"Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it."
For those who were around a few months ago, it's starting to sound a bit chameleonic in here.
I was criticising the actual PR/media releases...
...so you have a link to one or more you think deserves criticism?
But the bigger problem here is what appears to be an attempt to paint a false equivalence. That's not going to succeed with anyone who takes an honest look at the evidence. As Nick suggests you might want to click on this blogs "[The Australian's] War On Science" link and start at the beginning.
Once you've checked out all 110 articles, come back and let us know if you think the aggregate of the exaggerations and distortions you believe you've detected on "the other side" are even in the same order of magnitude. And if you still think there's a valid equivalence to be drawn you can analyse Fox News' coverage, and Sky, and the other Murdoch rags in Australia and add that to the ledger...
Luke: "Fucking ecosystem services – the last refuge for leftie eco-scoundrels. Get a real job Jeff and stop bludging"
Translation: the term is over Luke's head. He's never heard of it, doesn't understand even the science behind it, so his only recourse is to ridicule it. A classic example of profound ignorance if ever there was one. Thankfully Luke's views don't come anywhere close to representing those of the scientific community. The importance of supporting ecosystem services is now universally recognized; its now a major field in economics and is the subject of many peer-reviewed articles in economics journals as well as in books.
I've encountered so many dipsticks like Luke over the years that by now I can only pity them in their cesspits of ignorance. He's a self-righteous, arrogant moron, and those are his GOOD points.
"a distinguished solar physicist, quoted the late scientist-author Michael Crichton, who had said: “If it’s science, it isn’t consensus; if it’s consensus, it isn’t science.” He added: “There has been no global warming for almost 17 years. None of the ‘consensus’ computer models predicted that.”
Some brief commentary on one aspect of Lomborg's recent claims in the Washington Post. I'd say there's plenty more in that article that deserves critique.
Abstract
"Possible reasons for a temporal instability of long-term effects of solar activity (SA) and galactic cosmic ray (GCR) variations on the lower atmosphere circulation were studied. It was shown that the detected earlier ∼60-year oscillations of the amplitude and sign of Solar Activity/Galactic Cosmic Ray effects on the troposphere pressure at high and middle latitudes (Veretenenko and Ogurtsov, Adv.Space Res., 2012) are closely related to the state of a cyclonic vortex forming in the polar stratosphere. The intensity of the vortex was found to reveal a roughly 60-year periodicity affecting the evolution of the large-scale atmospheric circulation and the character of Solar Activity/Galactic Cosmic Ray effects. An intensification of both Arctic anticyclones and mid-latitudinal cyclones associated with an increase of GCR fluxes at minima of the 11-year solar cycles is observed in the epochs of a strong polar vortex. In the epochs of a weak polar vortex SA/GCR effects on the development of baric systems at middle and high latitudes were found to change the sign. The results obtained provide evidence that the mechanism of solar activity and cosmic ray influences on the lower atmosphere circulation involves changes in the evolution of the stratospheric polar vortex."
#4, you've made my point again,Gordy. Your number is 'generally' for 'sceptics', and for Denialati the number is 'small'....cut out the handwaving and come up with some real numbers! That's what Cook did with a literature survey. Face it very little peer-reviewed matter disendorses or rejects AGW, no matter that Karen can't read.
I've got no idea of an exact or even general spread of what your fellow travellers will allow CO2. I suspect that fewer of you will allow your real convictions to be exposed, because you can tell that minimising CO2s warming effect looks a little saner than rejecting it out of hand. That's why it's more valid to check publications for views rather than rely on online polls.
But of course ,you guys don't have any science,so it's hard to come up with more than a handful of crappy works. The irony of Montford attacking hard numbers with guesswork is lost on you.
Last time Karen claimed something like "There has been no global warming for almost 17 years..." I posted something like this graph. Even UAH so favoured of denialists shows warming over this period (even more than the two land-based reconstructions!)
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
Abstract
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."
#7 Crap,crap, crap...cart before the horse. We know they turn up and are mediated by solar activity, but do not have any evidence for GCRs influence on the lower atmospheric circulation. We only know that they might have some input in the nucleation chain which could never be exclusive. People have looked long and hard for GCR effects: zip. How do the authors know that the behavior they are seeing has any GCR influence: it may all be the solar activity factor.
"Leaving aside the issue that none of the authors of these papers were in any way qualified to discuss the science behind global warming, and were effectively just passing on hearsay, the statements were unbelievably vague. “Rise to the top of the agenda”, “as a hedge”, “implicated in”!"
"1) Buying Greenhouse Insurance (No, it’s not the sort you grow tomatoes in!)
There have been numerous proposals for immediate cutbacks in CO2 emissions. Proponents argue that sizable reductions are necessary as a hedge against unacceptably rapid changes in climate. This paper provides a decision tree analysis of the problem. We examine how the optimal hedging strategy might var"
"2) CO2 emissions reduction by price deregulation and fossil fuel taxation: A case study of Indonesia
As environmental issues, and the issue of global warming in particular, rise to the top of the international agenda, developing nations are faced with a major question: how to confront these environme"
"3) Effect of encapsulated calcium carbide on dinitrogen, nitrous oxide, methane, and carbon dioxide emissions from flooded rice
The efficiency of N use in flooded rice is usually low, chiefly due to gaseous losses. Emission of CH4, a gas implicated in global warming, can also be substantial in flo"
yes yes yes........... very very powerful statements affirming their belief in the great co2 god.... lol
#15..."...and were effectively just passing on hearsay..." Indeed, 'watch the pea', as your blog idiot offers [channelling Macintyre]. Referring to AGW or global warming as 'hearsay' is just a bit dense,don't you think,given the thousand of publications that endorse it...
Kaz, I'm sure there is no limit to the dumbfuck blogs you can delegate to do your 'heavy' lifting,but that one won't help you.
#23 I don't have to support Cook : it argues clearly on its own. You have no material support, none of you cranks would try a literature survey because you know you have no support where it matters. You are not required to present work, or argue consistently, you don't have numbers. Too bad,it really is a shame.
The bludgers can get their noses outta the trough now.........
"Professor Paul Kench, of Auckland University, who co-authored the study with Dr Arthur Webb, a Fiji-based expert on coastal processes, said the study challenged the view that the islands were sinking as a result of global warming.
"Eighty per cent of the islands we've looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, got larger.
"Some have got dramatically larger," he said.
"We've now got evidence the physical foundations of these islands will still be there in 100 years," he told New Scientist magazine.
He said the study suggested the islands had a natural ability to respond to rising seas by accumulating coral debris from the outlying reefs that surround them.
"It has long been thought that as the sea level goes up, islands will sit there and drown. But they won't," Professor Kench said."
(Just trying out el gordo's unsubstantiated style of assertion. Do you think el gordo will find it persuasive?
Assuming not, do you think he'll reflect on the lack of persuasiveness of his own style of discourse? And for bonus points, do you think he'll modify his style?)
That's interesting, but so is a key quote Karen left out. One guess why.
But the two scientists warn that people living on the islands still face serious challenges from climate change, particularly if the pace of sea level rises were to overtake that of sediment build-up.
The fresh groundwater that sustains villagers and their crops could be destroyed.
"The land may be there but will they still be able to support human habitation?" he said.
Saltwater incursion as sea levels rise is already considered to be a growing challenge in rich low-lying places like Florida, let alone poorer places that can't afford to throw huge amounts of cash at the problem.
"US and Australian farmers and graziers are sceptical.
No, they’re not."
Well who would know without a definitive survey but unlike city press comments, most of the rural newspapers and on-line counter-parts commentary is quite hostile.
Why - fear that a production system with already declining terms of trade would be slugged with taxes or an ETS on animal emissions, land clearing, fertiliser use etc. Additionally the unrelenting high variability makes landholders think there is nothing new under the sun.
Fucking ecosystem services – the last refuge for leftie eco-scoundrels. Get a real job Jeff and stop bludging.
You gormless ignorant toe-rag luke. Have you any idea how much ecosystems services are worth and how the global economy will have to run faster to stay still if we continue to degrade the systems that supply these services?
I could suggest a swathe of books on the topic so that you get up to speed on this topic, and heck I have barely scratched the surface myself even though I have studied R Dawkins, E O Wilson, W D Hamilton, and many others.
'A survey of more than 18,800 farmers in the U.S. corn belt found that only 8 percent believe global warming is happening and is mainly due to human activity. While alarmists imagine this is evidence of a lack of knowledge, the truth is that America’s farmers are closer to the real science on the issue than are the liberal media. Living close to the land, they are also in a better position to distinguish short-term weather patterns from long-term climate change.
'J. Gordon Arbuckle, Jr., a sociologist at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa, conducted the poll. The survey focused on corn producers grossing at least $100,000 annually in nine states. About 4,700 farmers out of 18,800 farmers who were sent the survey responded, a response rate of 26 percent.'
I predict that climate scientists will now pretend that they always knew about the solar variation effects on planet earth...
Which demonstrates what a loser a loller like you is for if you had bothered to study some of the books in my reading list posted earlier then you would not have written that for it proves what a sad bullshitting ignoramus you are.
The 'lolling' is yet another sign of somebody not quite right in the head. Ask freddy for a loan of his med's.
What The Science Says:
In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.
Climate Myth: It's the sun
"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer."
He said the study suggested the islands had a natural ability to respond to rising seas by accumulating coral debris from the outlying reefs that surround them.
One important factor have been left out, or avoided with that assessment. The projected rate of sea level rise is going to outstrip the ability of producing growth. As Lotharsson correctly pointed out you the scientists mentioned that but you, you either lying or ignorant toe-rag failed to reproduce that too.
Further more as oceans warm and become more acidic then the living systems are going to become even more stressed and unlikely to be able to respond at all.
Thank you. This has been very demonstrative of how poor your reasoning powers are, probably not helped by poor comprehension.
Did you not appreciate the importance of that first paragraph:
What The Science Says:
In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.
You don't look and think before you leap do you. What a twerp you are.
By repeating this in the context you are showing a complete and utter logic fail. A logic fail so easy to spot only an idiot would miss it. I suggest that you return to your village, they miss you.
"A number of studies have used a variety of statistical and physical approaches to determine the contribution of greenhouse gases and other effects to the observed global warming, like Lean & Rind and Foster & Rahmstorf. And like those studies, they find a relatively small solar contribution to global warming, particularly in recent decades"
Lionel, they have singing the same song for years, the sun doesn't change enough to make a difference, EXCEPT NOW when you numpties need to find an excuse for the cooling
Lionel, they have singing the same song for years, the sun doesn’t change enough to make a difference, EXCEPT NOW when you numpties need to find an excuse for the cooling
So, you are doubling down on the stupid.
You too are beyond help and parody being a sad ignorant little man with a small mind.
(CNSNews.com) – A 2007 prediction that summer in the North Pole could be “ice-free by 2013” that was cited by former Vice President Al Gore in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech has proven to be off… by 920,000 square miles.
In his Dec. 10, 2007 “Earth has a fever” speech, Gore
‘Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations… There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.’
Hmmm.... time to abandon the models and use our intuition.
And el gordolocks, your source for that AR5 leak would be...?
Smells like a quote mine plus distortion to me.
Ah! Yes. Now noted (warning finish your drink or moth-full of food before clicking link) its that serial obfuscater David Rose at it again!, a tool for the GWPF - their charity status should now be in serious doubt.
Oh, and Judith scores again - another mark down her ladder of regress.
A 2007 prediction that summer in the North Pole could be “ice-free by 2013” that was cited by former Vice President Al Gore in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech has proven to be off… by 920,000 square miles.
That prediction was for 2016 +/- 3 years and, which means it can't be assessed until 2019. And it even used "could", not "will", if basic arithmetic is too difficult.
Karen has already been told about this multiple times. Karen is a blatant liar.
(And note how that "news report" focused on ice area because readers must not be alerted to the ice volume or thickness, which are both far stronger indicators of ice reduction. Also note that the site is shilling for donations - there are suckers born every minute!)
...time to abandon the models and use our intuition.
...because your intuition has proven to be remarkably robust...no, wait, I can't say that with a straight face. Let me try again: because your intuition has proven to be worse than random chance.
#65...ah David Rose, writing for children again. "Scientists blame their computers" is the insinuation. The words 'admit','doom' and 'apocalypse' feature heavily. He's an emboldened twat, clearly being groomed as the next Chris Booker.
Ecosystem services is bullshit non science for rent-seeking lefties. Fuck off Lionel. More watermelon politics.
Stu 2, perhaps you would like to comment on people who dismiss a particular scientific area of research - not even specific researchers, but the topic itself - on the basis of politics?
(While you're at it, I'm still waiting for you to produce a quote where I dismiss a competent scientist's scientific claims purely because of their politics. If you can't find one, feel free to withdraw the false claim.)
So disgusted, and I have noted your heart felt message on Rose and Australian politics at SkS Bernard, that I have had to calm myself with Vivaldi Concerto in D major RV 93 Largo .
Christ, it's getting worse in here, even with FreddyBerenwanker banned at last.
WTF is a repeatedly exposed and ridiculed serial liar, fantasist and bullying thug Luke still doing here? Does he like being humiliated and mocked? Must do, I suppose, which is a bit weird.
* * *
One other thing. Luke constantly claims that there is no rationale for this blog etc but every time I look - here he is again. Clearly the "no rationale" stuff is yet another rather desperate lie aimed at shutting down people who repeatedly catch Luke out in his lies and expose his fantasies.
"Ecosystem services is bullshit non science for rent-seeking lefties"
BBD, I second that. When is Tim going to finally ban this brainless twerp? Luke has got to be the most pathetic idiot we've ever had on Deltoid - and that is saying a lot considering some of the luminaries on here past and present.
Understanding the value of supporting, aesthetic and provisioning ecosystem services is one of the most important disciplines bridging environmental science and economics. Supporting services are those which underpin the material economy (Heal, 2000). These include: purification of air and water, breakdown of wastes, stabilization of coastlines and climate, flood control, generation and maintenance of soil and renewal of its fertility, pollination, seed dispersal, the cycling of nutrients, pest control and others.
Costanza's seminal 1997 paper argued that supporting ecological services alone were worth 33 trillion dollars to the global economy at the time - almost twice as much as the sum of all GDPs of all nations on Earth. A more recent study evaluates the value of supporting services:
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) was one of the largest scientific endeavors undertaken in decades. Many of the world's leading scientists contributed to it. The report concluded that human activities have seriously degrading critical services such as those described above by as much as 60%. The prognosis of further degradation is dire. Most of these services do not have technological substitutes, and even where there are, these are prohibitively expensive. For instance, the extinction of pollinators in parts of China has meant that certain crops have to be pollinated by hand. Humans cannot replicate the effectiveness of natural pollinators, such as insects, and crop yields are thus a fraction of what they would be if healthy population of insects were present.
There are a number of examples where the value of ecosystem services has been demonstrated. One of the best and which I use in lectures is the pollination of oil palms. Oil palms are native to west Africa, and were introduced into Indonesia and elsewhere in SE Asia in 1918. However, no native pollinators were introduced, meaning that for 62 years the trees had to be hand-pollinated. In 1980, however, a small African weevil and mutualistic pollinator of oil palm trees was introduced intentionally into Asia. Within 5 years, 200 million dollars was saved in tedious hand-pollinating practices and at the same time oil palm yields increased by a factor of 5.
Other examples abound. New York City has some of the cleanest drinking water of any major city on Earth. That is because the water comes from the Catskill Mountains watershed, some 150 km north of the city. Soil organisms filter the water and purify it. In the 1980s, however, the water supply to the city was threatened by developers who planned to clear many of the forests in the Catskill Mountains for golf courses and hotels. Moreover, the number of farms in the area increased, all of these factors leading to a reduction in the quality of groundwater and thus threatening New York's longstanding supply. City planners had two options: build a water purification plant for 6 billion dollars with 300 million dollar annual maintenance costs, or to stop any further development of the Catskill region, buy out the developers and turn it into a large wilderness region - at a cost of 3 billion dollars. The planners took the latter decision.
Two textbook examples of ecosystem services and their economic valuation. Yet Luke says that ecosystem services are 'lefty bullshit'. Folks, this is the kind of brainless idiot that we are dealing with. A self-righteous know-nothing with delusions of grandeur. Bill is correct. He does not deserve an audience.
Two textbook examples of ecosystem services and their economic valuation.
Thanks you for taking the time to spell it out to one who clearly does not understand as much as he wants to think. Or maybe he gets riled when a mental black hole of his is exposed.
The examples you gave are just two mentioned in that book I mentioned at #42 above .
Luke has no excuse for continuing in his eco-ignorance.
Disclaimer from Karen's surveys: DISCLAIMER: These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. Poll results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. Stock & Land is not responsible for the opinions expressed herein.
@Harvey (#79) eco fundamentalist and CO2 clown :evil:
Your insane over-exaggeration of eco worshipping is totally unacceptable:
Understanding the value of supporting, aesthetic and provisioning ecosystem services is one of the most important disciplines bridging environmental science and economics. Supporting services are those which underpin the material economy (Heal, 2000). These include: purification of air and water, breakdown of wastes, stabilization of coastlines and climate, flood control, generation and maintenance of soil and renewal of its fertility, pollination, seed dispersal, the cycling of nutrients, pest control and others.
Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:
Costanza’s seminal 1997 paper argued that supporting ecological services alone were worth 33 trillion dollars to the global economy at the time – almost twice as much as the sum of all GDPs of all nations on Earth. A more recent study evaluates the value of supporting services:
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) was one of the largest scientific endeavors undertaken in decades. Many of the world’s leading scientists contributed to it. The report concluded that human activities have seriously degrading critical services such as those described above by as much as 60%. The prognosis of further degradation is dire. Most of these services do not have technological substitutes, and even where there are, these are prohibitively expensive. For instance, the extinction of pollinators in parts of China has meant that certain crops have to be pollinated by hand. Humans cannot replicate the effectiveness of natural pollinators, such as insects, and crop yields are thus a fraction of what they would be if healthy population of insects were present.
Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:
There are a number of examples where the value of ecosystem services has been demonstrated. One of the best and which I use in lectures is the pollination of oil palms. Oil palms are native to west Africa, and were introduced into Indonesia and elsewhere in SE Asia in 1918. However, no native pollinators were introduced, meaning that for 62 years the trees had to be hand-pollinated. In 1980, however, a small African weevil and mutualistic pollinator of oil palm trees was introduced intentionally into Asia. Within 5 years, 200 million dollars was saved in tedious hand-pollinating practices and at the same time oil palm yields increased by a factor of 5.
Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:
Other examples abound. New York City has some of the cleanest drinking water of any major city on Earth. That is because the water comes from the Catskill Mountains watershed, some 150 km north of the city. Soil organisms filter the water and purify it. In the 1980s, however, the water supply to the city was threatened by developers who planned to clear many of the forests in the Catskill Mountains for golf courses and hotels. Moreover, the number of farms in the area increased, all of these factors leading to a reduction in the quality of groundwater and thus threatening New York’s longstanding supply. City planners had two options: build a water purification plant for 6 billion dollars with 300 million dollar annual maintenance costs, or to stop any further development of the Catskill region, buy out the developers and turn it into a large wilderness region – at a cost of 3 billion dollars. The planners took the latter decision.
Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:
Two textbook examples of ecosystem services and their economic valuation. Yet Luke says that ecosystem services are ‘lefty bullshit’. Folks, this is the kind of brainless idiot that we are dealing with. A self-righteous know-nothing with delusions of grandeur. Bill is correct. He does not deserve an audience.
Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:
Please stop your useless proaganda for a completely useless waste of time with your lunatic eco illness.
Ya gotta love Berendaneke. The examples I put up about pollination and water purification are bonafide case studies. There are many more examples.. these are just two classic textbook ones.
I also reiterate some conclusions form the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006). The report is available online. I also paste a link to a recent peer-reviewed study on valuation, as well as Costanza's seminal 1997 Nature paper.
So what does our resident psychopath do? Copy and paste my post and then put lines through all of it, as if this is some sort of demented proof that these examples aren't true and that the studies and MEA don't exist.
Note that the nutter doesn't offer up any proof of these being fabrications; no, instead Berendaneke can only mutter gibberish about this being 'bullshit from an eco-clown'.
When is Tim going to ban this guy, along with his puppet master, Luke and his alter ego Fatso? This blog has been dragged through the mud in recent months by the fruitcake brigade only because there has been no filter. You can see exactly what happens with blogs when deniers try and take over. Intellectual discourse is dragged down to the lowest common denominator. If these guys are a representative sample of the denial brain trust, then no wonder they are in such trouble.
And let me assure you that barycentriism has nothing to do with astrology.
So don't fucking tell us what it isn't in lieu of what negligible effect it actually is. Or we might just think it's just another desperate thrashing about of a deluded half-wit crank of the Anything But CO2 persuasion
Btw, Gordon that's rhetorical because we already know that's what it is and what you are.
Jeff @ #86 What you have to remember Jeff is that the pitiful collection of cranks, liars and the most cack-handed of SpamKan relays imaginable are the sum total result of the Koch et al investment in pure shit.
Cheap internet yapping by the above coterie is what they've been told they've bought. Anyone else would be suing for a refund.
'The WSJ report said the change was small but "it is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet". - See more at:
Your claim is totally unsubstantiated and therefore has to be rejected:
Thanks you for taking the time to spell it out to one who clearly does not understand as much as he wants to think. Or maybe he gets riled when a mental black hole of his is exposed
You did not apprehend that your knowledge in meteorology is far below the level of your black hole.
Answer the question how many temperature stations are covered in the GHCN database? You will see that you are totally unable to answer this simple question:
You violate this blog with offensive unsubstantiated nutter bollocks which is so typical of the CO2 losers. Your insanely hostile wording cannot be accepted:
When is Tim going to ban this guy, along with his puppet master, Luke and his alter ego Fatso? This blog has been dragged through the mud in recent months by the fruitcake brigade only because there has been no filter. You can see exactly what happens with blogs when deniers try and take over. Intellectual discourse is dragged down to the lowest common denominator. If these guys are a representative sample of the denial brain trust, then no wonder they are in such trouble
You engage in non-scientific ranting of a desperate brat with foul language. You should take your meds and wipe your screen from your spittle, you eco clown :evil:
You will see that you are totally unable to answer this simple question:
No, Freddyfred. You've been unable to demonstrate the importance and show no comprehension of sampling.
But keep on exposing your idiocy. If you have to.
What drivel Jeff - there is no no need for a watermelon lefist concept such as ecosystem services - it simply used to be called natural resource management, biological control or conservation. It's still done ! Ecosystem services are simply nouveau pretentious non-science rent-seeking crap and you know it.
"Ecosystem services" builds on the quite elderly concept "natural capital", a handle designed to help those who see the natural world as a mess in need of 'improvement' understand some basics about reality, and to demonstrate to the bread-heads that accounting laguage has broader utility. It helped to break down some of the anthropocentric delusions of exceptionalism and removal from nature that came with technology...well, it helped some.
There is early speculation that the 2013-14 European winter will be colder than the average .... that would make six winters in a row that have been particularly bitter.
#18...Farage is right that it's been a tough decade in Europe for the poor, but it's crocodile tears....'climate change is a sham because poor people' is dumb,and as Barroso says, populist. He's trying to argue against the scientific orthodoxy by pointing to the economic pain brought on by the globalism from which he personally profited... ghastly and stupid.
The ignorance of holding up the Augusts 2012 and 2013 Arctic sea ice extent [which he thinks is an 'ice cap'] is lost on you, Gordy...why is inter-annual variability within the declining trend invisible to you?....favoring alleged 'US scientists' who predict 15-30 years cooling, while having no faith in projections, is a side-splitter. It's of little comfort to know that you learn more here than Farage with his resources will allow himself. As a politician,he's a troll,and we all know, we need better trolls.
# 21...has it? Just as a simple matter, in trying to suggest that Arctic sea ice is recovering simply by displaying two satellite pics,and appealing to unidentified alleged experts, Farage is demonstrating how NOT to discredit scientific orthodoxy. He makes a fool of himself,which no amount of polished mugging for the camera can conceal.
Lotharsson@# 2 & @#78.
I can't be bothered going through these threads to find specific quotes but:
* what is chameleonic? I cannot find a definition of that word or what contextual application it has in your comment.
* I am not disputing that MSM misrepresents issues. I would also agree that News Ltd are among the most strident. I do dispute that News Ltd are the only guilty party from whichever perspective you may have. I believe Nick's view of PR in government institutions is somewhat naïve.
* As much as I don't think much of Luke's commenting style from memory his main point was that ecosystem services is not a new concept it is just a new name for something that has been happening for quite some time. If I ignore his abuse, I actually agree with the substance of his comment as well as what he had to say about farmers'.
* Go back to your comments around the time of the Australian election and it won't be very hard to find politically motivated commentary from you &
* I have decided that you are a crashing bore that can't actually engage but can only browbeat, lecture, sneer and argue endlessly why even when you are mistaken you are in fact not mistaken.
You violate this blog with offensive unsubstantiated nutter bollocks which is so typical of the CO2 losers. Your insanely hostile wording cannot be accepted:
Switzerland is famous for its Cherman-speaking psychiatrists - Freddy could provide them with plenty of material.
You understand the psychological condition you are displaying above, Freddy?
'I would also agree that News Ltd are among the most strident. I do dispute that News Ltd are the only guilty party from whichever perspective you may have.'
The Murdocracy has gone out of their way to present both sides of the CC debate, while Fairfax and the ABC have been negligent in this regard. That's why I would enjoy seeing Aunty's newsroom torn to pieces.
el gordo.
I agree that the ABC has been remiss in its duty but I don't think it is correct that any sector of the MSM has gone out of its way to present both sides of the CC debate.
I think, instead, that they have all gone out of their way to polarise the CC debate and that does, very unfortunately, include the ABC.
# 25 "Murdochracy / both sides of the debate"... this is feeble. It is not a debate. It's a shitstorm of lies disseminated by a faction which is not bound by any ethical or systemic guidelines of review.
One 'side' has decades of work, inter-disciplinary support, the observations and all the physically realistic theory...the other 'side' has no work beyond disinformation, no physical consistency [GCRs, barycentrism, 'cycles', plots, hoaxes and conspiracies], no responsibility and a determination to lie [David Rose's 'emergency IPCC meeting' being but a recent example]...and Murdoch is delighted to exercise no discrimination between them. In fact Murdoch's machine is a bona fide generator of disinformation in its own right [Rose, Leake, etc], a creator of conflict where there is none,and a disseminator of fake-charitable FF lobby pabulum [Andrew Montfords pathetic attempt to dismiss Cook et al]
And robotic spammers like you put in for free. In the end, your 'side' are just chanting, ears stopped up, blindfolds in place.
I do dispute that News Ltd are the only guilty party from whichever perspective you may have.
So, you double down on a position that still looks remarkably like false balance and make no attempt to quantify the relative magnitude of any "guilt" you think is due. You're happy to merely say "both sides do it". Entirely as expected, perhaps because it would reveal you complaining loudly about the splinter and not saying much about the log.
As much as I don’t think much of Luke’s commenting style from memory his main point was that ecosystem services is not a new concept it is just a new name for something that has been happening for quite some time.
Epic Fail.
I didn't ask you to apply your previous position to whatever you interpret to be his "main position". I asked you to apply it consistently to his actual dismissal of the field, you know, based on what he actually said to that effect:
Jeff’s whiney bitch eco-end-of-the-fucking-world rantings are good entertainment value. They fulfill all the meme criteria to belong to the greenie, watermelon, university dropkick, do-gooder and bedwetter class...the last refuge for leftie eco-scoundrels...
There's no reasonable interpretation that says that's merely complaining about a name change. A name change doesn't provide a "refuge for eco-scoundrels", nor does a name change render a scientific discipline "non-science" which means that the alleged "rent-seeking" is a scam.
You are distinctly one-eyed, Stu 2, and you have a very interesting habit of applying your one eye to editing what other people have said.
Go back to your comments around the time of the Australian election and it won’t be very hard to find politically motivated commentary from you
Which does not support the claim that you made, you know, that I had dismissed competent scientists' valid claims purely because of their politics. I'll take that as an admission that your claim was false, since you clearly aren't going to admit it yourself. You repeatedly misrepresent what I say, and simply duck and weave when you are caught out and pretend that you weren't. Either you aren't very good at comprehension, or you're being mendacious. And you seem to think that no-one notices you being caught out.
I have decided that you are a crashing bore that can’t actually engage but can only browbeat, lecture, sneer and argue endlessly why even when you are mistaken you are in fact not mistaken.
What a desperate load of bollocks! Of course only a "crashing bore" would engage with what you say by responding to it, point by point if necessary. And I have no doubt it's crashingly boring to have someone repeatedly point out that you've misrepresented what they are saying because you had really pinned your hopes on your straw men.
"What a desperate load of bollocks! Of course only a “crashing bore” would engage with what you say by responding to it, point by point if necessary. And I have no doubt it’s crashingly boring to have someone repeatedly point out"
‘There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable climate variability, with possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.’
What this means:
The IPCC knows the pause is real, but has no idea what is causing it. It could be natural climate variability, the sun, volcanoes – and crucially, that the computers have been allowed to give too much weight to the effect carbon dioxide emissions (greenhouse gases) have on temperature change.
‘Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations... There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.’
What this means:
The models said Antarctic ice would decrease. It’s actually increased, and the IPCC doesn’t know why.
Love the bit where the morons toss around the term 'rent seeking' - a Libertard Shibboleth of the era - without having a clue what it means. Please, genuises, explain to anyone who can be bothered listening to you how 'ecosystem services' can 'rent-seek'? Oh, the irony...
(Oh, and in the process you'll only demonstrate you don't know what 'ecosystem services' are, either, - not to mention that you're too thick to Google - but that's consistent. It's a blessing - for you, at least - you're both too stupid to realise how stupid you are. Anyone reading this who sympathises with you clowns is on notice that you, too, are equally dense. There's a surplus of dense people in the world, and have a guess where they all line up on this debate...)
#25, David Rose is asserting,not debating...and he asserts a falsehood: he claimed that the IPCC is 'admitting' that GW has been half the rate they said it was proceeding at in 2007. Not 0.2C/decade,but closer to 0.1C/decade,apparently....
Trouble is, David is wrong. IPCC in 2007 said it had been warming at 0.13C/decade. Rose took their projection for the two decades post-2007 and confused it with their observations to 2007.
Stupid? Liar? Stupid liar? Who cares? It's not a debate.
How quickly will his newspaper issue corrections? LOL
how many temperature stations are covered by the GHCN database? This is a simple question. You cannot escape the impression that you are utterly ignorant, stupid and incompetent :evil:
#25, David Rose is asserting,not debating…and he asserts a falsehood: he claimed that the IPCC is ‘admitting’ that GW has been half the rate they said it was proceeding at in 2007. Not 0.2C/decade,but closer to 0.1C/decade,apparently….
Trouble is, David is wrong. IPCC in 2007 said it had been warming at 0.13C/decade. Rose took their projection for the two decades post-2007 and confused it with their observations to 2007.
Stupid? Liar? Stupid liar? Who cares? It’s not a debate.
How quickly will his newspaper issue corrections?
David Rose is far more knwledgable in weather and climate than you CAGW fuckwits on leper island :evil: :evil:
#31. On the contrary, the possible reasons for the pause have been laid out,the difficulty lies in attribution...and the impossible reasons have been dismissed.
#33 Several mechanisms have been advanced over the last six years for the increase, and they will be part of the WG1 discussion. You are unaware of them? Too bad. How does the small observed increase affect the understanding of the whole,or the projections for GAT? In your own words,please. [ I know, it'll be 'lol' ] The modelling also underestimated the rate of Arctic sea ice decline. Are you always going to be this stupid about model/observation issues? I predict yes.
#38..."wring [sic] as always" ...Assertion from the Strike Through Monkey...what a surprise! You're gambling Rose is correct? Check Rose's latest piece and check the relevant part of IPCC AR4 WG1 'The Physical Science Basis'...then acknowledge your mistake, cowardly sausage.
Apparently, Rose has struck out his 'emergency' meeting claim, since he is slow ,it'll take a few days for him to get across this one.
Lotharsson.
What a desperate load of bollocks?
I am not desperate about anything and your latest effort @#28 has done nothing to alter my conclusion that you must indeed be a crashing bore.
I also note that nowhere in your latest boring essay about nothing other than what you think you said/ I said/ you think you know what I meant by what I said/ did you even attempt to answer the only actual question I asked you.
I also wasn't aware that a question about another commenter would attract a pass or a fail mark, nor do I particularly care.
"there is no no need for a watermelon lefist concept such as ecosystem services – it simply used to be called natural resource management, biological control or conservation".
Pure and utter nonsense from one of the blogs resident idiots. The term Ecosystem Services captures a suite of natural processes that emerge over variable spatial and temporal scales under a single umbrella - and highlight the fact that most do not carry pricing in economic price-cost scenarios. If Luke calls this, 'natural resource management', then he needs to explain this at the level of population and systems ecology. Until the term Ecosystem Services was invoked, the importance of biodiversity in maintaining and generating conditions that regulate nutrient cycles and various flows and feedback loops in natural ecosystems was rarely if ever acknowledged. Now it has become a vital part of understanding the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning - one of the major areas of contemporary research. Luke appears to think that the field is restricted to application, whereas it now combines both fundamental and applied aspects of environmental science and ecology.
Note how the AGW deniers all jumped into the fray with their penny's worth of stupidity. As I have said before, these people aren't just AGW deniers but are anti-environmentalists. I'm sure that, like Fatso, they think that humans are virtually exempt from the laws of nature. They believe that no matter how much humans simplify natural systems, that technology will always enable us to out-run the damage inflicted.
Debunking Luke's asinine stupidity is a slam dunk. Still, the only reason I persist here is that some people may inadvertently wander into here and swallow the shit he and his brothers in ignorance dish out. Somebody has to counter it.
it simply used to be called natural resource management, biological control or conservation
Not exactly. The reverse in fact. These terms all carried or implied that "caring for the natural world" was a cost to the economy. A cost that many people claimed should either be reduced or eliminated as an unnecessary burden on "the productive economy".
The concept of ecosystem services turns this on its head. By expressing the values of natural processes in $$ terms it turns these previous arguments on their heads. Do we think it's a good idea to blow up a perfectly serviceable sewage system that we built for a certain cost and that we'll have to replace if we do so? No, it's not. And the exact same argument can be used about things that we didn't build ourselves but are available to us by virtue of geography and biology. So we now look at mangroves and wetlands in a very different way from how we did 20+ years ago. Very often we still drain and pave them or "reclaim" them for building, but at least the concept of ecosystem services gives us a language to discuss the actual costs and benefits of taking, or modifying or restricting, such actions.
The three unwise monkeys can jabber on 'til the cows come home; the point is they have proved themselves, yet again, to be stupid.
You do not know what 'rent seeking' is. You do not know what 'ecosystem services' are. Does this hinder any of you in your shamefully ignorant blatherings? Does it hell!
You are uninformed blowhards who would much rather make it all up than do a moments research. Absolutely typical exemplars of your entire tribe, in other words.
And all anyone has to do is scroll up and they'll know it, dimwits!
And all the Mouth-breather my-emotional -development-stopped-before-puberty 'jokes' fart in the world won't save you!
#51:
Nup. Can't stick the flounce.
Lotharsson: 279 vs Stu2: nil.
But Little Miss Stu 2 will be back with more peeved tone trolling as soon as we get more than two pages away from the mess of his last tantrum, asking why we all read Lotharsson 'cause HE IS AS BORING AND RUDE AND ONE-SIDED AND UNFAIR -TO-RUPERT AND ILL-MANNERED AND IN-NO-WAY-AT-ALL-THE-REASON-WHY-DECENT-AND-INNOCENT-RIGHT-WING-ZEALOTS-CAN'T-MAKE-REASONABLE-AND-WELL-THOUGHT-THROUGH-COMMENTS-THAT-SHOULDN'T-BE-QUESTIONED-BY-SOME-OVERQUALIFIED-ANTI-ARTS-SCIENTIFIC-LITERATES-JUST-BECAUSE-THERE'S-NO-MODERATOR-ANY-MORE AND DID I MENTION BORING? And did he mention that Lotharsson's reasonable and well expressed demolitions of his pretensions are worse than the Freddiot, Fatso, Spam, fLuke and Mr Hilter (and his friends Mr Bimmler and Mr Not-von-Ribbentropp), combined, because they aren't psychotic, gormless, facile, rude or wrong enough? OK Stu2?
