More thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
By popular request. Comments from El Gordo and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by El Gordo and responses to comments by El Gordo should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
This thread is for people who wish to engage Ray in discussion.
Ray, please do not post comments to any other thread.
Everyone else, please do not respond to Ray in any other thread.
By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
Lionel, thanks for emphasizing the points I made. Meatball clearly didn't read any of the articles I put up there yesterday. Moreover, he does not understand whatsoever the concept of historical records. Why oh why do I bother? Its easier to communicate with my Geline wasps.
Olaus
Why have you still not answered these questions? What are you hiding?
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?
4/ If you disagree, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?
Olaus clearly believes that thirty years in the early C20th have some relevance to C21st forced climate change. Obviously they don't but like many an denier, Olaus has created a pointless diversion and now clings desperately to it in order to avoid engaging substantively on any other topic whatsoever.
This is another manifestation of the man's pernicious intellectual dishonesty.
BBD, You are 100% correct. Olaus is creating a diversion and a pathetically weak one at that. But heck, deniers do this all the time. I once had an exchange online with this anti-environmental libertarian clown in Canada that went along similar lines. In that case, the guy was attempting to dispute evidence that acid rain deleteriously affected the health of forest and freshwater ecosystems. When I challenged him, he demanded 100% proof, short of which meant there was no problem. This is the standard refrain of contrarians: that without absolute proof of causation there is no problem. Its like trying to win a pissing match with a skunk.
In the case of Olaus, he thinks he's on intellectual high ground with this new '1910-1940' meme. As I said, there is plenty of empirical evidence of biotic responses to recent warming that are likely unprecedented, if we compare the historical ranges of plants and animals. This includes records made during Olly's time frame. This effectively demolishes his point, but, cornered, his new tactic is to demand data on species abundances and ranges at different times over the past 100 plus years. Again, this has been dealt with, but to him its not 100% proof (e.g. only 99.5%). And, like the acid rain denier, he's sticking to it like glue.
To be honest, I am fed up to here with deniers like Olaus. They are dumbed down, biased, and clearly dishonest, as well as hypocritical. Watch them give clear distortions by contrarians a free pass.
They annoy me too, Jeff, which makes me wonder about why we both post. Perhaps we have a similar compulsion to try to explain things to people who are confused.
There's also a strange fascination with the psychology of denial. Observing all the different ways people lie to themselves and then externalise the awful, twisted unreason they have embraced. I thought I'd seen a fair sample of delusion and dishonesty in my general life, but climate blogs have shown me that I barely scratched the surface. Mind you, there is a reason for this. Just as in academia, this kind of blatant nonsense doesn't typically cut it in a business environment (there are exceptions, as we know). So the crazy was automatically excluded from my professional milieu as it is from yours. You can only get away with behaving like that on the Internet.
Mr Bicorne, you and Lionel have no clue whatsoever if the speed of change was faster during 1975-1998 than it was during 1910-1940.
Then, why do say that is was, when your have nothing to back your assumption with? Nothing....Or?
You portentologist are something extra, that's for sure.
And please don't post any more links stating that the "plant demographics" has changed since the 1960s. That most certainly the case. Get it?
:-)
It's ok to say; "gosh,I didn't know I was making stuff up! Thanks Oluas for setting the record straight!"
You are being an idiot, Olaus.
Look at the C20th temperature record. We are not in 1910 - 1940 now. Things have changed, and because of physics, they will continue to change. The surface warming trend cannot just stop.
GAT 1900 - present, 10 yr running means
So arguing about 1910 - 1940 is irrelevant when the topic is ecosystem impacts of C21st forced warming.
In order to place your own views on the record, you need to set them out. This is why I keep on asking you those five questions.
I'm not doing it to wind you up. I'm doing it because you have not explained your basic position. Once again, I ask that you do so. Since you have refused to answer (1) and (2) I have finally done so for you in the interests of moving this forward. If you disagree with the answers, provide evidence that they are incorrect. This must include source-linked quotes from real climate scientists and published papers.
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
[No, it doesn't.]
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
[No, it doesn't. See #1.]
3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?
4/ If you disagree, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?
@Olaus
Image of our resident fantasist Jeff on a recent field trip (sporting his favoured Bicorne)
http://www.antikcostume.com/images/1500/-10821.jpg
It's not known what he witnessed on this particular occasion, but it will definitely be something to do with climate change (he hasn't decided yet). There will be no numbers, no comparative data, just a clanking of chains, a weeping and a gnashing of teeth.
;)
@BBD
More ineffectual bleating BBD?
;)
So you're fully accepting now that AGW has warmed the planet and will continue to warm the planet.
Great.
Some progress at last.
An excellent and concise general description of your fuckwitted denialism Griselda, as demonstrated by the lack of any data that you or Olap (or his recent Bjornie helpers) have advanced in support of your position.
Demonstrate it.
Go on.
Show where my arguments are flawed.
Then we can have a dialogue.
I would welcome that. You avoid it.
GSW
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
[No, it doesn't]
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
[No, it doesn't. See (1)]
3/ Do you agree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?
4/ If you *disagree*, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures not continue to rise as CO2 concentrations increase?
I’m not doing it to wind you up. I’m doing it because you have not explained your basic position. Once again, I ask that you do so. Since you have refused to answer (1) and (2) I have finally done so for you in the interests of moving this forward. If you disagree with the answers, provide evidence that they are incorrect. This must include source-linked quotes from real climate scientists and published papers.
Hey, don't be the least downhearted, guy.
Imagine the utter bankruptcy of any cause supported - putting all the evidence aside - by sleazy, dishonest arseholes like Olap and Griselda. The sort of absolute pre-lubed dickwads who look toward Jonarse the Incredible (in the original sense of the word) for "guidance" and approval.
They won't respond on your level BBD, because they can't.
It's impossible for them because they don't have the data and because they're dishonest to the core of their beings.
Denialism is a corrosion of the soul paid for by money either real or promised.
Another interesting parallel is how they try to fit Jeff up a some type of 'Napoleon' figure, when history shows that Napoleon was shattered by Wellington at Waterloo. Rather like Jeff shattered Bjorn Lomborg back in 2002..
The Skantrolls' understanding of history is as fucked up as their understanding of climate science. But for obvious reasons they won't be likening Jeff to Wellington anytime soon.
Mr. Petri, I am getting worried. Why are you not posting a link to a graph showing the recent hiatus in global warming you continue to speak of?
Were you lying about the existence of such an hiatus, Mr. Petri?
GSW, that's our Jeff all right, with piles and dressed for faster and faster research in the piles of articles not claiming anything along the lines he think they do. :-)
Stu, you are so boring. You are almost like Jeff and spam-bot BBD. You believe and believe (and hate a lot in between). Dosen't it tell you anything when I pull the trouser down on Jeffie with such ease?
On the other hand he's not a climate scientist, only a climate scare druid, like the rest of you headlss chickens at deltoid.
Regading hitatus, I presume you are referring to the one that has raised the quesion of where thethe "missing heat" has gone? The one that's viewed as mysterious among climate scientist?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2014/plot/hadc…
Good grief, how many times do I have to say it: there was very little change 1910-1940!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Otherwise, the records of plants and animals in certain locations would include many species that were later absent and then either reinvaded or expanded their ranges. The warming circa past 1980 is unprecedented and exceeds any previous warming episode in recorded history. I've given several examples of species - insects and plants - that were either rare of absent from northern Europe until the 1980s. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WERE ALMOST COMPLETELY RESTRICTED TO SOUTHERN EUROPE UNTIL VERY RECENTLY, AND ABSENT OR VERY RARE TO THE NORTH BETWEEN 1910 AND 1940. NOW THEY HAVE NOT ONLY SPREAD INTO NEW BIOMES SINCE THE 1980S, THEY ARE BECOMING ABUNDANT AND IN SOME CASES DISRUPTIVE PESTS THERE. End of story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And there isn't anyone in the field who disputes tis meathead. Not one. Its full accepted that shifts in species polewards or to higher elevations as well as phenological changes to warming (including changes in voltinism - a big word for a dope like you - look it up) are greater in magnitude now than at any time in perhaps many thousands of years, and certainly dwarf any comparable period in the past 200 years. None of my colleagues dispute this. Its accepted fact. When we discuss these changes, not a single colleague speaks about 1910-1940 as a baseline comparison. Not one. What's happening recently is massive in terms of scale. And that is a fact. I don't need to be challenged by some pen-pushing right wing idiot from Sweden whose never studied anything remotely related to this in his miserable life to tell me what the 'truth' is. Stick it in your craw, meathead. Facts are facts, and on the biological magnitude of the recent warming, environmental scientists are in total agreement. So there' the nail on your stupid, fallacious, argument.
What f****** more needs to be said? How utterly stupid are you meathead? And you actually think you are 'pulling down my trousers' (God forbid) with ease?????? Are you are psychopath? I've demolished your stupid point a dozen times and you just do not geddit. I've deconstructed your stupid point piece by piece. In fact, nobody who possessdes even the simplest understanding of ecology brings it up. It says more about you and your level of scientific understanding than about anything else. You are stupid. Ignorant. You don't understand basic concepts in a field in which I have spent more than 20 years of my life yet you think you not only do, but that you are 'on top'. You have gormless (GSW) cheering you on from the sidelines, not because you are right (you aren't) but because your denialism and political view fit in with his.
