence, so I didn't read any further. Its a weird Orwellian thingy.
'Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time.'
My bad, I meant to say regional cooling signals. Thanx.
@Gordo: for fuck's sake, Scafetta has been addressed before.
For the lurkers, a recap. First some background, courtesy desmog:
"Scafetta was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's Sixth International Conference on Climate Change."
"It appears that Scafetta refused to release the code to the software he used in this study. This meant that his results could not be replicated by climate scientists."
Anyhoo.
This is Scafetta's "model". It's a goddamned joke. Behold the first graph here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1293&p=2
Additional guffaws can be found here (links gimped intentionally in hopes this comment doesn't get hung up)
h_ttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/a-phenomenological-seque…
h_ttp://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/mathturbation-king/
We have told you this before, Gordo. Calling yourself a Scafetta fan after that makes you monumentally stupid, blatantly dishonest, or both.
Freddy:
Yes, do tell sweetheart. Lay it all out for us. I'll be right back after I make some popcorn.
She should be jailed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pzSvSCUZo
Oh boy, we're going to need baby steps here.
Are CDL/CRV schemes a tax?
Baby steps for Stu, 1st glowbull warming lesson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0gUi0pUP7s
"McIntyre has so shredded all this crap now that only Deltoid dickless lepers isolated here on island still believe"
If Luke truly believes this, then no wonder most of us here think he's a complete idiot. And the reference to 'lepers' is duly noted. Berendaneke (Freddy) uses it all the time. You shits aren't even original. You cut and paste your insults for each others use,
The data denies the MWP, no matter how big a dummy Luke spits. You and Luke are the ones denying the data, not Marcott et al.
But you know this already.
I like the graph Stu.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/LSvsMobergvsLoehleAll.png
What colour is the sky on your planet?
Jailed for what exactly? Doing exactly what our democracy is set up to do by negotiating agreements including policies with other parties to attempt to form a minority government? Just like Mr. Abbott was doing at the very same time?
(You seem to have failed to recall that Gillard also said, as reported by The Australian, that she was determined to put a price on carbon. Meanwhile Tony Abbott had also advocated for a "simple carbon tax" in preference to a trading scheme which was what Labor instituted.)
It's amazing how easy it is to mislead a significant portion of the population, even about basics like the workings of our democracy.
Lothie, it's looking like the idiot barnturd will have to hold a wake for the greens :)
That's nice. Have you thought about what that graph would look like if you tried to extend all of those pretty coloured lines back a decade or two further? What about a century or more?
I strongly, heartily, recommend that link to Tamino's takedown of this climastrology.
It shows the MWP fairly clearly.
Gordy
Bleat away, little sheep. There was no global, synchronous MWP. Sorry!
Feel free to deny the data!
I like this graph!
All the pretty colours!
;-)
#65 Testicle eating fish eh Luke? Posting more bollocks as usual.
bye bye Flannery :)
bye bye Steffen :)
bye bye carbon tax :)
Scarfetta plot says that Hadcrut 3 and ipcc 2007 have baseline period 1900-2000, whereas Hadcrut 3 actually used 1961-1990.
His plot also shows that from 2000 to 2013 the temperature went up 0.24 C. And he's one of the deniers' favourites????!!!
I'm going to recant Scafetta because of this ridiculous comment.
'The climate will likely stay steady until 2030/2040 and may warm by about 0.3-1.2 °C by 2100.'
Lesson's for policy makers.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/1974-ehrlich-and-holdren-s…
More flat-out physics denial from Gordy, who has yet to take up the Freddy Challenge!
Wonder why?
Could it be because it would cause problems for people indulging in physics denial?
Could that be it?
:-)
Karen #97
Yet again you are using the apostrophe incorrectly! Get a grip, you illiterate clown!
Did someone mention Marcott ?
"Marcott et al. make this startling admission:
Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?
A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.
Got that?
In case you missed it, I repeat:
. . . the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes . . ."
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/fixing-marcott-mess-in-cli…
"Yet again you are using the apostrophe incorrectly! Get a grip, you illiterate clown!"
lol's
THREE CHEERS
FOR THE DEATH
OF THE
HARMLESS GAS TAX :)
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Karen repeats the clarification Marcott put out specifically to correct the mistaken interpretation of denialists so favoured of Karen, in the mistaken impression it supports her position.
It's difficult to learn to clown troll like this, you have to be either very determined to be stupid, or be born to it.
Karen
Your ignorance and stupidity are boundless!
Got that?
Shall we check?
They don't base any of their conclusions on the "uptick". They do not use it.
You fucking clown!
Pielke had his thick head up his arse over this too.
Idiots!
Lotharsson - we crossed, sorry.
On a general note, it's good to see the blog working again properly.
This, dear Lurker, is how the denial machine works. Large amounts of faux-controversy are generated by prominent "sceptics" whenever something they really don't like emerges, such as Marcott et al. (2013).
The not-very-bright-but-always-on spammers and trolls then infest every blog from which they are not actively barred with repetitions of the half-baked nonsense they have been fed by their ringmasters.
Despite endless correction, they then repeat the balderdash for ever, and ever, amen.
This is anti-science propaganda being used to create confusion and doubt.
If that's accurate, then it's interesting timing.
The extension of the observation to certain aspects of Australian politics is left as an exercise for the reader.
#7
I actually wondered out loud here a couple of pages back if the DOS would stop after the election. And as if by magic!
With a bit of luck the more egregious trolling will die down somewhat too.
Speaking of egregious, I wonder what happened to Betty? He's really gone, hasn't he?
Can't believe SpanKan tried to misrepresent that Marcott et al comment here, complete with the underlining "Got that?" interrogative. Do they really think everybody is as stupid as ... oh wait, I guess that's one of the measures of clowns.
I read a story that Romney pulled the plug on his election office funding as soon as the 2012 US results became apparent. Credit cards stopped and accounts closed forthwith, so much so that some of his hapless staffers who'd stayed behind to tidy up their offices found their taxis home were not paid for and had to stump up the cash themselves.
We can but hope.
So please explain, with references, how that works.
Can't be done, Lionel. But should the surface be scratched it'll be their 'hockey stick is broken' myth that sustains the alternate reality they live in.
Is it true that Austrialia's war on science has ended? ;-)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/07/australia-liberated-from-their-lo…
We can infer that yours hasn't, Olap.
Chin up cheek! ;-)
The end here!
is
Well, form the WUWT post, its clear exactly wear Watts and his cronies wear their political colors - and Olaus and the other ass**** who contaminate the blogosphere. Far-right libertarian free market absolutists. Writing, "Open for Business" is merely a metaphor for "Open for deregulation and environmental plunder". And its not just a reference to climate change denial. Oh no. It goes way beyond that. It includes any area dealing with environmental protection: pollution laws, protecting natural forests and wetlands and other critical habitats. All of this will be wiped away. The environment is private property to be used and abused as necessary to maximize profits. And, as Olaus ignorantly points out,. this is what the new Oz government will pursue.
Well done Ollie. You just demonstrated what a right wing twit you, WUWT and the other climate change denial blogs really are.
No it isn't, you're just as stupid and inept as ever Olap.
Karen: "bye bye Flannery, bye bye Steffen, bye bye carbon tax"
Bye bye wetlands, bye bye forests, bye bye biodiversity, bye bye vital ecosystem services...
hello inflation as goods increase in price as a result...
As for the election result in Australia, Sou has some mollifying words here, worth a read for those, like me, who know little about the Australian political structure.
Well. Astonishingly, we have not one single taker for the Freddy Challenge, which (as gentle lurkers and fellow combatants may by now need reminding) was to answer this question:
If GHGs are an inefficacious forcing, what physical mechanism explains the PETM?
Indeed, Freddy simply vanished and hasn't been seen since. Luke's big mouth abruptly closed and hasn't been heard since. Gordy and Karen remain uncharacteristically silent. And so on.