Tony Abbott has released his ministry line up: there is no science ministry as such....figures. Don't like science? Ignore it, hide it inside another ministry, 'problem' solved. Science further removed from notice. I suppose it's in the industry portfolio...or is he waiting for Mirabella to stumble over the line?
Even Luke, who doesn't know much, has picked up on the fact that the Hadley Cells are beginning to expand. Even he knows that this is going to screw up rainfall and so agricultural production in the temperate mid-latitudes and probably at higher latitudes. Drought is already starting to bite at US agricultural productivity. Already. By mid-century...
It was me, Karen, that has tried to educate fuckwits like you about the fact that basal melt not surface air temperature, is the key modulator of glacial flow rates and so mass balance loss in Antarctica.
"While scientists and environmentalists have discussed ecosystem services for decades, these services were popularized and their definitions formalized by the United Nations 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), a four-year study involving more than 1,300 scientists worldwide.[1]
This grouped ecosystem services into four broad categories:
1/ provisioning, such as the production of food and water; = farming
regulating, such as the control of climate and disease; = farming
supporting, such as nutrient cycles and crop pollination; = farming
and cultural, such as spiritual and recreational benefits. = retards like bbd, Lionel and Harvey all meditating and smoking gunja
#75,76...the battery-hen of ignorance is failing to provide any service, let alone warrant provision of ecosystem services...basal melt is always happening [duh!], but rates vary [duh!]...what is influencing that rate now around the oceanic edges of the ice sheet, dummy?
What the fuck would you know about it, Gordy? Do some reading you ignorant clown.
# 83
Hadley Cell expansion is observed. It is not a hypothesis. More flap-mouthed cluelessness from a fucking idiot who would do better to shut up and learn.
The recent record high temperatures come on the back of an exceptionally warm period for Australia, with above average mean temperatures affecting the entire nation. This warmth has culminated in Australia’s hottest 12-month period on record (Figure 2) with an anomaly of +1.11 °C. This is a record high temperature for any 12-month period (i.e., all January to December, February to January, etc.), with the year-to-date temperature with an anomaly of +1.13 °C (January to August) breaking the previous record (+1.05 °C in 2005).
And:
The last 12 months saw a large number of temperature records set across Australia, including:
* Australia’s hottest summer day on record (7 January)
* Australia’s warmest winter day on record (31 August)
* Australia’s warmest month on record (January)
* Australia’s warmest summer on record
* Australia’s warmest January to August period on record
And you can fuck off too. Here's Ed Hawkins, from your link:
The Science Media Centre recently held a briefing for journalists on the recent slowdown in global surface temperature rise, and published an accompanying briefing note. The Met Office also released three reports on the topic.
The key points were: (1) recent changes need to be put in longer term context & other climate indicators such as sea level, Arctic sea ice, snow cover, glacier melt etc are also important; (2) the explanation for recent slowdown is partly additional ocean heat uptake & partly negative trends in natural radiative forcing (due to solar changes and small volcanic eruptions) which slightly counteract the positive forcing from GHGs; (3) the quantification of the relative magnitude of these causes is still work in progress; (4) climate models simulate similar pauses.
"The satellite data for the mid-troposphere for Australia- Land has just been released by the University of Alabama- Huntsville (UAH). Unfortunately analysis of this data shows that the mean temperature for the 12 months to August 2013 was +0.668 Celsius, which makes this period the sixth warmest of the satellite era (since December 1978)." http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/australias-warmest-12-month…
#88, mid-troposphere is not surface,is it,chook....How many of us live at 5000 meters in this country? Or any country for that matter. Kens' Clowndom is more like it. Sucked in,Kaz
What the hell are you talking about? What have the processes in your link to do with farming????? You are as thick as a plank. All you illustrate here is the kindergarten level of understanding of science that I have to continually respond to. Your knowledge of the field is so utterly low that it defies a cogent response. What your post reveals is how totally and utterly stupid and uneducated you are.
Here are your examples of farming:
The production of food and water refers to wild types of plants and animals that are either harvested from nature or which have been cultivated and domesticated for human use. The fact is that these are 'provided' by nature; we would not have an agricultural base without them.
Regulating, such as the control of climate and disease is based on the combined biological activities of billions of organisms that influence the gaseous composition of the atmosphere as well as deterring the spread of pathogens. In your simple brain this is farming? OMG, how dumb cna one be.
Supporting, such as nutrient cycles and crop pollination. Nutrient cycles are again regulated by a stupendous array of soil organisms whereas we depend on insects to pollinate our crops. Both services are not 'given' - they are freely provided subsidies that emerge from natural ecosystems. We are studying pollinator declines in Europe and NA and the factors causing them, because without pollinators food production is in big trouble, as I discussed yesterday with the Oil Pam and Chinese examples. So where does farming enter into the biological activities of soil microbes and other invertebrates? Where does farming enter into the biology and ecology of insect pollinators aside from honey bees? What about native wild pollinators?
Karen's post would be utterly hilarious if she/it/he weren't being serious. That's the sad part. Karen is profoundly ignorant, but thinks her post was witty and smart.
As you always mix up "hypothesis" and "theory" you should try in OWN words to describe what you CAGW clown :evil: understand under these two terms (please not to weird wordings :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: )
The AWAP records from ground based thermometers are based on a method that still has not been made public. What we do know is that there were 700-800 sites (strange how the actual number so hard to state). As far as we can tell, less than half of those were operating in the 1930s and 1940s when we had our last major heat waves, and hardly any were measuring the temperatures of the hottest bits central Australia (see the black dots on the map). There are gaps of 1,000km between thermometers. Lewis and Karoly compare the latest heat wave to the average for 1910-1940, yet in 1910 there are only 16 thermometers covering 7.6 million square kilometers. Half a million square kilometers per thermometer?"
There's *nothing* "dumb" about my comments. Nor have you ever - not once - pointed out an error in any of them.
* * *
Your spam about mid-trop UAH was abysmally stupid and embarrassing. All the more so as this has just been dealt with here. If you had read earlier comments on this thread about Christy's lying with graphs properly you would be aware that the MSU MT data are contaminated by stratospheric readings and so biased cold.
You really are just a clueless little tool, Karen.
Still refusing to develop your argument, Berenwanker?
- Why does the number of stations matter? Explain.
And:
- Satellite data are not derived from thermometers on the ground. So when the satellite data are in close agreement with the surface data, what can we conclude about the reliability of the surface data?
Come on you lazy and stupid fucking troll. Do some work.
"It is obvious that the CPC GHCN/CAMS t2m analysis produces a very different ranking of Australian historic summer heat. While 2013 was the hottest summer in the BoM heavily adjusted ACORN SAT data – the CPC GHCN/CAMS t2m analysis finds that 1983 was a clear winner for the hottest summer and 1973 missed out by only 0.00135°C.
Here are the rankings of the top ten hot summers for each data set."
It was you bbd, that mentioned that Antarctica was insulated from warming via the circumpolar winds was it not ?
#63 BBD
EAIS mass balance gain driven by precipitation (snow) which has increased as a predicted consequence of AGW.
retard :)
Explain the problem, Karen. You see, I don't think there is one. I think you are so abysmally fucking stupid that you simply do not understand why these two facts are compatible.
Go on. Explain the "problem" as you see it.
* * *
Warwick Hughes is a liar, Karen. A blog shill. BoM is the national meteorological service. You appear to be suggesting that BoM is engaged in a conspiracy to misrepresent Australian temperature data to the Australian people. Please confirm that this is indeed what you believe.
#99...Warwick Hughes,now? The bloke who has no idea how probabilistic forecasting works....great find,Kaz. Warwick emphasises that ACORN SAT is 'heavily adjusted', but does not explain himself or the adjustments or their effect. It's code for you and your fellow zombies, Kaz [adjusted must = fake]
Sorry, fool, but the most comprehensive data coverage is ACORN SAT...and hows life in the mid-troposphere?
#99,#3 For you fool, the GHCN-CAMS data set so beloved of "BOM-buster Hughes" What is it good for? the authors explain:
"The study here reveals that there are clear biases
between the observed (e.g., the GHCN + CAMS) MMSAT
and the existing Reanalysis data sets, such as CDAS/
Reanalysis I, II and ERA40 data sets, and these differences
vary with season over the global domain. The primary
purpose of this work is to generate an observation based
global monthly land surface air temperature analysis to
replace the previously used 2 m air temperature fields from
the NCEP-NCAR global Reanalysis I, which were not
observation based. The new global land surface air temper-
ature analysis, together with the CPC global land surface
precipitation analysis, will be used to derive other land
surface variables, such as the soil moisture, evaporation,
runoff, snow accumulation, and snow melt. As a byproduct,
this monthly mean surface air temperature data set can also
be applied, with caution, to monitor surface air temperature
variations over global land routinely or to verify the
performance of model simulation and prediction.
My bold...not really intended for the purpose Warwick put it to,surprise,surprise.... and BTW it runs a bit hot around most of Australia compared with those other re-analyses, and BOMs data sets for that matter. So disagreement with ACORN SAT is to be expected.
The past 12 months have been the warmest on record for Australia. The average temperature across Australia for the period 1 September 2012 to 31 August 2013 was 22.92 °C. This is 1.11 °C above the 1961–1990 average, surpassing the previous record of +1.08 °C that occurred between February 2005 and January 2006.
Temperatures for the calendar year to date (January to August) are also the warmest on record, at 1.13 °C above the long-term average, exceeding the figure set in August 2005, which was Australia’s warmest calendar year on record.
The record 12-month period has been characterised by widespread heat across Australia. The average temperature has been above average over the entire continent, with no region registering below-average temperatures.
In the past 12-month period a large number of temperature records have fallen across Australia including:
* Australia’s hottest summer day on record (7 January)
* Australia’s warmest winter day on record (31 August)
* Australia’s hottest month on record (January)
* Australia’s hottest summer on record
* Australia’s hottest January to August period on record
* Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record
The period ending August 2013 has also resulted in numerous State and Territory records including:
* The hottest January to August period on record for South Australia and Victoria
* The warmest winter on record for Victoria
* The warmest 12-month period on record for South Australia
* The warmest winter day on record for the Northern Territory
#9..yeah, pretty 'funny' given it's taken them a year to respond to "the Escalator", which covers the full record, with a cherry-pick of one lousy decade that still show a warming trend if you disregard its non-climatological status. And they just mimic SkS' declining sea ice animation which mocks you rejectionists....late to the party and lame, Kaz
I don't "develop" any "argument" against you and your CAGW illusionist brothers, as your intellect is so far below mine that we don't speak at equal levels. Not at all, twerp!
But I am doing with you is
a: examination of your knowledge level
b: education, to increase your rudimentary knowledge.
Alors fuckwit, how many stations in GHCN?? This is an investigation/examination of your tiny knowledge.
Farage, in social thinking, is somewhere right of David 'the slick' Cameron and George (aka Gideon) 'the smirk' Osborne in his politics and could not care a fig about the plight of the poor and jobless. So UKIP having got rid of Monckton as science adviser are still distorting the scientific understanding WRT the state of climate across the world.
Well of course they are, they are another outfit who listen to the likes of Ridley and Rose channelling the GWPF.
I am not quite sure what else that clip is supposed top show us, that the behaviour of the cryosphere is political, other than in the sense that bad policy decisions are leading to its demise. Nature is neither right, left or centre, political constructs that are so 19th century anyway. Civilisation will not continue unless we recognise that and also that WE, humanity, are not outside of nature but very much embedded in it.
What you and your ilk do not seem to grasp is that if we continue emitting ever more volumes of GHGs, polluting the limnic systems and oceans, destroying the ability of the natural world to continue with its beneficial services by fragmentation and monoculture backed up with excessive use of herbicides, fungicides [1], pesticides and fertilisers then a crash is bound to come and sooner than most sem to appreciate.
Now here is an excellent round-up of the recent attempts to lie to people using the MM, as Joe Romm would advise, have your head vise ready before clicking on the links to BS from Rose, Christy, Spencer, Montford (and no I am not going to pay money to this gang of highwaymen just to read the rest of the tripe, especially after that awful banner with one of Australia archetypal fat cats so prominently featured), Ridley and Lomborg.
We see some of the nuts, take that anyway you want, that have been feeding our trolls.
[1] have you any idea how important the fungi in good productive soil is? Cue another idiot fact free tirade from Luke.
@10 utter intellectual dirt from a primitive leper islander:
#9..yeah, pretty ‘funny’ given it’s taken them a year to respond to “the Escalator”, which covers the full record, with a cherry-pick of one lousy decade that still show a warming trend if you disregard its non-climatological status. And they just mimic SkS’ declining sea ice animation which mocks you rejectionists….late to the party and lame, Kaz
Answer the question how many temperature stations are covered in the GHCN database? You will see that you are totally unable to answer this simple question.
Stop it, my sides are hurting. If I did answer your question you would not be able to understand the complex reply. This is clear by you posing such a stupid, simplistic, question in the first place.
Your are a star turn oh simple one with your mass emoticon laden struck-out block-pastings,
Could Payments for Ecosystem Services Create an "Ecosystem Service Curse"?
"The most prominent examples of such problems include rent seeking, unequal bargaining power of buyers and sellers, volatility of payments, which are all related to the quality of institutions."
Three types of inefficiency can arise with rent seeking. First,
resources are devoted to lobbying government rather than
to productive activities. Second, interest groups may actually
seek additional regulations if the expected benefits from
such regulations exceed expected benefits in the absence
of regulation (Runge 1992). Third, rent seeking and other
political considerations may distort the distribution of
payments in ways that address political objectives at the
expense of environmental objectives. For example, Wu et
al. (2003) demonstrated that in the case of stream habitat
conservation, use of politically palatable allocation criteria
may lead to the lowest possible benefits to society.
"Answer the question how many temperature stations are covered in the GHCN database? You will see that you are totally unable to answer this simple question"
Luke, don't blame the idea for any poor implementation of policy which fails to address such concerns as these, from the same abstract.
...such systems should be carefully designed paying particular attention to distribution of property rights and transparency, decentralization of revenues, and capacity building to ensure further development opportunities.
Now I wonder what point you were trying to make by excluding that section.
Now, any more of the use from you of the Anglo Saxon for a female reproductive organ will ensure that I return to only mentioning you in passing as it is patently clear that your vocabulary is somewhat impoverished.
Still refusing to develop your argument, Berenwanker? Nobody is going to engage with you until you do.
- So get off your intellectual arse and do some fucking work. TELL US why the number of stations matters.
And:
- Satellite data are not derived from thermometers on the ground. So when the satellite data are in close agreement with the surface data, what can we conclude about the reliability of the surface data?
Come on you lazy and stupid fucking troll. Do some work.
Oh fuck off, Luke. Your cutnpaste posturing has been shown up endlessly as hollow. We all know you know nothing. You fool nobody by irritate everyone. So - fuck off.
I don’t “develop” any “argument” against you and your CAGW illusionist brothers, as your intellect is so far below mine that we don’t speak at equal levels. Not at all, twerp!
Actually, you are a fucking moron. I am not. Get it straight, troll.
No, BBD *refuses* to answer the question *until* the fucking troll develops its argument and explains:
- Why the number of stations matters
And
- Satellite data are not derived from thermometers on the ground. So when the satellite data are in close agreement with the surface data, what can we conclude about the reliability of the surface data?
I nearly sprayed stuff over the monitor when I read the hypothesis based on ignorance seen when freddy tried to explain a supposed increase in 'Antarctic iceshields' in his
#13 you are a hoot, devil sausage Strike Through Boy, and completely transparent. So answer the question: how many stations in GHCN? Then shove each one up your arse.
I also wasn’t aware that a question about another commenter would attract a pass or a fail mark,...
Then you should be.
The question highlighted the apparent selectiveness with which you apply your criticism, and your response pretending that Luke didn't say what he actually said demonstrated that the perceived selectiveness is actual.
You got even this simple thing wrong, Karen. It started with Stu 2 alleging I said something that I did not say - in other words "I said".
And it's no surprise that you'll attempt to ridicule the resulting exchange, as we have established that you routinely lie and you're quite happy for anyone else who agrees with your position to lie.
Its a hoot here watching Karen, Luke and Fatso rolling around in the mud trying to decipher exactly what the link between ecology and economics is. Its clear the three of them don't know diddly squat about the field, have never read up on it and hence have nothing else to do but ridicule it in an attempt to cover up the big blank spot in their heads.
Its also telling - as I said earlier - that their denial is not confined to AGW. Like I said all along, the deniers cover all environmental bases. There are no environmental problems as far as they are concerned. Its all some left wing conspiracy to create a world government or some such similar shit.
I'm more than willing to tutor these simpletons as to the relationship between biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and human welfare - but to cover up that big blank spot I alluded to earlier they'll huff and puff and bluster and try to suggest that they are experts in the field.
For example, Wu et al. (2003) demonstrated that in the case of stream habitat conservation, use of politically palatable allocation criteria may lead to the lowest possible benefits to society.
Over the last few years work to save the silvery minnow has built new side channels and habitats north of Albuquerque specifically for the minnow
The water still rose significantly in the Rio Grande, but the BOR believes the new habitat projects helped slow a lot of the extra flow.
So restoring a river system to reestablish natural arrangements to promote a healthy native fish population has ... resulted in flooding becoming more manageable ... and sparing people in a modern city from a flood's worst effects.
For example, Wu et al. (2003) demonstrated that in the case of stream habitat conservation, use of politically palatable allocation criteria may lead to the lowest possible benefits to society.
Funny you should mention stream habitat.
With a flow up to 9,000 cubic feet per second forecast, only around 5,000 cfs was measured at Isleta dam below Albuquerque.
Over the last few years work to save the silvery minnow has built new side channels and habitats north of Albuquerque specifically for the minnow
The water still rose significantly in the Rio Grande, but the BOR believes the new habitat projects helped slow a lot of the extra flow.
So restoring a river system to reestablish natural arrangements to promote a healthy native fish population has … resulted in flooding becoming more manageable … and sparing people in a modern city from a flood’s worst effects.
The problem with RSS TLT is that it is the outlier. Which is why using it is uninformative going on deceptive. Hence Monckton's preference for it. And yours.
I gave you a list of texts. You tried to bluff me with a single link to an online excerpt from a book you haven't read and I caught you out, again.
Which redundantly underlines just how much of a dickhead you really are. I repeat - you fool nobody. So why not fuck off? You aren't achieving anything here except making yourself look worse. What's the point? We all know you are a chippy inadequate and we all know about the fantasy friends, imaginary library and fake credentials.
We get the picture very clearly, Luke. Your work here is done.
BBD according to your religious green-lefty opinion you want to confine mankind to about 1 billion people which could be tolerated by your ridiculous "eco-system services", right?
The problem with RSS TLT is that it is the outlier. Which is why using it is uninformative going on deceptive. Hence Monckton’s preference for it. And yours.
I gave you a list of texts. You tried to bluff me with a single link to an online excerpt from a book you haven’t read and I caught you out, again.
Which redundantly underlines just how much of a dickhead you really are. I repeat – you fool nobody. So why not fuck off? You aren’t achieving anything here except making yourself look worse. What’s the point? We all know you are a chippy inadequate and we all know about the fantasy friends, imaginary library and fake credentials
You should be banned as you shed such a terrible light on your leper island community. Havent you undergone any education, twerp :evil: ????????
Agreed, BBD. He's totally crackers; an online psychopath. Even Jonas was rational by comparison. I've never encountered such a lunatic online before, and that's saying a lot.
The answer you had given to the examination question was completely wrong. Therefore you have to repeat. You will be given 2 hours to try the examination again.
PS:
Arctic sea ice has tremendously increased this year and we are expecting global cooling in the next few decades.
Ah, jeffieboy, please explain for us simpeltons which is more beneficial for the biodiversity, cold or warm climate? Does the equatorial or the polar regions have more biodiversity?
#65 Bloody hell Lionel. First chek strikes with his frankly hideous Rupes toad-a-morph shot and now you pile on with the Queen of Darkness. This either side of supper. The pair of you are downright irresponsible. I hate to admit it, but perhaps Luke is right and he is gradually coarsening all our sensibilities.
Later this month, a long-awaited event that last happened in 2007 will recur. Like a returning comet, it will be taken to portend ominous happenings. I refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) “fifth assessment report,” part of which will be published on Sept. 27.
There have already been leaks from this 31-page document, which summarizes 1,914 pages of scientific discussion, but thanks to a senior climate scientist, we had a glimpse of the key prediction at the heart of the document. The big news is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPPC thought in 2007.
What I don't get is what Lomborg, Christie, Spencer and assorted pre-release leaking vermin think they're achieving.
By next week all their assorted misrepresentations will be laid bare and the focus will be on the actual report and its lead authors. The science peanut gallery will be ignored, at least until their next desperate stunt.
bbd, I didn't ask you, you stupid zealot. But ok, I'll reply: where is the evidence for this putative extinction? Oh wait, is it as with the 50 000 000 climate refugees 2012 as the goracle predicted and of which no one has seen a single one? Moving goal posts doesn't make your case. Although it's a well known, common and unique CAGW trade.
Tell me Pentax, how do you think the ecosystem will respond to a rapid warming that exceeds maximum Holocene temperatures by the end of this century? Everything fine, hunky-dory? Or mass extinctions as myriads of organisms are pushed out of their thermal tolerances and entire food webs collapse?
I cannot tell you how fed up I am getting with the plankton that infest this site. All ignorant, all cocksure, all dishonest, all so agonisingly wrong about everything yet all too fucking lazy to crack a book and fill in some of the abysm of ignorance inside their festering little minds.
What the fuck is wrong with these people? Prior to getting embroiled in the climate "debate" I had never encountered such diseased, paranoid, frightened denial in my life. Mendacity, yes, but you expect that when there is money on the table. But the kind of lying that goes on here is in a class of its own for blatancy and childishness. It is half horrifying and half funny. But dear God, if these vermin saw themselves as the rest of us see them, even for a few minutes, they would commit suicide out of self-disgust.
That's an easy question.
Very.
Very stupid indeed.
And with no inclination to learn either.
A particularly toxic combination, only sustainable in an over-energised, fossil-fuel consumer economic bubble..
Dear distinguished citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia
I cannot tell you how fed up I am getting with the CAGW plankton that infest this site. All ignorant, all cocksure, all dishonest, all so agonisingly wrong about everything yet all too fucking lazy to crack a book and fill in some of the abysm of ignorance inside their festering little minds.
What the fuck is wrong with these CAGW people? Prior to getting embroiled in the climate “debate” I had never encountered such diseased, paranoid, frightened denial in my life. Mendacity, yes, but you expect that when there is money on the table. But the kind of lying that goes on here is in a class of its own for blatancy and childishness. It is half horrifying and half funny. But dear God, if these vermin saw themselves as the rest of us see them, even for a few minutes, they would commit suicide out of self-disgust.
I hear you loud'n'clear BBD.
But you care, so what else you gonna do?
It is dispiriting at times the sheer volume of shi- ite - but one of the things that communities are for (even virtual ones) is to let us all know we're not alone in taking a stand.
Even if it seems wiping our bookmarks and putting it all behind us seems at times a welcome prospect, let's not forget that people like Jeff put their name out there and take ten times the amount of personally directed shit as well as the daily bulk deliveries of stupid we get to see.
Can you PLEASE PEASE PLEASE PLEASE STOP YOUR INSANE PALEO CRAP, PALEO CCCCRRRRRRAAAAAAPPPPPP
# 78 It’s a public forum, fuckwit.
where is the evidence for this putative extinction?
Paleontology/paleoclimate. Try the End-Permian for starters. Google “anoxic ocean events”. Do some fucking work you lazy, ignorant arse.
Get a clue.
BTW, you primitive clown without any knowledge from leper island, I have at least thosand times more poperty than you poor pig blatherskite. You are a negative deviation from god's creatin. May he forgive you your terrible sins that you must not burn too long in the purgatory, you fuvkqit :evil: :evil:
My name is Berendaneke and I am cool :cool:, very cool :cool: :cool: :cool:,
"Ah, jeffieboy, please explain for us simpeltons which is more beneficial for the biodiversity, cold or warm climate? Does the equatorial or the polar regions have more biodiversity?"
Ah, Pentaxdork, here's your answer. Certainly warm stable climates. But only those that have remained that way for a long period of time. I have said this a million times but I have to repeat it to get it to permeate your 10 inch thick skull: its the rate of change that matters. If temperate biomes - which experience seasonal temperature shifts - were within a century as warm as the tropics then this would generate a mass extinction to end all mass extinctions. You seem to think that a century is long enough for temperate biota to suddenly and miraculously adapt to temperatures well outside of their physiological windows. If that was the case, why are Polar Bears restricted to the Arctic and why can't we find Boreal Chickadees in Mexico? Shouldn't Snowshoe Hares be hopping around the southern pine forests of the US? Why aren't they? In Europe, tell me why Snow Buntings aren't thriving in the Mediterranean? Here's why: because species are adapted to specific climate windows. There are all kinds of other factors that determine their breeding and non-breeding distributions. In your myopic world, a rapid shift to a warmer climate will benefit everything. This reflects a piss-poor and profoundly ignorant understanding of science and is pure fantasy. It could only come from someone who knows nothing about ecophysiology.
Since you, Luke, Gordo, Berendanke, Karen and the other vile scum that has infested this site does not have a clue about such important factors as thermo-neutral zones, local adaptation, and a wealth of other areas that determine ranges and range boundaries, I might as well be speaking to a wall.
BBD is correct. I have also never encountered such a mentally deranged and diseased group of quacks in my life as the recent bunch that has entered Deltoid. If this is a cross section of the 'intelligentsia' on the 'other side' then God help humanity.
There is no debate here about ecosystem services amongst this bunch of warped idiots because not a single one of them even vaguely understands the field of spatial ecology and how this is connected with the material economy. I'd get more sense out of a braying bunch of hyenas. Their tactic - if one can call it that - is simply to spew out vitriol and other shit. The natural economy subsidizes the material economy in a myriad of ways. I've explained exactly how, and there's not been a single cogent response from the morons. Just gibberish. And more gibberish, laced with the old chestnut about green agendas and watermelons.
I'd like the deranged bunch to explain how they think that nutrients are cycled, and why this is important for primary production. What factors generate and maintain soil fertility. I'd like them to explain how our crops are pollinated. They could go on to explain how they think that humans would fare in a biologically impoverished world. How much do these cots think that natural systems can be paved, plowed, dammed, drained, slashed and burned. hyper eutrophicated, overgrazed, and altered chemically before there are economic consequences. I'd like them to tell me how much the global economy can expand and if they think that there are any ecological limits to material growth.
I have a pretty good idea of what this lot as ass***** is going to reply. Its not hard to predict.
Tim really needs to get back to his site before it is destroyed by this sordid bunch of complete idiots. Thanks to this lot its been reduced to life support.
You are really only a cheap propagandist of your insane environmentalist obsession.
Listen, you crap idiot: HUMAN LIFE AND PROGRESS OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION IS ABOUT MASTERING LIFE, I.E. SURVIVAL, WHAT YOU GREEN IDIOTS IN YOUR INSANE DECADENCE AND HATRED AGAINST YOUR OWN SPECIES CANNOT GRASP IN YOUR DEGENERATED BRAINS IS THAT YOUR UNSPEAKABLE DECADENCE IS WITHOUT COMPARISON IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND. YOU GREEN IDIOTS AAARRRREEE TTTTHHHHEEEE DISEASE OF TODAYS MANKIND.
YOU AND YOURS ARE SO UNSPEAKABLY STUPIID, PRIMITIVE, IMMORAL, HATEFUL, SOOOOO DISGUSTING THAT I HAVE TO VOMIT FOR SOME HOURS.
PPPPLLLLLEEEEAAAASSSEEEE FUCK OFF FROM HERE
LEPER ISLANDERS OF NIHILISM
NEVER IN MY LIFE HAVE I MEET SUCH CRAP ASSHOLES THAN YOUR CAGW LEPERERS :evil: :evil:
Jeff, you no idea of biology. Life is adaptation, the art of nature (without spoiled eco idiots like you) to fight for survival. Also HUMANS fight for survival, but this does not interest you, scoundrel, in your hatred against mankind.
There are powerful agents in society which fiercely fight against your green idiotic delusions of paradise with your pan god gaia.
There is no debate here about ecosystem services amongst this bunch of warped idiots because not a single one of them even vaguely understands the field of spatial ecology and how this is connected with the material economy. I’d get more sense out of a braying bunch of hyenas. Their tactic – if one can call it that – is simply to spew out vitriol and other shit. The natural economy subsidizes the material economy in a myriad of ways. I’ve explained exactly how, and there’s not been a single cogent response from the morons. Just gibberish. And more gibberish, laced with the old chestnut about green agendas and watermelons
WHAT INCREDIBLE DIRT YOU CONSTANTLY EXCREMENT HERE!!!!! SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!!
The other thing to bear in mind BBD is that denialism attracts the most insane vermin whose vainglorious assertion of their existence is really a cry against admittance of their inconsequentiality in the greater scheme of things.
Not very different from a succession of ever more stunted dwarves behind the curtains in a Wizard of Oz parody.
But twice as laughable.
I’d like the deranged bunch to explain how they think that nutrients are cycled, and why this is important for primary production. What factors generate and maintain soil fertility. I’d like them to explain how our crops are pollinated. They could go on to explain how they think that humans would fare in a biologically impoverished world. How much do these cots think that natural systems can be paved, plowed, dammed, drained, slashed and burned. hyper eutrophicated, overgrazed, and altered chemically before there are economic consequences. I’d like them to tell me how much the global economy can expand and if they think that there are any ecological limits to material growth
YOU HALLUCINATE THAT YOU GREEN LEFTY ECO FUNDAMENTALISTS RESPRESENT SOME ELITE, CLASS WHATEVER: no, no, no, no, no, no, no
YOU REPRESENT UGLY, MISERABLE LOSERS WHO WANT REVENGE FOR THEIR ROTTEN, DEGENERATED PERSONAL LIVES
chek, pure shit from your primitive eco activist brain
The other thing to bear in mind BBD is that denialism attracts the most insane vermin whose vainglorious assertion of their existence is really a cry against admittance of their inconsequentiality in the greater scheme of things.
Not very different from a succession of ever more stunted dwarves behind the curtains in a Wizard of Oz parody.
But twice as laughable
YOU IDIOT, CHEK, AND YOUR CLIMATE LEPER PEERS ARE LAUGHABLE
How can humans 'master life'? What is this drivel? Our species is totally and utterly dependent on biodiversity and on conditions that are generated through a stupendous array of biotic interactions that emerge from nature over variable spatial and temporal scales. We DO NOT have the technology to replicate these conditions. End of story. We exist because natural systems permit it. These systems do not exist for the purpose of supporting humanity; instead, our species survives because nature permits it.
This is a complete and utter fact. There is no argument!!!! If there were no nitrogen fixing bacteria in the soil, we could not survive. With the exception of legumes, plants cannot 'fix' their own nitrogen. An array of soil bacteria provide this function. Plants require nitrogen in order to survive. If there were no insect pollinators, we could not survive. Insects are the most important pollinating organisms. If insects disappeared, humans would follow very quickly. There are no ifs and buts.
We already know that the planet has a reduced capacity to support man. The evidence has been accumulated in many books and in a wide range of scientific journals. This has led to the ow flourishing field of ecological economics. More and more economists are coming around to realize how much our species depends on nature. In 2010, Deutsch Bank economist Pavan Sukdev estimated the cost to the global economy of deforestation every year. His estimate was in the range of tens of billions of dollars, as a result of lost services including flood mitigation, drought prevention and water purification. Costanza's seminal 1997 paper set the ball rolling.
No species co-opts more of nature than man. We co-opt 40% of net primary production and over 50% of net freshwater flows. This just further proves how utterly dependent we are on natural subsidies. No other species comes close to this level of co-option.
Thus far, the level of 'rebuttal' - if one can call it that, amongst the idiots here has been not to cite a single example where I am wrong. All I get is a constant stream of accusations of being i league with the green devil, of producing propaganda and the like. This isn't a debate because these schmucks don't know anything about the field. So all they can do is come back again and again with the same crap.
Read Ciostanza's paper and tell em where I am wrong. I want quantifiable facts, and not merely puerile insults. Read some of Gretchen Daily's articles and tell me where she is wrong - where he science is flawed. Go through Costanza's Nature paper and try and find the scientific flaws.
But of course they can't. Because they know nothing about it.
"Jeff, you no idea of biology. Life is adaptation, the art of nature (without spoiled eco idiots like you) to fight for survival"
This doesn't even qualify as a bottom-feeding perspective. It is so utterly and brazenly stupid that I don't want to waste my busy time as a scientist addressing it. Most five year old kids have a better understanding of environmental science than this.
One thing I will do. I intend to copy-paste this for one of my next scientific lectures. I can't wait to see how the scientific audience responds. Will there be riotous laughter or will jaws fall to the ground? That's how pig-ignorant it is. I might as well debate an amoeba.
More university wanker ideologue crap from Jeff. Get a real job Jeff. Ecosystem services is a rent-seeking try-on. Excuse us while we get on with useful natural resource management and conservation measures in the real world without recourse for leftie post-modernist drivel and pretend economics.
So somehow now Jeff has verballed us against pollinators and soil bacteria. Motherhood is next. Fuck off Jeff.
You just don't understand what I said: mastering life for humans is not sooo difficult to understand: take your personal example if you have a son or daughter: survival of your kids depends on the avaiability of food, healthcare, cloths, a home, caring parents, a long story of successes of civilization, and have nothing to do with your eco insania, obsession with x bacteria and all other stuff you are so fccused on.
You fight for polar bears, frogs, bacteria, BUT NOT FOR HUMANS, YOU CONSIDER HUMANS AS EVIL, SUPERFLUOUS, HOSTIE, DANGEROUS FOR YOUR BELOVED BACTERIA, YOU WANT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF HUMANS (by which method????).
I LOVE MORE THE HUMANS THAN BACTERIA OR POLAR BEARS. YOUR PREOCCUPATION WITH EVERYTHING BUT MAN IS WHAT I CALL DECADENCE, AS YOU FORGET WHAT COMES FIRST IN LIFE:
YOUR PERSONAL SURVIVAL, WHICH OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT INTERESET THE ECO ACTIVISTS SO MUCH, OR THE SURVIVAL OF OTHER HUMANS
YOUR BASIC POSITION IS AGAINST MANKIND ON EARTH AND THAT's THE REASON WHY I AM SO ANGRY WITH YOU!!!!!
Note Lionels l;ink Gordon and you similar fuckwit hangers-on.
No Minoan, Egyptian, Roman, Medieval or Uncle Tom Cobbley warming period matches the present.. That's my data, now where are yours for your fantasy denial periods?
"I have also never encountered such a mentally deranged and diseased group of quacks in my life as the recent bunch that has entered Deltoid. If this is a cross section of the ‘intelligentsia’ on the ‘other side’ then God help humanity."
Well said Jeff - quality abuse. I rank it highly. "mentally deranged and diseased: - isn't that our style of slag off? But anyway - well done.
Jeff, it never comes to your mind that maybe YOU are the idiot and not others?
This doesn’t even qualify as a bottom-feeding perspective. It is so utterly and brazenly stupid that I don’t want to waste my busy time as a scientist addressing it. Most five year old kids have a better understanding of environmental science than this.
One thing I will do. I intend to copy-paste this for one of my next scientific lectures. I can’t wait to see how the scientific audience responds. Will there be riotous laughter or will jaws fall to the ground? That’s how pig-ignorant it is. I might as well debate an amoeba.
Can you - maybe only a little bit - imagine how utterly incivil and utterly arrogant your text is??? No you can't, that's your BIG blind spot.
Of course will your students laugh (it's easy to anticipate) as people like you attract similarly idiotic other persons. Laughter from your fellow idiots is no proof that you are right and dispose of the truth.
Looks like The Mad Lukes, not understanding the hierarchy of Life On Earth are angry at their own utter incomprehension and complaining about the unfairness after having invested in a lifetime of shit ideas.
Perhaps that incomprehension will find some rest in becoming educated.
Or putting a .38 in it's mouth.
I don't suppose anybody much gives a fuck either way.
The incompetent and clueless tosser can't even rebaseline a couple of temperature time-series for comparison. Rotten from bark to core. Out with the chainsaws.
#4
Gordy seems to have gone, Luke. And even if he comes back you will only confuse him. He even makes you look knowledgeable. Berewanker's getting lonely now nobody here will talk to him - why not give him a hard time for a bit?