Get off your ass and see if you can deconstruct the PNAS paper I linked to a couple of days ago. Give it you best shop, meathead. Let's see if the emperor has clothes or not. You're so dumb that you repeatedly used the wrong acronym for the journal.. I let that one pass, simply because I realize how simple you are when it comes to research in my field. I make rings around you in terms of knowledge - not hard because I was trained to and I work in the field. Your posts are actually hilarious, as I explained to my audience in Amsterdam when I spoke on Thursday evening. Your 'territory' argument was below pathetic. It was comedy. It revealed a singular inability to grasp basic concepts on ecology. And yet, here you are, thinking that you are 'winning' our debate. This exceeds narcissism; its more like a form of psychopathy.
Oh, but they do have the data.
They're like the parents of tearaway teenagers blankly staring while they say, "No, officer. My child wouldn't do anything like that. Vandalism? Graffiti? Not a chance. Our whole family stayed together the whole of last night - so it couldn't *possibly* be *any* of them."
They know full well that their kids terrorise the street, deface every surface they find and start most of the fights at school ... but they'll never, ever admit it. To anyone. Some people - those in full-fledged denial - won't even admit it to themselves. Others will mutter something about I wish you wouldn't do that. Others get cross and hit these kids. But they'll still never admit _to anyone else_ that their precious offspring would ever do anything wrong.
I'm not sure whether our assorted assembly of denialists are in the can't-admit-it-to-myself or won't-admit-it-to-anyone-else groups. But whatever it is, they have the data. They just don't want to face it.
(They remind me a bit of some of my grandmother's relatives getting all huffy when one of them started a genealogy project. She was in the process of publishing - for all the world to know - that their grandfather had "another" family. They couldn't bear the thought of the shame and humiliation that would bring down on their prim and proper, mean-spirited, gossip-about-other-people heads.)
Still another study (see also references therein) which evaluates the current predicament and explains the magnitude of contemporary warming when juxtaposed with other anthropogenic stresses to the environment.
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/160/4/1728.full.pdf+html
The bottom line is that ongoing climate warming represents a profoundly serious threat to biodiversity. If temperatures, as projected, continue to rise, then the future is bleak. If we somehow pass 4 C this century then the consequences are too dire to contemplate.
As an postscript, I consider this topic from my perspective closed, at least with respect to Olaus and other deniers whose understanding of ecology and complex adaptive systems is infantile. If sensible people out there want to enquire as to the more intimate effects of warming on species, food webs and communities, I am happy to respond. But I am fed up to here with nincompoops who waste my time and post utter gibberish here whilst thinking that they are making valid points.
Jeff, calm down and admit that there is no scientific studies dealing with the adressed topic (speed). Don't be mad at me for your own unsientific flatulence. The PNSA doesn't determine what you say it does. Get over it, you cultist.
Where is your piles of articles Mr Bicorne? :-)
And the warming period of ca 1975-1998 isn't unprecedented. And now we have had a mysterious hiatus for the last ca 15 years, despite you protentologists feel that the heat is accelerating (in an unprecedented pace). :-)
Jeffie, the unscientific force is strong in you. Farwell, again. I'll take it you go back to your own litte fantasy world where you can fabricate your own truths?
I'm here for you though, when you are ready to face reality again. :-)
@Olaus
"And now we have had a mysterious hiatus for the last ca 15 years,"
just thought i'd point out that nature has it 16yrs, but ca 15 is fine. ;) and they agree with you that it is "mysterious",
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-…
"Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation."
@jeff
You seem to be out on limb here with your 'Hiatus' denial and "spider" thermometers, the "Hiatus" is real, get used to it!
;)
GSW, Olaus,
YADDA, YADDA, YADDA, YADDA, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. More empty musings from Beavis and Butthead. Both of you are as thick as two planks. I see meathead hasn't even begun to read any of the papers I linked. Note also how meathead used the wrong acronym for PNAS (PNSA) again. Talk about dumb.
It would be sad if it wasn't so funny.
GSW you dishonest shill tool, have you forgotten the many illustrations of continued warming presented on this blog alone over the last several years that counter your bullshit statements, statement not based in any kind of fact?
see here for starters:
Long-term warming likely to be significant despite recent slowdown and note:
You see, no pause in warming, warming has not stopped, no real hiatus despite the sloppy language of a few commentators and the ill intentioned amplification by the shills in the media and on blogs.
Such latter liars for hire should start to feel the heat for their dangerous mendacity as mooted hereIs misinformation about the climate criminally negligent? as should you.
Olaus the disturbed:
Infantile blatherings from a grinning idiot (GIT).
Here you go on speed.
In 1835 with the Great Western (Railway) Bill passing through parliament one self professed expert a Dr Dionysius
What has this to do with the matter at hand - nothing, just like your mall-formed questions. Other than that I was reminded of Matt Ridley when I read this
Sources Wkiki and McDermot & Clinker.
Any questions of yours don't deserve an answer until you have answered those put to YOU.
I indicated once before, several years ago, that my pedagogical approach to teaching incorporates the frequent use of questions rather than to simply put fact down in front of my students. And when they ask me questions, if they ask something that I know to be within their capacity to elucidate themselves I'll ask them how they think that they might go about finding the answer.
In doing this I have noted three things. Students with a genuine interest to know - whether they are of superior, average, or even less-than-average intelligence - enthusiastically embrace the challenge and are not daunted if they answer incorrectly. Those who are intellectually lazy or incurious become irritated and/or impatient when challenged with the possibility of answering questions themselves. And amongst mature/adult students, those who don't want to risk getting answers that might challenge their own biases or comfortable perspectives assiduously avoid answering questions posed to them.
To which of the three groups do Olaus Petri and his Scandinavian Troll Collective mates, KarenMackSunspot, Betula belong...?
For Olaus benefit as he is unable to confront the questions on the first dozen or thereabouts askings (and leaving BBD's similar challenges alone for the moment):
For any vaguely arbitrary value of x ranging up to several score*:
1) How many 10-year “pauses” are there in the global temperature record?
2) How many 11-year “pauses” are there in the global temperature record?
3) How many 12-year “pauses” are there in the global temperature record?
…
x) How many (x+9)-year “pauses” are there in the global temperature record?
x+1) Where does the current “pause” fit in this spectrum? (bonus points if they mention Poisson or similar distributions)
x+2) What have global temperatures done across the complete time span of the record?
x+3) What does all this mean?
A pat on the head if you can detail how you would arrive at such determinations.
For a gold star and a koala stamp, can you explain how the heat budget of the Earth has changed over the last 16 years compared to the time before that? In other words, is the difference between heat in and heat out at the top-of-atmosphere differen today compared to 16 or more years ago?
And if so, how?
The semester is marching onward Olaus,
I see the monocornes are relying on Hadcrut4 in an attempt to show their 'hiatus', when it's well known that the series only covers 84% of the globe with regions showing most warming not included.
" The widely used Hadley Centre–Climatic Reseach Unit Version 4 (HadCRUT4) dataset covers on average about 84% of the globe over recent decades, with the unsampled regions being concentrated at the poles and over Africa."
When more complete global coverage is included, as BBD has already shown that also includes NOAA, RSS, GISS, BEST and SSTs from Hadcrut 3 to give the most complete global picture, their dishonesty and delusion is exposed.
Giving data to fools who neither know what it describes or how to use it pretty much sums up Olap and GSW's comprehension, and deniers generally.
You just dropped a pin chek?
I'll drop one, have you seen this 'Phoenix Squadron' review in the Telegraph of which I was recently made aware?
It's a great read Lionel, and that review does what a review should - compel you to read the story. Plus it's amazing what and who can show up when researching the period.
The one thing that niggles me though is that (and this not only applies to the Services) it encourages politicians to think that more can be done with less. And less, and less...
#28 Thanks chek.
Getting sick of repeating previous comments over and over again as the same old liars repeat the same old debunked lies. Again and again.
I see neither GSW nor Olaus has even acknowledged my repeated posting of those five questions. When people won't engage, you know they are lying.
I also wonder how long we are going to have to wait before GSW explains how a global and synchronous MCA as warm as or warmer than the present can be squared with a low climate sensitivity.
Please do explain this, GSW, since it was you that most recently reintroduced that claim to the thread.
Since the cherry-picking and lies continue unabated...
No we haven't, you miserable lying fuck. Your dishonesty is jaw-dropping. You repeat this lie just a few comments after lamely producing a graph covering thirteen years - not fifteen - and using a cherry pick for your choice of record.
I will do the same, but rather than the hated Hadley CRU data I will use that of noted sceptic Roy Spencer at UAH.
The trend is positive over 13 years and even more positive over 15 years.
You are simply lying. And you have been shown that you are lying over and over and over again on this thread alone.
GSW
The 16 year claim is wrong, just like the 15 year claim. I told you a couple of pages back that the Tollefson article was a mess and his use of "hiatus" was - like yours - indefensible.
Read the words; you might learn something important. And in the meantime, stop lying incessantly.
* * *
Let's get rid of the 1998 Super El Nino cherry-pick shall we? In an absolutely fair and transparent manner:
GISTEMP 1979 – present; linear fits 1979 – (end of) 1997 and 1999 - present
That's with the year 1998 missed out. No cherry-pick with 1998 as an end point and no cherry-pick with it as a start point.
Look mum - no "hiatus"...
Now, let's add the overall 1979 – present linear trend:
As above, but with linear trend 1979 - present
Over a full climatology, the warming trend is unequivocal.
Now, once again, the questions you are both too dishonest and cowardly to address:
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
[No, it doesn't]
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
[No, it doesn't. See (1)]
3/ Do you agree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?
4/ If you *disagree*, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures not continue to rise as CO2 concentrations increase?