#21 Lionel A.
Read earlier, with interest. A really good, balanced bit of reportage by Sou. Better than much of the guff in the papers. Recommended.
This would have to be the most stupid fuckwitted comment from the blog devotee who professes to be very smart
"Bye bye wetlands, bye bye forests, bye bye biodiversity, bye bye vital ecosystem services…
hello inflation as goods increase in price as a result…"
What an amazing amount of utter dogshit. What rot. What tripe. How does a small insignificant action by Australia affect anything except the level of dementia in Jeff's brain. What utter drivel.
BBD - you putrid little creep - unlike yourself we have a life and don't need to be here 24x7 - so if we're not here 24x7 with you to answer your every thought fart - "we've disappeared". BTW I quote PETM to El Gordo all the time - so fuck off. I don't read half the crap you write and at this point I am totally amused and your ongoing conspiracy theories.
So why not answer the question, Luke?
BBD political propagandist and climate layman
Well. Astonishingly, we have not one single taker for the Freddy Challenge, which (as gentle lurkers and fellow combatants may by now need reminding) was to answer this question:
If GHGs are an inefficacious forcing, what physical mechanism explains the PETM?
Indeed, Freddy simply vanished and hasn’t been seen since. Luke’s big mouth abruptly closed and hasn’t been heard since. Gordy and Karen remain uncharacteristically silent. And so on.
As far as I know there is no Freddy as commenter here active, so you talk to a wall, typical for you.
Your stubborn fixation on paleoclimatology is ridiculous since this happened long time ago and nobody was there to watch. Forget this crap. It's boring, irrelevant and wrong.
You shoud provide some evidenc that CO2 heats the air by x degrees Celsius. Try it, greenpisser
@Jeff: it's hard to bet against a denialist being libertarian, bigoted and a MRA.
Oh, and I forgot publicly educated and almost certainly depending on some sort of government assistance. Not that there's anything wrong with these last two, but it's hard to ignore he hypocrisy, lack of self-awareness, general dickholishness as well as the stupendous irony of it all.
Jeez you're so tedious - I am in agreement that GHG forcing is the best explanation for the the PETM.
Freddy, you're not fooling anyone sweetheart.
So anyone saying "the climate was warmer before", "Eemian herpa-derpa" is ridiculous? Have you told your fellow denialists, cupcake? They seem determined to bring it up over and over.
#28 Thank you Luke!
Now what puzzles me is why you are sceptical about the scientific consensus that a very rapid increase in GHGs will cause significant warming on a centennial scale. Why is that?
It's also odd that you allow the constant stream of physics denial by certain commenters here to pass uncorrected. Why is that?
And one other thing. When did you last comment at Jo Nova's? I don't recall you answering that question, which is peculiar given that you constantly exhort commenters here to go to JN's.
Berendaneke
So you have asserted before. Please explain your reasoning. Please answer the question:
If GHGs are an inefficacious forcing, what physical mechanism explains the PETM?
Ah, the Ken Ham defence.
First time I've seen that used here.
BBD - The consensus position is far from perfect.
"constant stream of physics denial by certain commenters here to pass uncorrected" well who cares really - fucks will be fucks - getting the consensus shortcomings sorted is more important. You guys swing at every wide ball and allow yourselves to get towed around the pond and you also love to chase rabbits. You can show some leadership you know.
When did I last comment at Nova's - truthfully not sure. If you go too hard you get snipped. My Dead Agro's drive-by was recent but maybe not the last. Dunno - is it important?
"Why exhort commenters to go over there" - well don't care that much really - but on some issues - like power generation you'll get a decent debate. And you need to immerse yourself in the opposition milieu - but you don't need to get too upset over it. Half the time I'm just fucking with ya.
So, unser Swiss freund is a creationist as well? Who knew?
Freddy, there have been numerous sensitivity studies. Look them up. They say its 3 degrees for a doubling of CO2.
*That* is the best answer currently available to us - an answer provided by science.
Because, oh brain of small disconnected parts, Australia happens to be sitting on enough 'black diamonds' (Jules Verne) the burning of which would cause a greater than doubling of CO2, tons of toxic sludge and great distress to one of the worlds natural wonder 'The Great Barrier Reef' through plans to transship the stuff through it. Then there is the development along the Indian Ocean coast of Western Australia which will now probably be pursued with even greater vigour.
One really has to have their head deep in the sands of the outback to not appreciate all this.
You are the one that writes ill-informed drivel luke.
Luke
Scientific knowledge is always imperfect. That is not an argument for dismissing the scientific consensus that a rapid increase in RF will cause a significant warming on a centennial scale. Which is what is at issue here. Rather, it is nit-picking. Nit-picking is not a robust scientific counter-argument to the scientific consensus. That is notably lacking.
But there's a hell of a lot of nit-picking.
Perhaps a better use of your time would be correcting the arrant shite spewed out by others?
'Bye bye wetlands, bye bye forests, bye bye biodiversity, bye bye vital ecosystem services…'
Abbott's Green Army will supposedly attend to those things.
'That would mean he would have to call another election.'
I want a double D election because it would be over a single issue.... climate change. The MSM would be full of it and how the people will laff when they realise CO2 is a harmless trace gas.
Wait, is Abbott proposing to buy boats from human smugglers? Just full of bright ideas, isn't he?
Open admission of drive-by trolling on another blog. Luke, most trolls are smart enough to keep this to themselves.
I just realized Gordo is so fucking stupid he's just cribbing. Behold.
http://debatewise.org/debates/455-co2-does-not-cause-global-warming/
Your foolishness and denial does its bit, Gordy!
What you did in the climate wars!
Bravo, Clown!
Be sure to tell your grandchildren.
;-)
The significance of a Coalition win is that it will allow heretics to speak openly about climate change, without being abused by friends and family.
Being a pariah has not been fun.
I'm sure you'll be at pains to point out that your "harmless trace gas" supports the entire vegetable kingdom (I'm putting this in terms Gordon can understand, unlike the Plasticene Easyplan Thermador Maxipop that he and The Lukes are forever rabbiting on about down the pub) as well as acting as a thermal storage equaliser that helps stop the night side of the Earth from freezing.
Yes, I'm sure you will. It's at the top of the cretins' list of what 'harmless trace gases' do.
Oh Gordy, you ain't seen nothing yet. And perhaps you won't. It depends on how old you are and how long you live.
The science-denying right, however, will pay the price for what it has done, in the end. Physics will make sure of that.
Being a pariah has not been fun. I don't think you're going to enjoy your future then.
'Physics will make sure of that.'
I agree, Svensmark's theory has legs.
With so many people brainwashed into thinking CO2 is a 'pollutant', I'm sure you can appreciate we still have a lot of work to do.
Ah, takes me back. To when the future was so bright...
I had to wear shades!
No Gordon, Svensmark hasn't gained any traction for over ten years and only cranks like you keep hanging on like grim death to his minor-league hypothesis. Lockwood showed no solar correlation and Sloan showed the same for GCRs.
If fossil fuel corporations didn't fund the anything-but-CO2 circus, you'd never have heard of him, let alone pretend to have any understanding of what he's talking about.
Actually, no, it doesn't. Do look up the Laschamp excursion sometime. If you want a solid piece of evidence that the GCR/cloud effect does not produce a significant change in climate, that is it.
Failing that, there's a pile of recent studies that say the same thing.
Here are a few:
Evan et al. (2007)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL028083/abstract
Klein & Hartmann (1993)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/93GL00211/abstract
Marchand (2013)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50207/abstract
The theory that a quiet sun allows more cosmic rays to bombard earth, makes sense. This in turn sees the increase in microscopic cloud nuclei, forming clouds, which reflect solar radiation back into space.