Re: your crap on the previous page - you strike me as the sort of lazy trolling prat who can't be bothered to read the thread, so here's what you may have missed:
RSS isn’t “phase shifted” relative to HadCRUT4. That is flat-out wrong and demonstrates that you can't even read a simple graph. Nor is the difference between the two data-sets anything like as great as your borked graph appears to show. The two data-sets use different baselines - that's why they plot differently on the y axis.
Try doing it properly. Rebaseline everything to a *common* baseline, eg 1981 – 2010, used here.
You really haven’t got a clue, have you?
I repeat – you fool nobody with your lies and bluster. Your fundamental incompetence and lack of topic knowledge is very obvious. So why not fuck off? You aren’t achieving anything here except making yourself look worse. What’s the point? We all know you are a chippy inadequate and we all know about the fantasy friends, imaginary library and fake credentials.
We get the picture very clearly, Luke. Your work here is done.
Yes yes BBD we know about different baselines - but they still don't line up do they - the point ! Good to see you're awake - it's a wonder at this hour and with your sleep disorder.
BTW cunt - where's your real climate non-palaeo library? still waiting.
AND cunt - answer my 10 questions - still waiting
And have you played with you son or checked he's alive yet? Daddy why do you spend your life on the computer wasting your time. Why does Mummy think you're a fucking idiot and why doesn't she live here anymore?
#9, that was moronic
#10, the place is groaning with paleo and cryosphere evidence; it takes stunning amounts of feigned ignorance and insanity [or coal money] to ignore it...stupid mugging with profanity, tortured language and emoticons in the blogosphere, and dull evasion from the pollies
I keep coming back here and hoping that Tim Lambert is going to return and moderate this site, but instead I come back to people calling people cunts. This used to be an interesting website, but now it's a cesspool. It's a shame because it used to be a must-read site. *Sigh*.
Thus far, the level of ‘rebuttal’ – if one can call it that, amongst the idiots here has been not to cite a single example where I am wrong. All I get is a constant stream of accusations of being i league with the green devil, of producing propaganda and the like.
Fortunately Stu 2 is on hand to call out that fallacy, right? ;-)
I get the impression Luke has heard the term and repeated it without knowing what it means. So let's see if we can find out. What's the frequency, Luke?
...but they still don’t line up do they...
They do line up quite well, and the trends are in reasonably good agreement. You're asserting that they "should" line up better for the purpose to which BBD's observation was put - noting that it's kinda hard to argue that the warming in the surface record has been faked when the satellite record warming is of similar magnitude? That's eminently silly - insisting that noise "line up" when comparing noisy signals - but par for the course with you.
I tend to agree. Unfortunately there are a few participants here who constantly throw dirt through the air at their opponents. Especially BBD, chek, Lionel, rwhombat and Stu are bad in this respect and should be admonished to improve their manners.
"You fight for polar bears, frogs, bacteria, BUT NOT FOR HUMANS"
Honestly, how I am supposed to debate this utter drivel? The entire comment @1 is incomprehensible gibberish. Again, its below comic-book level. The writer clearly is clearly deranged. My suggestion is that he reads "The Hungry Green Caterpillar" and work up from there.
#18...yes The 'boiling in hot water meme' is dead...er, who proposed it, anyway? You chumps with your underwater volcano army, in the complete absence of evidence....
Luke, it doesn't matter what bloody terms you wish to call them, these' resources' you refer to sustain humanity. And these resources are more appropriately called plants and animals or 'biodiversity'. And they sustain humanity by generating conditions through innumerable interactions that regulate the functioning of ecosystems. Get my drift. you arrogant moron?
These resources wouldn't be worth conserving if we didn't know how they work. That's what scientists do: study the individuals and populations and how they interact to generate the conditions that regulate ecosystem functions and help to sustain human civilization. Only then does application - resource management and conservation - enter into it.
So call it whatever the hell you like, but natural systems permit human existence. And the 'resources' you refer to are in truth, biodiversity, and the conservation refers to protecting it to ensure that it continues to generate conditions - OR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES - that underpin our economies.
End of story. That was easy. Any more bullshit from you, Luke?
#18 that chart does show the proportion involved in the over-celebrated increasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent is miniscule. Between least extent and greatest extent is not even 10% of mean summer-winter freeze-up. Consistent with the asymmetric zonal temp means predicted and observed.
New paper finds the oceans are a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere
A new paper published in Global Biogeochemical Cycles proposes large revisions to the ocean carbon cycle based upon observations and models, finding the global oceans act as a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.
According to the authors, the flow ["flux"] of carbon from deep ocean layers ["obduction"] to the middle layer ["ML"] is 3-5 times greater than assumed previously and by the IPCC. The authors find middle-layer carbon flux toward the ocean surface exceeds flux to the ocean depths ["subduction"] by 11 Petagrams of carbon per year, which by comparison is significantly more carbon than generated by all man-made activities [8.8 Petagrams of carbon per year].
In other words, the deep oceans naturally contribute more carbon to the middle ocean layers [between 25-150 meters deep] than produced by all of man's activities combined.
At the ocean surface, the authors find the oceans contribute 2.4 Petagrams of carbon per year to the atmosphere ["efflux"] and absorb 1.9 Petagrams of carbon per year from the atmosphere ["influx"], and thus, the oceans act as a net source of .5 Petagrams of carbon per year to the atmosphere.
The authors find the tropical and Southern oceans act as net sources of CO2, while the temperate NH & SH and high latitude oceans act as net sinks [see figure 5 below] and "Our results emphasis the strong sensitivity of the oceanic carbon cycle to changes in mixed-layer depth, ocean currents and wind," i.e. factors not incorporated in IPCC carbon cycle models.
The paper illustrates that IPCC carbon cycle assumptions may be highly erroneous by a factor of up to five times, how little is actually known with confidence about the global carbon cycle, and suggests that ocean outgassing is the primary reason for the increase of atmospheric CO2 levels, rather than mankind.
# 25, the paper does not suggest that ocean outgassing is the primary reason for observed atmospheric increase at all. The idiot blog is suggesting that. The numbers don't support it.
Please don't make up lies about what I did and did not say, Karen. The thermal isolation of Antarctica by the Antarctic Circumpolar current is an established geophysical fact. You can easily verify this yourself and I urge you to stop being a prat and do so forthwith. Please note that the effect is not absolute - the insulation is imperfect (of course) - you are being very fucking stupid about this, as usual.
Still trying to wriggle out of your latest undisownable mistake, Luke! You pitiful insect, you!
Still trying to pretend that paleoclimate evidence isn't evidence and that paleoclimate isn't climatology... truly the last throes of desperation!
Still making up lies about my private life in the vilest imaginable way! Did I mention extremes of desperation? I did? Well, it bears repeating.
Your questions - such as they were - were dealt with repeatedly a long time ago.
So why are you still here being parodically offensive? As I have now said twice, we know what you are and you've exhausted your small repertoire of tricks and pratfalls.
Now you are simply being boring and repetitive. Time to go, Luke.
#25. If you read the abstract of Levy et al, you will note there is no mention of a net outgassing to the atmosphere,or anything from which 'The Hokeyschtick's' could base a claim on ocean contribution significance. It is not relevant to the major findings of the paper. You might also notice that the 'ocean' that the scientists are working on in their new model is described as 'pre-industrial'. So anthropogenic contribution to oceanic fluxes is not discussed or accounted in this model. The ocean is,in the industrial era of the last couple a hundred years, a sink.
Kaz, you've been sucked in again by the 'Hokey-Pokey-Stick' creeps...perhaps you won't be so gullible next time.
Have you now researched the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC)? Do you know what the Tasmanian Gateway and the Drake Passage are? Does the period ~34Ma - 32Ma mean something? Are the terms "Eocene-Oligocene transition" and "Oi-1 glaciation" familiar now? Good.
That's how it all got started. Now, here's how upwelling warm water is melting ice shelves today. I've already posted this link, but you obviously didn't bother reading it, so this is just the pretty picture. Interested readers will find the link to all the sciencey words at the bottom of this comment.
Look at the picture. The black areas of the indices show the extent to which basal melt is contributing to ice mass loss. The shaded areas indicate the contribution from calving. Remember, Karen, up until recently, it was thought that calving was the primary mechanism by which glaciers lost mass. Only now are we beginning to realise that this was wrong, and basal melt is a major - and increasing - factor.
This is real Karen. The scientists aren't fabricating the evidence and I'm not lying to you about it either. I'm just trying to explain how it is.
You seem to fancy yourself as a bit of a cryosphere whiz, but you aren't. Rather, you are a serial dupe of misinformers like Morano and the Hockey Schtick blogger.
The painful irony here is that you really *are* being lied to and deceived - but not by me.
And have you *nothing* to say about #30? Are you just going to skip over yet another of your mistakes and misconceptions as if it never happened? I suppose you are. It's what you always do, after all.
Have you ever considered learning at all? It's fun, self-enhancing and good for the tone of the mind!
2.3.3 Was there a Little Ice Age and a Medieval Warm Period?
The terms Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period have been used to describe two past climate epochs in Europe and neighbouring regions during roughly the 17th to 19th and 11th to 14th centuries, respectively. The timing, however, of these cold and warm periods has recently been demonstrated to vary geographically over the globe in a considerable way (Bradley and Jones, 1993; Hughes and Diaz, 1994; Crowley and Lowery, 2000). Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia (Grove and Switsur, 1994). However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation (see Bradley, 1999). Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries. With the more widespread proxy data and multi-proxy reconstructions of temperature change now available, the spatial and temporal character of these putative climate epochs can be reassessed.
And here we are, in 2013, with the most up-to-date global collaborative research involving dozens of authors saying exactly the same thing:
Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.
We aren't lying to you. Morano, Watts, Hockey Schtick, Monckeybrains, "Goddard", Montford etc - all the shills and shysters and clowns - they are lying to you.
It has happened before and it is new, Karen. Binary logic. The Antarctic is beginning to respond to increased upwelling modulated by strengthening zonal windfields. Something unusual is happening. Trying to pretend that it's all natural variability is just denial. Same goes for Arctic sea ice volume decrease.
CO2-forced warming and OHC increase is *real* Karen. The scientists are observing and describing the various changes, not fabricating them. The liars are all on the other team, the team composed mainly of non-expert ideologues and paid shills.
And jeffie, you really can't give a simple question a simple answer. BTW, in which way is the rate of the "global warming" "unprecedented" and how can it be when we have a stand still in the rise the last 17 years? Watch and learn, moron!
Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.
how can it be when we have a stand still in the rise the last 17 years?
First, this claim is false. Please actually view this graph. Second, you and I have been through this repeatedly on the other thread, so why are you still lying about it here? Explain your dishonest behaviour.
Third, you are doing the standard denier stupid. A slight increase in the rate of ocean heat uptake has slowed the rate of tropospheric warming. Nobody thinks this is anything other than temporary. Surface warming will resume and when it does, as dear old Luke said, it will be open season on the fake sceptics, liars, paid shills etc who have made this meme so central to their "argument". Oh yes.
Hahaha, who do you think yoy are foling bbd, other than the true believers? You know, the problem isn't the future getting warmer, but the past getting cooler. And that's due to warmists massaging data to fit the dogma. Loser!
#41 The rate of warming is unprecedented in the last 9000 years,which is the period in which we have begun to flourish.
Bob Carter, introduced by Jennifer Marohasy? Two bullshit artists. Bob, co-author of a deceitful paper that detrended data by design, and claimed that there was no trend as a result! The man who lied about accepting payment for his 'advocacy' with a lobby group.
Marohasy is an ex-IPA shill. Tries it on. Everyone who wants to rationalise water use in the MDB is wrong and she's right. Last year she wanted to fit up Snowy Hydro for exacerbating the Murrumbidgee floods by continuing to divert Murray water into the 'bidgee catchment during the downpour, and was canvassing the media to run with the story. She hadn't done her homework: the stream gauge history [public access] told the real story. Snowy Hydro did not add to the peak. A boofhead.
bbd dear, my answer is the video that tim persist deleting. But that's the alarmistas way, if you can't argue, use the delete button. That, and pure lying, is all you culprits have left. Even IPCC admits that the vanished warming is kind of a problem. But no, not the regular fanatics populating this blog. The warming have somehow gotten down in the deep ocean, without the ARGO buoys noticing it. Must be some kind of ninja heat.
#50 hey, you paranoid weirdo, the link to the last clip is still operational. Now we have the same again. Twice-as- stupid Bob Carter! Looking forward to your detailed defence of his paper with Maclean and De Freitas....
Eh? What the fuck are you on about? The two-liars video is exactly as you originally posted it.
As for Teh Stupid about the vertical transport of warm water, you need to google "Ekman pumping" and "subtropical gyres". As always with you lot the problem is your abysmal topic knowledge. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it is not real. Get this into your ignorant skull. Also note that argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity are logical fallacies. They negate your comments. You are saying nothing.
The warming have somehow gotten down in the deep ocean, without the ARGO buoys noticing it. Must be some kind of ninja heat.
Your fellow-travelling moron loved that exposition of your appalling ignorance, but if the Argo buoys aren't measuring it, how else is it being measured? Or is this yet another of your tin foil hat conspiracy theories?
Given that you're a lolling, illiterate idiot, spending all day, every day cackling away to yourself while copy'n'pasting from Morano's shit-hole and its satellites and consequently shown to be wrong at every turn, how would you know anything about 'normal people'?
The world has warmed 0 degrees Celsius (0 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade over the past 15 years, a fraction of the 0.2ºC (0.36ºF) per decade rate confidently predicted by the U.N. six years ago, according to a leaked copy of the foremost climate report in the world.
Karen, it must be hard being a warmist monger these days. Nothing in the real world will comply with the models. No warming, no increase in bad weather, thriving polar bears, record growth in polar ice, no hotspot to be seen anywhere, ninja heat in the deep oceans no one has detected, not a single climate refugee anywhere, no extinct animals anywhere, no accelerating sea level rise, the world is getting greener. All this despite steady rising co2 levels. And as a topping on the cake, the 97% of scientists meme was at a closer inspection only 0,3%.No wonder people are loosing faith in the CAGW religion. ;-)
"A leaked draft of a report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is understood to concede that the computer predictions for global warming and the effects of carbon emissions have been proved to be inaccurate. "
Karen is another clot I shall only refer to in passing in future. Karen is diving down the snake of regression as fast as Judith but from a much lower base. Those drilling ice and sediment cores could use her/him/it as a drill so deep into doo does this entity go.
"Despite the uncertainties and contradictions, the IPCC insists that it is more confident than ever – 5 per cent certain - that global warming is mainly (maybe) human’s fault. "
Note how twerps like 'bust-camera' insist on referring to faith and religion. This is a measure of how hopeless it is trying to educate them, they require re-programming first.
Now that, no matter how you parse it, is worth a back slapping 'lol' for any self-satisfied sophist wondering what a moron will buy. But somehow I don't think that's what SpamKan's lol was for.
See the utterly blatant, quite completely shameless lying.
It is jaw-dropping. I have never seen the like of it anywhere else but in the climate "debate". This is what happens when ideologues and shills collide head-first with reality. They project with such pop-eyed, clench-arsed desperation that they invert reality.
Then of course you can refer to never-seen, never-directly-quoted "leaks"... You can find this shit written up in various Murdoch rags which have rehashed the original bunch of lies printed by David "Pinocchio " Rose in the Mail and since universally debunked.
Keep repeating the lies! It's all you've got, after all!
Harvey, could you please stop spamming the thread with off topic rubbish!
Bugger. There goes another irony meter. That was an industrial strength one too.
If you read the abstract of Levy et al, you will note there is no mention of a net outgassing to the atmosphere,or anything from which ‘The Hokeyschtick’s’ could base a claim on ocean contribution significance.
Remember, folks, Karen's purpose here is to post lies.
Are you just going to skip over yet another of your mistakes and misconceptions as if it never happened?
Yes.
Remember, Karen's purpose here is...
And while we're at it:
...how can it be when we have a stand still in the rise the last 17 years?
Remember, pentaxZ's purpose here is to post lies.
And while we're at it:
That, and pure lying, is all you culprits have left.
"As facts change, so must policy. The EU must change course and in the UK the Climate Change act must be thrown on the scrap heap of mistaken ideas," he said. "
"Regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong on global warming, the European Union is pursuing the correct energy policies even if they lead to higher prices, Europe’s climate commissioner has said. "
#76, classy stuff Kaz, enjoy your hate video...still smarting from not knowing the fuck what the thermosphere is, failing to know the difference between farenheit and celsius, getting fooled by Christy's sleight-of-hand, confusing a model of pre-industrial ocean conditions with current climate, and etc.....every puerile 'gotcha' you brought got turned back on you....truly a zombie denier, lumbering on powered by humiliation and fear. Sad fool.
.. in hell. SpamKan. The thing about your echo chamber is that just the one same old source creates multiple echoes. But there's still just the one source.
The EU spokesman, speaking hypothetically, confirms that renewable energy is here to stay. Climate change only makes that policy more imperative, no matter what the GWPF clowns say.
In idiot world it's 'controversial' that shifting away from reliance on Russian fossil fuel exports is sound energy policy for Europe.
Just add the usual lashings of Bad Faith and you've got another occasion for Telegraph readers to wee themselves; a secret delight for them, as demonstrated above.
Could you nongs sink any lower? We will certainly find out...
#94 ,Kaz, using your little brain has not exactly got you very far,has it? Sleep tight, blithering idiot. You've learned a lot today,and in the morning you will have forgotten it all....
Oh look, Karen is so desperate she/he/it has to dredge up a cartoon, yes a cartoon, based on long, and repeatedly debunked 'Climategate' memes and then doubles down in desperation with another where she/he/it thinks Obama is being laughed at when he touches on 'those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change'.
The fool/tool/drool not realising that it is those, like Rose, Limbaugh, Inhofe, Faux-crew, Morono, Mc-intiring, Milltoy, Beck-shrek, Carthorse, Moutbank1, Mountbank2, who are being laughed at.
Not much logic ability or self awareness in the Karen box is there.
Now for once he likes the oceans as being part of the world. However when I educate him, that the global temperature fakers in CRU, GISS and NOAA calculate their "Global Temperatures" there are practically no temperature air measurements from the oceans, i.e. ca. 71% of the earth's surface. Now BBD does not like to be reminded of the oceans: BBD :evil: the partisan clown.
In addition BBD :evil: does not know how many stations are covered in the GHCN database!!!! hahahahaha :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Again:
In addition BBD :evil: does not know how many stations are covered in the GHCN database!!!! hahahahaha :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
And once more:
In addition BBD :evil: does not know how many stations are covered in the GHCN database!!!! hahahahaha :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Correction:
Hahahaha, the moron BBD :evil: excrements:
“the oceans are part of the world too”
Now for once he likes the oceans as being part of the world. However when I educate him, that the global temperature fakers in CRU, GISS and NOAA calculate their “Global Temperatures” fake the global temperatire because there are practically no temperature air measurements from the OCEANS (take note poor BBD :evil:), i.e. ca. 71% of the earth’s surface. Now BBD does not like to be reminded of the oceans: BBD :evil: the partisan clown.
In addition BBD :evil: does not know how many stations are covered in the GHCN database!!!! hahahahaha :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Again:
In addition BBD :evil: does not know how many stations are covered in the GHCN database!!!! hahahahaha :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
And once more:
In addition BBD :evil: does not know how many stations are covered in the GHCN database!!!! hahahahaha :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Those who have been around this topic for longer than the dog-watch put in by the detractors will know the stick that Ben Santer got over his previous paper on attribution in 1996 'A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere', the one which Pat Michaels, unwisely as it turned out, brought to the fore in a 2010 House Science Committee Meeting on Climate Change reported on here: House Science hearing “Rational Discussion of Climate Change” with Lindzen, Michaels, and Curry.
Just look at the recognised credentials of those industry mouth-pieces who have continued to cover themselves in glory gory.
#1 The simpleton returns, bejewelling his ignorance with his little shiny buttons. The spatial distribution of measurement stations may be a problem for you, son, but rest assured that others have long anticpated you, and developed the methodology to deal with it...and then there are satellites and ocean buoys that are quite useful for corroboration. And guess what?
Also, what do you think the world's glaciers are telling you, ignoramus? Now I will go back to ignoring you.
Sadly the links in that article from Climate Progress no longer link to the then live broadcast of that 2010 House Science Committee Meeting on Climate Change but I have tracked down the recordings.
The rambling, vitriol laden rhetoric from Republican Ralph Hall has to be listened to to be believed. How does this pass as acceptable behaviour. Fortunately Bob Inglis follows and nails the point that the diatribe from Hall is 'On the Record'.
this is the one that includes the exchange between Pat Michaels and Ben Santer, which can also be found as a stand alone on YouTube.
Those with a grasp of the history of denial, once again for more than a dog-watch, will know about the 'unfortunate' behaviour of Michaels WRT Santer's being one of the lead authors of the IPCC Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995 (SAR).
BBD, again nobody has asked you, and also nobody likes yu, and you are NOT the moderator but only a helpless clown :lol:
This is BBD: :lol: :roll:
Your lunatism must be rejected:
All
Please let’s not talk to the fucking lunatic.
The only way we are going to get rid of this insane troll is to blank it. Everybody, all the time. No matter what.
We seem to be all the moderation there is here now, so let’s act together in our own interest.
Blank the insane troll. Totally.
You should fuck off here as you miss the topic and always derange others. In addition, you regularly misinform readers who come here in good faith and must read your insane bollocks.
Therefore, BBD troll :evil:, do all of us a favor and piss off.
Is anbody of all able to explain what clown BBD :evil: meant be exrementing:
let’s act together in our own interest
My questions to this utter trial of a conspiration on the internet:
A) WHO IS ALL
B) WHAT IS "OWN INTEREST"
Anybody who honestly and truthfully explains to the audience what the CAGW cown BBD :evil: meant will get a payment of 1000 Austrialian Dollars as compensation of adherence to truthfuless and rejection of hidden conspiration.
Is anbody of all able to explain what clown BBD :evil: meant be exrementing:
let’s act together in our own interest
My questions to this utter trial of a conspiration on the internet:
A) WHO IS ALL
B) WHAT IS “OWN INTEREST”
Anybody who honestly and truthfully explains to the audience what the CAGW cown BBD :evil: meant will get a payment of 1000 Austrialian Dollars as compensation of adherence to truthfuless and rejection of hidden conspiration.
Your text on the assessment of a global temperature is full of mistakes and error, hence it cannot be accepted:
The spatial distribution of measurement stations may be a problem for you, son, but rest assured that others have long anticpated you, and developed the methodology to deal with it…and then there are satellites and ocean buoys that are quite useful for corroboration
You asserted the utter bollocks "... and developed the methodology to deal with it ..."
Can you develop further what you mean with "developed" and which "methodology"
Show what you :evil: know (but I bet you don't know anything at all, it's just a hoot from a moron :evil:)
For all readers who could not read the interview Congressman Hall (then chair of the House's Science Committee) had given to the National Journal (NJ), I cite here the most interesting parts:
$£$£$£$£$£US$$$$$$$US$$$$
NJ: Do you think climate change is causing the earth to become warmer?
Hall: I can't say it doesn't have a percentage of effects on it - one percent, three percent, five percent. But I don't think it's the cause. I don't think we can control what God controls.
We put $32 billion into it and don't see very much change.
NJ: Last year the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science published a survey finding that 97 percent of scientists were in consensus that human activities lead to global warming.
Hall: And they each get $5,000 for every report like that they give out. That's just my guess. I don't have any proof of that. But I don't believe 'em. I still want to listen to 'em and believe what I believe I ought to believe.
NJ: Have you read Governor Perry's book, Fed Up?
Hall: Yes.
NJ: He essentially says climate science may be a conspiracy theory or may be put forth by scientists who are working together to put forth findings in order to get funding. Are you on the same page as Gov. Perry on this?
Hall: I'm pretty close. I think we ought to have an honest ear to science. They can come before my committee. I always put someone to come and testify when they're testifying against it to give them the other side. I think we oughta listen to 'em. I just don't think we oughta mind 'em.
Because what have we got for the $32 billion we spent?
NJ: Do you mean the $32 billion that was spent in the stimulus?
Hall: I mean everything that's been spent knocking and pushing global warming. I'm really more fearful of freezing. And I don't have any science to prove that. But we have a lot of science that tells us they're not basing it on real scientific facts. And we need to listen to more. I'm willing to listen for more.
If we believe everything they say, we can't clean China. They're producing six coal-fed operations a week. We can' t clean the world for them. We can't clean it for Russia. We can't clean it for India. We can't clean it for Mexico.
We're poorer now than we've ever been since the Great Depression.
NJ: Paul Krugman and other columnists have criticized Republicans and said that the party could become labeled anti-science.
Hall: I'm not anti-science, I'm pro-science. But we ought to have some believable science.
NJ: What's the appropriate role for government on the issue of climate change?
Hall: To listen to good science, proper science and know the difference. And not to use it for political thrust or political gain, because it's something that affects the world. But we can't be 9-11 for the world. I wish we could. We could have at one time. But we can't now. We have to be more careful what outlays we make for something that hasn't been proved.
$£$£$£$£$£US$$$$$$$US$$$$
In summary: it is shocking to see what the REAL motivation of "climate" scientists is and I am happy to see very reasonable politicians in the US who fight insane aberrations of real science.
To whom are you speaking when you address "Fredi". I haven't seen a "Fredi" commenting here. Do you see ghosts? Maybe too much ethanol today, clown :evil: ????
Those with a grasp of the history of denial, once again for more than a dog-watchThose with a grasp of the history of denial, once again for more than a dog-watch
Reminds me once again of the Jack Aubrey "joke" about why a dog-watch is so named: "Why because it is cur-tailed!"
Ah! Another Patrick O'Brian fan, unless I have that wrong.
Kept me sane through the long weeks of recovery in hospital following two cardiac arrests in two days.
I have since re-read in chronological order, rather than order of purchase, dissecting the text for accuracy in sailing terms, parts of a ship etc.
I like the sort of music mentioned too, Locatelli is much overlooked.
All that is another side to my library having once been into sailing small boats, ones without engines. Had to take a handling and rule of the road proficiency test - this in Portsmouth harbour before getting a ticket to go solo or take others along. Magic days.
These are skills, and ship construction too, that humans may find a need for in the future, but the pattern of trades that were once familiar, although varying year on year (old logs are fascinating - no not tree rings freddy - you responding to that name freddy is indicative), will likely change rather as temperatures gradients change WRT latitude and longitude.
OT I know but in the absence of any sensible commentary from you know who....?
BBD I like the one about the '...lesser of the two weevils' too.
Both priceless.
I complained to retailer about the unexpectedly hard nature of some biscuits they were selling describing them as being 'Like Pusser's hard-tack but without the weevils', the face he made should have been caught by camera.
Oh yes, POB is wonderful stuff. And like you, I've read the lot (more than once!) in correct chronological order. And will do so again. All except the final, unfinished volume, which I can't face.
The lesser of two weevils - Aubrey's other "joke"!
I thought you might be a POB man. Good to have it confirmed! And I hope your health is improved. If I may say so.
Locatelli - here I plead ignorance. Somewhere along the line I *saw* a CD "Music of POB" or some such, and for whatever stupid reasons didn't buy it. So I don't know. Still.
Locatelli, another Italian baroque composer and near contemporary of Vivaldi, Marcello, Albinoni, Torelli etc. The Scarlattis are worth a look too and of course Corelli (these latter of a slightly earlier age) - Christmas Concerto part of which was rightly in the sound track of the film being a cert for that played by Aubrey and Maturin whilst off the West coast of South America.
The two CDs 'Musical Evenings with the Captain' marketed by a US company are OK but do not do justice to Locatelli.
The music from the film I have discovered on other CDs which I have collected. I have suggestions. Maybe best go to email as it is so OT.
#22 Hall is your classic fundamentalist pig-ignorant denier vermin. Read the man:
I can’t say it doesn’t have a percentage of effects on it – one percent, three percent, five percent. But I don’t think it’s the cause. I don’t think we can control what God controls.
And:
And they each get $5,000 for every report like that they give out. That’s just my guess. I don’t have any proof of that. But I don’t believe ‘em. I still want to listen to ‘em and believe what I believe I ought to believe.
Unbelievable. And enough. The US needs to sort itself out in a very profound way. People like this need to be removed from - and kept from - the levers of power.
* * *
Thanks for the gentle warning about the Musical Evenings CDs - duly noted. Locatelli I think I will just try. As for further suggestions, post 'em up! There's no topic here. Anything which isn't outright lunacy ought to be welcomed, and besides, it's only the one comment. Also I don't really feel like posting an email up - not even a disposable one - given the atmosphere in here. Nor should you.
Hehe...it's quite funny to see all the deltoid regulars panic shining through. Indeed, being a warm monger isn't so hipp these days. The whole CAGW church is crumbling down. It's now just a matter of time before it's completely in ruins.
Now time for education, deltoid regulars, aka zealots:
Oh be still my laughter aching sides, but that one can go in the bulging collection of phrases along with its equally drole companion 'the final nail' of which there's surely enough to sink a battyleship.
That aside, no PantieZ, it's not 'a matter of time'.
It's a matter of being shown the evidence which none of you troglodytes and your masters have managed to do for all the years they've been at it and feeding you.
Of course they fool morons like you, but luckily the population isn't composed of morons. Just the denier brigades seem to have an excess of them. Still keeps you company I suppose. Dumb as shit company I grant you, but company nevertheless.
For extra points, anybody fancy running a sweep on how many IPCC report lies we'll see between now and the 27th?
I'm guessing the boldest and most jaw-dropping ones will be released about the 25th or so.
There should be a special prize for the most fanciful and egregious which still passes the denier smell test. SpamKan and PantieZ are as good proxies as could be wished for (i.e. zero threshold) , although Gordon runs them close in the behold-the-self-inflicted-cretinisation of the ageing populace stakes.
bbd #26 You did? Hahahahahahahahaha....duh, perhaps in your dellusional mind.
"Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist."
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ - Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001
‘The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!’ -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 – Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” – declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications. (LINK) & (LINK)
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
UN IPCC Lead Author Tom Tripp Dissents on man-made warming: ‘We’re not scientifically there yet’ – July 16, 2009
The UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s claim that the UN IPCC is an “very open” also needs examining. The IPCC summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The UN is all about politics.
UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s alleged global warming “consensus,” according to a May 10, 2007 article. Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?
Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton, accused the UN of “censorship” on July 23, 2008. “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.
Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.
Here is a small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN IPCC’s “very open” process.
(Below are excerpts from various U.S. Senate reports which Climate Depot’s Morano authored during his years at the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.)
One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN's] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar concluded.
Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.
Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.
In addition, a Greenpeace activist co-authored a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace, was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN’s policy prescriptions.
The UN IPCC’s own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.
In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party’s convention platform battle – not a scientific process. During an IPCC Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for Policymaker’s process on January 24, 2007.
McIntyre wrote: “So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.”
Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained. He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”
Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher: “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”
Just accept that you were never the brightest bulb in the room PantieZ, and trying to fool people at a minimum ten times smarter than your dismal self is never going to work.
This compilation of first class climate scientists' testimonies on the political spin of the IPCC CAGW clowns shows excellently the intellectual and moral decline of the whole AGW climate church community. They deceive, they manipulate data, they lie, they exaggerate whenever it suits there insane eco fundamentalist will for dominance against "bad" western mankind.
The CAGW leper islanders of nihilism and firm believers of the post-normal manipulative pseudo-climatology will go mad and the next few decades will be a catastrophy for their rotten view of the world: NO DECADENT GOD GAIA WILL HELP THEM OUT OF THEIR MISERY.
Evidence, chek, evidence? Ok, show us the evidence for the 50 000 000 climate refugees. Show us the evidence of extinct animals due to AGW. Show us the evidence of the diminishing polar bear population. Show us the evidence of the accelerating sea level rise. Show us the evidence of increased bad weather. Show us the evidence of diminishing ice at the poles. And the best of them all, show us the evidence that anthropogenic co2 is the main driver of global warming. You stupid zealots claims that weather and climate is out of order, the burdon of proof therefore lays heavy on your, and only your shoulders.
And by the way, pseudoscientific blogs like ss, rc and its likes isn't by any definition valid as proof of anything at all.
The evidence is in the link where DC guts, fillets and frames Wegman, you moron.
Although inability to read and comprehend might have saved your sorry, ragged arse from that final indignity.
Though not anyone else following your pitiful exchange.
There are many more rejoinders to Crockford's 'crock'. Its too bad that PantieX's understanding of population ecology is somewhere in the vicinity of 'profoundly ignorant'. That's hardly surprising. He's never been to a university ecology lecture in his miserable life.
To illustrate my last point, the latest point, and to prove that Pantie cannot read or understand basic English, here is a recent post from him:
"Show us the evidence of extinct animals due to AGW"
Sigh. How many frigging time must I debunk this old chestnut? I have at least a dozen times earlier, but since the deniers on this site don't understand the basics of complex adaptive systems nor of the concept of 'lag effects', I am forced to again.
Pantie, you vacuous twit, cause and effect relationships in nature are not instantaneous. In other words, a change in parameter 'y' does not result in an instantaneous response from parameter 'z'. Given the scales involved, there are temporal lags which can encompass decades or even centuries. We scientists - you know, people like me who have worked in the field for over 20 years - realize that at the scales involved there will be declines in the abundances of species caused by various anthropogenic disturbances that lead to what we call 'relaxation' downwards to lower thresholds which may or may not stabilize at some equilibrium. In other words, for your simple little noggin, this means that over their ranges species will slowly decline after an initial perturbation either to extinction or to become much less common but stable provided suitable habitat remains. The loss of temperate forests in North America did not result in the instantaneous extinction of Bachman's Warblers or Ivory-Billed Woodpeckers. Instead, they declined over 1-2 centuries as the forests were felled and eventually became so rare as to be unable to survive in viable numbers. The same applies to tropical forests. For example, clearing of the Mata Atlantica forests of Brazil in the 1950s (primarily) did not result in virtually instantaneous extinctions within 10-20 years (a time scale that in ecological and evolutionary terms IS virtually instantaneous). Instead, many species endemic to the region declined gradually so that by the mid 1990s none had been reported extinct but many were, and are, teetering on the edge of extinction. Climate change has only become readily apparent since the 1980s, and there are plenty of examples of species in population free fall as a result. This is what we should be concerned with. The extinction card is forever dredged up by the illiterate army of deniers who can't tell a ground beetle from a rhinoceros.
So, for the umpteenth time, I have been forced to explain the concept of time lags and the 'extinction debt'. And I am fully prepared for the numbskulls on Deltoid to wade in here with their comic-book level of understanding on the subject.
Now I've demolished PentaxZ and his extinction argument, let me briefly turn to Karen, who bitterly implied that ecosystem services are rubbish and that we should be debating climate change.
Question to Karen: Exactly what factors do you think help to maintain an optimally breathable amount of gases in the atmosphere for plants and animals? What factors are important in regulating biogeochemical cycles and for renewal of atmospheric gases? Gee whiz... its those pesky ecosystem services again and species/biodiversity that are involved in sustaining humanity. Try as they might, this army f ignorant anti-environmentalists just ca't bring themselves to admit that humans are utterly dependent on biodiversity.
Given the hilarity of Karen's ignorance yesterday (describing ecosystem services as 'farming') I can't wait to see what nugget of stupidity she will come up with this time.
The same with sea level rise. You think Morano's going to inform you?
Do you think Superstorm Sandy and the Colorado floods are normal weather? How many weather disasters can even a rich country like the USA withstand per decade, let alone per year?
Even you must know that the 2012 polar ice was a record low - they do HAVE newspapers and a at least semi-literate population in Sweden, I take it.
And best of all - there is no other explanation than CO2 that fits the facts. None of you half-wits nor any of your masters have an alternative that withstands examination.
I notice 'climate data analyst' John McLean made it into Camera Boy's Morano copy-paste of disaffected Republican voters.. LOL... populated by grabs from 4 to 5 year old 'testimonies' to a stacked committee in a hijacking of democratic process that is all too common.
Morano, employed by Inhofe, was effectively defrauding the US taxpayer by disseminating misinformation. The amount of public money Inhofe has spent on deceptive conduct is considerable, much greater than the FF money that puffs his campaign chest. This ought to horrify the neo-lib / science-as-conspiracy dribblers who Gish Gallop here...if they had a clue. Elected by the people to be a mouthpiece for industry interests.
Flannery: Look, it will be a very, very small increment.
Bolt: Have you got a number? I mean, there must be some numbers.