* * *
By the way, I would like you to know that you are scum, the pair of you.
They're like the very worst used car salesmen, aren't they?Sleazy water carriers for liars with no idea of the value of the truth or the right thing.
In fact everything their dumb conspiracy accuses others of.
It's the combination of self-congratulatory wrongness and all-consuming intellectual dishonesty that is so galling. How is it possible to be so smug and so hopelessly and demonstrably wrong at the same time?
The hard-core denialist mindset is incomprehensible.
Maybe this should be asked of Lord Ridley, but then he has grounds to be smug:
Viscount Ridley, interesting conflicts of interest there.
Their own projection provides the answer.
It's a cult.
And some cults are fostered by outside interests for their own purposes. I don't know if you caught this here earlier but I find it explains the full spectrum of loony-toons from McIntyre and Watts down to the dregs like Olap and Griselda and Duffer et al.
" the real purpose of it all may be to undermine the very notion of expertise in our civilization, leaving no strong force to challenge any ruling elite.
Ruling elites are ruthless bastards and the right wing push involving Rove and similar apparatchicks in Sweden and elsewhere to dismantle European social democracy is in full swing.
Chek
I did see your comment and I've read David Brin's article before. I tend to agree. Hence the projection about "green" authoritarianism by the other lot.
As to Rove - and the rest - the termite-hollowing of democracy by vested interest buzzes along nicely.
On which point, I wonder who the overseas investors Noel Edmonds has lined up to bid for the BBC are?
I think that's a first, btw. A link to the Daily Mail without the intention of demonstrating that what is written there is bollocks. It may well *be* bollocks, but the same story ran in the Sunday Times today. One to keep an eye on, IMO.
Oops. Missed the key link and point: that would be Noel Edmonds who is in very tight with the Renewable Energy Foundation, which is not exactly a pressure group pushing for more wind and solar.
Apparently Olaus isn't aware the "hiatus" ended 3 years ago:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2011/to:2014/plot/hadc…
A bit slow on the uptake, these deniers, aren't they?
George Monbiot's good article about biogas:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2014/mar/14/uk-ban…
"Another example is provided by the giant wombat, the diprotodon, which some scientists have argued browsed bush across Australia and kept biomass levels very low. When the diprotodon vanished, plants and shrubs across the outback grew unhindered. The result was major bush fires which, archaeologists have discovered, became a serious problem just after the giant wombat disappeared from Australia."
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/15/what-killed-giant-beasts…
So....we need to bring back the giant wombats!
O'lapdog The Dishonest links us to a temp data plot from a cherry-picked 2001 to illustrate a hiatus. It does look pretty flat.
Let's have a look at it when we start at 2000. How strange _ the hiatus is gone and there's a definite trend up. There's also a trend up starting at 1999; there's a trend up starting at that favoured cherry-pick year of 1998; there's a trend up at 1997, and at 1996 the slope is even more steep.
Now let's look at the 30 year timespan that climate scientists tell us is the accepted length of time for a meaningful analysis. Aye Carumba!! Look at the steepness of the slope! Oh well....
OK, let's try a different timespan; a shorter one because deniers just love analysing short timespan (they get more choice to cherry-pick from). 2010 to 2012. Holy Scandinavian batshit! THERE'S AN ICE AGE COMING!!!
Oh, so much agony because Mr self-loving Bicorne, climate scare geezer, couldn't back up his portentology with science. :-)
The piles of science was only Jeff's own itching piles. Ass usual. ;-)
And while the scientific world tries to understand the hiauts, deltoids live in the fantasy that the accerlerating global warming is still all over the place. :-)
"The piles of science was only Jeff’s own itching piles"
Says meatball, who didn't read a single study I pasted up, continually gave the wrong acronym for a major journal, and fails to explain why the Web of Science is full of studies showing a link between climate warming and responses across ecosystems.
This is his only response after being thoroughly shellacked. Heck, Lomborg was easy to debate, but meathead is much easier. One has lost a debate when, in response to a massive amount of empirical literature, all they can respond is by saying much of what meathead says. The only reason he gets away with it is because its a blog and one can be super selective in their responses. In a public venue he'd be jeered off the stage. But what does one expect when they pit a scientist with 25 years experience against a non-scientist pen pusher? Olaus and I weren't exactly starting on even intellectual ground.
#45, it has emotions, therefore typos. Interesting.
Is the REF an outreach for the GWPF. Probably not that simple but given the following:
From a linked to Guardian article: Edmonds joins fight against wind farms which admittedly is ten years old,
WTF do these anti wind farmers think the countryside will be like if fracked to hell into some form of Mordor. I know which I would prefer. If Delingpole is against it then anybody else of like mind is a similar jerk. I also smell Peter Lilley in the mix behind this.
Mr Crinkley Bottom certainly saw to it that the BBC wasted much license fee money in the production of his execrable TV show - froth but of the type OP and GSW would appreciate no doubt.
Good catch that one on biogas craig seeing as the topic featured on yesterdays Countryfile., another example of 'the unintended consequences of political meddling'
Biogas from waste (all that food supermarkets chuck out) only is one thing for in landfill it will output methane anyway.
Maybe the Abbott administration, and its cheerleaders in the media, can be sent out to do the giant wombat dinner and dance.
Unknown knowns.
We have long known that melting Greenland ice is contributing to sea level rise (look up Chasing Ice) and that the melt will probably increase in pace as the Earth warms with the Arctic warming many times faster than the average but now one of those unknowns is becoming better known as:
Sustained mass loss of the northeast Greenland ice sheet triggered by regional warming
For background story see here:
New Greenland Ice Melt Fuels Sea Level Rise Concerns.
Hiatus! Whisky Foxtrot hiatus?
Olaus redundantly confirms that he is too stupid or too dishonest (or both) to grasp anything that has been explained to him on this thread.
Don't forget everything Mr. Monocorne says is emotional projection and that can't answer the outstanding questions for him. He can only babble 'hiatus' because he doesn't understand the data, and doesn't comprehend his assertion has been proven false.
He thinks there's an argument where there's none to be had once the lies have been stripped away.
Until Olaus learns that the climate system as a whole is mostly ocean and OHC continues to rise without "pause" or "hiatus", he will be vulnerable to the liars and he will re-broadcast their lies.
Until Olaus learns that climate science never predicted monotonic warming nor ever said that natural variability will stop, he won't be able to understand that there's nothing really "mysterious" about a decade where the troposphere has warmed less rapidly than previous decades.
Until he learns what "transient" actually means in the context of natural climate variability, he will continue to imagine that there actually *is* a "hiatus" and that it actually means something for our understanding of AGW.
Until Olaus and many, many other denier simpletons learn that you cannot extract an informative estimate of TCR never mind ECS from a decade or two of data they will carry on claiming - incorrectly - that a period of transient variability somehow undermines the scientific understanding of AGW.
Unfortunately, some combinations of stupidity and intellectual dishonesty are virtually impossible to crack.
And laziness. Don't forget Mr. Monocorne is (like the vast majority of deniers) primarily a conspiracy theorist. One definition of which gives idiots the chance to feel smarter than everybody else (because they've seen through the scam) without doing the necessary work required to be so.
Think of how many other total morons fitting the description have passed through these doors.
Note that the O'lap-dog also failed to answer my question WRT the heat capacities of those components of the climate system.
Too complicated, Lionel. Baby steps...
Here we go again again again -
So we can add the AMA to the list of the people the reactionary blowhards know better than...
I don'tt suppose it would come as too great a shock Bill, to find that The prime movers in that story are an astroturf entity
"The Waubra Foundation claims to be an independent organisation but it has direct links to the Australian Landscape Guardians, the Liberal Party of Australia and mining interests who in turn have inks with the right wing thinktank, Institute of Public Affairs, (IPA).
The Waubra Foundation does not exist in any physical sense, there is no building, just a post office box. The address, Box No.1136, South Melbourne, Victoria 3205, is shared by Sarah Laurie, the Australian Landscape Guardians and Lowell Resources, a mining investment company owned by Peter Mitchell.
Honestly, the gall of this stupid woman:
"I work full time and despite the claims, big oil isn’t sending cheques, and there are no government grants to fund someone to fill in the gaps the CSIRO ($1.2b budget) and BOM ($300m) seem to miss. "
Yes, Jo Nova, who has never conducted let alone published any science research, is filling in the gaps CSIRO and BOM are missing.
What a stupendous twit.
Didn't she supply a "sceptic" handbook or similar to Heartless for a mass mailing? Or doesn't she count that as "big oil"?
The sheer, oblivious arrogance of this statement - and the dozens like it - just blows me away.
Even if I found something weird, strange, apparently missing in a dataset or an analysis or a report, I'd presume that the first, best strategy for resolving it would be to write to the people concerned and ask them to clear it up for me. (I wouldn't though. I know full well that any such misapprehension on my part will be explained by something so clearly, appallingly simple and obvious that I'd blush with shame in the privacy of my own house.)
She can't bring herself to ask questions of the people who're paid all those dollars to explain stuff to us. Arrogant doesn't begin to cover it.
Yep, the hubris is something to see!
Are we still interested in ecological shifts due to climate changing in particular regions? Here ya go.
Summary
A 39-year study of wildflower blooms in a Rocky Mountain meadow shows more than two-thirds of alpine flowers changed their blooming pattern in response to climate change. Half are beginning to bloom weeks earlier, more than a third are reaching peak bloom earlier, and others' last blooms are later. Records of more than two million blooms show flowering plants' response to climate change is more complex than previously believed. Species that depend on wildflowers are likely to be affected.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140317155611.htm
Or is there something wrong about observing something carefully for 4 decades and making 2 million individual observations?