Awww, man - I recall rocking my two month old son around the room to that (he's a 26 year old microbiology PhD student now). And it became a cynical catchphrase (yes! even back then!) in response to grandiose post-privatisation pronouncements the BT office where I worked at the time.
All post the BBC's Threads film, and Schell's Fate of the Earth book and Chernobyl of course.
À la recherche du temps perdu.
Let me correct that sentence for you Gordon:
"The theory that a quiet sun allows more cosmic rays to bombard earth, makes sense" to my pig-ignorant, anti-scientific, poorly informed, wishful-thinking, no science knowledge whatsoever, politically charged alcohol damaged brain that is incapable of admitting that what's been sold to me as a harmless trace gas is responsible for more than I could ever imagine.
Isn't that closer to the actual truth Gordon?
This is not how it works, Gordy.
Hypotheses are tested against evidence.
For example:
Laken et al. (2012) A cosmic ray-climate link and cloud observations
Sloan & Wolfendale (2011) The contribution of cosmic rays to global warming
#53
I dread to think how my little lad will turn out, what with all the neglect and all!
:-)
@58 You'll be OK I think, from what I've gleaned so far.
Although I'd counsel with the utmost gravity to avoid divorce whatever it takes and no matter how unlikely it seems now
.
Certainly my sole regret in a somewhat colourful life, in that it affects others in ways beyond imagining,
'Evidence from ground-based studies suggests that some weak but statistically significant cosmic ray-cloud relationships may exist at regional scales, involving mechanisms related to the global electric circuit. '
That might be worth following up.
Trolling = anyone who disagrees with you according to Deltoids. Sock puppet - using any tag. Nova comments were appropriate and on-topic. Get straight fucked Stu! and and and - how perfect - now disagreeing with Nova is "trolling"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH you stupid fucking clowns
"Perhaps a better use of your time would be correcting the arrant shite spewed out by others?"
why bother here - you utterly obsessed 24x7 circle jerkers can do that quite well all be yourself. Who could get a word in? Taken Johnny to the park lately BBD - tried not blogging for a few weeks?
But you haven't answered the question.
Given the paleoclimate evidence, why are you sceptical about the scientific consensus that a very rapid increase in GHGs will cause significant warming on a centennial scale. Why is that?
.... says the utterly bankrupt hypocrite known as The Lukes,
"Scientific knowledge is always imperfect. That is not an argument for dismissing the scientific consensus that a rapid increase in RF will cause a significant warming on a centennial scale. Which is what is at issue here. Rather, it is nit-picking. Nit-picking is not a robust scientific counter-argument to the scientific consensus. That is notably lacking."
I DON'T THINK SO !
oh do play with your dick - a consensus of 2.4 to 6.4 broad as a barn. Without as I have well demonstrated a bunch of key points under questions. And an emerging debate that sensitivity might be even lower.
Your task is to realise how government science works - I hope you are not some cossetted idealistic university fuck like Jeff? - how the whole meme is crafted and learn not to believe absolutely everything served up to you.
The poor behaviour of the models should be enough to have you massively concerned. (Storch etc)
It's a blog. It's not the IPCC Working group meetings. It's for discussion.
And if you are to convince people - well I'd just disagree with you coz you behave like a cunt. Try exploring other people's issues and convince them without the tiresome appeal to authority.
Just to pile on, Gordo: what makes sense to you doesn't make a lick of difference. Rational scientific behavior is to examine the evidence and accept where it leads you, whether you like it or not.
You don't like climate change. You ignore evidence for it even when we slap you around with it. You pretend nothing was said and go right back to your default "well, this is what I want to believe so this makes sense to me" position.
It's worse than religious apologetics, because at least most religions are smart enough to be untestable (by design) -- so in any semi-honest conversation the apologist bows out with some form of "well, you can't prove a negative, it's all about faith anyway, goodnight".
This is a little different. Denialists range from the clinically insane (Monckton), to the I CAN PLAY WITH EXCEL! crowd (Scafetta, Tol), to the monumentally stupid (Watts, Montford), to the just-pay-me-Exxon (the Idso clan), to the should-know-better-but-probably-looking-for-that-paycheck (Curry)... but there's no "agree to disagree" here. Nobody LIKES AGW, but the evidence is simply overwhelming.
Accept it.
Maybe then we can have the far more interesting conversation on what to do about it. And no, carbon taxes are not necessarily the perfect answer.
Anyone want to have a serious conversation?
@chek #58
Thank you! Whilst dear Luke will frott into a fury about circle-jerks, he cannot actually stop civilised discourse!
The long game. I am only a humble student. We'll see if I fuck it up or not in due course.
I'm far from convinced by the palaeo evidence.You love it as it suits your misery guts cataclysmic personality. I simply see it as a foggy window into a foggy past.
The consensus isn't certain ! The consensus has a range. The models are fucking not working. Santa has stolen the trop hotspot. Antarctica is gaining ice. Antarctic sea ice is growing. Extreme events droughts and floods are not getting worse. Evap is going the wrong way. The hockey stick is utter crap. The models are full of parameterisations and drift corrections. Multi-models averages plus or minus a barn are shit. Regional nesting is crap and masturbation.
Take Johnny to the park and give up worrying about the world for a few weeks.
@ Luke
You haven’t answered the question. Again.
Given the paleoclimate evidence, why are you sceptical about the scientific consensus that a very rapid increase in GHGs will cause significant warming on a centennial scale. Why is that?
'You don’t like climate change.'
Shit happens, I'm against the theory of AGW.
Argument from incredulity and from ignorance.
Two logical fallacies. You aren't saying anything.
"Nobody LIKES AGW, but the evidence is simply overwhelming."
No you cunts LOVE it. It makes your entire day. Go on admit it.
'It’s worse than religious apologetics'
You are a little confused, I'm the heretic.
Given the paleoclimate evidence, why are you sceptical about the scientific consensus that a very rapid increase in GHGs will cause significant warming on a centennial scale? Why is that?
Come on Luke!
Answer the question!
'Anyone want to have a serious conversation?'
Ask me a question?
I think El Gordo is wrong but strangely I don't feel the need to engage him. In fact later I'm going to leave the house and go outside where I may touch plants and animals. I may even engage in social conversation with friends and ask about their ordinary lives.
All your palaeo crap is built on proxies and models. The more you look the more we don't don't know. It's all just an assembled apocalyptic meme.
The same could be said for dinosaurs, but it isn't. Just climate change, from those anxious to void AGW.
Argument from incredulity and argument from ignorance. Argument from false assertion.
Given the paleoclimate evidence, why are you sceptical about the scientific consensus that a very rapid increase in GHGs will cause significant warming on a centennial scale? Why is that?
Who thinks that the commonsense, demonstrated by the Australian electorate, will SNOWBALL across the globe ?
Answer the question.
Why are you rejecting the scientific consensus? You are not qualified to do so, nor do you have a coherent scientific counter-argument. So what the fuck do you think you are doing?
'CLIMATE change is a hotly contested issue in Australia. An overwhelming majority of Australians, 84 per cent, wants to do something about it, yet a clear majority is against the present carbon tax.
'While Australia has brandished its good intentions in wanting to tackle this real problem, Labor and Coalition governments of the past 20 years have done little to tackle it.'
Bjorn Lomborg in the Oz
@Luke:
Nobody gives a shit about what you think, Luke. Or what I think, for that matter. That's not how science works. You pretending to be a scientist was truly one of the more pathetic overreaches seen here yet.
Evidence, Luke.
You really, really don't get out much, do you.
Nirvana fallacy. You really suck at this, Luke.
Obvious ans stupid lie. You've posted a ridiculous talking point manifesto that you obviously worked very hard on and are very proud of.
It has been addressed, in full, repeatedly. Just because you didn't like the answers does not mean they were not valid. Stop blaming others for pointing out your points are made of red herring in false dichotomy sauce with a sprinkling of outright lying. Stop pretending it wasn't addressed.