Flannery: I just need to clarfy in terms of the climate context for you. If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.
Bolt: Right, but I just want to get to this very basic fact, because I’m finding it really curious that no one has got (this) fact. If I buy a car … I want to know how much it costs and whether it is going to do the job.
Flannery: Sure.
Bolt: In this case I want to know the cost of cutting our emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 and will it do the job: how much will the world’s temperatures fall by if Australia cuts its emissions by this much.
Flannery: Look, as I said it will be a very, very small increment.
Bolt: Can you give us a rough figure? A rough figure.
Flannery: Sorry, I can’t because it’s a very complex system and we’re dealing with probabilities here.
Bolt: …I’m just trying to get the facts in front of the public so we know what we’re doing. Just unbiased. Is it about, I don’t know, are you talking about a thousandth of a degree? A hundredth of a degree? What sort of rough figure?
Flannery: Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.
"To those of us who have been following the climate debate for decades, the next few years will be electrifying. There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering."
"what is commonly called the “mainstream” view of climate science is contained in the spread of results from computer models. What is commonly dismissed as the “skeptical” or “denier” view coincides with the real-world observations. Now you know how to interpret those terms when you hear them."
Yes Robert Murphy @#12 previous page.
This site has definitely lost its sparkle.
Interesting article by Terence Corcoran in the Financial post yesterday.
"The Tide Is Rising On Climate Models And Policies."
It attempts to summarise the polarisation of the politics.
For some reason I am not able to link it through to this site but it should be possible to find it with the title and author.
Nick @#47 previous page.
As a resident of the Murrumbidgee Valley I can tell you that you have completely missed the point of those SHL releases in 2010 and 2011.
Whether they impacted on the flooding peaks or not does not change that SHL were, in fact, releasing stored water from the still largely empty Eucumbene into spilling dams and flooded systems.
Their operating licence demanded that this was done despite the fact that it was clearly wasteful and impractical.
It was water that had been accrued or held back during the depth of the drought under rules associated with Exceptional Circumstances.
It would have been far more useful for that water to have stayed in Eucumbene where there was room to store it. Clearly the lower dams or the river systems did not need any of it at the time! It could then have been used later (after the flooding) to achieve much more sensible and practical environmental, social and economic outcomes.
That was, after all, one of the key reasons why the Snowy Hydro System was built.
#50...Stu2, please try and understand the point. I make no comment on Snowy Hydro policy. That is not relevant, except for Marohasy in her attempt to cause damage.
The point I make is that Marohasy is a sloppy researcher.
I simply point out that Marohasy tried to sell a claim about the floods that was not supported by the data, in order to embarrass SH and the state government of the time.
SH's storage network,and operational practise, had no additive effect on flood heights. In fact, Snowy Hydro's Tantangara Dam minimised upper Murrumbidgee flows. NSW Office of Water operate Blowering, and, while they had limited buffer to exploit, they still managed to prevent the Tumut River catchment above Goobarragandra junction from adding to flood height at any point downstream.
The floods were generated entirely from catchment OUTSIDE Snowy Hydro's control.
#46,47,48....simply rubbish,Kaz. You have started a new day with a shit-storm of unbacked assertion....the pre-emptive 'strikes' on the IPCC statement are empty, though their sheer number shows the the hold over the MSM that the liars have.
#45, demonstrates that Bolt is an on-message ignoramus. The world has to wait for him to catch up. We knew that long ago Kaz. Bolt is doing his duty to his backers, and he is especially vulnerable as a sycophant: chip on both shoulders, poorly educated but passionate, loathes academia, and is in awe of men in suits with money. Bolt is the perfect stooge. Flannery is indicating that we are committed already to a GAT temperature rise and decay trajectory that runs for centuries. Bolt deliberately doesn't understand that we can still influence how high that trajectory rises: he just sees the length in order to argue 'what's the point?'
But it's actually quite dumb to play dumb too often.
No Nick,
That is still not the point.
Of course everyone did everything they could do minimise the extent the major flooding and of course the major flooding was out of everyone's control.
The point remains that prior to the circumstances you are highlighting, when there had already been significant flooding and full lower dams , and after the major flooding when everything downstream was completely full, SHL was still releasing water from Eucumbene into a system that did not need it, purely because of the rules.
It was wasteful and impractical.
If the media chose to dramatise it and those you criticise used that as leverage does not alter the fact that it was definitely sub optimal and counter productive behaviour.
# 54, Stu2 ,sorry, you don't get to redefine what the point of my observationsabout Dr Marohasy is,and how she pursued her end...OK? I made my point unambiguously when I first mentioned her.
On your point, SH's operational practise demanded by its charter, Marohasy certainly disapproved of SH's operational process and possibly not without some justification...however,she could not confine her disapproval to the process, she insisted on trying to find fault where there was none [and where in fact SH had assisted flood minimisation]
That is still not the point Nick and you are not entirely correct.
There was plenty of warning and numerous submissions from many different quarters such as local councils and representative organisations about developing evidence that SHL was indeed creating a problem by releasing water that was not needed from Eucumbene. Those warnings and submissions started over 6 months prior to the actual crisis.
The fact that when the crisis hit they then did everything possible to minimise it, does not change the fact that they did indeed contribute to the larger and over riding problem.
I don't believe Marohasy was a major player in these events. From my recollection, her media attention came after the event.
#56 I am entirely correct,Stu 2... and about 100 post ago I made a point about Marohasy's actions that you wish was something else.... I can understand how the concern over releases could arise, but people were warning of a problem that did not actually exist. No matter the rumblings and allegations about SH, no one checked the public data, sometimes erroneously claiming that SH's generation-flow confidentiality was a hindrance to getting the picture clear...You can still do check the data if you wish. Access the NOW stream and dam data page and time search flows and storage for all the catchments and sub-catchments involved.
Snowy Hydro did not exacerbate flooding. The location and timing of record rainfalls was the cause. NOW's operation of Blowering minimised any impact of SH power generation flows at Tumut and all points downstream. Fascinatingly, the Tumut River flooding [and hence contribution to the Murrumbidgee] was entirely generated from catchment down stream of the dam,so massive and localised were the rainfalls. And the Tumut peaked after the Murrumbidgee at their junction, so the highest flooding at Gundagai and downstream was largely Murrumbidgee water. The second peak was more Tumut water, but , again, I promise, not from SH and Eucumbene.
SH has to pay for infrastructure and operational costs from its power generation assets, so they must send water down pipes, but the actual volume going down the Tumut power system is quite modest. Most of the water banking up at Blowering was run-off from uncontrolled catchments [Bago Plateau, Blowering Mountains, Yarrangobilly River] not water from Eucumbene and /or Tooma.
Local media failed to give their stories substance, in not doing basic research...classic 'teach the controversy' default position. "We just report, we don't investigate" Maybe they were unaware of how they could pursue the information,I don't know.
SH's contribution to Murrumbidgee base flow characteristics is real, obviously, but no one calculated base flow contribution to flood height because they did not use any real data for their assertions. The contribution was vanishingly small. I expected Marohasy, as a professional researcher to look before leaping. To act as a skeptic.
NEVER IN MY LIFE WOULD I WASTE MY TIME WITH SUCH UTTER RUBBISH
Education for Harvey: your loathed blown-up "eco-system services" is nothing else than agriculture, farming. Why the fuk did you not try to become a farmer, instead of an insane eco clown :evil: who wastes our money, why the hell???
I'm really gobsmacked about the various comments about "ecosystem services". Do people really think that "ecosystem services" are entirely related to functions and areas of immediate utility to specific people? Just an obsession of food forest gardeners, orchardists, winegrowers and broadacre farmers/ pastoralists concerned about pollination or soil depth or root systems of pastures or penetration/ retention of water and fertiliser. Nothing about air quality, flood control, coastal protection, water quality, pest control or anything else among the dozens/ hundreds/ thousands of things that sustain us.
I know I shouldn't be surprised, but in fact I'm amazed at this.
#59.. ah, the massive irony, the projection from Strike Through Boy! Scores of interjections from you, and no substance, nothing. Just abuse and scorn : can't get any more arrogant than that can we, kettle? I await some content from you, go on make a contribution, it's a public forum.
The next German federal election will show a terrible defeat of the gren fundamentalist party :evil: because of incredible, but well documented, reproaches of disgusting pedophilia among green fundamentalists :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
Australians who watch the ABC's Chaser series (I don't) may have caught the segment where a Newscorp staffer and former Liberal apparatchik Chris Kenny was mocked with a rather crude photoshopping of his image so that he was apparently having sex with a dog. It certainly didn't amuse Mediawatch.
Fair enough, but one of the people who were supposed to be most damaged by this depiction - Kenny's own son no less - has had the guts to stand up and tell it as it is, and that is that his father is a:
...a staunchly neo-conservative, anti-progress, anti-worker defender of the status quo. He is an unrelenting apologist for the Liberal Party. He was one of Alexander Downer’s senior advisers at the time of the Iraq War. He’s been known to argue for stubborn, sightless inaction on climate change. He spits at anyone concerned with such trivialities as gender equality, environmental issues or labour rights from his Twitter account on a daily basis. Recently, he characterised criticism of the lack of women in Tony Abbott’s Cabinet as a continuation of the Left’s “gender wars”. He is a regular and fervent participant in The Australian’s numerous ongoing bully campaigns against those who question its editorial practices and ideological biases. The profoundly irresponsible, dishonest, hate-filled anti-multiculturalist Andrew Bolt has recently referred to Kenny on his blog as “a friend”.
I’m really gobsmacked about the various comments about “ecosystem services”.
and I can only concur. I've avoided comment prior to now because others have taken the baton and made good points, but it'd telling that those who deny climate change are also completely oblivious to the absolute dependence that humans have on a functioning biosphere.
They can deny the truth, but there's no hiding from it - as time will prove...
#64, the country's information stream is being held to ransom by these inadequates with their unresolved personal issues: rule by the most petulant. Praise to the son.
Nick.
There are better examples to criticise Marohasy than this one.
Your summation of the events are incorrect.
The DISV RAR releases by SHL were not related to power generation but to the operating licence. Of course SHL made power from that water when it was economically viable to do so. It was significant amounts of water. Go and look up the licence. In total it was over 2000GL that was put into the southern connected system that did not require it and it was not able to be managed successfully . That was extra water over and above the usual requirements, ostensibly to pay back the environment.
The media was not privy to the numerous very well informed warnings from various different stakeholders and representative organisations. Everyone involved tried to have the problem repaired without the need for a media circus. Unfortunately the relevant authorities did not listen and failed to act. When the crisis did hit it the media typically over dramatized the situation.
Marohasy was not a major player in these events. You claim further up post that she was responsible for embarrassing SHL. I disagree. In this particular instance, if the authorities were embarrassed, it's because there was indeed substance to her claims.
jeffie, so in other words, you don't have one single example of species gone extinct due to AGW? Why doesn't that surprise me. But that's no wonder, if the "alarming" rate of the AGW (which hasn't shown its face the last 17 years anyway) is on the century scale species has no problem adapting to the change. You know, survival of the fittest. Not understanding such thinhs is quite normal for a dogmatic pseudoscientist as you, jeffie.
Hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha.....you are so utterly stupid, chek. Nor the habitants ov Kivalina or Shishmaref are climate refugees. You know, before the white man came around, the native people populated these islands on a seasonal basis. But when the white man came around, they forced natives to settle down on those islands permanently. Because as you might know, the white mans bureaucracy has no tolerance with free, unbound people. The native people knew it's inadvizable to have a permanent rezidence on those islands because they are sandy barrier reef islands. Not so stable in other words. But they were forced anyway. So the reason of those islands decay is urbanization, nothing else. And it's easily proven. No other island in the archipelag is affected. How can that be? Wouldn't AGW affect all the islands, you stupid idiot?
Yes, humans have caused extinction of animals. Endemic animals due to hunting. Nothing att all to do with AGW, not the slightes. "Palaeobiologist Anthony Barnosky fears humans are creating a mass extinction." Barnosky fears! And we should of course take his word for it? Because it's a BBC article? BBC which long ago decided that impartiality isn't of interest when it comes to reporting about AGW! Give me a break, moron.
#68 'There are better examples to criticise Marohasy than this one' ... I don't see a need, but go right ahead and provide some more.
The total amount involved in the RAR, and DISV, is irrelevant to the Murrumbidgee flood event that Marohasy thought she could ping SH over. That 2000GL is a huge quantity, which is divided or allocated between the Murray and the Murrumbidgee over a 12 month period. SH generates and distributes: they don't have unallocated water to generate with, unless they are doing pump-storage activity in-system.
The actually relevant quantities of ex-Tumut catchment RAR/DISV water that went down the Tumut generation system in the week leading up to the floods are in the order of a few tens of megalitres, a tiny fraction of the two-catchment RAR & DISV. These small quantities, exiting at Blowering, were what some people thought had made the Murrumbidgee flood peak worse. It was a reasonable question to ask, but the answer was: no contribution. That weeks water was trifling in quantity compared with the catchment run-off during the floods.
This 'critical' week's water has been unhelpfully lumped with the other argument about the wisdom of paying back the water borrowings, as SH was obliged by charter, over the months during a season of high flow...
Post floods,the SH's license was altered by government to make that payback requirement more flexible.
I agree with Adelady. It's almost breathtaking to discover these people really are even more stupid than one imagined.
The Disgusting Luke, el Gordo, SpamKan and the Emoticon Thing are Planetary Autists.
Milk comes from Supermarkets, if the bees die off we'll just make some more or teach the moths to do whatever it is they do instead, and the whole biosphere could be reduced to people like me, our companion animals, and the ones we choose to eat and that would function just fine forever. Oh, and some lawn grasses and shade trees...
They are, in short, the Creationists of the 21st Century! They may even claim to reject God, but all the same anthropocentric and grandiose imbecilities are just as central to their 'thought'.
There's a lot of them about. In the new Cabinet, for instance. Sadly, we'll all (including all the other species) have to pay for their arrogant stupidity.
Homo sapiens sapiens my arse! What are we going to do with the maladapted?
#68, and at the request of NOW, IIRC, Snowy Hydro did cease transfers for generation for a few days at the height of the flood. There was no substance to claims about the flood, but Marohasy was keen to push them. The then-inflexibility of the water allocation and payback time frame was an issue, one that has been resolved and one that Marohasy should have confined herself to. But she is a ratbag,and she runs a nuthouse at her blog.
The ABC is purely a disseminator of propaganda, you only have to look at the war reporting, eg Iraq, Libya and now Syria to see that they have an agenda.
They tell lies that support of the US and globalist agendas that have now killed millions of people, do you really think the ABC cares about climate change or the whether it is caused by co2 ?
You all seem grab onto anything or anyone that will feed your irrational trace gas anxieties, rationality is the only extinct species in here............ lol
"jeffie, so in other words, you don’t have one single example of species gone extinct due to AGW? Why doesn’t that surprise me"
It doesn't surprise you, Pantie, cos' you're THICK. Yo clearly didn't understand my response to your nonsense. Hardly surprising, given your grade-school level education. That's the problem with academics on here engaging in debates with utter laypeople lacking even the basic knowledge. Of course there aren't any extinctions - at least officially recognized - yet from the recent AGW because of the factors I mentioned. The time lag is too short; as I said yesterday, changes in large scales habitat structure - to the level of entire biomes - of course generate extinctions, but over centuries. There's clear evidence that previous climate change episodes in the Earth's history generated extinction cascades that took hundreds or even thousands of years to be realized. The best example is the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, when it is likely that the impact of a large asteroid impacting Earth was responsible for massive climate shifts in turn leading to the extinction of dinosaurs. But this extinction event was borne out over many centuries, even millennia. The dinosaurs did not disappear within 20 years.
The other fact - which clearly you do not have a clue about - is that for a species to recognized as being officially extinct means that it has not been recorded in the wild for 50 years. This is the IUCN protocol, and is universally recognized amongst scientists. With respect to tropical forests, there are species that have not been observed in the wild since the late 1960s and early 1970s that are still considered extant, even though in all likelihood they have been extirpated.
Finally, many recent studies are reporting sharp declines in the abundance and range retractions of species where climate change is likely to be an important factor. These declines are a warning that something is amiss.
Simply put, Pentax, you are as stupid as a sack of potatoes. You write in here with your basal level knowledge thinking you have something useful to say. Sometimes I find it very hard to engage in debate with you and the other deniers here because your level of discourse is so utterly childish and simple. As I said a few days ago, if people like you, Berendaneke, Luke, Karen and other deniers on Deltoid are a representative cross-section of the 'skeptical' side of the public, then our society is in deep, deep trouble. Pretty well all of you write like Forrest Gump.
"your loathed blown-up “eco-system services” is nothing else than agriculture, farming"
See the end of my last comment. More kindergarten-level musings. Since when is the activity of soil organisms recycling nutrients, 'farming'? Since when is the maintenance of a breathable atmosphere 'farming'? Since when is pollination and seed dispersal 'farming'? Sine when is the breakdown of terrestrial wastes and the mitigation of floods and droughts 'farming'? Since when is the stabilization of coastlines and protection of the Earth's living surface from the harmful ultraviolet rays of the sun 'farming'?
Good grief. These people are complete quacks. How does none discuss in a rational matter science with such an army of numbskulls?
I should have said one, but I have to admit I am almost at breaking point here. Tim really has to get back in here and start filtering out the deniers. Not one of them has anything of intellectual value to say.
#75, I predicted yesterday that you would trundle off to bed and forget all the lessons you had learned.
Kaz, we dealt with Kens Clowndom already. Just to recap,mid tropospheric temperatures are never the same as surface temperatures, and furthermore UAH's data is biased cool through data processing choice which contaminates their altitude band. So disagreement between BOMs surface temp claim and UAH's high altitude figure is absolutely expected.
Ken thinks that disagreement is 'unfortunate'. That's because he's a nitwit in concern troll mode.
JeFfErY you are grandstanding.... you are only exhibiting your self importance here, if you cannot PROVE that co2 has caused any problems then shut up!
Nick @#70 & #72.
The anomaly in the licence was partly resolved for the Murrumbidgee catchment POST FLOOD and paradoxically and perhaps even ironically AFTER the media and people like Marohasy got a hold of it and over dramatized it all.
The anomaly still exists in the Murray catchment.
A great deal of water has been wasted for no good reason other than inflexibility.
There have been several damaging flow on effects in both valleys.
I think it is a real shame that the relevant authorities did not heed the warnings from well informed people and organisations many months before it got splashed across the media.
That way they could have easily avoided the ensuing damage control.
You are attributing Marohasy way too much credit for any of this.
She was not a major player.
The satellite measured TLT (for JeFfErY, Tropospheric Lower Temperature) accurately shows what most atmosphere above the Australia is doing, which is the quantity that is most directly related to greenhouse gas impacts. The models indicate that the rate of warming should be larger in the mid to upper troposphere than at the surface. If co2 caused warming, it would turn up in the satellite data before we saw it in the surface charts.
#81 You linked to the article, Kaz. Ken indicates it is 'satellite data for the mid-troposphere' ...TMT, not TLT If you want to know what 'most atmosphere' above Australia--and elsewhere-- is doing, see below
Deniers - yes, this is the correct term - constantly screech that there is no catastrophe yet, no mass extinction yet, no metre of sea level rise yet, so what the scientists say must be "alarmist" and wrong.
This is nonsense.
What the scientists actually do say is that if CO2 forcing continues to rise *then* by later this century irreversible changes will be underway that *will* result in abrupt temperature rise and concomitant mass extinctions, sea level rise, drought, agricultural productivity impacts and so on.
What scientists actually do say - but not often or loudly enough - is that we are still right at the beginning of the process. It will be decades before the true magnitude of climate change will emerge definitively from the weather noise. By which time, it will be far too late to stop or even mitigate the worst damage.
Using present conditions to argue that future change will be trivial or non-existent is a glaring example of intellectual dishonesty or profound stupidity.
The US House Science Committee recommended to cut the budget for certain NOAA activities:
citation:
“With respect to research and service activities, we believe opportunities for some cuts exist particularly with respect to climate-focused efforts unrelated to weather forecasting and emergency preparedness functions….
“We do not support any funding for NOAA’s proposed Climate Service. Despite the claim that this is a budget neutral proposal that would include assets consolidated from other line offices, we have serious concerns regarding the objectivity and utility of a new line office that will place greater strain on existing resources. Furthermore, we are concerned about the tendency that this line office would be used for advocacy as opposed to providing real services. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology launched an investigation into NOAA’s Climate Services on September 21, 2011, and will not support the creation of a climate service until that investigation is complete.”
I hope my friend Tony Abbott will follow the US House and smash down all eco fundamentalist CAGW insanities.
Crap shit insania from one of the most primitive idiots on the internet, a wannabe important, but only mentally impaired crap bollocks moron:
A general note.
Deniers – yes, this is the correct term – constantly screech that there is no catastrophe yet, no mass extinction yet, no metre of sea level rise yet, so what the scientists say must be “alarmist” and wrong.
This is nonsense.
What the scientists actually do say is that if CO2 forcing continues to rise *then* by later this century irreversible changes will be underway that *will* result in abrupt temperature rise and concomitant mass extinctions, sea level rise, drought, agricultural productivity impacts and so on.
What scientists actually do say – but not often or loudly enough – is that we are still right at the beginning of the process. It will be decades before the true magnitude of climate change will emerge definitively from the weather noise. By which time, it will be far too late to stop or even mitigate the worst damage.
Using present conditions to argue that future change will be trivial or non-existent is a glaring example of intellectual dishonesty or profound stupidity
WHAT AN INCREDIBLE STUPIDITY FROM AN IMPAIRED ECO FUNDAMENTALIST FUCKWIT :evil:WHO THINKS HE IS SOMETHING SPECIAL.
NO, HE IS THE ARCHETYPE OF AN IDIOT :evil:
Hahahahaha, something will come in x thousand years, you idiot, hahahahaha, your grand grand grand grand .... 10000x .... grand grand grand children have to move because of flodding, your clown :evil:
piss off now, BBD, you will not be given credit for your hallucinations, fuck off now and try to lead a decent life.
This is not a response to #84. You have not admitted your error.
Please admit your error.
* * *
Re the transposition typo 2350 -> 2035 - only deniers desperate to discredit the IPCC but lacking any scientific grounds for doing so latch on to typos and other trivia.
jeffie, " The best example is the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, when it is likely that the impact of a large asteroid impacting Earth was responsible for massive climate shifts in turn leading to the extinction of dinosaurs."
And what exactly has that to do with co2? Were there any AGW then? What was the level of co2 back then? You are nothing but a shitload of bollocks.
Still you haven't produced one single evidence that anthropogenic co2 is causing extinction of species.
"Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it."
For those who were around a few months ago, it's starting to sound a bit chameleonic in here.
...so you have a link to one or more you think deserves criticism?
But the bigger problem here is what appears to be an attempt to paint a false equivalence. That's not going to succeed with anyone who takes an honest look at the evidence. As Nick suggests you might want to click on this blogs "[The Australian's] War On Science" link and start at the beginning.
Once you've checked out all 110 articles, come back and let us know if you think the aggregate of the exaggerations and distortions you believe you've detected on "the other side" are even in the same order of magnitude. And if you still think there's a valid equivalence to be drawn you can analyse Fox News' coverage, and Sky, and the other Murdoch rags in Australia and add that to the ledger...
Luke: "Fucking ecosystem services – the last refuge for leftie eco-scoundrels. Get a real job Jeff and stop bludging"
Translation: the term is over Luke's head. He's never heard of it, doesn't understand even the science behind it, so his only recourse is to ridicule it. A classic example of profound ignorance if ever there was one. Thankfully Luke's views don't come anywhere close to representing those of the scientific community. The importance of supporting ecosystem services is now universally recognized; its now a major field in economics and is the subject of many peer-reviewed articles in economics journals as well as in books.
I've encountered so many dipsticks like Luke over the years that by now I can only pity them in their cesspits of ignorance. He's a self-righteous, arrogant moron, and those are his GOOD points.
'This ‘almost everybody’ is presented again without substantiation'
Montford is correct, Sceptics generally agree that CO2 is a GHG and produces some warming, but not the excess posted by the Klimatariat.
Of course the members of the Denialati (a small shadowy group) are unconvinced by the argument that CO2 causes warming.
"a distinguished solar physicist, quoted the late scientist-author Michael Crichton, who had said: “If it’s science, it isn’t consensus; if it’s consensus, it isn’t science.” He added: “There has been no global warming for almost 17 years. None of the ‘consensus’ computer models predicted that.”
lol
Some brief commentary on one aspect of Lomborg's recent claims in the Washington Post. I'd say there's plenty more in that article that deserves critique.
Abstract
"Possible reasons for a temporal instability of long-term effects of solar activity (SA) and galactic cosmic ray (GCR) variations on the lower atmosphere circulation were studied. It was shown that the detected earlier ∼60-year oscillations of the amplitude and sign of Solar Activity/Galactic Cosmic Ray effects on the troposphere pressure at high and middle latitudes (Veretenenko and Ogurtsov, Adv.Space Res., 2012) are closely related to the state of a cyclonic vortex forming in the polar stratosphere. The intensity of the vortex was found to reveal a roughly 60-year periodicity affecting the evolution of the large-scale atmospheric circulation and the character of Solar Activity/Galactic Cosmic Ray effects. An intensification of both Arctic anticyclones and mid-latitudinal cyclones associated with an increase of GCR fluxes at minima of the 11-year solar cycles is observed in the epochs of a strong polar vortex. In the epochs of a weak polar vortex SA/GCR effects on the development of baric systems at middle and high latitudes were found to change the sign. The results obtained provide evidence that the mechanism of solar activity and cosmic ray influences on the lower atmosphere circulation involves changes in the evolution of the stratospheric polar vortex."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117713005474
#4, you've made my point again,Gordy. Your number is 'generally' for 'sceptics', and for Denialati the number is 'small'....cut out the handwaving and come up with some real numbers! That's what Cook did with a literature survey. Face it very little peer-reviewed matter disendorses or rejects AGW, no matter that Karen can't read.
I've got no idea of an exact or even general spread of what your fellow travellers will allow CO2. I suspect that fewer of you will allow your real convictions to be exposed, because you can tell that minimising CO2s warming effect looks a little saner than rejecting it out of hand. That's why it's more valid to check publications for views rather than rely on online polls.
But of course ,you guys don't have any science,so it's hard to come up with more than a handful of crappy works. The irony of Montford attacking hard numbers with guesswork is lost on you.
#3 gossip,gossip,cluck ,cluck..an anecdote without names from a dead deluded writer...useless.
Last time Karen claimed something like "There has been no global warming for almost 17 years..." I posted something like this graph. Even UAH so favoured of denialists shows warming over this period (even more than the two land-based reconstructions!)
Karen's function here is to post lies.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
Abstract
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."
lol
#7 Crap,crap, crap...cart before the horse. We know they turn up and are mediated by solar activity, but do not have any evidence for GCRs influence on the lower atmospheric circulation. We only know that they might have some input in the nucleation chain which could never be exclusive. People have looked long and hard for GCR effects: zip. How do the authors know that the behavior they are seeing has any GCR influence: it may all be the solar activity factor.
"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW"
lol
#11, why is that 'lol' ,Kaz ? Penny for your thoughts.
"Leaving aside the issue that none of the authors of these papers were in any way qualified to discuss the science behind global warming, and were effectively just passing on hearsay, the statements were unbelievably vague. “Rise to the top of the agenda”, “as a hedge”, “implicated in”!"
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/watch-the-pea/
#13 so how many rejected AGW, dummy ...'lol'... are you smart enough to penetrate the 'veil' that thwarted poor Montford?
"1) Buying Greenhouse Insurance (No, it’s not the sort you grow tomatoes in!)
There have been numerous proposals for immediate cutbacks in CO2 emissions. Proponents argue that sizable reductions are necessary as a hedge against unacceptably rapid changes in climate. This paper provides a decision tree analysis of the problem. We examine how the optimal hedging strategy might var"
"2) CO2 emissions reduction by price deregulation and fossil fuel taxation: A case study of Indonesia
As environmental issues, and the issue of global warming in particular, rise to the top of the international agenda, developing nations are faced with a major question: how to confront these environme"
"3) Effect of encapsulated calcium carbide on dinitrogen, nitrous oxide, methane, and carbon dioxide emissions from flooded rice
The efficiency of N use in flooded rice is usually low, chiefly due to gaseous losses. Emission of CH4, a gas implicated in global warming, can also be substantial in flo"
yes yes yes........... very very powerful statements affirming their belief in the great co2 god.... lol
#15..."...and were effectively just passing on hearsay..." Indeed, 'watch the pea', as your blog idiot offers [channelling Macintyre]. Referring to AGW or global warming as 'hearsay' is just a bit dense,don't you think,given the thousand of publications that endorse it...
Kaz, I'm sure there is no limit to the dumbfuck blogs you can delegate to do your 'heavy' lifting,but that one won't help you.
No wonder no one believes you idiots, hehe
Serving up rotten eggs and then trying to persuade that the stench will add to the flavour............ :)
#17 , they were cat. 3 papers, dummy...and you have carefully excised the references to GW ,you sad person.... ROFLMAO
#19, back at ya, idiot!
#20,no ,my bad,you haven't...but you've failed to understand the categorisation
If you guyz have to support the pathetic Cook et al paper you have not got much, it makes you all look extremely dishonest and clutching at straws....
hahahahaha........ Cook et al.......... lol
#19, Category 3, 'implicit endorsement'...could you contrive a way for these three papers to 'implicitly disendorse' AGW... show us what you can do.
Nick..... I have said enough about the cookie lies, so why don't you go and take a pill or go and have sex with your sock or sumpfin ?
#23 I don't have to support Cook : it argues clearly on its own. You have no material support, none of you cranks would try a literature survey because you know you have no support where it matters. You are not required to present work, or argue consistently, you don't have numbers. Too bad,it really is a shame.
#25, you've said nothing about 'cookie lies'...are your biscuits plotting against you,again? Awww
'...cut out the handwaving and come up with some real numbers!'
US and Australian farmers and graziers are sceptical.
#28, sure...any numbers? What's the breakdown?
No, they're not.
The bludgers can get their noses outta the trough now.........
"Professor Paul Kench, of Auckland University, who co-authored the study with Dr Arthur Webb, a Fiji-based expert on coastal processes, said the study challenged the view that the islands were sinking as a result of global warming.
"Eighty per cent of the islands we've looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, got larger.
"Some have got dramatically larger," he said.
"We've now got evidence the physical foundations of these islands will still be there in 100 years," he told New Scientist magazine.
He said the study suggested the islands had a natural ability to respond to rising seas by accumulating coral debris from the outlying reefs that surround them.
"It has long been thought that as the sea level goes up, islands will sit there and drown. But they won't," Professor Kench said."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/tuvalu…
(Just trying out el gordo's unsubstantiated style of assertion. Do you think el gordo will find it persuasive?
Assuming not, do you think he'll reflect on the lack of persuasiveness of his own style of discourse? And for bonus points, do you think he'll modify his style?)
That's interesting, but so is a key quote Karen left out. One guess why.
Saltwater incursion as sea levels rise is already considered to be a growing challenge in rich low-lying places like Florida, let alone poorer places that can't afford to throw huge amounts of cash at the problem.
Over population is the biggest issue Lothie, maybe they need Bill & Belinda Gates to help them with that..
"US and Australian farmers and graziers are sceptical.
No, they’re not."
Well who would know without a definitive survey but unlike city press comments, most of the rural newspapers and on-line counter-parts commentary is quite hostile.
Why - fear that a production system with already declining terms of trade would be slugged with taxes or an ETS on animal emissions, land clearing, fertiliser use etc. Additionally the unrelenting high variability makes landholders think there is nothing new under the sun.
The old poem Droughts and Flooding Rains - http://www.dorotheamackellar.com.au/archive/mycountry.htm is the thematic backdrop
Jeff will find a way to charge them for ecosystems services I'm sure. Fuck off Jeff.
Do you think climate change has affected your farming experience?
Yes – events are more extreme
(24.1%)
No – everything is cyclical
(62%)
Can’t say – evidence is inconclusive
(14%)
Total Votes: 615
Poll Date: 11 February, 2013
http://www.stockandland.com.au/polls/?page=4
#34, [slightly] shorter Kaz: "OK, you got me, but... overpopulation!" Off to bed with you.
Do you think the Carbon Tax has been as bad as made out to be?
Yes
(72.5%)
No
(27.5%)
Total Votes: 731
Poll Date: 15 October, 2012
http://www.stockandland.com.au/polls/?page=5
How has the Carbon Tax affected you?
Much better off
(5.6%)
Slightly better off
(3.4%)
Completely neutral
(14.4%)
Slightly worse off
(18%)
Much worse off
(58.7%)
http://www.stockandland.com.au/polls/?page=6
#37 Nick
September 15, 2013
"#34, [slightly] shorter Kaz: “OK, you got me, but… overpopulation!” Off to bed with you."
How much are you worth Nickie?
Yeah and in the US the corn growers feel the same way about climate change.
You gormless ignorant toe-rag luke. Have you any idea how much ecosystems services are worth and how the global economy will have to run faster to stay still if we continue to degrade the systems that supply these services?
I could suggest a swathe of books on the topic so that you get up to speed on this topic, and heck I have barely scratched the surface myself even though I have studied R Dawkins, E O Wilson, W D Hamilton, and many others.
Your attitude on this indicates that you would benefit from reading this book: What Has Nature Ever Done For Us?: How Money Really Does Grow On Trees.
Now, no more of your execrable nonsense until you have educated yourself luke.
PS you are the bed-wetter around here.
Do you identify as a climate change believer, sceptic or denier?
Believer
(27.7%)
Sceptic
(47.6%)
Denier
(18.4%)
Don't care
(6.3%)
Total Votes: 933
Poll Date: 16 July, 2012
http://www.stockandland.com.au/polls/?page=7
Yes Lionel, Luke looks like he would be into golden showers :)
But I reckon you probably drink your piss .......... lol
'A survey of more than 18,800 farmers in the U.S. corn belt found that only 8 percent believe global warming is happening and is mainly due to human activity. While alarmists imagine this is evidence of a lack of knowledge, the truth is that America’s farmers are closer to the real science on the issue than are the liberal media. Living close to the land, they are also in a better position to distinguish short-term weather patterns from long-term climate change.
'J. Gordon Arbuckle, Jr., a sociologist at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa, conducted the poll. The survey focused on corn producers grossing at least $100,000 annually in nine states. About 4,700 farmers out of 18,800 farmers who were sent the survey responded, a response rate of 26 percent.'
Karen at your page 9 #35
Which demonstrates what a loser a loller like you is for if you had bothered to study some of the books in my reading list posted earlier then you would not have written that for it proves what a sad bullshitting ignoramus you are.
The 'lolling' is yet another sign of somebody not quite right in the head. Ask freddy for a loan of his med's.
#40,enough to buy you a good library,but you have to learn to read first.
#45, so what's that? 8% of 18,800,or 8% of the 4700 who responded? 8% of 18,800 =1500, 1500 of 4700 =32%...ambiguous much?
#46 Lionel A
What The Science Says:
In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.
Climate Myth: It's the sun
"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=43
One important factor have been left out, or avoided with that assessment. The projected rate of sea level rise is going to outstrip the ability of producing growth. As Lotharsson correctly pointed out you the scientists mentioned that but you, you either lying or ignorant toe-rag failed to reproduce that too.
Further more as oceans warm and become more acidic then the living systems are going to become even more stressed and unlikely to be able to respond at all.
You really are a no-hoper Karen.
More from J.Gordon Arbuckle on farmers views A different picture emerges....
Karen at #48 above.
Thank you. This has been very demonstrative of how poor your reasoning powers are, probably not helped by poor comprehension.
Did you not appreciate the importance of that first paragraph:
You don't look and think before you leap do you. What a twerp you are.
By repeating this in the context you are showing a complete and utter logic fail. A logic fail so easy to spot only an idiot would miss it. I suggest that you return to your village, they miss you.
"Further more as oceans warm and become more acidic then the living systems are going to become even more "
I hate to be the one to break it to you Lionel, but the world is cooling, sorry sweetie but you've been had.
"A number of studies have used a variety of statistical and physical approaches to determine the contribution of greenhouse gases and other effects to the observed global warming, like Lean & Rind and Foster & Rahmstorf. And like those studies, they find a relatively small solar contribution to global warming, particularly in recent decades"
Lionel, they have singing the same song for years, the sun doesn't change enough to make a difference, EXCEPT NOW when you numpties need to find an excuse for the cooling
Ecosystem services is bullshit non science for rent-seeking lefties. Fuck off Lionel. More watermelon politics.