@chek (aka Mr Monocorne)
http://www.royalcrowntattoo.net/images/dunce-cap.jpg
Come on chek, we know you're not the sharpest tool in the box, but ref your #17, and thinking jeff is 'Napolean', nobody thinks that! He's a fantasist, that's the point!
Reliving past conflicts in his head where, rather than being an embarrassment, people are "scared" of him, audiences cheer him, (and tell him privately afterwards that he is the best) He lives in his own little world; a complete, certifiable, fruit cake!
I see the "Hiatus" denial continues up thread.
Enjoy Deltards!
;)
So kind of you to take the time to transcribe your brainfart...
GSW, In your book I am a 'certifiable fruitcake' for the simple reasons that (1) I disagree with just about everything you say, (2) I do it by demolishing it with empirical arguments, and (3) I am a qualified scientist. The latter is important because, like it or not, it gives credibility to my arguments.
Its probably no coincidence that in my career the few people I have met that attack me are all what I would refer to as 'contrarians', 'deniers', 'anti-environmentalists' and others with similar generally right wing views. I actually must be considered a threat when I am attacked by these kinds of people, including those in right wing think tanks and lobbying groups, as well as a very small number of mostly old retired scientists. On the other hand, my research is very well respected in the scientific community, I am invited to many conferences and workshops, often as keynote or plenary speaker, and I get along very well with my colleagues and others I have met around the world.
That I clash with dopes like you, Olaus, Jonas and others therefore does not bother me in the least. I am actually flattered - it means I am saying the right things. But to called a 'fantasist'- given that powerful, vested interests appear to be intent on sending our planet's ecological life support systems to hell - takes the cake. I am sure that esteemed researchers like Paul Ehrlich, Edward O. Wilson, Tom Lovejoy, the late Stephen Schneider, Michael Mann, James Hansen etc. have also been called 'fantasists'from those on the academic fringe or from the broad anti-environmental movement. It goes with the territory when qualified people speak out.
GSW, I should therefore thank you for what, coming from an idiot like you, is indeed a compliment. I think Bill also sums it up @69.
craig,
Did you misspell that last word by any chance, easy typo to do?
And I see that GSW is demonstrating that his brain is also composed of
and he tops up with every post he makes.
The latest state of Greenland Ice movement, see #54 above, has now been picked up at Climate Crocks:
New Paper: Awakening Greenland Giant – Not So Jolly
I find Climate Progress returning a 503 error, on the odd occasion when the home page fetches clicking a story link brings up a 503. I am curious as to if this is just a UK thing.
Fellow (sensible) Deltoiders,
Just one more comment in addition that that I posted above in response to GSW's smear.
I know he, Olaus and the few other deniers that post in here aren't the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree, but what strikes me is their utter hypocrisy. No person who has posted on Deltoid in my experience ever had a higher view of themselves than Jonas. Though he clearly has no scientific background, there were many occasions where he said that he knew more than anyone else on Deltoid. One could not be more brazen, given their lack of professional training. Against this background Jonas was cheered on supinely by GSW, Olaus, PentaxZ and a few others. They were his 'ego-stokers'.
The denier blogs are full of self-righteous, narcissistic blowhards, yet I don't see GSW attacking any of them. Some have no scientific pedigree at all, but act is they are know-it-alls, whereas those few who are scientists in any fields lap up the compliments thrown at them, or else have their qualifications blown up out of all proportion (e.g. see Poptech's list).
Again, if I agreed with the bile spewed out by GSW, I'd be treated like a deity by him. But since I vehemently disagree with all of it, then I am a pariah. As I said earlier, I get along well with the vast majority of my peers and there are very few people I know with whom I don't get along well. GSWs attack says more about him than it does about me.
GSW
Yet another lie.
As you are too dishonest to acknowledge, the problem lies in the terminology. "Hiatus" - though used by some scientists - is inaccurate as it implies a halt, albeit a temporary one. Ditto "pause".
It is much more correct to say that we are experiencing a transient slowdown in the rate of surface warming. No such transient slowdown in the rate of ocean heat uptake has occurred, so the climate system as a whole has not experienced any "hiatus" in warming.
The first mistake is to treat the troposphere as if it were the entire climate system rather than just a very small part of it. The bulk being ocean.
The second mistake is to believe that we can extract informative estimates of TCR or even ECS from a brief and transient period of variability in the rate of surface warming.
All we end up with, GSW, is another redundant demonstration that you, like Olaus, are either too stupid or too mendacious (or both) to understand what I have now said countless times on this thread.
Jeff, yes you make stuff up, all the time. Your epic win against Lomborg is most likely the very opposit, like GSW points out: an embarresment for you. :_)
And Jeff, there are probably some areas where we disagree, but most of them are things you have fabricated. Just take a lookie at your miserable performance regarding the speed of "plant demograhics". You invent that I didn't blieved that "plant demographics" had changed since the 1980s, and attacked me for it. It didn't matter that I told you over and over again that I agreed with you inte that respect.
Anything for not adressing the real issue: that you had invented (or wished) that it was "unprecedented". :-)
Meathead, please tell me once - ONCE - where I have made something up. Never have, never will. Unlike you, I do have some professional experience in the field and piles more knowledge than you or Jonas or his poodle, GSW in population and systems ecology (as well as in global change biology). Your problem is that, like Jonas, you expect everyone here to believe the shit you peddle.
Its pitiful to see lonely old Jonas whimpering away over in his own padded cell, claiming I am 'screeching' (now that's a bit rich coming from him of all people) and that I 'cannot have debated Lomborg' for whatever reason. Oh yeh, I debated him alright. And it was a piece of cake, Why? Because they guy has written only a single paper in his life on "Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma"in a Danish jail. He admits in the preface of his book that 'he is not an expert as regards environmental problems' (Oh so true and the most honest revelation in TSE). I might as well have been debating a kindergarten student. What became clear as I dissected him bit by bit is that he is an empty vessel. He generally steers away from scientific groups where there are ecologists or environmental or climate scientists because, like me, they can shred his arguments. So he generally speaks only to social scientists, economists and journalists who are even dumber than him, at least when it comes to the science inherent in understanding the biosphere.
Thus, Lomborg does well on the think tank, corporate media and academic circuit so long as can avoid scientists in the various fields he hashes up. Its a great act, if one considers how much laypeople have lapped it all up. But then again, Lomborg never intended his message for those who know hundreds of times more than he does. His strategy, and Jonas (although he is a nothing) uses it to, is to target people who know just a little bit less than they do. As I have said, if Jonas was the big genius he claims to be then he'd take his wisdom to the world. But he's a loser stuck on the blogosphere (like you, meathead and GSW for that matter). Heck you clowns even hide behind acronyms. What are you afraid of? Tell us everything about your career, your vast achievements etc. I'm all eyes and ears, guys.
By the way meathead, the reason I call you just that is because of a ridiculously stupid remark you made in your last post. It may be a translation problem, but I never accused you of saying that 'plant demographics have not changed since thew 1980s'. Where you get this from is anybody's guess. What I said was that you downplay recent changes by either claiming that they aren't really that significant in ecological terms or in evolutionary time frames, or that shifts of similar magnitude occurred earlier last century.
Moreover, I never mentioned plants alone in the first place, but in the context of community scale interactions involving both primary producers and consumers (animals, pathogens etc). Given the historical record, I say that the magnitude of recent changes in abiotic processes linked with AGW is likely to be unprecedented in tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years. The temporal scale we are talking about is the blink of a geological eye. Deniers just cannot get their pointy little heads around this fact. They think 80 years is a long time and that 500 is veritably prehistoric. But for complex adaptive systems 100 years is nothing. Stasis and not stochasticity are the norm at larger scales of space and time. Against this climatic assault on nature are a myriad of other anthropogenic changes that amplify the effects of the warming. Most of the world's terrestrial ecosystems have been severely fragmented or simplified, adding another major constraint to the ability of natural systems to respond adaptively. We are challenging natural systems to respond to a suite of constraints that far exceed anything nature has faced in human history. We already know that we have greatly reduced genetic diversity across many global ecosystems, and we also know that genetic diversity is an essential pre-requisite for adaptation.
To be honest, I don't give a rat's ass what you or GSW think or say about any of this. Neither of you has a clue about what you write, at least where it overlaps into the environmental arena. The only reason I counter your crap is to ensure that anybody casually reading here will know what a couple of simpletons your are.
Olaus
The only person "fabricating" anything here is you. Having lost the argument repeatedly and been shown up as a dishonest moron, you are now reduced to verballing Jeff in the most transparent, clumsy and childish way possible.
You have run your course here. FWIW, I agree with others that you and GSW (and Pentax) should be confined to the Jonas thread for serial intellectual dishonesty and generally being irritating prats.
I note that Climate progress is back, sort of as it loks like some recent articles have been culled including one on Paris smog and fracking connected quakes in Ohio state.
Some talk of The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse WRT the demise of forced culling of the human species but I figure that there are more than four, although it could be argued that the topic in mind in this post is just a part of one of them.
Those who have read Professor Callum Roberts's books about the depletion of aquatic species by over harvesting will be familiar with this at Climate Crocks:
Fish Story: A Meditation.
Olaus the Undone, you dolt, stat here:
UCS Examines 'The Skeptical Environmentalist'
more here:
THE LOMBORG-ERRORS WEB SITE
There isn't much you are any good at is there you dolt Olaus the Undone, you cannot even make stuff up convincingly.