Again, Luke, you suck at this.
Emerging debate? You're a clown. All of it has been vigorously debated for decades, and continues to be vigorously debated every single day by actual scientists.
You don't like what they're saying. Hey, you have a right to do that. You even have the precious right to lie your pathetic basement-dwelling ass off about it. Just as we have the right to call you on your pathetic bullshit.
Oh, I know. I spent quite some time around it. You obviously did not.
Yes! Screw all those damned scientists at their damned universities and shit! So which one is it, Luke... were your grades too low to go? Did your parents not let you? Did you flunk out hard? Your education envy is palpable, Jonas Jr.
Dumbest. Conspiracy. Theory. Ever.
If an actual university scientist found proof climate change is a hoax, they'd be flying to Oslo within the year. You know it, I know it, but it just doesn't fit your conspiracy theory.
As has been pointed out to you multiple times now, every single climate model in the world could be wrong by a factor of 543728 (they're not, of course, they're doing very well, thank you). That's not the whole of climate science. There are these things called "measurements" that still point to unprecedented warming. And again, pretending that you're the only one who figured this out in between mawing down Doritos is sad and delusional. This is an active discussion between actual scientists.
If you like, please go back to computational inaccuracy. I could use another guffaw on my own turf.
So why are you trolling? You've admitted to doing it here, you've admitted to doing it on Nova's rag...
Wait, you're not here for the hunting, are you?
Bravo. That's the most incoherent and least self-aware attempt at tone trolling I've seen. Ever.
Even if I were a shrink, I wouldn't work for free. Besides, you have so much cognitive dissonance, misanthropy, delusions of grandeur and pathological lying going on that I don't think it would help.
*kapow*
Yeah, that broke even the industrial-strength irony meter. I'll have to see if the military makes a stronger one.
Remember, Luke? Remember when you said that you talked to your "bloke" and that he said OHC was crap?
Remember that? I do.
For the record, you have a "bloke" to fix your car. Or to mow your lawn. Or to get you weed. You don't have a "bloke" to tell you about climate science, you utter pillock.
@Gordo: maybe if I put it in bold, you'll actually read it. Stop being intellectually dishonest. Your family might read this.
You don’t like climate change. You ignore evidence for it even when we slap you around with it. You pretend nothing was said and go right back to your default “well, this is what I want to believe so this makes sense to me” position.
And what did you do, Gordo?
"Bjorn Lomborg "
Why do you take notice of a failed nobody with zero competence in the field?
Stu the science is never settled, even more now that the models have failed.
Chek I agree with you about Lomborg, only put up the link because of Stu's comment...
'Maybe then we can have the far more interesting conversation on what to do about it. And no, carbon taxes are not necessarily the perfect answer.'
My feeling is that state of the art coal fired power stations have a bright future in Oz.
The models haven't "failed" and what about paleoclimate? You don't seem to understand that irrespective of the models paleoclimate behaviour is solid evidence that S/2xCO2 is *at least* ~2C and more probably around 3C.
Evidence denial. Physics denial.
Remember to tell you grandchildren what you did in the climate wars.
Whatever Stu - must have stoked your engine though to spew out all that vitriole. Anyway for fucktard Stu - troll = anyone he disagrees with.
But anyway don't you just hate http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/07/australia-liberated-from-their-lo… and pretty well all the right wing freaks that post there. Just a wafer thing scratch and the right wing shit just bubbles. Fuck off WUWT ! Mind your own political business. The triumphalism is sickening.
"paleoclimate behaviour is solid evidence" what crap - palaeo is simply whatever science meme gets through into selective chunked up reports. More models and proxies (more models again) which get overwritten with every issue of GRL and Geochimica.
"Remember to tell you grandchildren what you did in the climate wars." gee Dad what did you do? I pulled my dick on a climate blog son. And how did that help Dad. More Walter Mitty stupidity from an idiot.
"If an actual university scientist found proof climate change is a hoax,"
Let's create an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
But here we go again ....
"The models are fucking not working. Santa has stolen the trop hotspot. Antarctica is gaining ice. Antarctic sea ice is growing. Extreme events droughts and floods are not getting worse. Evap is going the wrong way. The hockey stick is utter crap. The models are full of parameterisations and drift corrections. Multi-models averages plus or minus a barn are shit. Regional nesting is crap and masturbation."
Stu - try to sound convincing and stop being such a shit cunt.
And Luke continues to argue from ignorance and incredulity while refusing to answer the question:
Given the paleoclimate evidence, why are you sceptical about the scientific consensus that a very rapid increase in GHGs will cause significant warming on a centennial scale? Why is that?
Blow.
Harder!
:-)
You really don't get it do you. For a very long time, I just took the science for granted.
I started reading about it back in the days when the ozone hole was becoming a big issue - late 70s early 80s. The Montreal Protocol was eventually signed and implemented in 1989. I honestly thought that climate change was just another one of these issues and that the process would be much the same and take a similar time.
If you can remember, or have read about, all the scientific / technical issues of the late 20th century that were solved by international agreements or coordinated international action, acid rain, clean air, asbestos, phasing out CFCs, Y2K, you might understand how someone might think that climate change was "just another technical problem". That's how I thought about it. I really didn't take much interest in the nitty gritty details of the science itself until the last 10 years or so once the opposition to the idea stepped up.
If we could have arrived at sensible transition away from fossil dependence beginning in the 80s, climate change could have turned out as just another bullet we dodged with a bit of hard work by people who knew what they were doing. We dodged the Y2K issue - got to work on it in plenty of time and the result was no major problems at all and a few minor problems that only people involved in the industry ever got to hear about.
That opportunity has long passed us by for climate change.
Only the US has managed to reduce their CO2 emissions back to early 1990s levels and temperatures have thankfully stalled.
Luke, sweetheart, please stop lying.
Lie. This has been refuted before, in this thread, with evidence. Do you have anything new?
This is not even coherent, you douche.
Lie,
Erp? Typo or hedging your bets?
Lie.
[Citation needed]
Lie.
Aww, that's cute. You have no fucking clue how modelling works, do you.
Still a Nirvana fallacy, moron. You do know what that is, don't you?
I'm glad you've done the research to properly refute it.
[snirk]
You suck at this, Luke. Get out of your mom's basement.
It's nice that the US has reduced its CO2 emission to 1990 levels but it is also irrelevant since all human CO2 has no measurable effect on air temperatures or on the ocean in any respect. Crap scientology with faked values from nature (eg temperature homogenisation frauds like intentional decreasing of old temperature readings etc etc) with crap "models" which prove nothing but show what computer programmers were told to produce as results, and everything hailed as consensus by wannabe world saviors who engage in fanatic political eco fundamentalism to worship god gaia: YOUR DIRTY DELUSION IS CRAP. Your constant appeal to authority shows nothing but all your weaknesses:
1. Lack of any evidence of what you maintain
2. Lack of decent behavior when your scientific stance is so weak
3. Lack of own logical thinking of accepting the obvious: it's the sun, stupid, we don't know much about clouds, water is infinitely more important than CO2 and you idiots don't like to speak about the water, you idiots.
YOU GREENPISSERS ARE TRUE IDIOTS WHICH MISUSE SCIENCE FOR YOUR NASTY CRAP IDEOLOGY AND RELATED ROTTEN POLITICAL GAMES.
Shut up and get away from this blog, you drunken idiots.
Did anyone notice that the global temperature hiatus started before the SST cooled ?
Climate science will advance in Australia now.
:)
:)
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Sacking of the Klimatariat is expected shortly.
Klimatariat? Oh, Gordo, sweetheart. You worked so long and so hard to sound merely stupid and not a jackass ideologue.
The mask just slipped. Gordo, DIAFF.