I can beat you guyz up with my little finger :)
Luke - you are beyond help and parody being a sad ignorant little man with a small mind.
So, you are doubling down on the stupid.
You too are beyond help and parody being a sad ignorant little man with a small mind.
Careful Lionel, don't burst your pump on my account, try having a cup of dandelion tea or some other similar greenie juice
'...ambiguous much?'
Good catch, I'll pay that.
(CNSNews.com) – A 2007 prediction that summer in the North Pole could be “ice-free by 2013” that was cited by former Vice President Al Gore in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech has proven to be off… by 920,000 square miles.
In his Dec. 10, 2007 “Earth has a fever” speech, Gore
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/wrong-al-gore-pre…
lol
See Lionel, fat Al lied to you, sweetie pie :)
You'll need to say which organisation has reported cooling for which regions. I don't know of any global cooling.
A world at last
Of con-jobs free
Where worth lies in
Integrity
A world one with
Honest labor
And not sell-out
Butt-kissing favor
A world in which
Our scholars' brains
Are bent on more
Than gravy-trains
A world in which
Most prized are deeds
Not parasites
And blood-meal feeds
Ah! Such a world
We could revive
If only we
Would scrap the hive
Leaked AR5
‘Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations… There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.’
Hmmm.... time to abandon the models and use our intuition.
We need to talk about SAM, NINA and RIDGY.
And el gordolocks, your source for that AR5 leak would be...?
Smells like a quote mine plus distortion to me.
Ah! Yes. Now noted (warning finish your drink or moth-full of food before clicking link) its that serial obfuscater David Rose at it again!, a tool for the GWPF - their charity status should now be in serious doubt.
Oh, and Judith scores again - another mark down her ladder of regress.
A liar who can break a confidentiality agreement is equally capable of misrepresenting an elided paragraph.
Why not go the whole hog and recommend chicken entrails.
The modern world left you behind quite some time ago Gordon.
Epic Fail.
If you don't have fresh water, that's a much bigger - and much more pressing - problem.
Sigh: altogether now, it's always projection.
As I said, Karen's purpose here is to lie.
#63,Mike...
behind the stage
on which Tones stands:
besuited, besmirked
coal brigands
pumped four mills
into Lib/Lab war-chest
they have their orders:
fuck the rest
"the nations interest!"
they will lie,
while hanging your kids
out to dry
so, sing their song,
you sad old dope,
of cruel illusion and
poor man's hope
what choice the sane
but heap derision
and scorn upon
such deluded vision?
Here's another lie:
That prediction was for 2016 +/- 3 years and, which means it can't be assessed until 2019. And it even used "could", not "will", if basic arithmetic is too difficult.
Karen has already been told about this multiple times. Karen is a blatant liar.
(And note how that "news report" focused on ice area because readers must not be alerted to the ice volume or thickness, which are both far stronger indicators of ice reduction. Also note that the site is shilling for donations - there are suckers born every minute!)
...because your intuition has proven to be remarkably robust...no, wait, I can't say that with a straight face. Let me try again: because your intuition has proven to be worse than random chance.
Epic Fail.
#65...ah David Rose, writing for children again. "Scientists blame their computers" is the insinuation. The words 'admit','doom' and 'apocalypse' feature heavily. He's an emboldened twat, clearly being groomed as the next Chris Booker.
Stu 2, perhaps you would like to comment on people who dismiss a particular scientific area of research - not even specific researchers, but the topic itself - on the basis of politics?
(While you're at it, I'm still waiting for you to produce a quote where I dismiss a competent scientist's scientific claims purely because of their politics. If you can't find one, feel free to withdraw the false claim.)
Karen, please display all global cooling data...[any moment now]
And while you are at it Karen, tell us how Christy cooked his chart and without more lies.
And el gordolocks - it is way past time that you explained how feedbacks are assessed as positive or negative and provide examples.
But I sense that you are both Slip Slidin' Away.
I see that the latest David Rose article Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong, where Judith steps in the shit again, has been echoed in the Telegraph just like the last:
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists where Haley Dixon repeats crap and Judith no longer smells like a Rose, I am getting a distinct whiff of 'Mushroom Farm'.
So disgusted, and I have noted your heart felt message on Rose and Australian politics at SkS Bernard, that I have had to calm myself with Vivaldi Concerto in D major RV 93 Largo .
Christ, it's getting worse in here, even with FreddyBerenwanker banned at last.
WTF is a repeatedly exposed and ridiculed serial liar, fantasist and bullying thug Luke still doing here? Does he like being humiliated and mocked? Must do, I suppose, which is a bit weird.
* * *
One other thing. Luke constantly claims that there is no rationale for this blog etc but every time I look - here he is again. Clearly the "no rationale" stuff is yet another rather desperate lie aimed at shutting down people who repeatedly catch Luke out in his lies and expose his fantasies.
"Ecosystem services is bullshit non science for rent-seeking lefties"
BBD, I second that. When is Tim going to finally ban this brainless twerp? Luke has got to be the most pathetic idiot we've ever had on Deltoid - and that is saying a lot considering some of the luminaries on here past and present.
Understanding the value of supporting, aesthetic and provisioning ecosystem services is one of the most important disciplines bridging environmental science and economics. Supporting services are those which underpin the material economy (Heal, 2000). These include: purification of air and water, breakdown of wastes, stabilization of coastlines and climate, flood control, generation and maintenance of soil and renewal of its fertility, pollination, seed dispersal, the cycling of nutrients, pest control and others.
Costanza's seminal 1997 paper argued that supporting ecological services alone were worth 33 trillion dollars to the global economy at the time - almost twice as much as the sum of all GDPs of all nations on Earth. A more recent study evaluates the value of supporting services:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041612000101
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) was one of the largest scientific endeavors undertaken in decades. Many of the world's leading scientists contributed to it. The report concluded that human activities have seriously degrading critical services such as those described above by as much as 60%. The prognosis of further degradation is dire. Most of these services do not have technological substitutes, and even where there are, these are prohibitively expensive. For instance, the extinction of pollinators in parts of China has meant that certain crops have to be pollinated by hand. Humans cannot replicate the effectiveness of natural pollinators, such as insects, and crop yields are thus a fraction of what they would be if healthy population of insects were present.
There are a number of examples where the value of ecosystem services has been demonstrated. One of the best and which I use in lectures is the pollination of oil palms. Oil palms are native to west Africa, and were introduced into Indonesia and elsewhere in SE Asia in 1918. However, no native pollinators were introduced, meaning that for 62 years the trees had to be hand-pollinated. In 1980, however, a small African weevil and mutualistic pollinator of oil palm trees was introduced intentionally into Asia. Within 5 years, 200 million dollars was saved in tedious hand-pollinating practices and at the same time oil palm yields increased by a factor of 5.
Other examples abound. New York City has some of the cleanest drinking water of any major city on Earth. That is because the water comes from the Catskill Mountains watershed, some 150 km north of the city. Soil organisms filter the water and purify it. In the 1980s, however, the water supply to the city was threatened by developers who planned to clear many of the forests in the Catskill Mountains for golf courses and hotels. Moreover, the number of farms in the area increased, all of these factors leading to a reduction in the quality of groundwater and thus threatening New York's longstanding supply. City planners had two options: build a water purification plant for 6 billion dollars with 300 million dollar annual maintenance costs, or to stop any further development of the Catskill region, buy out the developers and turn it into a large wilderness region - at a cost of 3 billion dollars. The planners took the latter decision.
Two textbook examples of ecosystem services and their economic valuation. Yet Luke says that ecosystem services are 'lefty bullshit'. Folks, this is the kind of brainless idiot that we are dealing with. A self-righteous know-nothing with delusions of grandeur. Bill is correct. He does not deserve an audience.
Thanks you for taking the time to spell it out to one who clearly does not understand as much as he wants to think. Or maybe he gets riled when a mental black hole of his is exposed.
The examples you gave are just two mentioned in that book I mentioned at #42 above .
Luke has no excuse for continuing in his eco-ignorance.
Disclaimer from Karen's surveys: DISCLAIMER: These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. Poll results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. Stock & Land is not responsible for the opinions expressed herein.
Stu
Re Gordy's bollocks on the previous page:
This is "barycentrism", a strain of crankery so extreme that it is explicitly banned at WTFUWT (I have just re-checked the comment policy).
@Harvey (#79) eco fundamentalist and CO2 clown :evil:
Your insane over-exaggeration of eco worshipping is totally unacceptable:
Understanding the value of supporting, aesthetic and provisioning ecosystem services is one of the most important disciplines bridging environmental science and economics. Supporting services are those which underpin the material economy (Heal, 2000). These include: purification of air and water, breakdown of wastes, stabilization of coastlines and climate, flood control, generation and maintenance of soil and renewal of its fertility, pollination, seed dispersal, the cycling of nutrients, pest control and others.
Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:
Costanza’s seminal 1997 paper argued that supporting ecological services alone were worth 33 trillion dollars to the global economy at the time – almost twice as much as the sum of all GDPs of all nations on Earth. A more recent study evaluates the value of supporting services:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041612000101
Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) was one of the largest scientific endeavors undertaken in decades. Many of the world’s leading scientists contributed to it. The report concluded that human activities have seriously degrading critical services such as those described above by as much as 60%. The prognosis of further degradation is dire. Most of these services do not have technological substitutes, and even where there are, these are prohibitively expensive. For instance, the extinction of pollinators in parts of China has meant that certain crops have to be pollinated by hand. Humans cannot replicate the effectiveness of natural pollinators, such as insects, and crop yields are thus a fraction of what they would be if healthy population of insects were present.
Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:
There are a number of examples where the value of ecosystem services has been demonstrated. One of the best and which I use in lectures is the pollination of oil palms. Oil palms are native to west Africa, and were introduced into Indonesia and elsewhere in SE Asia in 1918. However, no native pollinators were introduced, meaning that for 62 years the trees had to be hand-pollinated. In 1980, however, a small African weevil and mutualistic pollinator of oil palm trees was introduced intentionally into Asia. Within 5 years, 200 million dollars was saved in tedious hand-pollinating practices and at the same time oil palm yields increased by a factor of 5.
Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:
Other examples abound. New York City has some of the cleanest drinking water of any major city on Earth. That is because the water comes from the Catskill Mountains watershed, some 150 km north of the city. Soil organisms filter the water and purify it. In the 1980s, however, the water supply to the city was threatened by developers who planned to clear many of the forests in the Catskill Mountains for golf courses and hotels. Moreover, the number of farms in the area increased, all of these factors leading to a reduction in the quality of groundwater and thus threatening New York’s longstanding supply. City planners had two options: build a water purification plant for 6 billion dollars with 300 million dollar annual maintenance costs, or to stop any further development of the Catskill region, buy out the developers and turn it into a large wilderness region – at a cost of 3 billion dollars. The planners took the latter decision.
Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:
Two textbook examples of ecosystem services and their economic valuation. Yet Luke says that ecosystem services are ‘lefty bullshit’. Folks, this is the kind of brainless idiot that we are dealing with. A self-righteous know-nothing with delusions of grandeur. Bill is correct. He does not deserve an audience.
Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:
Please stop your useless proaganda for a completely useless waste of time with your lunatic eco illness.
Where is the exorcist? We need another sweep out.
It takes a certain intelligence to work out how to block-paste and strikeout, same as gets an amoeba to food.
Oh dear. I thought the nutter had finally been banned. Hope springs eternal!
:-)
Freddy, if you must comment here, please address others' points rather than striking them out and ranting.
Ya gotta love Berendaneke. The examples I put up about pollination and water purification are bonafide case studies. There are many more examples.. these are just two classic textbook ones.
I also reiterate some conclusions form the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006). The report is available online. I also paste a link to a recent peer-reviewed study on valuation, as well as Costanza's seminal 1997 Nature paper.
So what does our resident psychopath do? Copy and paste my post and then put lines through all of it, as if this is some sort of demented proof that these examples aren't true and that the studies and MEA don't exist.
Note that the nutter doesn't offer up any proof of these being fabrications; no, instead Berendaneke can only mutter gibberish about this being 'bullshit from an eco-clown'.
When is Tim going to ban this guy, along with his puppet master, Luke and his alter ego Fatso? This blog has been dragged through the mud in recent months by the fruitcake brigade only because there has been no filter. You can see exactly what happens with blogs when deniers try and take over. Intellectual discourse is dragged down to the lowest common denominator. If these guys are a representative sample of the denial brain trust, then no wonder they are in such trouble.
'This is “barycentrism”, a strain of crankery so extreme that it is explicitly banned at WTFUWT (I have just re-checked the comment policy).'
Anthony rejects UFOs too, so he's not the sharpest knife in the draw.
And let me assure you that barycentriism has nothing to do with astrology.
SWWA free of AGW stigma.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=2359
So don't fucking tell us what it isn't in lieu of what negligible effect it actually is. Or we might just think it's just another desperate thrashing about of a deluded half-wit crank of the Anything But CO2 persuasion
Btw, Gordon that's rhetorical because we already know that's what it is and what you are.
But did you know....
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2006-094
#87
So you believe in UFOs? Or have I misunderstood this?
I didn't say that it did. Although it does. Both are unsupported by empirical evidence.
'So you believe in UFOs? Or have I misunderstood this?'
There are a many unidentified flying objects captured on cameras and mobile phones on a daily basis.
At the moment this UFO phenomenon remains a mystery.
Jeff @ #86 What you have to remember Jeff is that the pitiful collection of cranks, liars and the most cack-handed of SpamKan relays imaginable are the sum total result of the Koch et al investment in pure shit.
Cheap internet yapping by the above coterie is what they've been told they've bought. Anyone else would be suing for a refund.
#92 Fair enough. Note that I was careful not to put words like "alien spaceships" into your mouth.
Good faith!
:-)
It's a hackneyed old cliche, but you owe me a keyboard.
Yes Gordon, we know of the effect - it's how distant planets across the galaxy are detected.
There's always some crumb of truth in the giant crank loaf.
Oh, I think your input is owed much more than that BBD.
Hate Media
'The WSJ report said the change was small but "it is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet". - See more at:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/we-got-it-wrong-on-…
@80 Linoel A eco lunatic and CO2 clown :evil:
Your claim is totally unsubstantiated and therefore has to be rejected:
Thanks you for taking the time to spell it out to one who clearly does not understand as much as he wants to think. Or maybe he gets riled when a mental black hole of his is exposed
You did not apprehend that your knowledge in meteorology is far below the level of your black hole.
Answer the question how many temperature stations are covered in the GHCN database? You will see that you are totally unable to answer this simple question:
Therefore BLACK HOLE Lionel :evil:
@86 Harvey eco clown and CO2 back hole :evil:
You violate this blog with offensive unsubstantiated nutter bollocks which is so typical of the CO2 losers. Your insanely hostile wording cannot be accepted:
When is Tim going to ban this guy, along with his puppet master, Luke and his alter ego Fatso? This blog has been dragged through the mud in recent months by the fruitcake brigade only because there has been no filter. You can see exactly what happens with blogs when deniers try and take over. Intellectual discourse is dragged down to the lowest common denominator. If these guys are a representative sample of the denial brain trust, then no wonder they are in such trouble
You engage in non-scientific ranting of a desperate brat with foul language. You should take your meds and wipe your screen from your spittle, you eco clown :evil:
No, Freddyfred. You've been unable to demonstrate the importance and show no comprehension of sampling.
But keep on exposing your idiocy. If you have to.
@chek (#2) clown :evil:
Nobody has asked you, therefore close your foul mouth, twerp :evil:
The question was addressed to Lionel A :evil:
Why does it matter?
Once again, I have to ask you to develop your argument
Please explain why you think the number of stations matters.
So what, you utter imbecile?
You're participating in a public forum where your idiotic ideas are open season to any passing reader.
Let's return to the data.
Satellite data are not derived from thermometers on the ground. So when the satellite data are in close agreement with the surface data, what can we conclude about the reliability of the surface data?
What?
Come on, what?
Let's have some sense out of your for once.
Your #6 requires a certain degree of intelligence to make that crucial step, BBD.
Freddyfred isn't up to it.
He's got his delusions instead.
What drivel Jeff - there is no no need for a watermelon lefist concept such as ecosystem services - it simply used to be called natural resource management, biological control or conservation. It's still done ! Ecosystem services are simply nouveau pretentious non-science rent-seeking crap and you know it.
So say The Lukes, with no apparent expertise in anything other than clicking 'submit comment' for their drivel opinions.
And that is blatant trolling Luke, and you know it!!
;-)
'Ecosystem services are simply nouveau pretentious non-science rent-seeking crap and you know it.'
Hear Hear!
Changing the title doesn't change the role they play though does it, you self-congratulating morons?
#13 ....it's like witchcraft: use the wrong incantation...and,pfft! We are talking to over-tired children...
‘Ecosystem services are simply nouveau pretentious non-science rent-seeking crap and you know it.’
hehe........... yes, lip stick on a pig :)
Ecosystem services feed the people, Karen.
"Ecosystem services" builds on the quite elderly concept "natural capital", a handle designed to help those who see the natural world as a mess in need of 'improvement' understand some basics about reality, and to demonstrate to the bread-heads that accounting laguage has broader utility. It helped to break down some of the anthropocentric delusions of exceptionalism and removal from nature that came with technology...well, it helped some.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aylLhPHI1TI
There is early speculation that the 2013-14 European winter will be colder than the average .... that would make six winters in a row that have been particularly bitter.
It feels like the game is up for the Warmista.
#18...Farage is right that it's been a tough decade in Europe for the poor, but it's crocodile tears....'climate change is a sham because poor people' is dumb,and as Barroso says, populist. He's trying to argue against the scientific orthodoxy by pointing to the economic pain brought on by the globalism from which he personally profited... ghastly and stupid.
The ignorance of holding up the Augusts 2012 and 2013 Arctic sea ice extent [which he thinks is an 'ice cap'] is lost on you, Gordy...why is inter-annual variability within the declining trend invisible to you?....favoring alleged 'US scientists' who predict 15-30 years cooling, while having no faith in projections, is a side-splitter. It's of little comfort to know that you learn more here than Farage with his resources will allow himself. As a politician,he's a troll,and we all know, we need better trolls.
The 'scientific orthodoxy' has been discredited.
# 21...has it? Just as a simple matter, in trying to suggest that Arctic sea ice is recovering simply by displaying two satellite pics,and appealing to unidentified alleged experts, Farage is demonstrating how NOT to discredit scientific orthodoxy. He makes a fool of himself,which no amount of polished mugging for the camera can conceal.
Lotharsson@# 2 & @#78.
I can't be bothered going through these threads to find specific quotes but:
* what is chameleonic? I cannot find a definition of that word or what contextual application it has in your comment.
* I am not disputing that MSM misrepresents issues. I would also agree that News Ltd are among the most strident. I do dispute that News Ltd are the only guilty party from whichever perspective you may have. I believe Nick's view of PR in government institutions is somewhat naïve.
* As much as I don't think much of Luke's commenting style from memory his main point was that ecosystem services is not a new concept it is just a new name for something that has been happening for quite some time. If I ignore his abuse, I actually agree with the substance of his comment as well as what he had to say about farmers'.
* Go back to your comments around the time of the Australian election and it won't be very hard to find politically motivated commentary from you &
* I have decided that you are a crashing bore that can't actually engage but can only browbeat, lecture, sneer and argue endlessly why even when you are mistaken you are in fact not mistaken.
Switzerland is famous for its Cherman-speaking psychiatrists - Freddy could provide them with plenty of material.
You understand the psychological condition you are displaying above, Freddy?
'I would also agree that News Ltd are among the most strident. I do dispute that News Ltd are the only guilty party from whichever perspective you may have.'
The Murdocracy has gone out of their way to present both sides of the CC debate, while Fairfax and the ABC have been negligent in this regard. That's why I would enjoy seeing Aunty's newsroom torn to pieces.
el gordo.
I agree that the ABC has been remiss in its duty but I don't think it is correct that any sector of the MSM has gone out of its way to present both sides of the CC debate.
I think, instead, that they have all gone out of their way to polarise the CC debate and that does, very unfortunately, include the ABC.
# 25 "Murdochracy / both sides of the debate"... this is feeble. It is not a debate. It's a shitstorm of lies disseminated by a faction which is not bound by any ethical or systemic guidelines of review.
One 'side' has decades of work, inter-disciplinary support, the observations and all the physically realistic theory...the other 'side' has no work beyond disinformation, no physical consistency [GCRs, barycentrism, 'cycles', plots, hoaxes and conspiracies], no responsibility and a determination to lie [David Rose's 'emergency IPCC meeting' being but a recent example]...and Murdoch is delighted to exercise no discrimination between them. In fact Murdoch's machine is a bona fide generator of disinformation in its own right [Rose, Leake, etc], a creator of conflict where there is none,and a disseminator of fake-charitable FF lobby pabulum [Andrew Montfords pathetic attempt to dismiss Cook et al]
And robotic spammers like you put in for free. In the end, your 'side' are just chanting, ears stopped up, blindfolds in place.
So, you double down on a position that still looks remarkably like false balance and make no attempt to quantify the relative magnitude of any "guilt" you think is due. You're happy to merely say "both sides do it". Entirely as expected, perhaps because it would reveal you complaining loudly about the splinter and not saying much about the log.
Epic Fail.
I didn't ask you to apply your previous position to whatever you interpret to be his "main position". I asked you to apply it consistently to his actual dismissal of the field, you know, based on what he actually said to that effect:
and
There's no reasonable interpretation that says that's merely complaining about a name change. A name change doesn't provide a "refuge for eco-scoundrels", nor does a name change render a scientific discipline "non-science" which means that the alleged "rent-seeking" is a scam.
You are distinctly one-eyed, Stu 2, and you have a very interesting habit of applying your one eye to editing what other people have said.
Which does not support the claim that you made, you know, that I had dismissed competent scientists' valid claims purely because of their politics. I'll take that as an admission that your claim was false, since you clearly aren't going to admit it yourself. You repeatedly misrepresent what I say, and simply duck and weave when you are caught out and pretend that you weren't. Either you aren't very good at comprehension, or you're being mendacious. And you seem to think that no-one notices you being caught out.
What a desperate load of bollocks! Of course only a "crashing bore" would engage with what you say by responding to it, point by point if necessary. And I have no doubt it's crashingly boring to have someone repeatedly point out that you've misrepresented what they are saying because you had really pinned your hopes on your straw men.
Hope you stick the flounce this time.
you said....
I said......
you said....
I said......
you said....
I said......
lol
"What a desperate load of bollocks! Of course only a “crashing bore” would engage with what you say by responding to it, point by point if necessary. And I have no doubt it’s crashingly boring to have someone repeatedly point out"
you said....
I said......
you said....
I said......
you said....
I said..... lol
'One ‘side’ has decades of work, inter-disciplinary support, the observations and all the physically realistic theory…'
Yeah, but they got it wrong. All we want is equal time on the MSM to discuss alternative theories.
What they say:
‘There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable climate variability, with possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.’
What this means:
The IPCC knows the pause is real, but has no idea what is causing it. It could be natural climate variability, the sun, volcanoes – and crucially, that the computers have been allowed to give too much weight to the effect carbon dioxide emissions (greenhouse gases) have on temperature change.
Loth needs a sub.
What they say:
‘Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations... There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.’
What this means:
The models said Antarctic ice would decrease. It’s actually increased, and the IPCC doesn’t know why.
What I say: lol
What a hoot!
Love the bit where the morons toss around the term 'rent seeking' - a Libertard Shibboleth of the era - without having a clue what it means. Please, genuises, explain to anyone who can be bothered listening to you how 'ecosystem services' can 'rent-seek'? Oh, the irony...
(Oh, and in the process you'll only demonstrate you don't know what 'ecosystem services' are, either, - not to mention that you're too thick to Google - but that's consistent. It's a blessing - for you, at least - you're both too stupid to realise how stupid you are. Anyone reading this who sympathises with you clowns is on notice that you, too, are equally dense. There's a surplus of dense people in the world, and have a guess where they all line up on this debate...)
Hey el,
did u just hear a farting noise ?
#29, you said... nothing... as usual LOL
#25, David Rose is asserting,not debating...and he asserts a falsehood: he claimed that the IPCC is 'admitting' that GW has been half the rate they said it was proceeding at in 2007. Not 0.2C/decade,but closer to 0.1C/decade,apparently....
Trouble is, David is wrong. IPCC in 2007 said it had been warming at 0.13C/decade. Rose took their projection for the two decades post-2007 and confused it with their observations to 2007.
Stupid? Liar? Stupid liar? Who cares? It's not a debate.
How quickly will his newspaper issue corrections? LOL
BBD,
how many temperature stations are covered by the GHCN database? This is a simple question. You cannot escape the impression that you are utterly ignorant, stupid and incompetent :evil:
@36 wring, as always
#25, David Rose is asserting,not debating…and he asserts a falsehood: he claimed that the IPCC is ‘admitting’ that GW has been half the rate they said it was proceeding at in 2007. Not 0.2C/decade,but closer to 0.1C/decade,apparently….
Trouble is, David is wrong. IPCC in 2007 said it had been warming at 0.13C/decade. Rose took their projection for the two decades post-2007 and confused it with their observations to 2007.
Stupid? Liar? Stupid liar? Who cares? It’s not a debate.
How quickly will his newspaper issue corrections?
David Rose is far more knwledgable in weather and climate than you CAGW fuckwits on leper island :evil: :evil:
#31. On the contrary, the possible reasons for the pause have been laid out,the difficulty lies in attribution...and the impossible reasons have been dismissed.
#33 Several mechanisms have been advanced over the last six years for the increase, and they will be part of the WG1 discussion. You are unaware of them? Too bad. How does the small observed increase affect the understanding of the whole,or the projections for GAT? In your own words,please. [ I know, it'll be 'lol' ] The modelling also underestimated the rate of Arctic sea ice decline. Are you always going to be this stupid about model/observation issues? I predict yes.
Nickie, I was almost converted until I seen this graphic,
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/14/article-2420783-1BD2956A00000…
'did u just hear a farting noise ?'
Yes, I assumed it was just the sound of dawn breaking somewhere.
#38..."wring [sic] as always" ...Assertion from the Strike Through Monkey...what a surprise! You're gambling Rose is correct? Check Rose's latest piece and check the relevant part of IPCC AR4 WG1 'The Physical Science Basis'...then acknowledge your mistake, cowardly sausage.
Apparently, Rose has struck out his 'emergency' meeting claim, since he is slow ,it'll take a few days for him to get across this one.
+++++ BREAKING NEWS +++++ BREAKING NEWS +++++ BREAKING NEWS +++++ BREAKING NEWS +++++ BREAKING NEWS +++++ BREAKING NEWS
I have a new hypothesis (for CAGW leper islanders: not theory, a hypothesis, can you follow, leperers?)
that Antarctic iceshields increase (as observed in nature now) by the follwing mechanism:
New ocean water is entrapped by the very cold ice above the ice shield and freezes the water to ice
et voilà
there is MORE ice then and the ice shield has increased!!
This is a very plausible explanation why Antarctic ice grows despite virtual CAGW!!!!
Berendaneke, the sausage fucks in here think that the heat from sea floor volcanism is the cause of the record breaking Antarctic ice
Or maybe it was that huge pile of polystyrene I burnt off last year ?
#43
Berendaneke
September 16, 2013
+++++ BREAKING NEWS +++++ BREAKING NEWS +++++ BREAKING NEWS +++++ BREAKING NEWS +++++ BREAKING NEWS +++++ BREAKING NEWS
Alternative hypothesis (for CAGW leper islanders: not theory, a hypothesis, can you follow, leperers?)
that Antarctic iceshields increase (as observed in nature now) by the follwing mechanism:
New ocean water is entrapped by the very cold ice above the ocean water at the bottom of the ice sheld and freezes the water to ice
et voilà
there is MORE ice then and the ice shield has increased!!
This is a very plausible explanation why Antarctic ice grows despite virtual CAGW!!!!
:evil: :evil:
ANYBODY INTERESTED TO TEST THIS HYPOTHESIS?????
I agree Karen, its only West Antarctica feeling the underwater heat. Coincidence? I think not.
Karen, this (polystirene) appears very plausible too me.
Please keep up your excellent work. The leper islanders need your help to get away from their illness.
I also have snow spewing out of my hot water system now? Is that Post Normal Climate syence causing that ?
el, you can get a KML file for google earth that shows recent earthquakes around the globe, have a bo peek next time a chunk of ice snaps off :)
Lotharsson.
What a desperate load of bollocks?
I am not desperate about anything and your latest effort @#28 has done nothing to alter my conclusion that you must indeed be a crashing bore.
I also note that nowhere in your latest boring essay about nothing other than what you think you said/ I said/ you think you know what I meant by what I said/ did you even attempt to answer the only actual question I asked you.
I also wasn't aware that a question about another commenter would attract a pass or a fail mark, nor do I particularly care.
"there is no no need for a watermelon lefist concept such as ecosystem services – it simply used to be called natural resource management, biological control or conservation".
Pure and utter nonsense from one of the blogs resident idiots. The term Ecosystem Services captures a suite of natural processes that emerge over variable spatial and temporal scales under a single umbrella - and highlight the fact that most do not carry pricing in economic price-cost scenarios. If Luke calls this, 'natural resource management', then he needs to explain this at the level of population and systems ecology. Until the term Ecosystem Services was invoked, the importance of biodiversity in maintaining and generating conditions that regulate nutrient cycles and various flows and feedback loops in natural ecosystems was rarely if ever acknowledged. Now it has become a vital part of understanding the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning - one of the major areas of contemporary research. Luke appears to think that the field is restricted to application, whereas it now combines both fundamental and applied aspects of environmental science and ecology.
Note how the AGW deniers all jumped into the fray with their penny's worth of stupidity. As I have said before, these people aren't just AGW deniers but are anti-environmentalists. I'm sure that, like Fatso, they think that humans are virtually exempt from the laws of nature. They believe that no matter how much humans simplify natural systems, that technology will always enable us to out-run the damage inflicted.
Debunking Luke's asinine stupidity is a slam dunk. Still, the only reason I persist here is that some people may inadvertently wander into here and swallow the shit he and his brothers in ignorance dish out. Somebody has to counter it.
#43-50 ...it's a congress of village idiots...round and round they go. Gurgle,gurgle,gobble
for the sane,meanwhile
'Ecosystem services' was coined at least 40 years ago, well before Luke was born.
Not exactly. The reverse in fact. These terms all carried or implied that "caring for the natural world" was a cost to the economy. A cost that many people claimed should either be reduced or eliminated as an unnecessary burden on "the productive economy".
The concept of ecosystem services turns this on its head. By expressing the values of natural processes in $$ terms it turns these previous arguments on their heads. Do we think it's a good idea to blow up a perfectly serviceable sewage system that we built for a certain cost and that we'll have to replace if we do so? No, it's not. And the exact same argument can be used about things that we didn't build ourselves but are available to us by virtue of geography and biology. So we now look at mangroves and wetlands in a very different way from how we did 20+ years ago. Very often we still drain and pave them or "reclaim" them for building, but at least the concept of ecosystem services gives us a language to discuss the actual costs and benefits of taking, or modifying or restricting, such actions.
The three unwise monkeys can jabber on 'til the cows come home; the point is they have proved themselves, yet again, to be stupid.
You do not know what 'rent seeking' is. You do not know what 'ecosystem services' are. Does this hinder any of you in your shamefully ignorant blatherings? Does it hell!
You are uninformed blowhards who would much rather make it all up than do a moments research. Absolutely typical exemplars of your entire tribe, in other words.
And all anyone has to do is scroll up and they'll know it, dimwits!
And all the Mouth-breather my-emotional -development-stopped-before-puberty 'jokes' fart in the world won't save you!
Because you're the biggest jokes here...
#51:
Nup. Can't stick the flounce.
Lotharsson: 279 vs Stu2: nil.
But Little Miss Stu 2 will be back with more peeved tone trolling as soon as we get more than two pages away from the mess of his last tantrum, asking why we all read Lotharsson 'cause HE IS AS BORING AND RUDE AND ONE-SIDED AND UNFAIR -TO-RUPERT AND ILL-MANNERED AND IN-NO-WAY-AT-ALL-THE-REASON-WHY-DECENT-AND-INNOCENT-RIGHT-WING-ZEALOTS-CAN'T-MAKE-REASONABLE-AND-WELL-THOUGHT-THROUGH-COMMENTS-THAT-SHOULDN'T-BE-QUESTIONED-BY-SOME-OVERQUALIFIED-ANTI-ARTS-SCIENTIFIC-LITERATES-JUST-BECAUSE-THERE'S-NO-MODERATOR-ANY-MORE AND DID I MENTION BORING? And did he mention that Lotharsson's reasonable and well expressed demolitions of his pretensions are worse than the Freddiot, Fatso, Spam, fLuke and Mr Hilter (and his friends Mr Bimmler and Mr Not-von-Ribbentropp), combined, because they aren't psychotic, gormless, facile, rude or wrong enough? OK Stu2?
No need to shout wombat, I'm just down the road.
berenwanker
Sick of asking you:
Re: "how many stations?"
Why does it matter?
Once again, I have to ask you to develop your argument
Please explain why you think the number of stations matters.
And "Karen"
Ecosystem services feed the fucking people.
I notice you skipped over that little fact without a blink.
Lying scum that you are.
Tony Abbott has released his ministry line up: there is no science ministry as such....figures. Don't like science? Ignore it, hide it inside another ministry, 'problem' solved. Science further removed from notice. I suppose it's in the industry portfolio...or is he waiting for Mirabella to stumble over the line?
Actually sorry he didn't appoint Carter. The howls of derision from around the world would have been something to hear.
What the fuck are you talking about?
EAIS mass balance gain driven by precipitation (snow) which has increased as a predicted consequence of AGW.
WAIS mass balance loss driven by basal melt/glacier flow rate. Rate of mass balance loss is increasing as predicted because of AGW.
The latter is increasing *faster* than the former. The relationship will invert within a decade and Antarctica will become a net contributor to SLR.
You have muddled up sea ice extent with ice sheet mass balance, you have confused the EAIS with the WAIS...
Total pig's breakfast. You are clueless.
"Ecosystem services feed the fucking people.
I notice you skipped over that little fact without a blink.
Lying scum that you are."
Like I said bbd, tiz lip stick on a pig...
eg. what you are saying, now we won't get 'farm fresh eggs' !
We will now be looking in the supamarket for 'ecosystem services fresh eggs' !
you barbeque sausage fuck.............. lol..............dickhead
Tizz retards like Harvey trying to glorify their useless selves. shheeezzz
#63 BBD
You really are a brain damaged chronic masturbator,
No, Karen. You are.
Ecosystem services feed the people, Karen.
It is obvious to the point of banality, of truism. Only a cretin like you would deny the obvious.
Do you think food is synthesised in factories you stupid little shit?
What are chickens - even battery hens - fed on, fuckwit?
It was you bbd, that mentioned that Antarctica was insulated from warming via the circumpolar winds was it not ?
Even Luke, who doesn't know much, has picked up on the fact that the Hadley Cells are beginning to expand. Even he knows that this is going to screw up rainfall and so agricultural production in the temperate mid-latitudes and probably at higher latitudes. Drought is already starting to bite at US agricultural productivity. Already. By mid-century...
But keep on lying, scum. Keep on lying.
Please sir, could I have some of those ‘ecosystem services fresh carrots, and how about some of those ‘ecosystem services fresh lamb chops'.
fuck off idiot
It was me, Karen, that has tried to educate fuckwits like you about the fact that basal melt not surface air temperature, is the key modulator of glacial flow rates and so mass balance loss in Antarctica.
#71 Now you are just making a screeching denial noise, Karen.
Do you think food is synthesised in factories you stupid little shit?
#72 BBD You did not, I had already read about basal melt and wondered at the time, HOW OFTEN, over MILLIONS of YEARS, does this happen?
You think it is a new phenomenon you dickhead
#74 BBD
no doubt you eat soylent green...lol
"While scientists and environmentalists have discussed ecosystem services for decades, these services were popularized and their definitions formalized by the United Nations 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), a four-year study involving more than 1,300 scientists worldwide.[1]
This grouped ecosystem services into four broad categories:
1/ provisioning, such as the production of food and water; = farming
regulating, such as the control of climate and disease; = farming
supporting, such as nutrient cycles and crop pollination; = farming
and cultural, such as spiritual and recreational benefits. = retards like bbd, Lionel and Harvey all meditating and smoking gunja
#75,76...the battery-hen of ignorance is failing to provide any service, let alone warrant provision of ecosystem services...basal melt is always happening [duh!], but rates vary [duh!]...what is influencing that rate now around the oceanic edges of the ice sheet, dummy?