Of course Lomborg has been the topic of counter posts at DeSmogBlog and here:
So what’s wrong with Lomborg?.
Where this is a very pertinent point raised by Simon D in post #11
John Mashey also adds to the brew in #13 and Jeff at #17, worth a trip down the memory hole perhaps. That will not apply to OP and GSW, they have no memory.
Leaked final draft AR5 WG2 reviewed in The Independent (UK newspaper)
Here's a question to anyone with knowledge of genetics:
How many generations of inbreeding would be required to produce imbeciles the likes of GSW and O'louse?
I hope the government in whatever country they're from gives some thought to encouraging everyone in their village to go on the pill. I can't imagive how fucked the planet will be if all those inbreds give birth to more denier cretins of the calibre of Gormless and Witless.
Griselda @ #68
Thanks for explaining to your fellow tarbaby what a monocorne is - I thought it had gone right over your and Olap's pointy little heads.
"Come on chek, we know you’re not the sharpest tool in the box, but ref your #17, and thinking jeff is ‘Napolean’, nobody thinks that! He’s a fantasist, that’s the point! "
No, the point is that your metaphor is fucked over, under, sideways and down no matter which way you look at it, with deniers like you and Lomborg being the fantasists who imagine you have the slightest clue. Your troll clique are of course thicker than concentrated shit under pressure, as you demonstrate each time you visit.
At least after Jeff's pounding, Lomborg has the sense to avoid conflicting with those who recognise his brand of bullcrap a mile away. But you don't even display that low level of cunning.
And what of your cult captain Jonarse - still no paradigm changing paper from him? Or likely he's still not twigged that refusal to accept changes nothing and the world marched on. No doubt he's still pining for Bjornie and badmouthing Jeff Harvey. That, after all was his whole mission here but I can no longer be bothered even to click to find out.
To Gormless the Witless and his little boyfriend O'lapdog,
In the same vein as my preceding post, could you please just keep doing what you've been doing in private in your motel room. At least that way you can't procreate.
But for the love of God, and humanity's sake, DON'T GO MESSING ABOUT WITH WOMEN!! Please don't spread those genes!! Please, please!! Have pity on mankind.
For Aussies,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjLK9ug6MB4&list=UU2rwiyz-ZyJoB-kqAEgHq…
This cracked me up.
GSW says he sees "hiatus denial".
I see if there ever was any "hiatus" (eg, the laws of physics suspended themselves for a while or something) it is clearly over:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2011/to:2014/plot/hadc…
So who's in denial, GSW?
C'mon guys, we know by now that reasoned answers to questions are a no-go territory for the spamklan. Spouting memes from the dregs of denier central is all they do.
With the information and number of links to data in this thread alone, a vaguely interested amoeba would be educated by now.
Unusually warm winter causes gas demand to drop by 21.5% in France this year:
"La douceur du climat fait plonger la consommation de gaz
La consommation de gaz en France a chuté de 21,5% en janvier-février du fait de l'hiver anormalement doux dans l'Hexagone qui a notamment réduit les besoins en chauffage."
http://www.lefigaro.fr/conso/2014/03/18/05007-20140318ARTFIG00228-la-do…
Craig @ # 89.
Using the the same program and plotting the last 10 years.
2004 to 2014.
This is the result.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2004/to:2014/plot/hadc…
For 15 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/to:2014/plot/hadc…
The trend line shows less that 0.1 degree across the whole 15 years.
20 Years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1994/to:2014/plot/hadc…
Once again it is only around 0.1 degrees.
I would question whether plotting 3 years would be proof of anything having started or finished or paused or whatever.
I think time frames for significant trends for climate need to be a bit longer than 3 years don't they?
If we plot the previous 3 years this is the result:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2008/to:2011/plot/hadc…
Which has a very slight but stronger trend than the 3 years you picked
2 stupid - read #31 and try to understand why amateurs playing with numbers they don't understand are disregarded at best and ridiculed at worst. Your post history places you in the latter group.
Apologies 2 stupid. I said "amateurs", when I of course meant "idiots".
Good post at Eli's, illustrating the point that deniers - and their tropes - really haven't changed much over the years...
The point is, Stu2, there can't possibly be any "hiatus" when the last 3 years shows a strong warming trend.
Don't believe me, just believe the facts:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2011/to:2014/plot/hadc…
Clearly, it is warming.
And if you're not happy with using 3 years as a suitable time period, let's use all the available data:
40 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1973/to:2014/plot/hadc…
or 114 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1901/to:2014/plot/hadc…
More warming. Clearly, it is warming. Only an idiot would deny that it is warming. None of the scientists deny it, for the very good reason that they understand how physics works: the radiative imbalance is a reality and it is a plain fact that it is causing wamring, and has done so for a good long while now.
Chek @ #94,
Yes I read your post @ #31
" ” The widely used Hadley Centre–Climatic Reseach Unit Version 4 (HadCRUT4) dataset covers on average about 84% of the globe over recent decades, with the unsampled regions being concentrated at the poles and over Africa.”
I am unclear why you think that makes any difference to my comment to Craig @ #92 ?
I questioned Craig's claim @ # 89 that the Hadcrut4 graph from 2011 to 2014 would indicate anything particularly significant or as Craig claimed:
" it is clearly over"
Craig Thomas,
I wasn't denying it is warming.
I was simply questioning your claim 'it is clearly over' based on the Hadcrut4 graph?
By 'it' I assumed you meant the 'hiatus' or the 'pause' or even BBD's terminology @ # 75 - 'a transient slowdown in the rate of surface warming.' ?
Thanks for the link Bill to Eli's post. Its a good illustration of the various stages of denial until the shit truly hits the fan. Passenger pigeons were, when North America was 'colonized' by Europeans, the most abundant species of bird in North America. They ranged from the Gulf States to southern Canada, and numbers were estimated in the tens of billions. Audubon, that famous naturalist/killer of birds and mammals, claimed to have seen a flock that stretched over the horizon. A combination of factors led to their demise. First of all, their tight flocks meant a single buckshot could kill dozens. The birds remained in certain areas, making it easy to annihilate vast numbers of them. Surprisingly, they had a low reproductive potential, but lived for quite a long time, meaning they were highly K-selected; k-selected species are often much more vulnerable to extinction that r-selected species. They also depended on large swathes of unbroken habitat for their survival, and bred in large colonies with a complex social structure that required the persistence of large numbers of individuals. The loss of forest habitat therefore was certainly a factor in their demise (by 1872 about half of the eastern forests had been cleared - an historical low). There has even been a compelling argument made that the extirpation of the passenger pigeon has played a significant role in the spread of deer-tick borne Lyme disease in the northern US. What this shows is that there are huge and unpredictable consequences of global change that trickle down from biomes through ecosystems to the level of species and populations. Ecologist Daniel Janzen once said that the ultimate extinction is the extinction of species interactions, and on this he is certainly correct.
It would have been interesting to see how denial played out in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Certainly, pressures on nature have increased by many factors since then as the human population, coupled with per capita consumption, has grown virtually exponentially. Still, the human assault on nature has been going on for centuries. And along with it there must have been some forms of denial, even if our understanding of the consequences of this destruction was much less defined than it is today.
Stu 2 knows better, and so does Olaus -- so for the lurkers:
When pushed for a "hiatus", we get a cherry-picked, stupidly short period of a known incomplete instrument record @20 -- 2001 to 2014 shows a down trend! Yay! Now try 2000-2014. Oh. Right.
Let's count the myriad ways people have shown this to be idiotic.
- Hadcrut4 is not global warming.
- One year fiddle and the trend reverses.
- You can find many magical 13-year "hiatuses" (try 63-76, for example). Did warming end in 76? No. That's why 13 years means squat.
- To drive this home, we've been pointing out the strong warming over the past 3 years. Yes, it's ludicrous -- that's the point.
The denialists still don't get it, and still talk of an "hiatus". Idiots, liars or both? You decide.
I opt for both, Stu. In equal and large measures.
I am waiting for Olaus, GSW or one of the other deniers to write in here in response to my last post, arguing with their 'vast knowledge' and 'expertise' that passenger pigeons were not driven to extinction by humans, but that they just went through a 'natural cycle' or a 'dip' that just so happened to end up with them disappearing entirely.
This is about the intellectual depth of their understanding of nature. Some of the stuff they say is so gob-smackingly simple that even I find it hard to respond. When I debated Lomborg I had to descent to the sandbox, given his understanding of the environment is also basal, but its much the same with Olly, GSW, Jonas and others.
Stu @# 100 previous page.
I basically agree with you.
I'm questioning why Craig Thomas cherry picked the last 3 years from hadcrut4 & then claimed "it is clearly over".
Jeff, your observations about the complexities of the passenger pigeon's ecology have implications for humanity's own sruvival. In many ways we are kin the the passenger pigeon: we are an abundant k-selected species with complexities of social structure the have key vulnerability points.
The problem is that very few of our species actually understands this.
Tee hee: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/worm-evolves-to-eat-corn-that…
Stu2
The troposphere isn't the climate system. It's only a tiny bit of it. The climate system is mostly ocean. The rate of tropospheric warming is modulated by the rate of ocean heat uptake, which, it turns out, is influenced by zonal windspeeds in the equatorial Pacific.
When we look at the rate of increase in ocean heat content, it is clear that there has been no pause or hiatus or even slowdown in the rate at which energy is accumulating in the climate system as a whole.