:)
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg707/scaled.php?server=707&filename=kir…
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/Sargass…
http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/bilder_presse/09_geo_tree_ring_northern_eur…
I'll draw up a list Stu.
In other nooze....
'A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.
'The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.
I
'Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-i…
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Funny that only one greeny won a seat, even funnier is the fact that he lives in a concrete jungle. :)
The Melbournites must feel very guilty about their wicked ways :)
Oh Freddy, you wordsmith you! Now just take a little time-out and wipe the spittle off your screen, sweetheart.
You have no idea how incoherent and stupid you sound, do you? I don't even understand what the dire implication is here. Are you saying that it is impossible for people who live in a city to give a shit about the environment?
'Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month'
Hmmm.....
Conspiracy theories start in 3... 2... 1...
They had to organise a team of rewrite subs at short notice.
Another Rosegate piece
Stu - I have given you citations a number of times before - don't ask again! OK
You can sit there and say "lie" but you've been quoted but perhaps you were on your knees sucking someone's dick and missed it. So how about you wipe your watermelon mouth off and start paying attention.
Somehow they missed the fact that this current year's ice area, despite "less" melt, is still over a million sq km less than the average for 1979-2008. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
And while we're looking at facts and resources that the reporter failed to notice ... look at the bottom four lines on this graphic. No matter what the ice does for the rest of the year, there is no chance of it being within cooee of the average of just the decade of the 2000s, let alone any earlier period. (The relevant numbers, the minimums, are the ones in the furthest right column.)
https://sites.google.com/site/pettitclimategraphs/sea-ice-area#asiammdp…
And if you want a really clear graphic about Arctic ice volume this one is the clearest. http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/siv_september_average_polar_graph.png
adlady, old data with different methodology are not allowed, see the hockeystick fraud. You must learn.
What old data? What old methodology?
This is all recent stuff, since 1979 only, satellite only.
I know some people are doing some interesting stuff with old ice edge maps but none of that is in the standard reports of extent, area and volume of Arctic sea ice.
"What an amazing amount of utter dogshit. What rot. What tripe. How does a small insignificant action by Australia affect anything except the level of dementia in Jeff’s brain. What utter drivel"
Gotta love Luke's level of intellectual discourse. Couldn't get much lower. Listen Luke, you arrogant little shit, the new government is going to push for environmental deregulation. Like other right wing government, that means eviscerating public constraints in the pursuit of private profit. The results will mean more forests are opened up for clear-cutting, more wetlands will be drained for development, and as a result you will see more local declines and extinctions of native biota. When Reagan came to power in the US, the economy switched from being one with a largely Keynsian approach to a system characterized by free market absolutism and mass deregulation. The result to natural ecosystems was immediate. Logging operations ran amok, wetlands were drained at record rates and the number of species listed as threatened or endangered has increased. Many songbirds in the UShave seen their population decrease by 50% or more since the 1970s. At the same time, wealth became more and more concentrated at the top. By the late 80s we had some of the world's leading ecologists - Dan Janzen, Edward O. Wilson, Peter Raven, Tom Lovejoy and others - saying that we were headed in the wrong direction and that we were running out of time to get it right. Since that time, if anything we've gone in reverse. The Global Ecosystem Assessment laid out the nasty details in 2006, arguing that a full 60% of vital ecosystem services were being used unsustainably. At present, the prognosis for nature is dire, whether you want to believe it or not. Up to 20% of well known species - vascular plants and vertebrates - are threatened with extinction. Pollinator populations are in free-fall across much of the world. Coastal marine ecosystems have been devastated. Jellyfish are now at the top of the food chain in parts of coastal southern European waters. Aquifers across the world are being drained at rates far exceeding their recharge. The consequences of all of this are going to be reflected in economics at some point or other.
A lot of this has happened because, for some inane reason, the public in much of the west has increasingly embraced far right governments who support and bolster policies that exacerbate these problems. They probably think that more socially minded left wing governments want to take away their SUVs and their comparative luxury when one in nine people in the world receive such little nutrition that their minds are literally wasting away. So many countries in the developed world have embraced right wing governments or else the political right has co-opted the electoral process (as in the USA). In any event, the results have been to see the poverty gap grow ever wider, for corporations to have gotten away with murder, and for nature to have become less of something to protect unless it provides a profit incentive. Heck, that's what the 1992 Biodiversity Summit in Rio ended up being. More about patenting biodiversity for profit than protecting it.
You're just a dumb-ass idiot who thinks he's smart and clever. Normally I wouldn't give a moron like you the time of day. But since Deltoid has become the latest stomping ground for fully-fledged idiots like you, wanted to hep retain the balance. About a dozen times you've promised to say you'd leave this site only to come back with more vitriolic garbage. Why don't you keep your promise for once, you arrogant twerp?
Adelady, excellent points. And one the deniers never mention is ice thickness. The new ice is going to be thin, of course, as it is was retained from last winter. This means that another warm Arctic summer will see it gone again.
'The results will mean more forests are opened up for clear-cutting, more wetlands will be drained for development, and as a result you will see more local declines and extinctions of native biota.'
This is most unlikely to happen under Abbott's watch, he has promised a 15,000 strong green army to keep an eye on environmental management.
'At present, the prognosis for nature is dire, whether you want to believe it or not.'
Is this specifically because of AGW?
No. It's all about inappropriate and unsustainable use, and expansion of those uses, of land and other resources.
AGW is just the biggest and baddest of them all - because all countries and processes are affected even if the citizens of any given country are responsible and sensible in the way they manage their own resources, transport, power generation and the like - their agriculture and their coastlines and their water will be affected regardless of what they do.
I just realized Gordo is so fucking stupid ...
That seems to be the basic problem with this place ... even when you folks notice that you're arguing with some of the stupidest people on the planet, you then promptly forget it.
And it' not just the stupidity ... consider Luke, a vile philistinic troglodyte psychopath and all around asshole who he thinks he can maintain that he's not a denier while rattling off a list of denier talking points. Antarctica is gaining ice and Antarctic sea ice is growing? That verges on Karen/sunspot-level stupidity. Of course the latter is a consequence of AGW and the former is false, but if it weren't that would be a puzzle, not something that throws AGW into doubt, as Luke would realize if he weren't bereft of any understanding of science. But really, there's no reason to care about garbage like Luke and what they think.
Developing a greater middle class should reduce biodiversity extinctions, third worlders are appalling in this regard.
On the other hand, extinctions because of AGW is a no brainer.
Antarctic ice is growing because of AGW?
This is most unlikely to happen under Abbott’s watch, he has promised
This is probably the first time that el fuckhead has ever believed a politician's promise. Oh, wait, he doesn't really believe it, he's just a fuckhead. A fuckity fuckity fuckhead. Not worthy of any of our time.
Now, back to my productive life.
Antarctic ice is growing because of AGW?
You don't understand the difference between sea and land, do you, moron? You're too fucking stupid to even grasp that the difference matters. The real question is why you think that, as stupid and ignorant as you obviously are, your beliefs about these things have any relevance. Stupid fuckhead.
inaman, can you provide us with the 'Antarctic is melting' data ?
"I don’t even understand what the dire implication is here. Are you saying that it is impossible for people who live in a city to give a shit about the environment?"
I would say most of them don't know what the environment is outside of their concrete, brick and asphalt world, nature is something they see on the telly.
'You don’t understand the difference between sea and land, do you?'
Yes, of course. So sea ice is growing because of AGW?
How can there be 'global warming' if the Antarctic is not melting ?
"Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading."
"The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter climate change.
Those predictions now appear gravely flawed."
"Only six years ago, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013, citing a scientist in the US who claimed this was a ‘conservative’ forecast."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-i…
so much for fizzic's .... and apostropheezzz........lol
Jeff - that's the spirit - get angry. Nice rant and heartfelt.