And this is relevant to our species which has existed in its current form for only a fraction of a million years .... exactly how?
#79 adelady
Almost as dumb as your car analogy... lol
Rent seeking fucks would be better off watching my video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmabxQzkFrw
'The latter is increasing *faster* than the former. The relationship will invert within a decade and Antarctica will become a net contributor to SLR.'
Highly doubtful.
'Even Luke, who doesn’t know much, has picked up on the fact that the Hadley Cells are beginning to expand.'
Its still only a hypothesis, but I would like to have a discussion on SAM, ENSO and STR to see if we can find the AGW signal in Oz.
#82
What the fuck would you know about it, Gordy? Do some reading you ignorant clown.
# 83
Hadley Cell expansion is observed. It is not a hypothesis. More flap-mouthed cluelessness from a fucking idiot who would do better to shut up and learn.
Zhou et al. (2011).
Johanson & Fu (2009).
El Gordo - good evening. Aren't they a rowdy bunch. Anyway here's a high brow blog - notice Figure 2 - http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/recent-slowdown/ Fucks here wouldn't tell you such things.
#84
What? It is incredible. Literally hard to believe. Just how far up your own arse will you burrow in your frantic retreat from reality?
See your own BoM's just-released Special Climate Statement:
And:
There's your AGW signal, you fucking marmoset.
#85
And you can fuck off too. Here's Ed Hawkins, from your link:
Read the fucking words.
"The satellite data for the mid-troposphere for Australia- Land has just been released by the University of Alabama- Huntsville (UAH). Unfortunately analysis of this data shows that the mean temperature for the 12 months to August 2013 was +0.668 Celsius, which makes this period the sixth warmest of the satellite era (since December 1978)." http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/australias-warmest-12-month…
:)
bbd, you can check the data here
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
lol
#88, mid-troposphere is not surface,is it,chook....How many of us live at 5000 meters in this country? Or any country for that matter. Kens' Clowndom is more like it. Sucked in,Kaz
Karen,
What the hell are you talking about? What have the processes in your link to do with farming????? You are as thick as a plank. All you illustrate here is the kindergarten level of understanding of science that I have to continually respond to. Your knowledge of the field is so utterly low that it defies a cogent response. What your post reveals is how totally and utterly stupid and uneducated you are.
Here are your examples of farming:
The production of food and water refers to wild types of plants and animals that are either harvested from nature or which have been cultivated and domesticated for human use. The fact is that these are 'provided' by nature; we would not have an agricultural base without them.
Regulating, such as the control of climate and disease is based on the combined biological activities of billions of organisms that influence the gaseous composition of the atmosphere as well as deterring the spread of pathogens. In your simple brain this is farming? OMG, how dumb cna one be.
Supporting, such as nutrient cycles and crop pollination. Nutrient cycles are again regulated by a stupendous array of soil organisms whereas we depend on insects to pollinate our crops. Both services are not 'given' - they are freely provided subsidies that emerge from natural ecosystems. We are studying pollinator declines in Europe and NA and the factors causing them, because without pollinators food production is in big trouble, as I discussed yesterday with the Oil Pam and Chinese examples. So where does farming enter into the biological activities of soil microbes and other invertebrates? Where does farming enter into the biology and ecology of insect pollinators aside from honey bees? What about native wild pollinators?
Karen's post would be utterly hilarious if she/it/he weren't being serious. That's the sad part. Karen is profoundly ignorant, but thinks her post was witty and smart.
#85,89, surrender your ecosystem services, you are a dead weight...and your library cards because you cannot read to help yourselves!
BBD leper clown :evil:
As you always mix up "hypothesis" and "theory" you should try in OWN words to describe what you CAGW clown :evil: understand under these two terms (please not to weird wordings :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: )
so, you are ignoring bbd's dumb comments jEfFeRy
"How good are those surface records?
The AWAP records from ground based thermometers are based on a method that still has not been made public. What we do know is that there were 700-800 sites (strange how the actual number so hard to state). As far as we can tell, less than half of those were operating in the 1930s and 1940s when we had our last major heat waves, and hardly any were measuring the temperatures of the hottest bits central Australia (see the black dots on the map). There are gaps of 1,000km between thermometers. Lewis and Karoly compare the latest heat wave to the average for 1910-1940, yet in 1910 there are only 16 thermometers covering 7.6 million square kilometers. Half a million square kilometers per thermometer?"
Karen
There's *nothing* "dumb" about my comments. Nor have you ever - not once - pointed out an error in any of them.
* * *
Your spam about mid-trop UAH was abysmally stupid and embarrassing. All the more so as this has just been dealt with here. If you had read earlier comments on this thread about Christy's lying with graphs properly you would be aware that the MSU MT data are contaminated by stratospheric readings and so biased cold.
You really are just a clueless little tool, Karen.
#95
Straight-up evidence denial.
Read the fucking words.
Hottest 12 months on record.
Records broken left, right and centre. Read. Denial is mental illness.
#93
Still refusing to develop your argument, Berenwanker?
- Why does the number of stations matter? Explain.
And:
- Satellite data are not derived from thermometers on the ground. So when the satellite data are in close agreement with the surface data, what can we conclude about the reliability of the surface data?
Come on you lazy and stupid fucking troll. Do some work.
"It is obvious that the CPC GHCN/CAMS t2m analysis produces a very different ranking of Australian historic summer heat. While 2013 was the hottest summer in the BoM heavily adjusted ACORN SAT data – the CPC GHCN/CAMS t2m analysis finds that 1983 was a clear winner for the hottest summer and 1973 missed out by only 0.00135°C.
Here are the rankings of the top ten hot summers for each data set."
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=2152
"Karen
There’s *nothing* “dumb” about my comments"
hahahahahahahaha,
It was you bbd, that mentioned that Antarctica was insulated from warming via the circumpolar winds was it not ?
#63 BBD
EAIS mass balance gain driven by precipitation (snow) which has increased as a predicted consequence of AGW.
retard :)
Explain the problem, Karen. You see, I don't think there is one. I think you are so abysmally fucking stupid that you simply do not understand why these two facts are compatible.
Go on. Explain the "problem" as you see it.
* * *
Warwick Hughes is a liar, Karen. A blog shill. BoM is the national meteorological service. You appear to be suggesting that BoM is engaged in a conspiracy to misrepresent Australian temperature data to the Australian people. Please confirm that this is indeed what you believe.
#99...Warwick Hughes,now? The bloke who has no idea how probabilistic forecasting works....great find,Kaz. Warwick emphasises that ACORN SAT is 'heavily adjusted', but does not explain himself or the adjustments or their effect. It's code for you and your fellow zombies, Kaz [adjusted must = fake]
Sorry, fool, but the most comprehensive data coverage is ACORN SAT...and hows life in the mid-troposphere?
Early on my mother wanted me to take up nursing!
bbd, do you need a nappy change?
Explain the problem.
Please also confirm that you believe that the BoM is engaged in a conspiracy to misrepresent temperature data to the Australian people.
#99,#3 For you fool, the GHCN-CAMS data set so beloved of "BOM-buster Hughes" What is it good for? the authors explain:
"The study here reveals that there are clear biases
between the observed (e.g., the GHCN + CAMS) MMSAT
and the existing Reanalysis data sets, such as CDAS/
Reanalysis I, II and ERA40 data sets, and these differences
vary with season over the global domain. The primary
purpose of this work is to generate an observation based
global monthly land surface air temperature analysis to
replace the previously used 2 m air temperature fields from
the NCEP-NCAR global Reanalysis I, which were not
observation based. The new global land surface air temper-
ature analysis, together with the CPC global land surface
precipitation analysis, will be used to derive other land
surface variables, such as the soil moisture, evaporation,
runoff, snow accumulation, and snow melt. As a byproduct,
this monthly mean surface air temperature data set can also
be applied, with caution, to monitor surface air temperature
variations over global land routinely or to verify the
performance of model simulation and prediction.
My bold...not really intended for the purpose Warwick put it to,surprise,surprise.... and BTW it runs a bit hot around most of Australia compared with those other re-analyses, and BOMs data sets for that matter. So disagreement with ACORN SAT is to be expected.
A fresh copy for a fresh page!
From the Australian Burea of Meteorology
Is this BoM statement a deliberate misrepresentation designed to hoax the Australian people "Karen"?
Do you believe that the BoM is engaged in a conspiracy to lie about climate change in Australia to the Australian people?
Yes or no?
Answer the question, "Karen".
lol...............
http://australianclimatemadness.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/escalating_…
#9..yeah, pretty 'funny' given it's taken them a year to respond to "the Escalator", which covers the full record, with a cherry-pick of one lousy decade that still show a warming trend if you disregard its non-climatological status. And they just mimic SkS' declining sea ice animation which mocks you rejectionists....late to the party and lame, Kaz
@98 BBD :evil:
Why does the number of stations matter? Explain.
I don't "develop" any "argument" against you and your CAGW illusionist brothers, as your intellect is so far below mine that we don't speak at equal levels. Not at all, twerp!
But I am doing with you is
a: examination of your knowledge level
b: education, to increase your rudimentary knowledge.
Alors fuckwit, how many stations in GHCN?? This is an investigation/examination of your tiny knowledge.
Answer the question, clown :evil:
el gordolocks page 12 #18.
Farage, in social thinking, is somewhere right of David 'the slick' Cameron and George (aka Gideon) 'the smirk' Osborne in his politics and could not care a fig about the plight of the poor and jobless. So UKIP having got rid of Monckton as science adviser are still distorting the scientific understanding WRT the state of climate across the world.
Well of course they are, they are another outfit who listen to the likes of Ridley and Rose channelling the GWPF.
I am not quite sure what else that clip is supposed top show us, that the behaviour of the cryosphere is political, other than in the sense that bad policy decisions are leading to its demise. Nature is neither right, left or centre, political constructs that are so 19th century anyway. Civilisation will not continue unless we recognise that and also that WE, humanity, are not outside of nature but very much embedded in it.
What you and your ilk do not seem to grasp is that if we continue emitting ever more volumes of GHGs, polluting the limnic systems and oceans, destroying the ability of the natural world to continue with its beneficial services by fragmentation and monoculture backed up with excessive use of herbicides, fungicides [1], pesticides and fertilisers then a crash is bound to come and sooner than most sem to appreciate.
After all, we must keep up with the Jonses and have that new gizmo made of materials being stripped from fragile ecosystems e.g.
Now here is an excellent round-up of the recent attempts to lie to people using the MM, as Joe Romm would advise, have your head vise ready before clicking on the links to BS from Rose, Christy, Spencer, Montford (and no I am not going to pay money to this gang of highwaymen just to read the rest of the tripe, especially after that awful banner with one of Australia archetypal fat cats so prominently featured), Ridley and Lomborg.
We see some of the nuts, take that anyway you want, that have been feeding our trolls.
[1] have you any idea how important the fungi in good productive soil is? Cue another idiot fact free tirade from Luke.
@10 utter intellectual dirt from a primitive leper islander:
#9..yeah, pretty ‘funny’ given it’s taken them a year to respond to “the Escalator”, which covers the full record, with a cherry-pick of one lousy decade that still show a warming trend if you disregard its non-climatological status. And they just mimic SkS’ declining sea ice animation which mocks you rejectionists….late to the party and lame, Kaz
Fuq off here you ill troll :evil: :evil:
Your blasphemis is untolerable!!!!!
Nope labile soil carbon is good shit. Don't verbal me cunt.
From the village idiot:
Stop it, my sides are hurting. If I did answer your question you would not be able to understand the complex reply. This is clear by you posing such a stupid, simplistic, question in the first place.
Your are a star turn oh simple one with your mass emoticon laden struck-out block-pastings,
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss1/art10/
Could Payments for Ecosystem Services Create an "Ecosystem Service Curse"?
"The most prominent examples of such problems include rent seeking, unequal bargaining power of buyers and sellers, volatility of payments, which are all related to the quality of institutions."
Yes fucking indeedy do.
Stop! Stop! Stop!
(See I can repeat stuff to)
you are such a hoot.
Is English your first, or only, language?
Just asking a simple question. Do you understand that question?
Three types of inefficiency can arise with rent seeking. First,
resources are devoted to lobbying government rather than
to productive activities. Second, interest groups may actually
seek additional regulations if the expected benefits from
such regulations exceed expected benefits in the absence
of regulation (Runge 1992). Third, rent seeking and other
political considerations may distort the distribution of
payments in ways that address political objectives at the
expense of environmental objectives. For example, Wu et
al. (2003) demonstrated that in the case of stream habitat
conservation, use of politically palatable allocation criteria
may lead to the lowest possible benefits to society.
@12 Lionel eco bullshit clown :evil:
What utterly insane eco bullshit:
Civilisation will not continue unless we recognise that and also that WE, humanity, are not outside of nature but very much embedded in it
YOU KNOW NOTHING, FUVKWIT. YOUR STANCE OF DISGUSTING DECADENCE IN UNTOLERABLE ARROGANCE. YOU ARE EXTREMELY UNETHICAL AND IMMORAL, clown :evil:
And, dipshit, how does your little cut-and-paste that relate to ecosystem services?
Has anyone told you you're an ignorant prat recently? Because you're an ignorant prat.
@15 clown :evil:
The question:
"Answer the question how many temperature stations are covered in the GHCN database? You will see that you are totally unable to answer this simple question"
required as answer A NUMBER (eg 200)
UNDERSTOOD, CLOWN
NOT A COMPLICATED LEPER ISLAND BULLSHIT!!!!
Luke, don't blame the idea for any poor implementation of policy which fails to address such concerns as these, from the same abstract.
Now I wonder what point you were trying to make by excluding that section.
Now, any more of the use from you of the Anglo Saxon for a female reproductive organ will ensure that I return to only mentioning you in passing as it is patently clear that your vocabulary is somewhat impoverished.
Still refusing to develop your argument, Berenwanker? Nobody is going to engage with you until you do.
- So get off your intellectual arse and do some fucking work. TELL US why the number of stations matters.
And:
- Satellite data are not derived from thermometers on the ground. So when the satellite data are in close agreement with the surface data, what can we conclude about the reliability of the surface data?
Come on you lazy and stupid fucking troll. Do some work.
Oh fuck off, Luke. Your cutnpaste posturing has been shown up endlessly as hollow. We all know you know nothing. You fool nobody by irritate everyone. So - fuck off.
@20 primitive twerp :evil:
it's not cut-and-paste
IT IS COPY PASTE, you twerp idiot. Learn something, twerp :evil:
BBD is not able to answer the question
:lol: :lol:
BBD is not able to answer the question
:lol: :lol:
BBD is not able to answer the question
:lol: :lol:
BBD is not able to answer the question
:lol: :lol:
Actually, you are a fucking moron. I am not. Get it straight, troll.
And answer those questions.
No, BBD *refuses* to answer the question *until* the fucking troll develops its argument and explains:
- Why the number of stations matters
And
- Satellite data are not derived from thermometers on the ground. So when the satellite data are in close agreement with the surface data, what can we conclude about the reliability of the surface data?
Come on, troll. Answer the fucking questions. You're the one making a big deal out of station numbers, so you *must* have a reason. What is it?
Not that it will make any difference to the fact that the surface data are validated by the satellite TLT data...
Could you be so insane and pigshit-stupid that you don't even understand this yet, despite all the effort that has gone into explaining it to you?
Can you be that thick, maggot?
BBD is too stupit to answer the question
:evil: :evil: :evil:
BBD is too stupit to answer the question
:evil: :evil: :evil:
BBD is too stupit to answer the question
:evil: :evil: :evil:
BBD is too stupit to answer the question
:evil: :evil: :evil:
BBD is too stupit to answer the question
:evil: :evil: :evil:
I nearly sprayed stuff over the monitor when I read the hypothesis based on ignorance seen when freddy tried to explain a supposed increase in 'Antarctic iceshields' in his
page 12 #43
Why don't you go study some books on climate or even Oceanography such as this one:
Oceanography (ISE): An Invitation to Marine Science which also happens to be amongst my text books.
then you will understand why you are wrong freddy.
Re-think required, or maybe a reprogramming of your circuits for a Mr Data you like you is malfunctioning.
#13 you are a hoot, devil sausage Strike Through Boy, and completely transparent. So answer the question: how many stations in GHCN? Then shove each one up your arse.
Then you should be.
The question highlighted the apparent selectiveness with which you apply your criticism, and your response pretending that Luke didn't say what he actually said demonstrated that the perceived selectiveness is actual.
You got even this simple thing wrong, Karen. It started with Stu 2 alleging I said something that I did not say - in other words "I said".
And it's no surprise that you'll attempt to ridicule the resulting exchange, as we have established that you routinely lie and you're quite happy for anyone else who agrees with your position to lie.
Loathsome, are you really "proud" of your pseudo-intellectual logicitis which is worse than leper, clown :evil: :evil:
Shall we all ignore Berenwanker studiously for a bit and see if he goes away?
Really ignore. As in blank.
Shall we try that, since nothing else works and since we all know that trolls die without love?
Well BBD - who has become quite the potty mouth - perhaps my boganosity wearing off on you? http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979
Seems to indicate not a good match. They are phase shifted which is germane to this debate. Oh dear.
Now cunt - where's my climate text list.
What, you mean he's still posting? ;-)
You're still an ignorant twat.
As reported earlier, I think, The Australian misled its readers again.
No doubt we'll have an equivalently bad example of a government science body media release any day now, right?
Its a hoot here watching Karen, Luke and Fatso rolling around in the mud trying to decipher exactly what the link between ecology and economics is. Its clear the three of them don't know diddly squat about the field, have never read up on it and hence have nothing else to do but ridicule it in an attempt to cover up the big blank spot in their heads.
Its also telling - as I said earlier - that their denial is not confined to AGW. Like I said all along, the deniers cover all environmental bases. There are no environmental problems as far as they are concerned. Its all some left wing conspiracy to create a world government or some such similar shit.
I'm more than willing to tutor these simpletons as to the relationship between biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and human welfare - but to cover up that big blank spot I alluded to earlier they'll huff and puff and bluster and try to suggest that they are experts in the field.
More Dunning-Kruger textbook cases.
Funny you should mention stream habitat.
The html curse strikes again.
Funny you should mention stream habitat.
http://planet3.org/2013/09/15/minnow-saves-albuquerque-an-example-of-ec…
So restoring a river system to reestablish natural arrangements to promote a healthy native fish population has … resulted in flooding becoming more manageable … and sparing people in a modern city from a flood’s worst effects.
Save your river, save yourself.
#38
The problem with RSS TLT is that it is the outlier. Which is why using it is uninformative going on deceptive. Hence Monckton's preference for it. And yours.
I gave you a list of texts. You tried to bluff me with a single link to an online excerpt from a book you haven't read and I caught you out, again.
Which redundantly underlines just how much of a dickhead you really are. I repeat - you fool nobody. So why not fuck off? You aren't achieving anything here except making yourself look worse. What's the point? We all know you are a chippy inadequate and we all know about the fantasy friends, imaginary library and fake credentials.
We get the picture very clearly, Luke. Your work here is done.
And Luke, RSS isn't "phase shifted" relative to HadCRUT4, nor is the difference anything like as great as your borked graph shows.
Try doing it properly. Put everything on a common 1980 - 2010 baseline.
You really haven't got a clue, have you?
Well, as someone said:
;-)
BBD according to your religious green-lefty opinion you want to confine mankind to about 1 billion people which could be tolerated by your ridiculous "eco-system services", right?
Explain, clown :evil:
@45 incredible impertence by twerp BBD :evil:
The problem with RSS TLT is that it is the outlier. Which is why using it is uninformative going on deceptive. Hence Monckton’s preference for it. And yours.
I gave you a list of texts. You tried to bluff me with a single link to an online excerpt from a book you haven’t read and I caught you out, again.
Which redundantly underlines just how much of a dickhead you really are. I repeat – you fool nobody. So why not fuck off? You aren’t achieving anything here except making yourself look worse. What’s the point? We all know you are a chippy inadequate and we all know about the fantasy friends, imaginary library and fake credentials
You should be banned as you shed such a terrible light on your leper island community. Havent you undergone any education, twerp :evil: ????????
No, Freddyfred - YOU explain where you get your data from.
AND provide a list of your current medications (for safe handling purposes)
Failing that, the consensus is to ignore your insane blatherings.
Let's just ignore the mad fucker, eh?
I really don't think we have any choice at this point.
Ignore. Blank. Let the troll wither away from lack of love.
This will work, but only if we all do it together.
BBD :evil: and other CAGW leper islanders :evil: :evil: :evil:
You will be given a few simple weather lessons which will help to understand for the first time what warms and what cools the earth:
Listen, lesson 1:
axiom A: the sun warms the earth
axiom B: the earth cools the earth
:lol: :lol: :lol.
"Let’s just ignore the mad fucker, eh?"
Agreed, BBD. He's totally crackers; an online psychopath. Even Jonas was rational by comparison. I've never encountered such a lunatic online before, and that's saying a lot.
Whether or not that was a weather lesson, and it was not, it was still inane.
Hint.
Ask yourself, what is the difference between weather and climate.
This means
@Harvey: truth has defeated Harvey: hurrah
@BBD: truth has defeated BBD: hurrah
@chek :evil: : truth has defeated chek: hurrah
Nevertheless you will undergo climate lessons to reduce your level of idiocy.
So, Luke's vocabulary is still limited to cupid stunts.
Lionel clown:
Shut up, pupil, I am the teacher, not you!!!!!!!!!
pupil BBD: you were confronted in lesson 1 with two axiomas!
Were both correct???
Answer, pupil :evil:
#53 Yup. Me neither. Truly, madly barking.
#54 You too Lionel. Please. Let's just ignore the foul smell until it goes away.
Good pre-AR5 run-up article by Dana N here. on the five types of clownshoe denier currently on offer.
Whoa chek. There's a terrifying image of Rupes turning into a toad there. You could have warned me. Spilt me horlicks now. On me cords.
:-)
Heh - in that case consider yourself lucky I didn't link to Graham Readfearn's article here
The lead photo - now that's a keyboard and wardrobe killer.
BBD pupil :evil:
The answer you had given to the examination question was completely wrong. Therefore you have to repeat. You will be given 2 hours to try the examination again.
PS:
Arctic sea ice has tremendously increased this year and we are expecting global cooling in the next few decades.
Ah, jeffieboy, please explain for us simpeltons which is more beneficial for the biodiversity, cold or warm climate? Does the equatorial or the polar regions have more biodiversity?
Oh cripes, look who the cat dragged in, a broken camera.
Whatever, earlier I linked to a useful grouping at SkS of the latest rounds from those trying to mislead their readership, works with the clowns as we can see. If you click on the Andrew Montford Australian link you may be unlucky to get a picture of Abbott appealing to god for inspiration or you may get something quite different.
No Abbott, your god is down here.
#64
Try to understand the basics Pentax. It's the rate of climate change that does the damage. Rapid change = extinctions.
It's really not that hard to grasp, so do please make the necessary effort.
It's truly amazing the phenomenal amount of fuckwitted ignorance and wrong binary thinking PantieZ can pack into a seemingly simple question.
#65 Bloody hell Lionel. First chek strikes with his frankly hideous Rupes toad-a-morph shot and now you pile on with the Queen of Darkness. This either side of supper. The pair of you are downright irresponsible. I hate to admit it, but perhaps Luke is right and he is gradually coarsening all our sensibilities.
Silly me - I was forgetting Lomborg's been activated so here come his PantieZ et al fanbois.
I suspect that's a photo of the Aztec-style removal of her own heart.
Now there's an idea. Sod the Nuremberg-style trials for crimes against the species and pass the obsidian knife.
Oops! Now Betty will pop out of the ether and bleat forevermore about child deniers and sacrificial altars dripping with tar.
There's a neat evisceration of Lomborg's latest lying graph at Wottsupwiththatblog. Very highly recommended blog btw and no, I don't know the proprietor!
Nah! They are still looking, but about to call off the search.
The "‘Ecosystem services" is an incredibly stupid trial of decadent eco fundamentalists to misuse nature for their egoistic purposes.
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
++++++++ BREAKING NEWS +++++++++++ BREAKING NEWS +++++++++++ BREAKING NEWS +++++++++
Later this month, a long-awaited event that last happened in 2007 will recur. Like a returning comet, it will be taken to portend ominous happenings. I refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) “fifth assessment report,” part of which will be published on Sept. 27.
There have already been leaks from this 31-page document, which summarizes 1,914 pages of scientific discussion, but thanks to a senior climate scientist, we had a glimpse of the key prediction at the heart of the document. The big news is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPPC thought in 2007.
++++++++ BREAKING NEWS +++++++++++ BREAKING NEWS +++++++++++ BREAKING NEWS +++++++++
What I don't get is what Lomborg, Christie, Spencer and assorted pre-release leaking vermin think they're achieving.
By next week all their assorted misrepresentations will be laid bare and the focus will be on the actual report and its lead authors. The science peanut gallery will be ignored, at least until their next desperate stunt.
bbd, I didn't ask you, you stupid zealot. But ok, I'll reply: where is the evidence for this putative extinction? Oh wait, is it as with the 50 000 000 climate refugees 2012 as the goracle predicted and of which no one has seen a single one? Moving goal posts doesn't make your case. Although it's a well known, common and unique CAGW trade.
What's so special about the rate? Nothing it seems. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpfMM3bVbhQ
# 78 It's a public forum, fuckwit.
Paleontology/paleoclimate. Try the End-Permian for starters. Google "anoxic ocean events". Do some fucking work you lazy, ignorant arse.
Get a clue.
Tell me Pentax, how do you think the ecosystem will respond to a rapid warming that exceeds maximum Holocene temperatures by the end of this century? Everything fine, hunky-dory? Or mass extinctions as myriads of organisms are pushed out of their thermal tolerances and entire food webs collapse?
Just how profoundly fucking stupid are you?
chek
I cannot tell you how fed up I am getting with the plankton that infest this site. All ignorant, all cocksure, all dishonest, all so agonisingly wrong about everything yet all too fucking lazy to crack a book and fill in some of the abysm of ignorance inside their festering little minds.
What the fuck is wrong with these people? Prior to getting embroiled in the climate "debate" I had never encountered such diseased, paranoid, frightened denial in my life. Mendacity, yes, but you expect that when there is money on the table. But the kind of lying that goes on here is in a class of its own for blatancy and childishness. It is half horrifying and half funny. But dear God, if these vermin saw themselves as the rest of us see them, even for a few minutes, they would commit suicide out of self-disgust.
That's an easy question.
Very.
Very stupid indeed.
And with no inclination to learn either.
A particularly toxic combination, only sustainable in an over-energised, fossil-fuel consumer economic bubble..
Dear distinguished citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia
I cannot tell you how fed up I am getting with the CAGW plankton that infest this site. All ignorant, all cocksure, all dishonest, all so agonisingly wrong about everything yet all too fucking lazy to crack a book and fill in some of the abysm of ignorance inside their festering little minds.
What the fuck is wrong with these CAGW people? Prior to getting embroiled in the climate “debate” I had never encountered such diseased, paranoid, frightened denial in my life. Mendacity, yes, but you expect that when there is money on the table. But the kind of lying that goes on here is in a class of its own for blatancy and childishness. It is half horrifying and half funny. But dear God, if these vermin saw themselves as the rest of us see them, even for a few minutes, they would commit suicide out of self-disgust.
I hear you loud'n'clear BBD.
But you care, so what else you gonna do?
It is dispiriting at times the sheer volume of shi- ite - but one of the things that communities are for (even virtual ones) is to let us all know we're not alone in taking a stand.
Even if it seems wiping our bookmarks and putting it all behind us seems at times a welcome prospect, let's not forget that people like Jeff put their name out there and take ten times the amount of personally directed shit as well as the daily bulk deliveries of stupid we get to see.
I see The Mad Lukes are being as derivative as ever...
@BBD fuvkwit :evil:
Can you PLEASE PEASE PLEASE PLEASE STOP YOUR INSANE PALEO CRAP, PALEO CCCCRRRRRRAAAAAAPPPPPP
# 78 It’s a public forum, fuckwit.
where is the evidence for this putative extinction?
Paleontology/paleoclimate. Try the End-Permian for starters. Google “anoxic ocean events”. Do some fucking work you lazy, ignorant arse.
Get a clue.
BTW, you primitive clown without any knowledge from leper island, I have at least thosand times more poperty than you poor pig blatherskite. You are a negative deviation from god's creatin. May he forgive you your terrible sins that you must not burn too long in the purgatory, you fuvkqit :evil: :evil:
My name is Berendaneke and I am cool :cool:, very cool :cool: :cool: :cool:,
inifinitely cooler :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
than you evil CAGW clowns :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
from leper island of nihilism!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
"Ah, jeffieboy, please explain for us simpeltons which is more beneficial for the biodiversity, cold or warm climate? Does the equatorial or the polar regions have more biodiversity?"
Ah, Pentaxdork, here's your answer. Certainly warm stable climates. But only those that have remained that way for a long period of time. I have said this a million times but I have to repeat it to get it to permeate your 10 inch thick skull: its the rate of change that matters. If temperate biomes - which experience seasonal temperature shifts - were within a century as warm as the tropics then this would generate a mass extinction to end all mass extinctions. You seem to think that a century is long enough for temperate biota to suddenly and miraculously adapt to temperatures well outside of their physiological windows. If that was the case, why are Polar Bears restricted to the Arctic and why can't we find Boreal Chickadees in Mexico? Shouldn't Snowshoe Hares be hopping around the southern pine forests of the US? Why aren't they? In Europe, tell me why Snow Buntings aren't thriving in the Mediterranean? Here's why: because species are adapted to specific climate windows. There are all kinds of other factors that determine their breeding and non-breeding distributions. In your myopic world, a rapid shift to a warmer climate will benefit everything. This reflects a piss-poor and profoundly ignorant understanding of science and is pure fantasy. It could only come from someone who knows nothing about ecophysiology.
Since you, Luke, Gordo, Berendanke, Karen and the other vile scum that has infested this site does not have a clue about such important factors as thermo-neutral zones, local adaptation, and a wealth of other areas that determine ranges and range boundaries, I might as well be speaking to a wall.
BBD is correct. I have also never encountered such a mentally deranged and diseased group of quacks in my life as the recent bunch that has entered Deltoid. If this is a cross section of the 'intelligentsia' on the 'other side' then God help humanity.
There is no debate here about ecosystem services amongst this bunch of warped idiots because not a single one of them even vaguely understands the field of spatial ecology and how this is connected with the material economy. I'd get more sense out of a braying bunch of hyenas. Their tactic - if one can call it that - is simply to spew out vitriol and other shit. The natural economy subsidizes the material economy in a myriad of ways. I've explained exactly how, and there's not been a single cogent response from the morons. Just gibberish. And more gibberish, laced with the old chestnut about green agendas and watermelons.
I'd like the deranged bunch to explain how they think that nutrients are cycled, and why this is important for primary production. What factors generate and maintain soil fertility. I'd like them to explain how our crops are pollinated. They could go on to explain how they think that humans would fare in a biologically impoverished world. How much do these cots think that natural systems can be paved, plowed, dammed, drained, slashed and burned. hyper eutrophicated, overgrazed, and altered chemically before there are economic consequences. I'd like them to tell me how much the global economy can expand and if they think that there are any ecological limits to material growth.
I have a pretty good idea of what this lot as ass***** is going to reply. Its not hard to predict.
Tim really needs to get back to his site before it is destroyed by this sordid bunch of complete idiots. Thanks to this lot its been reduced to life support.
Jeff, your green insania is unbearable, really.
You are really only a cheap propagandist of your insane environmentalist obsession.
Listen, you crap idiot: HUMAN LIFE AND PROGRESS OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION IS ABOUT MASTERING LIFE, I.E. SURVIVAL, WHAT YOU GREEN IDIOTS IN YOUR INSANE DECADENCE AND HATRED AGAINST YOUR OWN SPECIES CANNOT GRASP IN YOUR DEGENERATED BRAINS IS THAT YOUR UNSPEAKABLE DECADENCE IS WITHOUT COMPARISON IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND. YOU GREEN IDIOTS AAARRRREEE TTTTHHHHEEEE DISEASE OF TODAYS MANKIND.
YOU AND YOURS ARE SO UNSPEAKABLY STUPIID, PRIMITIVE, IMMORAL, HATEFUL, SOOOOO DISGUSTING THAT I HAVE TO VOMIT FOR SOME HOURS.
PPPPLLLLLEEEEAAAASSSEEEE FUCK OFF FROM HERE
LEPER ISLANDERS OF NIHILISM
NEVER IN MY LIFE HAVE I MEET SUCH CRAP ASSHOLES THAN YOUR CAGW LEPERERS :evil: :evil:
Jeff, you no idea of biology. Life is adaptation, the art of nature (without spoiled eco idiots like you) to fight for survival. Also HUMANS fight for survival, but this does not interest you, scoundrel, in your hatred against mankind.
There are powerful agents in society which fiercely fight against your green idiotic delusions of paradise with your pan god gaia.
Jeff Harvey, utter, insane crap
There is no debate here about ecosystem services amongst this bunch of warped idiots because not a single one of them even vaguely understands the field of spatial ecology and how this is connected with the material economy. I’d get more sense out of a braying bunch of hyenas. Their tactic – if one can call it that – is simply to spew out vitriol and other shit. The natural economy subsidizes the material economy in a myriad of ways. I’ve explained exactly how, and there’s not been a single cogent response from the morons. Just gibberish. And more gibberish, laced with the old chestnut about green agendas and watermelons
WHAT INCREDIBLE DIRT YOU CONSTANTLY EXCREMENT HERE!!!!! SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!!
The other thing to bear in mind BBD is that denialism attracts the most insane vermin whose vainglorious assertion of their existence is really a cry against admittance of their inconsequentiality in the greater scheme of things.
Not very different from a succession of ever more stunted dwarves behind the curtains in a Wizard of Oz parody.
But twice as laughable.
Jeff, again and again: crap over crap over dirt
I’d like the deranged bunch to explain how they think that nutrients are cycled, and why this is important for primary production. What factors generate and maintain soil fertility. I’d like them to explain how our crops are pollinated. They could go on to explain how they think that humans would fare in a biologically impoverished world. How much do these cots think that natural systems can be paved, plowed, dammed, drained, slashed and burned. hyper eutrophicated, overgrazed, and altered chemically before there are economic consequences. I’d like them to tell me how much the global economy can expand and if they think that there are any ecological limits to material growth
YOU HALLUCINATE THAT YOU GREEN LEFTY ECO FUNDAMENTALISTS RESPRESENT SOME ELITE, CLASS WHATEVER: no, no, no, no, no, no, no
YOU REPRESENT UGLY, MISERABLE LOSERS WHO WANT REVENGE FOR THEIR ROTTEN, DEGENERATED PERSONAL LIVES
chek, pure shit from your primitive eco activist brain
The other thing to bear in mind BBD is that denialism attracts the most insane vermin whose vainglorious assertion of their existence is really a cry against admittance of their inconsequentiality in the greater scheme of things.
Not very different from a succession of ever more stunted dwarves behind the curtains in a Wizard of Oz parody.
But twice as laughable
YOU IDIOT, CHEK, AND YOUR CLIMATE LEPER PEERS ARE LAUGHABLE
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Luminous B., would you have any observations to make if you're in the vicinity?
How can humans 'master life'? What is this drivel? Our species is totally and utterly dependent on biodiversity and on conditions that are generated through a stupendous array of biotic interactions that emerge from nature over variable spatial and temporal scales. We DO NOT have the technology to replicate these conditions. End of story. We exist because natural systems permit it. These systems do not exist for the purpose of supporting humanity; instead, our species survives because nature permits it.
This is a complete and utter fact. There is no argument!!!! If there were no nitrogen fixing bacteria in the soil, we could not survive. With the exception of legumes, plants cannot 'fix' their own nitrogen. An array of soil bacteria provide this function. Plants require nitrogen in order to survive. If there were no insect pollinators, we could not survive. Insects are the most important pollinating organisms. If insects disappeared, humans would follow very quickly. There are no ifs and buts.