Hyperfocus on transient variability in the rate of tropospheric warming is a red-herring. With AGW, the centennial trend is the key issue, which is why deniers and contrarians go crazy trying to distract from it.
This conversation was exhausted a page ago. Please do not attempt to restart it.
Thanks for this Bernard. Yes indeed, our ecology and that of the passenger pigeon are not as different as one might expect. Our species is supinely arrogant to think that it has evolved beyond constraints imposed by nature. Ultimately, if we not change course, this will be our undoing. There's little doubt that we are heading for an abyss in the dark, and at an increasing rate of speed...
Jeff
Indeed and one facet of that I indicated in my #81 on previous page here which may have got lost in the noise from the children 2stupid & co.. After all this is what they are reduced to, creating noise like infants wanting their nappies changed. Bwah! Bwah! Bwah! .....
I see gormless is on the Jonas thread revealing his ultra-right wing neocon/fasciist views to his hero, Jonas. In this case, he's adoring Mark Steyn, who as anyone with a bit of common sense knows comes from the far, far end (Tea Party) of the political right. And to think gormless expects to be taken seriously.
As I have said many times, the climate change deniers almost without exception are extreme right wing loonies. Gormless is doing nothing more than showing his true colors.
This says it all: "Mark Steyn regularly fills in for Rush Limbaugh on the Rush Limbaugh show".
Does it get any more obvious than this???? Simply but, the little band of deniers on Deltoid share a common political philosophy with Rush Limbaugh. And to think: gormless called me a 'fantasist'.
The mind boggles.
Steyn has a lot of apologists from the loon wing.
Their problem is that all they can cite is denialist trash of the 'hockey stick is broken' variety. There have been several previously, but the latest thread at Eli Rabett's burrow gives the overall flavour.
With the proceedings moving into the discovery phase, I hope Steyn is taking extra special care in traffic or crossing the road as he's got some very ugly connections who may not appreciate the light of day being thrown on their activities.
Jeff, fascism isn't "right-wing". I thought I had told you that it grew out of the black-and-white hateful doctrines of communism and syndicalism? That's why its anti-liberal, anti-bourgeoisie and anti-capitalistic, like you my hateful friend. Or did you forget? :-)
Oh, here we go again with the Olaus redefinition of fascism. Olly, you are a lunatic. And I am only 'hateful' because I loathe right wing idiots like you. I consider that a personal attribute. Get lost or go hang out with your pals in the John Birch Society or whatever equivalent they have in Sweden.
I guess Olly is a big fan of these fruitcakes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_Democrats
Olap the monocorne is a Humpty-Dumptyist.
A word means whatever he chooses it to mean — neither more nor less. I recall him even "correcting" Mussolini. Good times ...
Of course, what's obvious is that along with climate denial and redefinition of 'fascism', other forms of denial can't be too far behind.
chek the way in which arsepunk is being held by the ears and slapped around the mat over there is fine example of denier self destruction..
Why do they keep digging their holes? Maybe these moles like being whacked.
Oh, you did forget. :-) While Mussolini was a blood thursty communist, director of Avanti!, and colleague of Gramsci, he was as anti-liberal, anti-bourgeoisie and anti-capitalistic as he was when he came up with fascism.
There you have fascism's ideological roots in one historical package. :-)
Why is that so hard to deal with Jeffie?
I don't like fascism more than you do Jeffie, even though (judged by your expressed hateful opinions) you seem to harbour many ideas that goes hand in hand with that ideology.
OP you are barking.
And you Lionel can't handle the truth.
Olap the monocorne, as your posting history for - what? -2 years now shows, you're a dumbass water carrier and parrot without the means to construct an argument as you have zero understanding.
Dumbasses like you don't get to redefine words or terms, although you may at some point wonder why you feel the need to do so.
But with you being merely a carrier and a parrot, I don't see that day ever coming.
Fellas, I'm more than willing to discuss, in a civil manner, the ideological roots of fascism, but it's hard to do so when you only come up with mouth-frothing.
We can discuss the "The young Mussolini", if you want? When reading it it's hard not seeing where fascism, at large, came from. I especially like the part where it is highlighted that Gramsci reckoned that Mussolin slowly transformed Avanti! into a forum for "syndicalists theoreticians". (p. 135)
http://books.google.se/books?id=DTZ_holEfS0C&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=muss…
Fuck off Olap.
Oh my.
I hear the loud hateful noise of empty vessels, and nothing else, like always.
Contemplate on "the young Mussolini". It's food for thought, not the least for you portentologists.
''sfunny what one comes across by sheer serandipity whilst going through links at sites, in a game of snakes and ladders at Eli's I ended up on this one where stars akin to OP, GS and 2Stu self immolate as RT and TF dig deeper :
Infra Digging Michael Tobis
which made me wonder if that is who, Tom Fuller, Duffer got his ship-bucket-thermometer temperature reading technique from. It is good to be reminded about who are NOT the good guys and why.
Lionel, anything to say about the "the young Jeff"?
Olaus, follow Chek's advice, will you?
You are barking, as Lionel says. As for being hateful, Olaus ever hear of pot, kettle, black? Few on this site have spewed such bile as you and your denier buddies. Some of the sites you link to - WUWT, Nova, BH, GWPF etc - are fully of foul mouthed haters. You clearly belong with them. Bye bye now.
It's always projection and hypocrisy with that lot..
Heavy arguments again, this time from the old Jeff. :-)
You like to call all and everyone a fascist and yet you are the one that embraces many of fascism's ideological fundaments.
Chek weighs in. :-)
Free human beings retain the right to dismiss idiots.
You're dismissed, idiot.
No chek, you are completly out of historical arguments, you hateful little whiner. Very different. :-)
Physical climatology has got fuck-all to do with historical "arguments", Olaus.
But it's interesting to see how steeped you are in politics yourself.
But I do appreciate that it's hard to suddenly realise that you have been living a lie (another one). In other words you are what you thought others were. Cant be fun. :-)
Or?
BBD weighs in. :-)
Olap consider that you've been pushing denialist lies since the beginning. Consider that you have refused to engage on every single point (because you're unable to). Consider it no surprise that nobody will engage with - what was that projection again? Oh yes -"hateful little whiner".
Now considering all that, fuck off with your dopey dupe 'politics'.
BBD points to a simple fact, Olaus.
One you might as well acknowledge as it is self-evidently true.
Ok Olaus, you win. You're not a fascist after all, just a right wing lunatic.
Better?
Guys, can you for once be happy losers and thank me for the lesson?
I guess it's to hope for too much, but at least we settled that fascism isn't a right wing movement. Will this also mean that you portentologist will stop calling people you disagree with fascists? I certainly hope so,
I don't want to repeat myself.
Jeff, I'm not right wing. I'm liberal if anything. But thanks for recognzing the true origin of fascism. Gold star to you!
Olaus
Personally I couldn't give a fuck about your politics. My concern here is with your hideously inadequate understanding of physical climatology, paleoclimate behaviour and their implications for the next several centuries under a BAU or even moderate emissions scenario.
@ #38 ... and he's delusional too.
But we knew that already.
BBD, we were not discussing my politics, but the origin of fascism in the hatfeul doctrines of communism and syndicalism.
Your portentolgy and unsicentific mindset is another matter, though very related, I'm sorry to admit.
Chek, weighing in again, are we? :-)
Why not follow your great master into the light, and admit that fascism isn't a right wing movement?
I'm sure you will be relieved to get it off you narrow chest.
Bacause I'm not a delusional cretin like you Olap. I refer you back to comment #19
"Dumbasses like you don’t get to redefine words or terms, although you may at some point wonder why you feel the need to do so."
Now be gone.
You and your klan have nothing of any interest to add here.
This from a moron who doesn't understand the different thermal capacities of different parts of the climate system, eg water and atmosphere...
I'm with chek here: fuck off, Olaus.
Olaus - you claim to be liberal? Great... so now go and spank your buddy GSW for supporting that right wing nutter, Mark Steyn.....
Actually, since you've fucked me off, you can suffer a bit before you go, Olaus.
Demonstrate my "unscientific mindset". Show us all at least one concrete example of it.
Or eat your lies.
We have several years' worth of examples of your cluelessness and inability to understand even carefully explained basics. I reference every contribution made by you on this entire thread.
You are going to fucking suffer, Olaus...
;-)
Can clueless dupes like Olap suffer?
I'd certainly like too find out!
Well BBD, I'm certainly not suffer from the content of your arguments. :-)
That's because you're a time wasting troll.
Time for strike through on all the troll's following posts.
(which should be under the circ's),
so stop doing that then.
Now. If it takes 1 calorie to heat one gramme if H2O through one degree Celsius then how much heat does it take to one gramme of pure ice through one degree Celsius assuming start and finish are below the freezing point?
What would be the heat requirement to melt that same quantity of ice?
Jeff, I'm sure GSW, like myself, reacts against the fascist leaning values expressed hear by you, and the rest of the deltoid ilk.
But perhaps a chane is on the way, thanks to me? ;_)
From your total lack of historical and political awareness I gather that you are not familiar with the wide green-in-the-brown sector in the German national SOCIALIST movement?:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Green-Brown-Conservation-Environment/dp/05216…
Chek, instead of saying absolutely nothing, why don't you comment on " the yong Mussolini" or Jeffie, if you preferr. ;-)
Jeff, I’m sure GSW, like myself, reacts against the fascist leaning values expressed hear by you, and the rest of the deltoid ilk. But perhaps a chane is on the way, thanks to me? ;_) From your total lack of historical and political awareness I gather that you are not familiar with the wide green-in-the-brown sector in the German national SOCIALIST movement?: http://www.amazon.com/The-Green-Brown-Conservation-Environment/dp/05216…
Chek, instead of saying absolutely nothing, why don’t you comment on ” the yong Mussolini” or Jeffie, if you preferr. ;-)
Olaus
You claim that I have an:
Even though you are such a moron you cannot actually spell "scientific".