However what Abbott may do on the environment in terms of land development and forestry are separate issues. In terms of the Great Barrier Reef the Coalition have made certain commitments http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/02/coalition-releases-g…
However Australians do know we have to pay for maintenance of our national parks - which are still subject to attack by ferals, pest plants and inappropriate fire regimes - this needs need money. A healthy economy is the best way to pay for such things. And don't assume that I'm in the root it, shoot it and chop it brigade either.
"consider Luke, a vile philistinic troglodyte psychopath and all around asshole '
WOW - I really like that - its' me to a "T". I have printed it out large for my wall. I like ianam - a highly aggressive little fucker. Quality abuse for a change.
Moreover - "You still don't understand what you're dealing with, do you? Perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility."
"You admire it.?"
"I admire its purity. A survivor... unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality."
Antarctic sea ice breaks all records.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/antarctic/antarctic-cea-ice-aug-4…
'Quality abuse for a change.'
:-)
bbbbut Jo said that so it's denier bullshit :)
there is nothing quality about inaman
Just like it's more important to correct the "shortcomings" in my understanding of what happens if I crash this here car at 100km/h into that there brick wall than to factor in what we already know, right? Do I die in my car from massive impact injuries, survive the impact but die in my car from the resulting fire, or get "lucky" and merely become quadriplegic by breaking my neck after being ejected through the windscreen?
Until those "consensus shortcomings" are sorted out, less "important" responses to my suggestion such as "don't be a fuckwit" and "it can only end badly" and even "ya might wanna do everything ya can to avoid that wall" should be ignored, right?
Luke, you're a liar or you are not sufficiently intellectually equipped to be drawing conclusions on these kinds of matters. Your call.
Awwwww, your cute faith in Abbott's ever so robust concern for the environment even in the face of big $$$ to be made and the efficacy of his underfunded promises to do something about CO2 via his "green army" (but not about the general environment) is touching!
It does, however, explain how you can be "towed around the pond" (to use Luke's turn of phrase) by politicians and corporate propagandists who butter you up using your own preconceptions. When you're not actually skeptical, but ever so proud of your skepticism, they will use it against you to make out like bandits at your expense.
Better give the Deltoids a leg up - dear resident deniers - if they were any good they'd tell you what is happening over Antarctica is complex - a combination of forcing from stratospheric ozone depletion and tropospheric gas increases.
East Antarctica is gaining ice mass while many glaciers are losing mass. http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/303/2013/tc-7-303-2013.html
However the freshening of the ocean is more conducive to seasonal sea ice growth.
http://www.knmi.nl/cms/mmbase/attachments/112945/ngeo1767.pdf sea ice
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf
Additionally the ozone forcing may be antagonistic to the GHG forcing which should be overcome mid-century. Thus a contradictory interim situation may be eventually overcome with net Antarctic melting. A more positive Southern Annular Mode dynamically isolates heat transport to the pole.
"Luke, you’re a liar or you are not sufficiently intellectually equipped to be drawing conclusions on these kinds of matters. "
Well Lotharsson - never argue with a fool - as the audience may not be able to tell who's who.
and Lotharsson - yes fuck it all - Abbott will develop northern Australia and rush through a few port developments. Kimberley coast may be a battleground - will you be on the barricades with us? Queensland government is rolling back some land clearing controls, wild rivers legislation and grazing leasehold land controls. Lamentable but fucktards want right wing governments so one tries to work within the parameters and save some furniture.
Overall though I'd be more worried about cats, toads, weeds and crap fire regimes (too hot late season).
That sounds like sour grapes Lotharsson. Very sour indeed.
It doesn't matter how you frame it, Australia has voted and Labor & the Greens have been put out into the political wilderness.
Your summation of the Australian electorate is as creepy as Bernard's.
Been there, done that - multiple times. (So, apparently I am "any good" according to your criteria.) They simply ignore it, wait a few days or weeks and then make the same bad claims.
But if I respond to it this time around you'll probably accuse me of "being towed around the pond" or "swinging at a wide ball". Double standards, much?
And that says more about the audience than the arguer, which reiterates my point.
Agreed - on all the issues you mention.
In contrast, your "consensus issues" undermines efforts to do that on AGW. It doesn't make any sense - not even politically, where it concedes framing to the ignorati and those that exploit them for gain.
Luke.
You've omitted the most obvious difference between the Arctic and Antarctica, which is that the former is a sheet of ice floating on seawater, and the latter is a large continent where most of the ice is plonked on top of the land.
That has rather a significant impact on how ice dynamics progress, and the more so when atmospheric moisture is affected by the increase in concentration of 'greenhouse' gases.
I actually tried several months ago to repeatedly press KarenMackSunspot and his cronies on this point, but they didn't want to admit to it. It simply demonstrates that trying to get even basic scientific understanding into the skulls of such as the troglodytes here is more fraught than trying to thread a needle with soggy spaghetti.
As proof watch Mackulus - he will recycle this Antarctic ice meme again and again, either in ignorance of the physics or ignoring the physics.
'Awwwww, your cute faith in Abbott’s ever so robust concern for the environment '
Abbott's 15,000 strong green army is about conservation, not CO2 mitigation.
Anyway its a waste of taxpayers money and I imagine he'll start off slowly and see how it goes, then he'll scrap it. He was very impressed by Conservation Volunteers.
Lotharsson my problem is that I do want to nail the outliers and that may mean going to war here to do so. Well at least an attempt.
Bernard J - agreed. However the dichotomy of the ozone and GHG forcing over Antarctica is most interesting. My guy has simulated it and it flips mid-century - OK more correctly GHG forcing increases and ozone hole recover somewhat. (But of course he'd probably tell me anything). Our problem with the Antarctic situation is that it is counter-intuitive and does rely on extrapolating obs with models.
If they don't accept that as reasonable - well that's OK. Their call. A reasonable person would however be interested in SAM behaviour and East Antarctica gaining ice while glaciers losing. Says something.
SAM also probably affects rainfall and drought in southern and south-western Australia - my personal obsession being drought. Although sub-tropical ridge intensification and SW Indian Ocean phenomenon makes it hard going conceptually. Multiple issues. But worrying trends may reverse as ozone hole recovers. The denailiti will never believe us. I'm not totally convinced myself but who'd listen to me..... blah blah blah
From Luke's link.
'High-accumulation periods have occurred in the past, specifically during the 1370s and 1610s.'
Now that is fascinating.
Abbott says it's about climate change. It's his direct alternative to the "carbon tax" which wasn't a tax.
But it's good to see you admitting that he's dishonest about it ;-)
There's nothing wrong - and much right - with wanting to understand more than we currently do. It's the classic scientific motivation, for one thing.
However, we already know enough to have a very strong case for concern so wanting to know more shouldn't dissuade us from strong action, now (if we're basing our actions in rationality and evidence).
adelady and your comment here,
I have noted some who claim the Y2K issue was a hoax because nothing bad happened. Knowing the origins of this issue, indeed I worked around it myself in the early 1990s on a project when I recognised the coming problem, and the amount of work involved by those at the coal face that sort of talk makes me cross, but not as cross as I am about the delayers/deniers on climate change.
I often wonder if dodging the Y2K was a good thing, as a crash then may have taken the heat out of the burgeoning global economy. Maybe somebody with more time and energy on their hands will one day look at this alternative history facet.
But alas Lotharsson we have not convinced the populace. nobody with vote for austerity or competitive disadvantage.
Why I'm bullish on advancing Thorium reactors. Barry Brooks systems analysis has reached same conclusion.
It's a tough gig - therefore quality arguments refuting outliers need to be made to save the science furniture under the current state and Federal govts in Australia. Interesting trend
in yesterday's elections - bigger swing Tasmania - to LNP but in Queensland no where near as big a swing as voters have tasted the full right wing exposition. In fact most Labor seats retained.