We already know that the planet has a reduced capacity to support man. The evidence has been accumulated in many books and in a wide range of scientific journals. This has led to the ow flourishing field of ecological economics. More and more economists are coming around to realize how much our species depends on nature. In 2010, Deutsch Bank economist Pavan Sukdev estimated the cost to the global economy of deforestation every year. His estimate was in the range of tens of billions of dollars, as a result of lost services including flood mitigation, drought prevention and water purification. Costanza's seminal 1997 paper set the ball rolling.
No species co-opts more of nature than man. We co-opt 40% of net primary production and over 50% of net freshwater flows. This just further proves how utterly dependent we are on natural subsidies. No other species comes close to this level of co-option.
Thus far, the level of 'rebuttal' - if one can call it that, amongst the idiots here has been not to cite a single example where I am wrong. All I get is a constant stream of accusations of being i league with the green devil, of producing propaganda and the like. This isn't a debate because these schmucks don't know anything about the field. So all they can do is come back again and again with the same crap.
Read Ciostanza's paper and tell em where I am wrong. I want quantifiable facts, and not merely puerile insults. Read some of Gretchen Daily's articles and tell me where she is wrong - where he science is flawed. Go through Costanza's Nature paper and try and find the scientific flaws.
But of course they can't. Because they know nothing about it.
This is the kind of response I get::
"Jeff, you no idea of biology. Life is adaptation, the art of nature (without spoiled eco idiots like you) to fight for survival"
This doesn't even qualify as a bottom-feeding perspective. It is so utterly and brazenly stupid that I don't want to waste my busy time as a scientist addressing it. Most five year old kids have a better understanding of environmental science than this.
One thing I will do. I intend to copy-paste this for one of my next scientific lectures. I can't wait to see how the scientific audience responds. Will there be riotous laughter or will jaws fall to the ground? That's how pig-ignorant it is. I might as well debate an amoeba.
Yes! Just up today at Real Climate Paleoclimate: The End of the Holocene.
Thanks for that Jeff.
Ther one ting we know for sure is that the knoberati will never independently read a paper or do any self-started research.
All that they're good for is indulging their delusions and parroting what they've been told to do.
And that's it .
As confirmed every single day here by deniers and their remarkably similar posts.
More university wanker ideologue crap from Jeff. Get a real job Jeff. Ecosystem services is a rent-seeking try-on. Excuse us while we get on with useful natural resource management and conservation measures in the real world without recourse for leftie post-modernist drivel and pretend economics.
So somehow now Jeff has verballed us against pollinators and soil bacteria. Motherhood is next. Fuck off Jeff.
Jeff Harvey
NO, NO, NO
You just don't understand what I said: mastering life for humans is not sooo difficult to understand: take your personal example if you have a son or daughter: survival of your kids depends on the avaiability of food, healthcare, cloths, a home, caring parents, a long story of successes of civilization, and have nothing to do with your eco insania, obsession with x bacteria and all other stuff you are so fccused on.
You fight for polar bears, frogs, bacteria, BUT NOT FOR HUMANS, YOU CONSIDER HUMANS AS EVIL, SUPERFLUOUS, HOSTIE, DANGEROUS FOR YOUR BELOVED BACTERIA, YOU WANT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF HUMANS (by which method????).
I LOVE MORE THE HUMANS THAN BACTERIA OR POLAR BEARS. YOUR PREOCCUPATION WITH EVERYTHING BUT MAN IS WHAT I CALL DECADENCE, AS YOU FORGET WHAT COMES FIRST IN LIFE:
YOUR PERSONAL SURVIVAL, WHICH OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT INTERESET THE ECO ACTIVISTS SO MUCH, OR THE SURVIVAL OF OTHER HUMANS
YOUR BASIC POSITION IS AGAINST MANKIND ON EARTH AND THAT's THE REASON WHY I AM SO ANGRY WITH YOU!!!!!
Note Lionels l;ink Gordon and you similar fuckwit hangers-on.
No Minoan, Egyptian, Roman, Medieval or Uncle Tom Cobbley warming period matches the present.. That's my data, now where are yours for your fantasy denial periods?
"I have also never encountered such a mentally deranged and diseased group of quacks in my life as the recent bunch that has entered Deltoid. If this is a cross section of the ‘intelligentsia’ on the ‘other side’ then God help humanity."
Well said Jeff - quality abuse. I rank it highly. "mentally deranged and diseased: - isn't that our style of slag off? But anyway - well done.
El Gordo - get yourself around this http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/famous-ensembles/#more-1590
Jeff, it never comes to your mind that maybe YOU are the idiot and not others?
This doesn’t even qualify as a bottom-feeding perspective. It is so utterly and brazenly stupid that I don’t want to waste my busy time as a scientist addressing it. Most five year old kids have a better understanding of environmental science than this.
One thing I will do. I intend to copy-paste this for one of my next scientific lectures. I can’t wait to see how the scientific audience responds. Will there be riotous laughter or will jaws fall to the ground? That’s how pig-ignorant it is. I might as well debate an amoeba.
Can you - maybe only a little bit - imagine how utterly incivil and utterly arrogant your text is??? No you can't, that's your BIG blind spot.
Of course will your students laugh (it's easy to anticipate) as people like you attract similarly idiotic other persons. Laughter from your fellow idiots is no proof that you are right and dispose of the truth.
Looks like The Mad Lukes, not understanding the hierarchy of Life On Earth are angry at their own utter incomprehension and complaining about the unfairness after having invested in a lifetime of shit ideas.
Perhaps that incomprehension will find some rest in becoming educated.
Or putting a .38 in it's mouth.
I don't suppose anybody much gives a fuck either way.
#6
The incompetent and clueless tosser can't even rebaseline a couple of temperature time-series for comparison. Rotten from bark to core. Out with the chainsaws.
#4
Gordy seems to have gone, Luke. And even if he comes back you will only confuse him. He even makes you look knowledgeable. Berewanker's getting lonely now nobody here will talk to him - why not give him a hard time for a bit?
Re: your crap on the previous page - you strike me as the sort of lazy trolling prat who can't be bothered to read the thread, so here's what you may have missed:
RSS isn’t “phase shifted” relative to HadCRUT4. That is flat-out wrong and demonstrates that you can't even read a simple graph. Nor is the difference between the two data-sets anything like as great as your borked graph appears to show. The two data-sets use different baselines - that's why they plot differently on the y axis.
Try doing it properly. Rebaseline everything to a *common* baseline, eg 1981 – 2010, used here.
You really haven’t got a clue, have you?
I repeat – you fool nobody with your lies and bluster. Your fundamental incompetence and lack of topic knowledge is very obvious. So why not fuck off? You aren’t achieving anything here except making yourself look worse. What’s the point? We all know you are a chippy inadequate and we all know about the fantasy friends, imaginary library and fake credentials.
We get the picture very clearly, Luke. Your work here is done.
Yes yes BBD we know about different baselines - but they still don't line up do they - the point ! Good to see you're awake - it's a wonder at this hour and with your sleep disorder.
BTW cunt - where's your real climate non-palaeo library? still waiting.
AND cunt - answer my 10 questions - still waiting
And have you played with you son or checked he's alive yet? Daddy why do you spend your life on the computer wasting your time. Why does Mummy think you're a fucking idiot and why doesn't she live here anymore?
BTW Gordy is taking a dump.
Sub-literate coprolailic inadequate still waffling on, I see.
And, lookee - another Hockey Stick! Losers lose again...
#9, that was moronic
#10, the place is groaning with paleo and cryosphere evidence; it takes stunning amounts of feigned ignorance and insanity [or coal money] to ignore it...stupid mugging with profanity, tortured language and emoticons in the blogosphere, and dull evasion from the pollies
I keep coming back here and hoping that Tim Lambert is going to return and moderate this site, but instead I come back to people calling people cunts. This used to be an interesting website, but now it's a cesspool. It's a shame because it used to be a must-read site. *Sigh*.
Fortunately Stu 2 is on hand to call out that fallacy, right? ;-)
I get the impression Luke has heard the term and repeated it without knowing what it means. So let's see if we can find out. What's the frequency, Luke?
They do line up quite well, and the trends are in reasonably good agreement. You're asserting that they "should" line up better for the purpose to which BBD's observation was put - noting that it's kinda hard to argue that the warming in the surface record has been faked when the satellite record warming is of similar magnitude? That's eminently silly - insisting that noise "line up" when comparing noisy signals - but par for the course with you.
@Robert Murphy
I tend to agree. Unfortunately there are a few participants here who constantly throw dirt through the air at their opponents. Especially BBD, chek, Lionel, rwhombat and Stu are bad in this respect and should be admonished to improve their manners.
Lotharsson
I have never ever seen BBD making own "observations". He always ruminates what others have written. Your wording and logic therefore have failed.
:evil:
@15
The hypocrisy is deep with this one.... again, truly psychopathic...
So much for Antarctica boiling in hot water.
http://s17.postimg.org/wb91x69b3/Antarctic_SIE_NSIDC_Sept15_2013.png
"You fight for polar bears, frogs, bacteria, BUT NOT FOR HUMANS"
Honestly, how I am supposed to debate this utter drivel? The entire comment @1 is incomprehensible gibberish. Again, its below comic-book level. The writer clearly is clearly deranged. My suggestion is that he reads "The Hungry Green Caterpillar" and work up from there.
#18...yes The 'boiling in hot water meme' is dead...er, who proposed it, anyway? You chumps with your underwater volcano army, in the complete absence of evidence....
er, who proposed it, anyway?
BBD
Luke, it doesn't matter what bloody terms you wish to call them, these' resources' you refer to sustain humanity. And these resources are more appropriately called plants and animals or 'biodiversity'. And they sustain humanity by generating conditions through innumerable interactions that regulate the functioning of ecosystems. Get my drift. you arrogant moron?
These resources wouldn't be worth conserving if we didn't know how they work. That's what scientists do: study the individuals and populations and how they interact to generate the conditions that regulate ecosystem functions and help to sustain human civilization. Only then does application - resource management and conservation - enter into it.
So call it whatever the hell you like, but natural systems permit human existence. And the 'resources' you refer to are in truth, biodiversity, and the conservation refers to protecting it to ensure that it continues to generate conditions - OR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES - that underpin our economies.
End of story. That was easy. Any more bullshit from you, Luke?
Harvey, could you please stop spamming the thread with off topic rubbish!
eg. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
#18 that chart does show the proportion involved in the over-celebrated increasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent is miniscule. Between least extent and greatest extent is not even 10% of mean summer-winter freeze-up. Consistent with the asymmetric zonal temp means predicted and observed.
New paper finds the oceans are a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere
A new paper published in Global Biogeochemical Cycles proposes large revisions to the ocean carbon cycle based upon observations and models, finding the global oceans act as a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.
According to the authors, the flow ["flux"] of carbon from deep ocean layers ["obduction"] to the middle layer ["ML"] is 3-5 times greater than assumed previously and by the IPCC. The authors find middle-layer carbon flux toward the ocean surface exceeds flux to the ocean depths ["subduction"] by 11 Petagrams of carbon per year, which by comparison is significantly more carbon than generated by all man-made activities [8.8 Petagrams of carbon per year].
In other words, the deep oceans naturally contribute more carbon to the middle ocean layers [between 25-150 meters deep] than produced by all of man's activities combined.
At the ocean surface, the authors find the oceans contribute 2.4 Petagrams of carbon per year to the atmosphere ["efflux"] and absorb 1.9 Petagrams of carbon per year from the atmosphere ["influx"], and thus, the oceans act as a net source of .5 Petagrams of carbon per year to the atmosphere.
The authors find the tropical and Southern oceans act as net sources of CO2, while the temperate NH & SH and high latitude oceans act as net sinks [see figure 5 below] and "Our results emphasis the strong sensitivity of the oceanic carbon cycle to changes in mixed-layer depth, ocean currents and wind," i.e. factors not incorporated in IPCC carbon cycle models.
The paper illustrates that IPCC carbon cycle assumptions may be highly erroneous by a factor of up to five times, how little is actually known with confidence about the global carbon cycle, and suggests that ocean outgassing is the primary reason for the increase of atmospheric CO2 levels, rather than mankind.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/new-paper-finds-oceans-are…
# 25, the paper does not suggest that ocean outgassing is the primary reason for observed atmospheric increase at all. The idiot blog is suggesting that. The numbers don't support it.
#21
Please don't make up lies about what I did and did not say, Karen. The thermal isolation of Antarctica by the Antarctic Circumpolar current is an established geophysical fact. You can easily verify this yourself and I urge you to stop being a prat and do so forthwith. Please note that the effect is not absolute - the insulation is imperfect (of course) - you are being very fucking stupid about this, as usual.
#9
Still trying to wriggle out of your latest undisownable mistake, Luke! You pitiful insect, you!
Still trying to pretend that paleoclimate evidence isn't evidence and that paleoclimate isn't climatology... truly the last throes of desperation!
Still making up lies about my private life in the vilest imaginable way! Did I mention extremes of desperation? I did? Well, it bears repeating.
Your questions - such as they were - were dealt with repeatedly a long time ago.
So why are you still here being parodically offensive? As I have now said twice, we know what you are and you've exhausted your small repertoire of tricks and pratfalls.
Now you are simply being boring and repetitive. Time to go, Luke.
#25. If you read the abstract of Levy et al, you will note there is no mention of a net outgassing to the atmosphere,or anything from which 'The Hokeyschtick's' could base a claim on ocean contribution significance. It is not relevant to the major findings of the paper. You might also notice that the 'ocean' that the scientists are working on in their new model is described as 'pre-industrial'. So anthropogenic contribution to oceanic fluxes is not discussed or accounted in this model. The ocean is,in the industrial era of the last couple a hundred years, a sink.
Kaz, you've been sucked in again by the 'Hokey-Pokey-Stick' creeps...perhaps you won't be so gullible next time.
Right, Karen.
Have you now researched the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC)? Do you know what the Tasmanian Gateway and the Drake Passage are? Does the period ~34Ma - 32Ma mean something? Are the terms "Eocene-Oligocene transition" and "Oi-1 glaciation" familiar now? Good.
That's how it all got started. Now, here's how upwelling warm water is melting ice shelves today. I've already posted this link, but you obviously didn't bother reading it, so this is just the pretty picture. Interested readers will find the link to all the sciencey words at the bottom of this comment.
Look at the picture. The black areas of the indices show the extent to which basal melt is contributing to ice mass loss. The shaded areas indicate the contribution from calving. Remember, Karen, up until recently, it was thought that calving was the primary mechanism by which glaciers lost mass. Only now are we beginning to realise that this was wrong, and basal melt is a major - and increasing - factor.
This is real Karen. The scientists aren't fabricating the evidence and I'm not lying to you about it either. I'm just trying to explain how it is.
You seem to fancy yourself as a bit of a cryosphere whiz, but you aren't. Rather, you are a serial dupe of misinformers like Morano and the Hockey Schtick blogger.
The painful irony here is that you really *are* being lied to and deceived - but not by me.
Look the other way, Karen. Look the other way.
Warm Ocean Causing Most Antarctic Ice Shelf Mass Loss
Hey el :)
Did you read this paper ?
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Glacial.pdf
@ #29 Nick
Thanks for clarifying that. It's always a misrepresentation and frequently a downright lie isn't it? Every single time.
Did you read it Karen? What does it say? Why should we bother?
And have you *nothing* to say about #30? Are you just going to skip over yet another of your mistakes and misconceptions as if it never happened? I suppose you are. It's what you always do, after all.
Have you ever considered learning at all? It's fun, self-enhancing and good for the tone of the mind!
Ah. Grove & Switsur (1994). An obsolete study that doesn't actually say quite what you think it does.
IPCC TAR WG1:
And here we are, in 2013, with the most up-to-date global collaborative research involving dozens of authors saying exactly the same thing:
PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia
Learn, Karen.
We aren't lying to you. Morano, Watts, Hockey Schtick, Monckeybrains, "Goddard", Montford etc - all the shills and shysters and clowns - they are lying to you.
#34 BBD re #30
Is the pretty picture representative of prior warming occurrences?
Or, do you think this is a brand noo phenomenon?
It has happened before and it is new, Karen. Binary logic. The Antarctic is beginning to respond to increased upwelling modulated by strengthening zonal windfields. Something unusual is happening. Trying to pretend that it's all natural variability is just denial. Same goes for Arctic sea ice volume decrease.
CO2-forced warming and OHC increase is *real* Karen. The scientists are observing and describing the various changes, not fabricating them. The liars are all on the other team, the team composed mainly of non-expert ideologues and paid shills.
jeffie, your poor excuse for a scientist. So you claim the polar bears are threatened? Don't think so. What a joke you are.
http://polarbearscience.com/2013/09/08/how-and-why-great-news-about-chu…
And jeffie, you really can't give a simple question a simple answer. BTW, in which way is the rate of the "global warming" "unprecedented" and how can it be when we have a stand still in the rise the last 17 years? Watch and learn, moron!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpfMM3bVbhQ
#41 Youtube? You prat.
Look up. See #35:
PAGES 2k:
Read the words.
First, this claim is false. Please actually view this graph. Second, you and I have been through this repeatedly on the other thread, so why are you still lying about it here? Explain your dishonest behaviour.
Third, you are doing the standard denier stupid. A slight increase in the rate of ocean heat uptake has slowed the rate of tropospheric warming. Nobody thinks this is anything other than temporary. Surface warming will resume and when it does, as dear old Luke said, it will be open season on the fake sceptics, liars, paid shills etc who have made this meme so central to their "argument". Oh yes.
Meanwhile, energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as expected. Ocean heat content continues to increase.
Try to remember and *understand* climate basic #1:
The troposphere ≠ the climate system.
That is all.
Hahaha, who do you think yoy are foling bbd, other than the true believers? You know, the problem isn't the future getting warmer, but the past getting cooler. And that's due to warmists massaging data to fit the dogma. Loser!
#44
Both a lie and a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory.
I'm afraid resorting to either means *you* lose. Resorting to both is just pissing on your own grave.
Where is your response to #43?
#41 The rate of warming is unprecedented in the last 9000 years,which is the period in which we have begun to flourish.
Bob Carter, introduced by Jennifer Marohasy? Two bullshit artists. Bob, co-author of a deceitful paper that detrended data by design, and claimed that there was no trend as a result! The man who lied about accepting payment for his 'advocacy' with a lobby group.
Marohasy is an ex-IPA shill. Tries it on. Everyone who wants to rationalise water use in the MDB is wrong and she's right. Last year she wanted to fit up Snowy Hydro for exacerbating the Murrumbidgee floods by continuing to divert Murray water into the 'bidgee catchment during the downpour, and was canvassing the media to run with the story. She hadn't done her homework: the stream gauge history [public access] told the real story. Snowy Hydro did not add to the peak. A boofhead.
#47
It does look that way. I assume you are thinking of Marcott et al. (2013)?
By a happy coincidence, this very topic is examined at RC in a new post here.
bbd dear, my answer is the video that tim persist deleting. But that's the alarmistas way, if you can't argue, use the delete button. That, and pure lying, is all you culprits have left. Even IPCC admits that the vanished warming is kind of a problem. But no, not the regular fanatics populating this blog. The warming have somehow gotten down in the deep ocean, without the ARGO buoys noticing it. Must be some kind of ninja heat.
Now, let's see how long untill this highly informative video gets deleted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpfMM3bVbhQ
#50 hey, you paranoid weirdo, the link to the last clip is still operational. Now we have the same again. Twice-as- stupid Bob Carter! Looking forward to your detailed defence of his paper with Maclean and De Freitas....
“The rate of warming is unprecedented in the last 9000 years,”
wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank
#38 BBD,
lol........... no normal person believes your bullshit
"Must be some kind of ninja heat."
lol
#49
Eh? What the fuck are you on about? The two-liars video is exactly as you originally posted it.
As for Teh Stupid about the vertical transport of warm water, you need to google "Ekman pumping" and "subtropical gyres". As always with you lot the problem is your abysmal topic knowledge. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it is not real. Get this into your ignorant skull. Also note that argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity are logical fallacies. They negate your comments. You are saying nothing.
FFS.
#52
Read the fucking links above you stupid little shit.
PantieZ @ #49,
Your fellow-travelling moron loved that exposition of your appalling ignorance, but if the Argo buoys aren't measuring it, how else is it being measured? Or is this yet another of your tin foil hat conspiracy theories?
Given that you're a lolling, illiterate idiot, spending all day, every day cackling away to yourself while copy'n'pasting from Morano's shit-hole and its satellites and consequently shown to be wrong at every turn, how would you know anything about 'normal people'?
The world has warmed 0 degrees Celsius (0 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade over the past 15 years, a fraction of the 0.2ºC (0.36ºF) per decade rate confidently predicted by the U.N. six years ago, according to a leaked copy of the foremost climate report in the world.
.. and no cite from SpamKan. But that's good enough in idiotland.
Karen, it must be hard being a warmist monger these days. Nothing in the real world will comply with the models. No warming, no increase in bad weather, thriving polar bears, record growth in polar ice, no hotspot to be seen anywhere, ninja heat in the deep oceans no one has detected, not a single climate refugee anywhere, no extinct animals anywhere, no accelerating sea level rise, the world is getting greener. All this despite steady rising co2 levels. And as a topping on the cake, the 97% of scientists meme was at a closer inspection only 0,3%.No wonder people are loosing faith in the CAGW religion. ;-)
And no data to back up any of your blathering PantieZ, who buys into every denier delusion available.
#61 pentaxZ, they have no hope now, the media has woken up and the floodgates of truth have burst open :)
"A leaked draft of a report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is understood to concede that the computer predictions for global warming and the effects of carbon emissions have been proved to be inaccurate. "
lol
Karen #52
Needs some of those med's freddy is on, and fast.
Karen is another clot I shall only refer to in passing in future. Karen is diving down the snake of regression as fast as Judith but from a much lower base. Those drilling ice and sediment cores could use her/him/it as a drill so deep into doo does this entity go.
"Despite the uncertainties and contradictions, the IPCC insists that it is more confident than ever – 5 per cent certain - that global warming is mainly (maybe) human’s fault. "
Note how twerps like 'bust-camera' insist on referring to faith and religion. This is a measure of how hopeless it is trying to educate them, they require re-programming first.
Two fuckwits chorusing rubbish and ignoring the *science*.
See #43 and #55 above.
Notice, lurkers, how these two clowns simply blank the corrections to their lies and then repeat their lies.
#43!
#55!
Oh FFS. 95% confidence levels or higher.
"Those drilling ice and sediment cores could use her/him/it as a drill so deep into doo does this entity go."
lol............ Your meds are stronger Lionel :)
SpamKan @#64
Now that, no matter how you parse it, is worth a back slapping 'lol' for any self-satisfied sophist wondering what a moron will buy. But somehow I don't think that's what SpamKan's lol was for.
See the utterly blatant, quite completely shameless lying.
It is jaw-dropping. I have never seen the like of it anywhere else but in the climate "debate". This is what happens when ideologues and shills collide head-first with reality. They project with such pop-eyed, clench-arsed desperation that they invert reality.
The old, old cherry-pick: take 1998 as the start point. Yes, 1998 - the very peak of the biggest El Nino of the century.
Let's start at 1999. Oh look!
See how it's done, lurkers?
Then of course you can refer to never-seen, never-directly-quoted "leaks"... You can find this shit written up in various Murdoch rags which have rehashed the original bunch of lies printed by David "Pinocchio " Rose in the Mail and since universally debunked.
Keep repeating the lies! It's all you've got, after all!
BBD thinks he is on stage............. lol
Lurkers, watch this short clip !!!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4
Bugger. There goes another irony meter. That was an industrial strength one too.
Remember, folks, Karen's purpose here is to post lies.
Yes.
Remember, Karen's purpose here is...
And while we're at it:
Remember, pentaxZ's purpose here is to post lies.
And while we're at it:
Altogether now: it's always projection...
"As facts change, so must policy. The EU must change course and in the UK the Climate Change act must be thrown on the scrap heap of mistaken ideas," he said. "
"Regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong on global warming, the European Union is pursuing the correct energy policies even if they lead to higher prices, Europe’s climate commissioner has said. "
lol............... It's snowballing, :)
LOL..... it's desperately trying to diver attention from being called on its lies!
Lie - see #73. Admit the lie, Karen!
"Obama Laughed at When Referring to The Overwhelming Scientific Evidence on Climate Change."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q20cnn8vOfg
lol
And don't forget Karen - the oceans are part of the world too! It's not *just* troposphere!
And ooh - look at OHC!
You are a liar Karen!
When are you going to admit to your lies Karen!
#75, Kaz thinks she has a point
#76, classy stuff Kaz, enjoy your hate video...still smarting from not knowing the fuck what the thermosphere is, failing to know the difference between farenheit and celsius, getting fooled by Christy's sleight-of-hand, confusing a model of pre-industrial ocean conditions with current climate, and etc.....every puerile 'gotcha' you brought got turned back on you....truly a zombie denier, lumbering on powered by humiliation and fear. Sad fool.
Lies lies lies lies Karen!
:-)
.. in hell. SpamKan. The thing about your echo chamber is that just the one same old source creates multiple echoes. But there's still just the one source.
The EU spokesman, speaking hypothetically, confirms that renewable energy is here to stay. Climate change only makes that policy more imperative, no matter what the GWPF clowns say.
#82...so there are more fools like you ,Kaz...who knew?
In idiot world it's 'controversial' that shifting away from reliance on Russian fossil fuel exports is sound energy policy for Europe.
Just add the usual lashings of Bad Faith and you've got another occasion for Telegraph readers to wee themselves; a secret delight for them, as demonstrated above.
Could you nongs sink any lower? We will certainly find out...
lol......... I just beat you guyz up with my little finger :)
sweet dreams nuffies
#90
No, you didn't Karen! You got shown up as a liar and a know-nothing *again*! Just like every other time!
Lies! Lies! Lies!
Naughty Karen! Off to bed with no supper!
#91 BBD
Stamping your little feet will get you nowhere !
... it's your brainless spamming and even more brainless rejoinders that are getting nowhere SpamKan.
#94 ,Kaz, using your little brain has not exactly got you very far,has it? Sleep tight, blithering idiot. You've learned a lot today,and in the morning you will have forgotten it all....
Stamping on your lies is a pleasure, Karen! That's why I do it.
Before my time here, but does anyone remember the Denial Tango?
Do please look if in need of a wry chuckle or two.
;-)
Oh look, Karen is so desperate she/he/it has to dredge up a cartoon, yes a cartoon, based on long, and repeatedly debunked 'Climategate' memes and then doubles down in desperation with another where she/he/it thinks Obama is being laughed at when he touches on 'those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change'.
The fool/tool/drool not realising that it is those, like Rose, Limbaugh, Inhofe, Faux-crew, Morono, Mc-intiring, Milltoy, Beck-shrek, Carthorse, Moutbank1, Mountbank2, who are being laughed at.
Not much logic ability or self awareness in the Karen box is there.
#96. Kaz is unable to be reached. In too deep to pull out.
She's not alone, of course
Hahahaha, the moron BBD :evil: excrements:
"the oceans are part of the world too"
Now for once he likes the oceans as being part of the world. However when I educate him, that the global temperature fakers in CRU, GISS and NOAA calculate their "Global Temperatures" there are practically no temperature air measurements from the oceans, i.e. ca. 71% of the earth's surface. Now BBD does not like to be reminded of the oceans: BBD :evil: the partisan clown.
In addition BBD :evil: does not know how many stations are covered in the GHCN database!!!! hahahahaha :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Again:
In addition BBD :evil: does not know how many stations are covered in the GHCN database!!!! hahahahaha :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
And once more:
In addition BBD :evil: does not know how many stations are covered in the GHCN database!!!! hahahahaha :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
ALL: "There is no AGW ..."
Correction:
Hahahaha, the moron BBD :evil: excrements:
“the oceans are part of the world too”
Now for once he likes the oceans as being part of the world. However when I educate him, that the global temperature fakers in CRU, GISS and NOAA calculate their “Global Temperatures” fake the global temperatire because there are practically no temperature air measurements from the OCEANS (take note poor BBD :evil:), i.e. ca. 71% of the earth’s surface. Now BBD does not like to be reminded of the oceans: BBD :evil: the partisan clown.
In addition BBD :evil: does not know how many stations are covered in the GHCN database!!!! hahahahaha :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Again:
In addition BBD :evil: does not know how many stations are covered in the GHCN database!!!! hahahahaha :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
And once more:
In addition BBD :evil: does not know how many stations are covered in the GHCN database!!!! hahahahaha :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
ALL: “There is no AGW …”
For those willing to see what the reality is the ever watchful Sou has an article with a link to the PDF of a free access PNAS paper by Ben Santer et. al. on 'Human and natural influences on the changing thermal structure of the atmosphere'.
Those who have been around this topic for longer than the dog-watch put in by the detractors will know the stick that Ben Santer got over his previous paper on attribution in 1996 'A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere', the one which Pat Michaels, unwisely as it turned out, brought to the fore in a 2010 House Science Committee Meeting on Climate Change reported on here: House Science hearing “Rational Discussion of Climate Change” with Lindzen, Michaels, and Curry.
Just look at the recognised credentials of those industry mouth-pieces who have continued to cover themselves in glory gory.
Thank you freddy for making doubly sure that my post hits a new page.
One has to hand it to these idiots.
#1 The simpleton returns, bejewelling his ignorance with his little shiny buttons. The spatial distribution of measurement stations may be a problem for you, son, but rest assured that others have long anticpated you, and developed the methodology to deal with it...and then there are satellites and ocean buoys that are quite useful for corroboration. And guess what?
Also, what do you think the world's glaciers are telling you, ignoramus? Now I will go back to ignoring you.
All
Please let's not talk to the fucking lunatic.
The only way we are going to get rid of this insane troll is to blank it. Everybody, all the time. No matter what.
We seem to be all the moderation there is here now, so let's act together in our own interest.
Blank the insane troll. Totally.
Sadly the links in that article from Climate Progress no longer link to the then live broadcast of that 2010 House Science Committee Meeting on Climate Change but I have tracked down the recordings.
Panel 1
The rambling, vitriol laden rhetoric from Republican Ralph Hall has to be listened to to be believed. How does this pass as acceptable behaviour. Fortunately Bob Inglis follows and nails the point that the diatribe from Hall is 'On the Record'.
Panel 2
this is the one that includes the exchange between Pat Michaels and Ben Santer, which can also be found as a stand alone on YouTube.
Those with a grasp of the history of denial, once again for more than a dog-watch, will know about the 'unfortunate' behaviour of Michaels WRT Santer's being one of the lead authors of the IPCC Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995 (SAR).
Panel 3.
BBD, again nobody has asked you, and also nobody likes yu, and you are NOT the moderator but only a helpless clown :lol:
This is BBD: :lol: :roll:
Your lunatism must be rejected:
All
Please let’s not talk to the fucking lunatic.
The only way we are going to get rid of this insane troll is to blank it. Everybody, all the time. No matter what.
We seem to be all the moderation there is here now, so let’s act together in our own interest.
Blank the insane troll. Totally.
You should fuck off here as you miss the topic and always derange others. In addition, you regularly misinform readers who come here in good faith and must read your insane bollocks.
Therefore, BBD troll :evil:, do all of us a favor and piss off.
All
Is anbody of all able to explain what clown BBD :evil: meant be exrementing:
let’s act together in our own interest
My questions to this utter trial of a conspiration on the internet:
A) WHO IS ALL
B) WHAT IS "OWN INTEREST"
Anybody who honestly and truthfully explains to the audience what the CAGW cown BBD :evil: meant will get a payment of 1000 Austrialian Dollars as compensation of adherence to truthfuless and rejection of hidden conspiration.
Correction:
All
Is anbody of all able to explain what clown BBD :evil: meant be exrementing:
let’s act together in our own interest
My questions to this utter trial of a conspiration on the internet:
A) WHO IS ALL
B) WHAT IS “OWN INTEREST”
Anybody who honestly and truthfully explains to the audience what the CAGW cown BBD :evil: meant will get a payment of 1000 Austrialian Dollars as compensation of adherence to truthfuless and rejection of hidden conspiration.
Ben Santer v Pat Michaels archived by Peter Sinclair.
Now here is Ben Santer putting the record straight on the Michaels nonsense over Santer's lead authorship procedures with the IPCC SAR 1995.
Oreskes & Conway also covered this in 'Merchants of Doubt' from page 208.
@4 Nick :evil:
Your text on the assessment of a global temperature is full of mistakes and error, hence it cannot be accepted:
The spatial distribution of measurement stations may be a problem for you, son, but rest assured that others have long anticpated you, and developed the methodology to deal with it…and then there are satellites and ocean buoys that are quite useful for corroboration
You asserted the utter bollocks "... and developed the methodology to deal with it ..."
Can you develop further what you mean with "developed" and which "methodology"
Show what you :evil: know (but I bet you don't know anything at all, it's just a hoot from a moron :evil:)
@Lionel A, not entirely true: "Ben Santer v Pat Michaels archived by Peter Sinclair"
It as originally archived by Michael Mann at Princeton.
@6 Lionel A
Can you explain in own words (not copy paste please) what was wrong in the excellent speech of Republican Ralph Hall.
I could fully agree to everything he said.
Please delineate what you did not like.
For all readers who could not read the interview Congressman Hall (then chair of the House's Science Committee) had given to the National Journal (NJ), I cite here the most interesting parts:
$£$£$£$£$£US$$$$$$$US$$$$
NJ: Do you think climate change is causing the earth to become warmer?
Hall: I can't say it doesn't have a percentage of effects on it - one percent, three percent, five percent. But I don't think it's the cause. I don't think we can control what God controls.
We put $32 billion into it and don't see very much change.
NJ: Last year the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science published a survey finding that 97 percent of scientists were in consensus that human activities lead to global warming.
Hall: And they each get $5,000 for every report like that they give out. That's just my guess. I don't have any proof of that. But I don't believe 'em. I still want to listen to 'em and believe what I believe I ought to believe.
NJ: Have you read Governor Perry's book, Fed Up?
Hall: Yes.
NJ: He essentially says climate science may be a conspiracy theory or may be put forth by scientists who are working together to put forth findings in order to get funding. Are you on the same page as Gov. Perry on this?
Hall: I'm pretty close. I think we ought to have an honest ear to science. They can come before my committee. I always put someone to come and testify when they're testifying against it to give them the other side. I think we oughta listen to 'em. I just don't think we oughta mind 'em.
Because what have we got for the $32 billion we spent?
NJ: Do you mean the $32 billion that was spent in the stimulus?
Hall: I mean everything that's been spent knocking and pushing global warming. I'm really more fearful of freezing. And I don't have any science to prove that. But we have a lot of science that tells us they're not basing it on real scientific facts. And we need to listen to more. I'm willing to listen for more.
If we believe everything they say, we can't clean China. They're producing six coal-fed operations a week. We can' t clean the world for them. We can't clean it for Russia. We can't clean it for India. We can't clean it for Mexico.
We're poorer now than we've ever been since the Great Depression.
NJ: Paul Krugman and other columnists have criticized Republicans and said that the party could become labeled anti-science.
Hall: I'm not anti-science, I'm pro-science. But we ought to have some believable science.
NJ: What's the appropriate role for government on the issue of climate change?
Hall: To listen to good science, proper science and know the difference. And not to use it for political thrust or political gain, because it's something that affects the world. But we can't be 9-11 for the world. I wish we could. We could have at one time. But we can't now. We have to be more careful what outlays we make for something that hasn't been proved.
$£$£$£$£$£US$$$$$$$US$$$$
In summary: it is shocking to see what the REAL motivation of "climate" scientists is and I am happy to see very reasonable politicians in the US who fight insane aberrations of real science.
@3 Lionel A
To whom are you speaking when you address "Fredi". I haven't seen a "Fredi" commenting here. Do you see ghosts? Maybe too much ethanol today, clown :evil: ????
If anybody knows how to contact Tim Lambert, will they please just do it.
@BBD clown :evil:
Why are you clown so desperate ?
I have the e-mail address of Tim. Do you want me to contact him and what do you want me to convey to him?
Information required, desperate clown :evil: :roll:
#6 Lionel A
Reminds me once again of the Jack Aubrey "joke" about why a dog-watch is so named: "Why because it is cur-tailed!"
:-)
Ah! Another Patrick O'Brian fan, unless I have that wrong.
Kept me sane through the long weeks of recovery in hospital following two cardiac arrests in two days.
I have since re-read in chronological order, rather than order of purchase, dissecting the text for accuracy in sailing terms, parts of a ship etc.
I like the sort of music mentioned too, Locatelli is much overlooked.