Now back it up with an example (a quote).
If you don't, you will have been shown to be a liar.
So best get on.
Thanks chek.
This fucker has had his chips.
@Olaus
Well done Olaus, I think they've actually learnt something. Perseverance is it's own reward it would seem.
;)
@BBD
Your "unscientific" mindset, well you're going to have to help me with this, your
"This fucker has had his chips." and "You are going to fucking suffer, Olaus…"
is that Feyman, Pauli, some other notable? or just the language of the common/unscientific herd.
GSW
You refused to engage in a discussion of aspects of the science with me just as Olaus refused.
You are both clearly incapable of such discussion.
You cannot demonstrate that I have an "unscientific mindset" any more than the clown Olaus can.
Yet here you are, flapping your mouth. Why? You have nothing to say and you have already lost all our arguments by simply refusing to participate in them.
So you can fuck off as well.
Remember this, vermin?
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
[No, it doesn't]
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
[No, it doesn't. See (1)]
3/ Do you agree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?
4/ If you *disagree*, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures not continue to rise as CO2 concentrations increase?
And remember how you repeatedly refused to explain to me how an MCA as warm as or warmer than the present can be reconciled with a low climate sensitivity?
How many times did I ask you that, GSW, and how many times did you refuse even to acknowledge the question?
You are incapable of even an elementary discussion of any topic in climate science. It is obvious. It has been demonstrated here, by me, over and over again.
GSW, sometimes you and I have I have to step in an take one for the right team. ;-)
And I reckon BBD's unscientific mind set is very much on par with Adorno's F-scale, ergo the authoritarian personality prone to throw democary in the bin in favour of direct action, strong leaders, and anti-parliamentarism.
Well, maybe the young Jeff cab elaborate? ;-)
GSW, sometimes you and I have I have to step in an take one for the right team. ;- ) And I reckon BBD’s unscientific mind set is very much on par with Adorno’s F-scale, ergo the authoritarian personality prone to throw democary in the bin in favour of direct action, strong leaders, and anti-parliamentarism. Well, maybe the young Jeff cab elaborate? ;- )
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you agree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?
4/ If you *disagree*, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures not continue to rise as CO2 concentrations increase?
Not at all strange that the dupes can't answer a single question.
And also strange that they pick up all their garbage "knowledge" (which they clearly don't understand and cannot defend) from corporately sponsored interests seeking control of the State's actions.
Fascism, I think it's called - although for obvious reasons the looney-toons don't like being called on that term.
(Thanks again, chek)
Olaus
I repeat: you are incapable of even an elementary discussion of any topic in climate science. It is obvious. It has been demonstrated here, by me, over and over again.
You cannot substantiate your false claim about my "unscientific mindset" which proves (again) that you are a liar.
Olaus, you are really bonkers you know that? I honestly think you are totally a raving lunatic. You seriously need a shrink.
If you think you and gormless are the 'right team', then may God help us all. Gormless adores right wing lunatics like Mark Steyn. Or do you think Steyn is left wing? Or middle? Or whatever? What about Rush Limbaugh, Steyn's mentor? Maybe he;s with the Monster Raving Loony Party....
What I have learned from Olaus, GSW and their ilk is just how utterly loony climate change deniers are.
And there we have it. In under ten comments, an unequivocal demonstration that Olaus is a liar and GSW pretty much equals him for intellectual dishonesty.
From now on, Olaus may be addressed as "liar" or "lying scum" or variants thereof, and GSW in a similar manner.
And I think a generous use of strikeout is probably appropriate for the next day or two - until the lying scum take the hint and bugger off back to whichever foetid sinkhole of mendacity they came from.
And it gets even more bizarre when our resident psychopath (Olly) then claims arguments by BBD aren't scientific... when BBD has been focusing on science all along. Just because Olly doesn't geddit, doesn't mean BBD isn't talking about hard science.
Boy oh boy, you, gormless and Jonas give me grist for the mill for my autumn lectures. 'The wacky mindset of climate change deniers' would be a great title. I'll encourage my students to read Deltoid to see with their very own eyes what a bunch of cranks you deniers are.
Jeff, at the age of 29 Mussolini "was recognized by his peers as a revolutionary whose education, intelligence, and accomplishment were Harvey inferior to any who exercised infuled in the Party (Socialist)" at the time. (The young Mussolini, p. 136)
Now that you can stop inventing that fascism is footed in a right wing mileu, maybe you could also stop fabricating stuff regarding an acclerating global warming and what the science says about it?
Loony, bonkers and prone to masturbatory fantasy and projection. Oh, and a persecution complex. What a mess they are.
Jeff, GSW and I are the right right team, dextorous on facts and not sinister, like the fascists in the right left team. ;-)
Chek, you really are contributing! Good effort! ;-)
Chek, the only fantasies around here ar deltoidic, but thankfully I took Jeffie out of one of his. You know, the myth that fascism is a right wing movement.
And of course there is no need to mention the green brownies of the national socialistic party in Germany?:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Green-Brown-Conservation-Environment/dp/05216…
From the book cover:
"It is a story of ideological convergence, of tactical alliances, of careerism, of implication in crimes against humanity, and of deceit and denial after 1945. It is also a story that offers valuable lessons for today's environmental movement."
Jeff, at the age of 29 Mussolini “was recognized by his peers as a revolutionary whose education, intelligence, and accomplishment were Harvey inferior to any who exercised infuled in the Party (Socialist)” at the time. (The young Mussolini, p. 136) Now that you can stop inventing that fascism is footed in a right wing mileu, maybe you could also stop fabricating stuff regarding an acclerating global warming and what the science says about it?
Jeff, GSW and I are the right right team, dextorous on facts and not sinister, like the fascists in the right left team. ;- )
Loony, bonkers, prone to masturbatory fantasy and projection, a persecution complex, convinced they're right when the evidence shows they know nothing apart from parrot skills, and illiterate
What a mess they are.
@Olaus
Oh yeah "The California F-scale is a 1947 personality test, designed by Theodor W. Adorno", wiki ref
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-scale_%28personality_test%29
"authoritarianism, such as conventionalism, authoritarian aggression, anti-intraception, superstition and stereotypy, power and "Toughness," destructiveness and cynicism, projectivity, and sex.[?]"
"The purpose of the F-scale is to measure an antidemocratic personality structure, usually defined by authoritarianism. A score of above 80 on the F-scale test indicates that the subject may be suffering from severe psychopathology. Patients who suffer from repeated episodes of disorders usually get a higher F-scale score than those who have acute disorders. Besides, people who have a high F-scale score mostly likely have a lower educational level."
Well, taking it as read; as long as there aren't any sums in there I can see the deltards scoring well in this "Fascist" test. Maybe we could some little certificates printed up for them. jeff could have one on his wall.
;)
A certificate would be lovely GSW. I'm sure Mr Bicorne will wave it an chance he gets. ;-)
One interest finding was that fascists and commies scored very similar on the test. Who could be surpised, given Mussolini's background?
The unscientific haters here at deltoid should pay attention, and I'm sure they will, now when we have set the records straight to them. ;-)
And isn't chek cute GSW? :-)
Griselda, stop fannying around with your amateur dramatics and answer the outstanding questions.
.
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you agree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?
4/ If you *disagree*, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures not continue to rise as CO2 concentrations increase?
Reality (and every sane reader here, I'll wager) care not one whit or single hoot for your corporately packaged political "views" and random "profiles".
GSW
You still haven't answered my questions or apologised for joining with the lying fuck Olaus in claiming that I have an "unscientific mindset". So no more horse-shit from you either.
* * *
Explain to me how an MCA as warm as or warmer than the present can be reconciled with a low climate sensitivity.
Engage on a topic in climate science, GSW.
No more worthless prattle now.
@Olaus
"A certificate would be lovely GSW. I’m sure Mr Bicorne will wave it an chance he gets."
Yes I thought so, and he'd be able to front it a lot more convincingly than the others I'd imagine.
"Who could be surpised, given Mussolini’s background?"
Yeah an authoritarian socialist apparently.
"And isn’t chek cute GSW?"
I was thinking "simple" rather than "cute" but if you wish.
;)
Highly illuminating that the pointy headed monocornes can only parrot political fantasy, and are totally unable to engage with reality as represented by mainstream climate science, BBD.
Evasion and re-writing well established dictionary definitions and terms they'll jump at.
It's almost as if they haven't the slightest idea of why they're seen as contemptible sheep cheering their team colours, when they're fucking colour blind.
Maybe we can we agree on "cute simpleton" GSW? ;-)
In a shameless steal from Eli Rabbet's warren, this video of the Cabot Institute lecture is worth a watch
That it skewers and flays the Skanscum's know-nothing, do-nothing position is but a minor supplementary benefit
Come on, GSW.
You have made a sickening spectacle out of yourself here. Stop the grotesque self-humiliation now. We don't need to see any more.
Explain to me how an MCA as warm as or warmer than the present can be reconciled with a low climate sensitivity.
Engage on a topic in climate science, GSW.
No more worthless prattle now.
* * *
@Olaus
“A certificate would be lovely GSW. I’m sure Mr Bicorne will wave it an chance he gets.”