So you can rail against it all and howl at the moon but some of us are trying to work within the bounds of possibilities and keep going.
I'm not at all sure that's true. The last survey I saw a solid majority wanted action; the same now seems to be the case in that bastion of denialism, the US. (I haven't gone looking for multiple surveys though, so it's possible I'm recalling outliers.)
However those who are against it are highly vocal and have disproportionate access to media megaphones and this gives the impression that there are more of them than there are.
I haven't been following it closely, but last I saw thorium reactors looked a long way from industrial realisation. Is there reason to think that has changed?
Yeah, I noticed that about QLD. Fool me once...
News from the Daily Fail and David Rose, oh please do us a favour. Rose is a serial obfuscater who ignores the evidence that Niven presents here .
You, gordolocks are behaving like a devious little toe-rag.
‘Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month’
Really? It was always scheduled for 23rd -26th September. When has it been pushed back to? Can't be any later this month as that would be the weekend.
Oh silly me... it's a Daily Mail story.
People want action. But for free. It's unrealistic. It's faux concern.
This what the DM story says: The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was due in October to start publishing its Fifth Assessment Report – a huge three-volume study issued every six or seven years. It will now hold a pre-summit in Stockholm later this month.
This what the IPCC said at the beginning of the year:
IPCC WGI-12 and IPCC-36
Stockholm, Sweden, 23 - 26 September 2013
Letter of invitation to Focal Points and Ministries of Foreign Affairs
Letter of invitation to International and other Organizations
Documents for the 12th Session of the Working Group I (23 - 26 September 2013)
WGI-12: Doc. 1 - Provisional Agenda
Documents for the Thirty-Sixth Session of the IPCC (26 September 2013)
IPCC-XXXVI/Doc. 1 - Provisional Agenda
IPCC-XXXVI/Doc. 2 - Draft Report of the 35th Session of the IPCC
INFORMATION FOR PARTICIPANTS
Information Note for participants (22 May 2013)...
http://www.ipcc.ch/scripts/_session_template.php?page=_36ipcc.htm#.Uixq…
With shrieks the Hive's
Best smarty-pants
Our ears assail
With crazed-dork rants
As if beset
By some nightmare
Most like to soil
Their underwear
So what is it
That so excites
This greenshirt bunch
Of parasites?
Well, seems a "hitch"
Has spoiled their fun
In Oz--High Fives!--
The good-guys won!
Yes, there is that.
And they want increased middle class welfare but don't want tax increases.
You utter fucking liar!
That was a paper that came out of GISS a few years back - Gavin Schmidt was co-author.
Just fucking unbelievable - in both senses!
What a tosser you are, Luke.
Yup. Checked. Luke is pretending that "his guy" is either Drew Shindell or Gavin Schmidt! and cut'n'pasting from their work: Shindell & Schmidt (2004).
What a lying shitbag you are Luke!!!
;-)
Did you seriously think I wouldn't catch out out INSTANTLY?
You stupid little fuck.
Oh dear me, my ears are burning !!!
BBD could you please stop using that filthy language, the wombat fuckers 14 yr old daughter reads this blog !!!
Why Antarctic Sea Ice Is the Better Climate Change Indicator
http://landscapesandcycles.net/antarctic-sea-ice--climate-change-indica…
It's not the language that's shocking here, Karen. It's the combination of dishonesty and stupidity.
On which point, your latest comment will no doubt cause you to shoot up in rhw's daughter's estimation. Fancy posting a nasty little jibe like that somewhere where the target's child might see it.
How unutterably vile you are.
#59
What utter fucking rubbish. Who the fuck is "Jim Steele"? This tripe has never been near a scientific journal because, well, because it is tripe. FFS reference the published literature.
See Holland & Kwok (2012) Wind-driven trends in Antarctic sea-ice drift.
Paywalled but press release here.
No what I said was true and yes I know about Shindell and Schimdt (and Solomon). I don't care if you believe me or not actually.
#53
:-)
There goe's BBD, cherry picking again !!
#62
That's good, because I don't. You are a lying sack of shit, Luke, and I've caught you out yet again!
You don't have the chops for this. You must have realised that by now.
"Our conclusions are of fundamental importance in rectifying
the failure of present climate models to hindcast the recent
increase in Antarctic sea ice"
As I said BBD - eat a dick !
All you caught out was your one inch dick in your pants fly.
Oh dear God you are stupid, Luke. And also curiously confused about Antarctic sea ice extent hindcasting and surface temperature projections.
Anyway, eat paleoclimate. Deniers always choke on it!
one inch eh!!!
well that will please your fingers, lol
#67
No Luke, I caught you lying about "your guy" - your fantasy modeller/colleague in your fantasy world where instead of a loathsome, lying fuckwit you are a "working scientist".
Too funny!
:-)
Who hasn't read the paper? Fucking clown. You're a stupid fucking galoot mate. A fucking pawn who sits up all night after ignoring his kid all day. You have no influence and no effect on anything. Fuck off and get a life loser. You're on a backwater blog having no influence on anything. Try to contribute to society instead of being a net sink.
Actually Luke, do tell me something. In your fantasies about other guys, which one was it? Shindell, or Schmidt?
I'd love to know!
:-)
My guy did some of the AR5 runs actually.
Do you think you should be ignoring your child. Tell us where you live so we can send family services around to see what you're up to.
Pants on fire!
You really are the King of the Clowns, Luke!
Now was it Drew, or Gavin?
Come on Luke! Out with it!
;-)
I don't think you know very much about parenting, Luke! In fact I doubt you've had any practical experience at all! Which is why I don't take your jibes very seriously!
Well I think the way you keep talking about it that there's something going on. How long has the neglect been occurring now?
Luke, one of the many things I know that you don't is that people who indulge in self-aggrandising fantasies are driven to do so by profound insecurity about their self-worth.
Your constant harping on about influence and so forth is a massive tell, along with your various attempts to spin fantasy credentials and fantasy sources in the modelling community.
You are desperately easy to read, Luke. See - I'm doing it now and I am exactly correct.
Feel the shame, Luke. Some things can't even be papered over with a smiley!
I don't keep talking about child neglect Luke. That would be you. Also interesting, no? Problems in your past, perhaps? It would all fit.
Ah, excellent. Homophobia, bigotry, misogyny, pathological lying and now threats. What a lovely human being you are, Luke. Truly an asset to your mother's basement.
I have just been reading over at Sou's an excellent take-down of the ever mendacious David Rose and continued on into the spot on 'Quote of the Week - Anthony Watts himself sums up the scaredy cat deniers at WUWT' where there is presented, borrowed from Alternet, the rationale for what we see here from the usual suspects:
This thread stands as testament to the truths expressed therein, look at how narrow luke's questions are and how he flips if he gets a complex answer. el gordolocks just keeps chuntering out the type of baseless factoids discovered in Christmas crackers, demonstrating that he is in turn crackers. He should be proud having turned into a cross between Monckton and Corbyn.
I don't like Gavin Schmidt, because
1: he is a coward and did not dare to discuss his week "climatology" position with Roy Spencer, who made a by far better impression on the TV audience
2: Schmitt and GISS spoil the good name of NASA
Teh Freddiot speaks!
Spencer is a Creationist and a discredited faker who uses junk models to produce junk results, Freddiot!
Schmidt is a distinguished climate scientist with an impressive research publication record.
And you, Freddiot, are a lunatic, sock-puppeting troll!
And hey, stupid, fuckwit, troll, you can't answer this question:
If GHGs are inefficacious forcings, what physical mechanism caused the PETM?
You can't answer it because you are a stupid, fuckwit troll and a physics denier and a know-nothing.
Why don't you just fuck off, Freddiot? Seriously. Your shit-headed blethering is just boring these days. So go on nutter, fuck off. You make the place stink of rotting teeth and filthy socks.