All that is another side to my library having once been into sailing small boats, ones without engines. Had to take a handling and rule of the road proficiency test - this in Portsmouth harbour before getting a ticket to go solo or take others along. Magic days.
These are skills, and ship construction too, that humans may find a need for in the future, but the pattern of trades that were once familiar, although varying year on year (old logs are fascinating - no not tree rings freddy - you responding to that name freddy is indicative), will likely change rather as temperatures gradients change WRT latitude and longitude.
OT I know but in the absence of any sensible commentary from you know who....?
BBD I like the one about the '...lesser of the two weevils' too.
Both priceless.
I complained to retailer about the unexpectedly hard nature of some biscuits they were selling describing them as being 'Like Pusser's hard-tack but without the weevils', the face he made should have been caught by camera.
Oh yes, POB is wonderful stuff. And like you, I've read the lot (more than once!) in correct chronological order. And will do so again. All except the final, unfinished volume, which I can't face.
The lesser of two weevils - Aubrey's other "joke"!
I thought you might be a POB man. Good to have it confirmed! And I hope your health is improved. If I may say so.
Locatelli - here I plead ignorance. Somewhere along the line I *saw* a CD "Music of POB" or some such, and for whatever stupid reasons didn't buy it. So I don't know. Still.
And above at #14 we see that freddy and Ralph Hall both have a similar problem with providing coherent informed opinion.
Thanks
Locatelli, another Italian baroque composer and near contemporary of Vivaldi, Marcello, Albinoni, Torelli etc. The Scarlattis are worth a look too and of course Corelli (these latter of a slightly earlier age) - Christmas Concerto part of which was rightly in the sound track of the film being a cert for that played by Aubrey and Maturin whilst off the West coast of South America.
The two CDs 'Musical Evenings with the Captain' marketed by a US company are OK but do not do justice to Locatelli.
The music from the film I have discovered on other CDs which I have collected. I have suggestions. Maybe best go to email as it is so OT.
#22 Hall is your classic fundamentalist pig-ignorant denier vermin. Read the man:
And:
Unbelievable. And enough. The US needs to sort itself out in a very profound way. People like this need to be removed from - and kept from - the levers of power.
* * *
Thanks for the gentle warning about the Musical Evenings CDs - duly noted. Locatelli I think I will just try. As for further suggestions, post 'em up! There's no topic here. Anything which isn't outright lunacy ought to be welcomed, and besides, it's only the one comment. Also I don't really feel like posting an email up - not even a disposable one - given the atmosphere in here. Nor should you.
Hehe...it's quite funny to see all the deltoid regulars panic shining through. Indeed, being a warm monger isn't so hipp these days. The whole CAGW church is crumbling down. It's now just a matter of time before it's completely in ruins.
Now time for education, deltoid regulars, aka zealots:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on…
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results…
Panic? You tool.
I chopped your rubbish up into little bits earlier today. You should be the one having an attack of nerves.
Instead you quote liar Morano and a paper you haven't even read, let alone understood.
You aren't worth the bother. You don't have the chops for this.
Oh be still my laughter aching sides, but that one can go in the bulging collection of phrases along with its equally drole companion 'the final nail' of which there's surely enough to sink a battyleship.
That aside, no PantieZ, it's not 'a matter of time'.
It's a matter of being shown the evidence which none of you troglodytes and your masters have managed to do for all the years they've been at it and feeding you.
Of course they fool morons like you, but luckily the population isn't composed of morons. Just the denier brigades seem to have an excess of them. Still keeps you company I suppose. Dumb as shit company I grant you, but company nevertheless.
For extra points, anybody fancy running a sweep on how many IPCC report lies we'll see between now and the 27th?
I'm guessing the boldest and most jaw-dropping ones will be released about the 25th or so.
There should be a special prize for the most fanciful and egregious which still passes the denier smell test. SpamKan and PantieZ are as good proxies as could be wished for (i.e. zero threshold) , although Gordon runs them close in the behold-the-self-inflicted-cretinisation of the ageing populace stakes.
bbd #26 You did? Hahahahahahahahaha....duh, perhaps in your dellusional mind.
"Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist."
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ - Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001
‘The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!’ -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 – Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” – declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications. (LINK) & (LINK)
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
UN IPCC Lead Author Tom Tripp Dissents on man-made warming: ‘We’re not scientifically there yet’ – July 16, 2009
The UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s claim that the UN IPCC is an “very open” also needs examining. The IPCC summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The UN is all about politics.
UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s alleged global warming “consensus,” according to a May 10, 2007 article. Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?
Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton, accused the UN of “censorship” on July 23, 2008. “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.
Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.
Here is a small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN IPCC’s “very open” process.
(Below are excerpts from various U.S. Senate reports which Climate Depot’s Morano authored during his years at the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.)
One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN's] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar concluded.
Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.
Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.
In addition, a Greenpeace activist co-authored a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace, was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN’s policy prescriptions.
The UN IPCC’s own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.
In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party’s convention platform battle – not a scientific process. During an IPCC Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for Policymaker’s process on January 24, 2007.
McIntyre wrote: “So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.”
Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained. He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”
Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher: “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”
You just fucked your credibility by mentioning Wegman as an authority.
So take your oil-shill retirees looking for post-retirement cash and fuck off PantieZ.
Just accept that you were never the brightest bulb in the room PantieZ, and trying to fool people at a minimum ten times smarter than your dismal self is never going to work.
@29 pentaxZ
This compilation of first class climate scientists' testimonies on the political spin of the IPCC CAGW clowns shows excellently the intellectual and moral decline of the whole AGW climate church community. They deceive, they manipulate data, they lie, they exaggerate whenever it suits there insane eco fundamentalist will for dominance against "bad" western mankind.
The CAGW leper islanders of nihilism and firm believers of the post-normal manipulative pseudo-climatology will go mad and the next few decades will be a catastrophy for their rotten view of the world: NO DECADENT GOD GAIA WILL HELP THEM OUT OF THEIR MISERY.
Evidence, chek, evidence? Ok, show us the evidence for the 50 000 000 climate refugees. Show us the evidence of extinct animals due to AGW. Show us the evidence of the diminishing polar bear population. Show us the evidence of the accelerating sea level rise. Show us the evidence of increased bad weather. Show us the evidence of diminishing ice at the poles. And the best of them all, show us the evidence that anthropogenic co2 is the main driver of global warming. You stupid zealots claims that weather and climate is out of order, the burdon of proof therefore lays heavy on your, and only your shoulders.
And by the way, pseudoscientific blogs like ss, rc and its likes isn't by any definition valid as proof of anything at all.
Hahahaha.....chek, how are you doing? Sounds to me that you need a strain jacket and a padded room. Perhaps some nice meds too.
The religious belief of the likes of PantieZ in their Holy Icons (Morano for instance) is a hoot to behold, ain't it?
The evidence is in the link where DC guts, fillets and frames Wegman, you moron.
Although inability to read and comprehend might have saved your sorry, ragged arse from that final indignity.
Though not anyone else following your pitiful exchange.
Yeah, we know. Blogs run by scientists referencing scientists are a complete anathema to cranks and the fantasy world they live in.
Tell us something we don't already know outside the oh-so-fucking-predictable bubble you morons live in.
Note how Pemtax cites work from a shill in estimating the effects of warming on polar bear demographics:
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-payments-university-victoria-profes…
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-…
One more 'expert' on the think tank payroll discredited then. Let's get to the facts:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01552.x/full
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/07-2089.1
There are many more rejoinders to Crockford's 'crock'. Its too bad that PantieX's understanding of population ecology is somewhere in the vicinity of 'profoundly ignorant'. That's hardly surprising. He's never been to a university ecology lecture in his miserable life.
To illustrate my last point, the latest point, and to prove that Pantie cannot read or understand basic English, here is a recent post from him:
"Show us the evidence of extinct animals due to AGW"
Sigh. How many frigging time must I debunk this old chestnut? I have at least a dozen times earlier, but since the deniers on this site don't understand the basics of complex adaptive systems nor of the concept of 'lag effects', I am forced to again.
Pantie, you vacuous twit, cause and effect relationships in nature are not instantaneous. In other words, a change in parameter 'y' does not result in an instantaneous response from parameter 'z'. Given the scales involved, there are temporal lags which can encompass decades or even centuries. We scientists - you know, people like me who have worked in the field for over 20 years - realize that at the scales involved there will be declines in the abundances of species caused by various anthropogenic disturbances that lead to what we call 'relaxation' downwards to lower thresholds which may or may not stabilize at some equilibrium. In other words, for your simple little noggin, this means that over their ranges species will slowly decline after an initial perturbation either to extinction or to become much less common but stable provided suitable habitat remains. The loss of temperate forests in North America did not result in the instantaneous extinction of Bachman's Warblers or Ivory-Billed Woodpeckers. Instead, they declined over 1-2 centuries as the forests were felled and eventually became so rare as to be unable to survive in viable numbers. The same applies to tropical forests. For example, clearing of the Mata Atlantica forests of Brazil in the 1950s (primarily) did not result in virtually instantaneous extinctions within 10-20 years (a time scale that in ecological and evolutionary terms IS virtually instantaneous). Instead, many species endemic to the region declined gradually so that by the mid 1990s none had been reported extinct but many were, and are, teetering on the edge of extinction. Climate change has only become readily apparent since the 1980s, and there are plenty of examples of species in population free fall as a result. This is what we should be concerned with. The extinction card is forever dredged up by the illiterate army of deniers who can't tell a ground beetle from a rhinoceros.
So, for the umpteenth time, I have been forced to explain the concept of time lags and the 'extinction debt'. And I am fully prepared for the numbskulls on Deltoid to wade in here with their comic-book level of understanding on the subject.
Pentax
No, right here on this thread. Where everyone can go back and check. And where the evidence will remain.
Now I've demolished PentaxZ and his extinction argument, let me briefly turn to Karen, who bitterly implied that ecosystem services are rubbish and that we should be debating climate change.
Question to Karen: Exactly what factors do you think help to maintain an optimally breathable amount of gases in the atmosphere for plants and animals? What factors are important in regulating biogeochemical cycles and for renewal of atmospheric gases? Gee whiz... its those pesky ecosystem services again and species/biodiversity that are involved in sustaining humanity. Try as they might, this army f ignorant anti-environmentalists just ca't bring themselves to admit that humans are utterly dependent on biodiversity.
Given the hilarity of Karen's ignorance yesterday (describing ecosystem services as 'farming') I can't wait to see what nugget of stupidity she will come up with this time.
Some are on the USA's doorstep
Many more to Australia are likely termed economic refugees
The current Great Extinction is probably something you half-wits are unaware of. Why would you ever bother informing yourselves?
And that's your two links used up.
The same with sea level rise. You think Morano's going to inform you?
Do you think Superstorm Sandy and the Colorado floods are normal weather? How many weather disasters can even a rich country like the USA withstand per decade, let alone per year?
Even you must know that the 2012 polar ice was a record low - they do HAVE newspapers and a at least semi-literate population in Sweden, I take it.
And best of all - there is no other explanation than CO2 that fits the facts. None of you half-wits nor any of your masters have an alternative that withstands examination.
#97 BBD
That was in the good old days, you know, this was a really worthwhile & top blog, Timmie often got 10 replies to a post :)
I notice 'climate data analyst' John McLean made it into Camera Boy's Morano copy-paste of disaffected Republican voters.. LOL... populated by grabs from 4 to 5 year old 'testimonies' to a stacked committee in a hijacking of democratic process that is all too common.
Morano, employed by Inhofe, was effectively defrauding the US taxpayer by disseminating misinformation. The amount of public money Inhofe has spent on deceptive conduct is considerable, much greater than the FF money that puffs his campaign chest. This ought to horrify the neo-lib / science-as-conspiracy dribblers who Gish Gallop here...if they had a clue. Elected by the people to be a mouthpiece for industry interests.
Flannery: Look, it will be a very, very small increment.
Bolt: Have you got a number? I mean, there must be some numbers.
Flannery: I just need to clarfy in terms of the climate context for you. If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.
Bolt: Right, but I just want to get to this very basic fact, because I’m finding it really curious that no one has got (this) fact. If I buy a car … I want to know how much it costs and whether it is going to do the job.
Flannery: Sure.
Bolt: In this case I want to know the cost of cutting our emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 and will it do the job: how much will the world’s temperatures fall by if Australia cuts its emissions by this much.
Flannery: Look, as I said it will be a very, very small increment.
Bolt: Can you give us a rough figure? A rough figure.
Flannery: Sorry, I can’t because it’s a very complex system and we’re dealing with probabilities here.
Bolt: …I’m just trying to get the facts in front of the public so we know what we’re doing. Just unbiased. Is it about, I don’t know, are you talking about a thousandth of a degree? A hundredth of a degree? What sort of rough figure?
Flannery: Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…
lol
"To those of us who have been following the climate debate for decades, the next few years will be electrifying. There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering."
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/
..........................................................lol......................
Take your bat n' ball and slither home guyz ............
"what is commonly called the “mainstream” view of climate science is contained in the spread of results from computer models. What is commonly dismissed as the “skeptical” or “denier” view coincides with the real-world observations. Now you know how to interpret those terms when you hear them."
lol
Yes Robert Murphy @#12 previous page.
This site has definitely lost its sparkle.
Interesting article by Terence Corcoran in the Financial post yesterday.
"The Tide Is Rising On Climate Models And Policies."
It attempts to summarise the polarisation of the politics.
For some reason I am not able to link it through to this site but it should be possible to find it with the title and author.
Nick @#47 previous page.
As a resident of the Murrumbidgee Valley I can tell you that you have completely missed the point of those SHL releases in 2010 and 2011.
Whether they impacted on the flooding peaks or not does not change that SHL were, in fact, releasing stored water from the still largely empty Eucumbene into spilling dams and flooded systems.
Their operating licence demanded that this was done despite the fact that it was clearly wasteful and impractical.
It was water that had been accrued or held back during the depth of the drought under rules associated with Exceptional Circumstances.
It would have been far more useful for that water to have stayed in Eucumbene where there was room to store it. Clearly the lower dams or the river systems did not need any of it at the time! It could then have been used later (after the flooding) to achieve much more sensible and practical environmental, social and economic outcomes.
That was, after all, one of the key reasons why the Snowy Hydro System was built.
More lies from Karen, and she completely ignores all the other times she's been caught out.
Her purpose here is...
#50...Stu2, please try and understand the point. I make no comment on Snowy Hydro policy. That is not relevant, except for Marohasy in her attempt to cause damage.
The point I make is that Marohasy is a sloppy researcher.
I simply point out that Marohasy tried to sell a claim about the floods that was not supported by the data, in order to embarrass SH and the state government of the time.
SH's storage network,and operational practise, had no additive effect on flood heights. In fact, Snowy Hydro's Tantangara Dam minimised upper Murrumbidgee flows. NSW Office of Water operate Blowering, and, while they had limited buffer to exploit, they still managed to prevent the Tumut River catchment above Goobarragandra junction from adding to flood height at any point downstream.
The floods were generated entirely from catchment OUTSIDE Snowy Hydro's control.
#46,47,48....simply rubbish,Kaz. You have started a new day with a shit-storm of unbacked assertion....the pre-emptive 'strikes' on the IPCC statement are empty, though their sheer number shows the the hold over the MSM that the liars have.
#45, demonstrates that Bolt is an on-message ignoramus. The world has to wait for him to catch up. We knew that long ago Kaz. Bolt is doing his duty to his backers, and he is especially vulnerable as a sycophant: chip on both shoulders, poorly educated but passionate, loathes academia, and is in awe of men in suits with money. Bolt is the perfect stooge. Flannery is indicating that we are committed already to a GAT temperature rise and decay trajectory that runs for centuries. Bolt deliberately doesn't understand that we can still influence how high that trajectory rises: he just sees the length in order to argue 'what's the point?'
But it's actually quite dumb to play dumb too often.
No Nick,
That is still not the point.
Of course everyone did everything they could do minimise the extent the major flooding and of course the major flooding was out of everyone's control.
The point remains that prior to the circumstances you are highlighting, when there had already been significant flooding and full lower dams , and after the major flooding when everything downstream was completely full, SHL was still releasing water from Eucumbene into a system that did not need it, purely because of the rules.
It was wasteful and impractical.
If the media chose to dramatise it and those you criticise used that as leverage does not alter the fact that it was definitely sub optimal and counter productive behaviour.
# 54, Stu2 ,sorry, you don't get to redefine what the point of my observationsabout Dr Marohasy is,and how she pursued her end...OK? I made my point unambiguously when I first mentioned her.
On your point, SH's operational practise demanded by its charter, Marohasy certainly disapproved of SH's operational process and possibly not without some justification...however,she could not confine her disapproval to the process, she insisted on trying to find fault where there was none [and where in fact SH had assisted flood minimisation]
That is still not the point Nick and you are not entirely correct.
There was plenty of warning and numerous submissions from many different quarters such as local councils and representative organisations about developing evidence that SHL was indeed creating a problem by releasing water that was not needed from Eucumbene. Those warnings and submissions started over 6 months prior to the actual crisis.
The fact that when the crisis hit they then did everything possible to minimise it, does not change the fact that they did indeed contribute to the larger and over riding problem.
I don't believe Marohasy was a major player in these events. From my recollection, her media attention came after the event.
#56 I am entirely correct,Stu 2... and about 100 post ago I made a point about Marohasy's actions that you wish was something else.... I can understand how the concern over releases could arise, but people were warning of a problem that did not actually exist. No matter the rumblings and allegations about SH, no one checked the public data, sometimes erroneously claiming that SH's generation-flow confidentiality was a hindrance to getting the picture clear...You can still do check the data if you wish. Access the NOW stream and dam data page and time search flows and storage for all the catchments and sub-catchments involved.
Snowy Hydro did not exacerbate flooding. The location and timing of record rainfalls was the cause. NOW's operation of Blowering minimised any impact of SH power generation flows at Tumut and all points downstream. Fascinatingly, the Tumut River flooding [and hence contribution to the Murrumbidgee] was entirely generated from catchment down stream of the dam,so massive and localised were the rainfalls. And the Tumut peaked after the Murrumbidgee at their junction, so the highest flooding at Gundagai and downstream was largely Murrumbidgee water. The second peak was more Tumut water, but , again, I promise, not from SH and Eucumbene.
SH has to pay for infrastructure and operational costs from its power generation assets, so they must send water down pipes, but the actual volume going down the Tumut power system is quite modest. Most of the water banking up at Blowering was run-off from uncontrolled catchments [Bago Plateau, Blowering Mountains, Yarrangobilly River] not water from Eucumbene and /or Tooma.
Local media failed to give their stories substance, in not doing basic research...classic 'teach the controversy' default position. "We just report, we don't investigate" Maybe they were unaware of how they could pursue the information,I don't know.
SH's contribution to Murrumbidgee base flow characteristics is real, obviously, but no one calculated base flow contribution to flood height because they did not use any real data for their assertions. The contribution was vanishingly small. I expected Marohasy, as a professional researcher to look before leaping. To act as a skeptic.
Beware of Jeff Harvey :evil: :roll:
university ecology lecture
NEVER IN MY LIFE WOULD I WASTE MY TIME WITH SUCH UTTER RUBBISH
Education for Harvey: your loathed blown-up "eco-system services" is nothing else than agriculture, farming. Why the fuk did you not try to become a farmer, instead of an insane eco clown :evil: who wastes our money, why the hell???
@57 Nick :evil:
#56 I am entirely correct
Everybody who expresses himself in such a degusting manner is by nature a full-blown utterly arrogant idiot :evil: :roll:
I'm really gobsmacked about the various comments about "ecosystem services". Do people really think that "ecosystem services" are entirely related to functions and areas of immediate utility to specific people? Just an obsession of food forest gardeners, orchardists, winegrowers and broadacre farmers/ pastoralists concerned about pollination or soil depth or root systems of pastures or penetration/ retention of water and fertiliser. Nothing about air quality, flood control, coastal protection, water quality, pest control or anything else among the dozens/ hundreds/ thousands of things that sustain us.
I know I shouldn't be surprised, but in fact I'm amazed at this.
#59.. ah, the massive irony, the projection from Strike Through Boy! Scores of interjections from you, and no substance, nothing. Just abuse and scorn : can't get any more arrogant than that can we, kettle? I await some content from you, go on make a contribution, it's a public forum.
The next German federal election will show a terrible defeat of the gren fundamentalist party :evil: because of incredible, but well documented, reproaches of disgusting pedophilia among green fundamentalists :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
Nick: please don't feed it. Starvation is indicated for SpamKan & Panties too.
Here's one for the books.
Australians who watch the ABC's Chaser series (I don't) may have caught the segment where a Newscorp staffer and former Liberal apparatchik Chris Kenny was mocked with a rather crude photoshopping of his image so that he was apparently having sex with a dog. It certainly didn't amuse Mediawatch.
Fair enough, but one of the people who were supposed to be most damaged by this depiction - Kenny's own son no less - has had the guts to stand up and tell it as it is, and that is that his father is a:
http://junkee.com/in-defence-of-the-chasers-picture-of-my-dad-having-se…
It's the last paragraph that's the sting in the tail...
#63, weak of me!
Adelady said:
and I can only concur. I've avoided comment prior to now because others have taken the baton and made good points, but it'd telling that those who deny climate change are also completely oblivious to the absolute dependence that humans have on a functioning biosphere.
They can deny the truth, but there's no hiding from it - as time will prove...
#64, the country's information stream is being held to ransom by these inadequates with their unresolved personal issues: rule by the most petulant. Praise to the son.
Nick.
There are better examples to criticise Marohasy than this one.
Your summation of the events are incorrect.
The DISV RAR releases by SHL were not related to power generation but to the operating licence. Of course SHL made power from that water when it was economically viable to do so. It was significant amounts of water. Go and look up the licence. In total it was over 2000GL that was put into the southern connected system that did not require it and it was not able to be managed successfully . That was extra water over and above the usual requirements, ostensibly to pay back the environment.
The media was not privy to the numerous very well informed warnings from various different stakeholders and representative organisations. Everyone involved tried to have the problem repaired without the need for a media circus. Unfortunately the relevant authorities did not listen and failed to act. When the crisis did hit it the media typically over dramatized the situation.
Marohasy was not a major player in these events. You claim further up post that she was responsible for embarrassing SHL. I disagree. In this particular instance, if the authorities were embarrassed, it's because there was indeed substance to her claims.
jeffie, so in other words, you don't have one single example of species gone extinct due to AGW? Why doesn't that surprise me. But that's no wonder, if the "alarming" rate of the AGW (which hasn't shown its face the last 17 years anyway) is on the century scale species has no problem adapting to the change. You know, survival of the fittest. Not understanding such thinhs is quite normal for a dogmatic pseudoscientist as you, jeffie.
Hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha.....you are so utterly stupid, chek. Nor the habitants ov Kivalina or Shishmaref are climate refugees. You know, before the white man came around, the native people populated these islands on a seasonal basis. But when the white man came around, they forced natives to settle down on those islands permanently. Because as you might know, the white mans bureaucracy has no tolerance with free, unbound people. The native people knew it's inadvizable to have a permanent rezidence on those islands because they are sandy barrier reef islands. Not so stable in other words. But they were forced anyway. So the reason of those islands decay is urbanization, nothing else. And it's easily proven. No other island in the archipelag is affected. How can that be? Wouldn't AGW affect all the islands, you stupid idiot?
Yes, humans have caused extinction of animals. Endemic animals due to hunting. Nothing att all to do with AGW, not the slightes. "Palaeobiologist Anthony Barnosky fears humans are creating a mass extinction." Barnosky fears! And we should of course take his word for it? Because it's a BBC article? BBC which long ago decided that impartiality isn't of interest when it comes to reporting about AGW! Give me a break, moron.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/02/the-sixth-first-climate-refugees/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/09/breaking-news-seventh-first-clima…
#68 'There are better examples to criticise Marohasy than this one' ... I don't see a need, but go right ahead and provide some more.
The total amount involved in the RAR, and DISV, is irrelevant to the Murrumbidgee flood event that Marohasy thought she could ping SH over. That 2000GL is a huge quantity, which is divided or allocated between the Murray and the Murrumbidgee over a 12 month period. SH generates and distributes: they don't have unallocated water to generate with, unless they are doing pump-storage activity in-system.
The actually relevant quantities of ex-Tumut catchment RAR/DISV water that went down the Tumut generation system in the week leading up to the floods are in the order of a few tens of megalitres, a tiny fraction of the two-catchment RAR & DISV. These small quantities, exiting at Blowering, were what some people thought had made the Murrumbidgee flood peak worse. It was a reasonable question to ask, but the answer was: no contribution. That weeks water was trifling in quantity compared with the catchment run-off during the floods.
This 'critical' week's water has been unhelpfully lumped with the other argument about the wisdom of paying back the water borrowings, as SH was obliged by charter, over the months during a season of high flow...
Post floods,the SH's license was altered by government to make that payback requirement more flexible.
I agree with Adelady. It's almost breathtaking to discover these people really are even more stupid than one imagined.
The Disgusting Luke, el Gordo, SpamKan and the Emoticon Thing are Planetary Autists.
Milk comes from Supermarkets, if the bees die off we'll just make some more or teach the moths to do whatever it is they do instead, and the whole biosphere could be reduced to people like me, our companion animals, and the ones we choose to eat and that would function just fine forever. Oh, and some lawn grasses and shade trees...
They are, in short, the Creationists of the 21st Century! They may even claim to reject God, but all the same anthropocentric and grandiose imbecilities are just as central to their 'thought'.
There's a lot of them about. In the new Cabinet, for instance. Sadly, we'll all (including all the other species) have to pay for their arrogant stupidity.
Homo sapiens sapiens my arse! What are we going to do with the maladapted?
#68, and at the request of NOW, IIRC, Snowy Hydro did cease transfers for generation for a few days at the height of the flood. There was no substance to claims about the flood, but Marohasy was keen to push them. The then-inflexibility of the water allocation and payback time frame was an issue, one that has been resolved and one that Marohasy should have confined herself to. But she is a ratbag,and she runs a nuthouse at her blog.
The ABC is purely a disseminator of propaganda, you only have to look at the war reporting, eg Iraq, Libya and now Syria to see that they have an agenda.
They tell lies that support of the US and globalist agendas that have now killed millions of people, do you really think the ABC cares about climate change or the whether it is caused by co2 ?
You all seem grab onto anything or anyone that will feed your irrational trace gas anxieties, rationality is the only extinct species in here............ lol
"jeffie, so in other words, you don’t have one single example of species gone extinct due to AGW? Why doesn’t that surprise me"
It doesn't surprise you, Pantie, cos' you're THICK. Yo clearly didn't understand my response to your nonsense. Hardly surprising, given your grade-school level education. That's the problem with academics on here engaging in debates with utter laypeople lacking even the basic knowledge. Of course there aren't any extinctions - at least officially recognized - yet from the recent AGW because of the factors I mentioned. The time lag is too short; as I said yesterday, changes in large scales habitat structure - to the level of entire biomes - of course generate extinctions, but over centuries. There's clear evidence that previous climate change episodes in the Earth's history generated extinction cascades that took hundreds or even thousands of years to be realized. The best example is the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, when it is likely that the impact of a large asteroid impacting Earth was responsible for massive climate shifts in turn leading to the extinction of dinosaurs. But this extinction event was borne out over many centuries, even millennia. The dinosaurs did not disappear within 20 years.
The other fact - which clearly you do not have a clue about - is that for a species to recognized as being officially extinct means that it has not been recorded in the wild for 50 years. This is the IUCN protocol, and is universally recognized amongst scientists. With respect to tropical forests, there are species that have not been observed in the wild since the late 1960s and early 1970s that are still considered extant, even though in all likelihood they have been extirpated.
Finally, many recent studies are reporting sharp declines in the abundance and range retractions of species where climate change is likely to be an important factor. These declines are a warning that something is amiss.
Simply put, Pentax, you are as stupid as a sack of potatoes. You write in here with your basal level knowledge thinking you have something useful to say. Sometimes I find it very hard to engage in debate with you and the other deniers here because your level of discourse is so utterly childish and simple. As I said a few days ago, if people like you, Berendaneke, Luke, Karen and other deniers on Deltoid are a representative cross-section of the 'skeptical' side of the public, then our society is in deep, deep trouble. Pretty well all of you write like Forrest Gump.
Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record- NOT
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/australias-warmest-12-month…
"your loathed blown-up “eco-system services” is nothing else than agriculture, farming"
See the end of my last comment. More kindergarten-level musings. Since when is the activity of soil organisms recycling nutrients, 'farming'? Since when is the maintenance of a breathable atmosphere 'farming'? Since when is pollination and seed dispersal 'farming'? Sine when is the breakdown of terrestrial wastes and the mitigation of floods and droughts 'farming'? Since when is the stabilization of coastlines and protection of the Earth's living surface from the harmful ultraviolet rays of the sun 'farming'?
Good grief. These people are complete quacks. How does none discuss in a rational matter science with such an army of numbskulls?
I should have said one, but I have to admit I am almost at breaking point here. Tim really has to get back in here and start filtering out the deniers. Not one of them has anything of intellectual value to say.
#75, I predicted yesterday that you would trundle off to bed and forget all the lessons you had learned.
Kaz, we dealt with Kens Clowndom already. Just to recap,mid tropospheric temperatures are never the same as surface temperatures, and furthermore UAH's data is biased cool through data processing choice which contaminates their altitude band. So disagreement between BOMs surface temp claim and UAH's high altitude figure is absolutely expected.
Ken thinks that disagreement is 'unfortunate'. That's because he's a nitwit in concern troll mode.
JeFfErY you are grandstanding.... you are only exhibiting your self importance here, if you cannot PROVE that co2 has caused any problems then shut up!
That means, YOU PROVE !
And don't give us any of that consensus bullshit
Nick @#70 & #72.
The anomaly in the licence was partly resolved for the Murrumbidgee catchment POST FLOOD and paradoxically and perhaps even ironically AFTER the media and people like Marohasy got a hold of it and over dramatized it all.
The anomaly still exists in the Murray catchment.
A great deal of water has been wasted for no good reason other than inflexibility.
There have been several damaging flow on effects in both valleys.
I think it is a real shame that the relevant authorities did not heed the warnings from well informed people and organisations many months before it got splashed across the media.
That way they could have easily avoided the ensuing damage control.
You are attributing Marohasy way too much credit for any of this.
She was not a major player.
Numptie Nick,
The satellite measured TLT (for JeFfErY, Tropospheric Lower Temperature) accurately shows what most atmosphere above the Australia is doing, which is the quantity that is most directly related to greenhouse gas impacts. The models indicate that the rate of warming should be larger in the mid to upper troposphere than at the surface. If co2 caused warming, it would turn up in the satellite data before we saw it in the surface charts.
:)
#81 You linked to the article, Kaz. Ken indicates it is 'satellite data for the mid-troposphere' ...TMT, not TLT If you want to know what 'most atmosphere' above Australia--and elsewhere-- is doing, see below
You want to know the shape of CO2 induced warming?
#80 "There have been several damaging flow-on effects in both valleys" Such as?
#81
The moron you have now *twice* linked - despite correction - has no idea what he is talking about and nor do you.
Now you force me to repeat myself.
- Your source uses mid-troposphere (MT) data *not* TLT
- There is a known cool bias affecting MT data which is contaminated by cold stratospheric readings
- This is why the rest of what you say is wrong
TLT is in very close agreement with the surface temperature reconstructions - effectively validating them - as I have shown here countless times.
Stop repeating debunked rubbish and try to understand the facts.
Nick - we crossed, sorry.
A general note.
Deniers - yes, this is the correct term - constantly screech that there is no catastrophe yet, no mass extinction yet, no metre of sea level rise yet, so what the scientists say must be "alarmist" and wrong.
This is nonsense.
What the scientists actually do say is that if CO2 forcing continues to rise *then* by later this century irreversible changes will be underway that *will* result in abrupt temperature rise and concomitant mass extinctions, sea level rise, drought, agricultural productivity impacts and so on.
What scientists actually do say - but not often or loudly enough - is that we are still right at the beginning of the process. It will be decades before the true magnitude of climate change will emerge definitively from the weather noise. By which time, it will be far too late to stop or even mitigate the worst damage.
Using present conditions to argue that future change will be trivial or non-existent is a glaring example of intellectual dishonesty or profound stupidity.
The US House Science Committee recommended to cut the budget for certain NOAA activities:
citation:
“With respect to research and service activities, we believe opportunities for some cuts exist particularly with respect to climate-focused efforts unrelated to weather forecasting and emergency preparedness functions….
“We do not support any funding for NOAA’s proposed Climate Service. Despite the claim that this is a budget neutral proposal that would include assets consolidated from other line offices, we have serious concerns regarding the objectivity and utility of a new line office that will place greater strain on existing resources. Furthermore, we are concerned about the tendency that this line office would be used for advocacy as opposed to providing real services. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology launched an investigation into NOAA’s Climate Services on September 21, 2011, and will not support the creation of a climate service until that investigation is complete.”
I hope my friend Tony Abbott will follow the US House and smash down all eco fundamentalist CAGW insanities.
:lol: :lol:
It's a damned shame it didn't manifest for you BBD, if it had of happened then you wouldn't look like such a barbeque sausage fuck now. lol
If it had, I would be on your side :)
Thanks for that. I wanted to ask doofus about what "extinct" means and how that relates to a 40 year period of observed warning. You've dealt with it.
#88 WTF are you blithering about?
Respond to #84. Admit your error.
@BBD
Crap shit insania from one of the most primitive idiots on the internet, a wannabe important, but only mentally impaired crap bollocks moron:
A general note.
Deniers – yes, this is the correct term – constantly screech that there is no catastrophe yet, no mass extinction yet, no metre of sea level rise yet, so what the scientists say must be “alarmist” and wrong.
This is nonsense.
What the scientists actually do say is that if CO2 forcing continues to rise *then* by later this century irreversible changes will be underway that *will* result in abrupt temperature rise and concomitant mass extinctions, sea level rise, drought, agricultural productivity impacts and so on.
What scientists actually do say – but not often or loudly enough – is that we are still right at the beginning of the process. It will be decades before the true magnitude of climate change will emerge definitively from the weather noise. By which time, it will be far too late to stop or even mitigate the worst damage.
Using present conditions to argue that future change will be trivial or non-existent is a glaring example of intellectual dishonesty or profound stupidity
WHAT AN INCREDIBLE STUPIDITY FROM AN IMPAIRED ECO FUNDAMENTALIST FUCKWIT :evil:WHO THINKS HE IS SOMETHING SPECIAL.
NO, HE IS THE ARCHETYPE OF AN IDIOT :evil:
Hahahahaha, something will come in x thousand years, you idiot, hahahahaha, your grand grand grand grand .... 10000x .... grand grand grand children have to move because of flodding, your clown :evil:
piss off now, BBD, you will not be given credit for your hallucinations, fuck off now and try to lead a decent life.
What a maroon!
On a more pleasant note, Sophie Mirabella has just conceded defeat to a humanist who believes in Science!
And take note of the photo of the new Cabinet while you're at the ABC. Yep, Australia's moving forward again - to 1965!
Tell me BBD, when the IPCC made the statement that the Himalayas would be melted within 35 years -
a/ did you believe it, and defend it as being valid ?
b/ did you disbelieve it, and pass on your concerns about that being total rubbish ?
c/ did you disbelieve it, and keep quiet ?
bill :evil:
your usual helpless crap
What a maroon!
On a more pleasant note, Sophie Mirabella has just conceded defeat to a humanist who believes in Science!
And take note of the photo of the new Cabinet while you’re at the ABC. Yep, Australia’s moving forward again – to 1965!
#93
This is not a response to #84. You have not admitted your error.
Please admit your error.
* * *
Re the transposition typo 2350 -> 2035 - only deniers desperate to discredit the IPCC but lacking any scientific grounds for doing so latch on to typos and other trivia.
jeffie, " The best example is the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, when it is likely that the impact of a large asteroid impacting Earth was responsible for massive climate shifts in turn leading to the extinction of dinosaurs."
And what exactly has that to do with co2? Were there any AGW then? What was the level of co2 back then? You are nothing but a shitload of bollocks.
Still you haven't produced one single evidence that anthropogenic co2 is causing extinction of species.
I think you know that they were using gray literature, anything alarmist would do.
Answer the question!
I thought you were supposed to be an Aussie, SpamKan?
#98 bill,
wot ?
And here's another interesting snippet bound to whip the Hysterics into a frenzy. Seems the cure for Wind Turbine Syndrome has been found.