Sorry about that folks, but sometimes it just needs saying.
Dankbread, and your:
I don’t like Gavin Schmidt, because...
You dupe. Spencer, immediately after Gavin Schmidt leaves, comes right out and waves the 'poverty kills' flag. As if anybody thought that it does not! Sorry but Spencer is a 'slithy tove who did gyre and gimble in the wabe' (Dodgson):
Well yes poverty does kill but the truth of the matter is that dirty energy production kills more people than simple poverty. It is the poor who are massively disadvantaged by fossil fuel extraction as anybody aware of what has happened with mountain-top removal will tell you.
There is more as this The People Living At The End Of The Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Are Already Sick And Dying from oil production shows.
Then there is the fact that many more poor people live in the margins around river deltas and other low lying areas as this report warns BBC Misses The Point On Climate Migrants, the BBC may have missed the point but media in the US and Australia would have ignored this completely.
"The researchers also found that “greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex” – a region in the brain that is believed to help people manage complexity."
haha the reason why right wing people are simple minded bigots that don't understand complex problems, and generally get things completely wrong. like cutting carbon tax.
Glad you have your priorities straight, Freddy. Lying creationist shill? Who cares! He looks good on TV!
It's endlessly amusing the way these Clowns wave Spencer and Lindzen about as if their ideas had a shred of credibility. The problem for the Clowns is twofold, because wheeling out S&L demonstrates that the Clown itself hasn't got the slightest clue what it is talking about. Or it would know all about Spencer and Lindzen!
It's quite simple, BBD. They decry all figures of authority (Hansen, Mann, Santer etc., etc.), except when they need an authority figure (Linden, Spencer, McIntyre etc., etc.).
Once you get your head around that, assuming it hasn't exploded) ...
Freddy/Berendaneke opines, "I don’t like Gavin Schmidt, because"_________________________________
I'll fill in the blank.
1. I am a right wing idiot who believes in unregulated free markets and unlimited corporate profits;
2. His views on climate science are sensible and I hate common sense;
3. He speaks for the vast majority of the climate science community when he argues that humans are the main driving force behind AGW while like to believe a few pseudo-scientists on the academic fringe.
Remember, this the SAME Freddy/Berendaneke who demands that we all show immense respect for all US presidents, irrespective of their foreign policy agendas and the industrial numbers of dead as a result of those agendas.
Doltoid dwarfs, look how NOAA and GISS climate scoundrels cheat the public by manipulating original temperature data handed over to the climate scoundrels:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/03/the-very-high-price-of-no…
Doltoids, don't waste your energy for searching excuses for your scoundrel brothers, as there no excuses. Do you really like to support these scoundrels?
@ Harvey
your crap
1. I am a right wing idiot who believes in unregulated free markets and unlimited corporate profits;
2. His views on climate science are sensible and I hate common sense;
3. He speaks for the vast majority of the climate science community when he argues that humans are the main driving force behind AGW while like to believe a few pseudo-scientists on the academic fringe.
Remember, this the SAME Freddy/Berendaneke who demands that we all show immense respect for all US presidents, irrespective of their foreign policy agendas and the industrial numbers of dead as a result of those agendas
Your crap has to be invalidated due to intolerable idiocy.
Your conspiration theory that only right-wing political opponents would object your insanities is utter crap, typical for you nutter.
So GISTEMP has been tampered with in order to bring it into extremely close agreement with the UAH satellite data curated by outspoken sceptics Roy Spencer and John Christy?!
And the UK HadCRUT4 dataset has been got at too!
Who knew!
:-)
#84 BBD - yes and I hope you keep thinking that. Tell you what though - you're keen, you're fascinated - and you can't leave it alone. There's that nagging thought - what if he's right.
@BBD
So GISTEMP has been tampered with in order to bring it into extremely close agreement with the UAH satellite data curated by outspoken sceptics Roy Spencer and John Christy?!
And the UK HadCRUT4 dataset has been got at too!
Look at the linked graphs, idiot and don't play your preferred cheating game of mixing cherrypicked methodologies, you nutter: sarellite data is not temperature readings of thermometers 2m above the surface, you big idiot. Why the fuck is your brain so limited to understand this, full-blown bollocks moron.
#2
Um, why can't you see that when two different methodologies produce results in close agreement, confidence in the combined result increases?
The satellite data confirm the surface temperature reconstructions. Look at the linked graph, idiot.
No cheating. No cherry-picking.
#1
There's that nagging thought that paleoclimate behaviour - not models - demonstrates that CO2 is an efficacious forcing. Paleoclimate behaviour is hard, if not impossible to explain if S_ff to 2xCO2 is less than ~2C. Paleoclimate behaviour is strongly suggestive that S_ff/2xCO2is probably closer to ~3C.
I knew that the nutter BBD is unable to understand the linked graphs showing NOAA and GISS data manipulations, and scoundrel BBD justifies the fraud with a totally different cherrypicked satellite dataset from a creationist, BBD fool and mentally impaired idiot. Your intelligence is the lowest of any participant here on deltoid. You lost the climate war already, idiot and your son will call you a scoundrel and will be ashamed of such an awful spin father. Piss off, you unspeakable idiot and some decent work to earn some little money., unstead of hanging around in the internet 24x7 and giving such a miserable example for your son, idiot.
Yup, only intellects of the calibre of Freddyfred and SpamKan could see through it, but as in any episode of Scoooby Doo, those pesky morons ....
" strongly suggestive" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA
that was good .....
Everything about palaeo is a model of something you stupid git
Regardless of what you, chek, BBD, Harvey, Barnturd, Lionel, Loathsome, etc. write here: YOU ARE THE IDIOTS.
And the funny thing is, that you don't understand why you are the idiots here!
hahahahaha, hahahaa, hahahaha
AGW Doltoid idiots don't know why they are the idiots:
hooo hahahh, hoooo hahahaha
BBD the poor boss of the climate idiots, hahahahahha
chek, the ignoramus clerk of the religious movement
some elder greenpissers, adlady etc.
hahahaha, what an idiotic gang.
Looks like the BL tag team are off their meds.
Well obviously, but you seem to have a problem with AOGCMs. That is what I was driving at.
The Lukes, every visualisation of *anything* using data is a 'model'.
What moronic point are you trying to make?
A piece on the recent dodgy David Rose and Telegraph pieces on Arctic sea ice.
I'm repeatedly impressed, based on some of Luke's scientifically clueless comments (hey look, another one on this page!), that he apparently thought he could get away with passing himself off as a "working scientist".
If we presume for the moment that he actually wanted the claim to be taken seriously, what kind of thought process must he have gone through (if any) in which he pondered whether he could pull the wool over the eyes of this blog's readership...and then concluded that he could?
What surprises me is to see "Luke" continuing to post as late as 8 September.
I had assumed his/their commission was to expire on 7 September.
I don't think he has another gig lined up, Craig. It's not like there's a lot of demand for those kinds of services outside of an election period.
@Craig Thomas
please post your crap on the September page, as nobody will ever read this junk here
:roll:
Well whadayouknow:
and
luke and Berendaneke are bird's of this feather after all with the latter being the inspiration for the B side, the latter part of that recording.
Freddy, you don't even know where you are anymore. Take your meds.
Whoa, *I* don't even know where I am anymore!
Time for my meds.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The Lukes, workin'. those index fingers as if it means something. Other than being the universal bray of moron deniers whose grey matter has been drained dry..
Luke, between jobs, continues to post, albeit with even less content than usual.
I'm looking forward to the first anti-government demonstration to come in Canberra - I am picturing a large banner with a picture of an old pervert holding a gimp on a leash, with the following words,
TONY ABBOTT:
RUPERT MURDOCH's BITCH
Seven open threads in a row. That must be some kind of record high.
And so, finally, this pseudoscientific blog is dead. About time!