Yes I thought so, and he’d be able to front it a lot more convincingly than the others I’d imagine.
“Who could be surpised, given Mussolini’s background?”
Yeah an authoritarian socialist apparently.
“And isn’t chek cute GSW?”
I was thinking “simple” rather than “cute” but if you wish.
@Olaus
"Maybe we can we agree on “cute simpleton” GSW?"
eh..OK, I'm not entirely happy with the "cute" bit, although an
ineffectual little yappy dog persona does come to mind when he posts, so possibly.
;)
Come on, GSW. Stop pratting around like a silly, naughty child.
Or is that in fact it? Are you done here?
We'll get nothing from these simpering simpleton's BBD. They're too in love with their own threadbare in-joke a'la Duffer to have any connection with reality, and as such are expendable from any discussion.
Their continued pollution really needs them to be confined to their hero Jonarse's thread.
Chek
Yes, you're right. I wish Tim would bite down on the more egregious and provocative idiots.
Anyway **** this for a game of soldiers. I'm for bed.
More tomorrow, no doubt.
Nineteen forty seven!!!
Funnily enough, quite a few people have done quite a bit of work in this area in the 67 years since then.
Fortunately, one of the best known is neither an inaccessible academic paper, nor is it a dense, technical book.
Try this, the pdf is an easy read. (and you can do the questionnaires yourself as well if you really want a bit of fun). https://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Gormless and Meathead only have each other for solace... one a right wing lunatic (gormless) and the other who hasn't quite decided what he is, except for hints of insanity (meatball)..
I agree that its time Tim intervened here. Wasn't meathead once also banished to the Jonas 'asylum' thread? I think its time that both these time-wasting trolls were sent there permanently. I will see what i can do.
Thanks Jeff. The fools have had enough licence for one decade. FWIW I thought Pentax, Olaus and GSW were all confined to the Jonas thread, but that may be simply newbie confusion on my part.
True to historic form you seek refuge in the bless of silencing opposing voices, even though they are correct. Hopefully though, deep down under your black-brown-red-green authoritarian skin, I have succeded in planting a seed of democracy and scientific behavior that will grow into a beatiful flower one day. :-)
You never actually answer any questions or explicitly set out a position, so how can you claim to be "correct"?
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you agree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?
4/ If you *disagree*, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures not continue to rise as CO2 concentrations increase?
What is your estimate for ECS (include error bars)?
How do you reconcile an MCA as warm as or warmer than the present with a low climate sensitivity?
Come on. Answers.
Only once you say something can you claim to be "correct".
And you never, ever say anything. Therefore as usual, you are demonstrably a liar.
The reason we want you off the main thread is because you are a proven liar (many times over) and you taunt without ever engaging. This is trolling, pure and simple, and lying troll scum need to be moderated.
So stop playing the fucking victim, stop lying, engage on specific scientific topics or accept your inevitable ban without further whining because as things stand you are begging for it.
Olaus Petri.
BBD has repeatedly asked you some fundamental questions, as have I.
Why is it that can't you answer even a single one of them?
Oily, you are a fuckwit. A nasty little skidmark in the gusset of humanity. It's that simple.
Bill, why I'm I a skidmark? Certainly not for correctly pointing out fascism's study roots in communism and syndicalism?
:-)
But what about the ranks of endlessly dodged, never answered questions about climate science?
That's what this is about. Not some diversion into political history.
This is about your climate change denial and your claims to scientific knowledge and "correctness" when you demonstrate neither.
This is about you being a liar who makes false claims about other commenters which you cannot substantiate when challenged. False claims that you then fail to withdraw.
The problem here is that you are a lying troll who refuses to engage substantively on any topic but keeps on crowing about being "correct".
That is unacceptable. Hence the loathing and contempt directed at you, plus the repeated requests that you be confined permanently to the Jonas thread.
GSW #77 page 7
Projection is strong in this one.
Whilst reading that I pondered on how well a certain James Delingpole fits into that.
What do you think Donors Trust, Heartland, CATO, George C Marshall, GWPF, old uncle Tom Fuller & all are about?
Your blind ignorance is unbelievable even for a nematode such as yourself and your annelid buddy OP. But that would be to ignore that those organisms have a useful purpose, you not so much.
Dear Lionel, why do you feel so uncomfortable with understanding that fascism isn't a right wing movement?
Jeff, has come to terms with it, why not you too?
#4 - trolling. Interestingly you put yourself to the right of fascism, do you see that?
You are noting something trivial and even manage to misinterpret that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory .
Last time on this and then strikeout.
Political history isn't relevant and frankly, nor are you. Engage on the science in good faith or go away.
Dear BBD, why are agnry with me? It was Jeff who started talking about fascism and accusing "others" for being fascists, unjustly so.
@kampen, the horseshoe-theory/metaphor is wrong because it's based on the false assupmtion of two opposing political endpoints that (under the pressure of their extremism) bends towards each other.
This is wrong because in the historical reality the endpoints didn't bend towards each other. They were created by division. Therefore better and more correct methaphor is a forked tounge of a snake. The Socialist Party in Italy was split in two and one part took small right turn (Mussolini) and the other remained
@All
Coincidentaly, while we're in the throws of calls to have people banned from the blog, there's a new article from Ross Kaminsky in the Federalist doing the rounds.
"Why Liberals Attempt to Silence Honest Debate"
http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/19/why-liberals-attempt-to-silence-hon…
there's also a reference to the Mann Vs Steyn case,
"This is the same Michael Mann who is now trying to silence Mark Steyn, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review magazine because he doesn’t like being criticized. Steyn is now counter-suing, with claims more likely to stand up in court than Mann’s obvious attempt to shut down anyone who disagrees with his self-serving proclamations of impending doom."
"Self-serving proclamations of impending doom." Well yeah, there's a few here in the same mould!
Public boards rely on good faith which your Skantroll collective does not possess. As just one example above, let's correct that:
"This is the same Michael Mann who is now trying to silence Mark Steyn, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review magazine because he doesn’t like being criticized like all citizens, is legally protected from libellous accusations.
Let me put this simply because you're a simpleton Griselda - and for the benefit of newbies and lurkers this Scandinavian posse has had two years worth of rope to hang themselves with - if you shit in the pool, don't expect anyone to want to join you in it.
#7, see, you know nuffin'. The horseshoe metaphor in reality came about from an observation of certain likenesses in the political extremes (e.g. anti-parliamentary, sympathy to violence/radicalism, overlap of political viewpoints, frequent switch-overs from members to the other side).
Mussolini's history is not with socialism, but with communism.
Anyway, I always called the USSR and North Korea extreme right regimes, like the Third Reich. They are definitely not left, not communist, not socialist; they are all absolutely extreme right fascist. Three core characteristics: the theatre (cf Walter Benjamin), the state as god and the individual as totally subordinate to it and the exclusion of one or more groups from society.
Who gives a fuck when we in Holland got a date record yet again. Fucking summer in March after no winter.
Some good points there Kampen, but what do you say about Gramsci's opinion about Mussolini, ergo that the latter, while the director of the Socialist Party's paper Avanti!, turned it into a forum for syndicalists?
Some good points there Kampen, but what do you say about Gramsci’s opinion about Mussolini, ergo that the latter, while the director of the Socialist Party’s paper Avanti!, turned it into a forum for syndicalists?
Never mind your historical revisionism pointy head, you've been shit-bombing this blog with denier pseudo-science for a long, long time. Here are some questions outstanding that you have yet to answer:
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you agree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?
4/ If you *disagree*, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures not continue to rise as CO2 concentrations increase?
Olaus
Because you are a liar and a troll who refuses to engage in good faith. Worse still, you are playing the victim and claiming that you are being muzzled. Since you flatly refuse to engage although challenged continually to do so, you have never actually said anything. Thus your claims to "correctness" and of "censorship" are both lies.
This also goes for GSW. The exact same things.
cRR
Please do not feed the fucking trolls. Look back over the last page and see what they are trying to do here. These five questions have been asked for a very long time now. You are facilitating an ongoing avoidance tactic by two spectacularly dishonest commenters. I know you would not wish to assist these two in any way.
Just to bring the list somewhat up to date:
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you agree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?
4/ If you *disagree*, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures not continue to rise as CO2 concentrations increase?
6/ What is your preferred estimate for ECS (with uncertainty)
7/ Do you believe that the MCA was global, synchronous and as warm as or warmer than the present?
8/ If you do, how do you reconcile this with a low climate sensitivity?
Obviously Bernard J's unanswered questions about the instrumental record remain unanswered, and there has been no response to Jeff Harvey's multitude of points about ecological change.
#11, like BBD said in #14, your food is the remark with 2 fucks at the end of #10.
BBD #14, don't fall into traps I set please - assure you there is nil assistance. What I found there was yet another subject the revisionist thinks knows something about but he knows nothing.
Incidentally this is a debate I get with more revisionists and a number of extreme right wing people who seem ashamed of being in that racist realm and call the Nazi's left. This is a particular group with a particularly warped syndrome.
BBD, again, it was Jeff that was dishonest, not me.
@Kampen, keep up the good work. Soon not only you and I, but also BBD, recognizes fascism's firm roots in communism and syndicalism. And I beleive Jeff in on my sid now too, the right one.
We don't want any greens turning inte fascists, just because they don't know what fascism really is.
BBD, again, it was Jeff that was dishonest, not me.
@Kampen, keep up the good work. Soon not only you and I, but also BBD, recognizes fascism’s firm roots in communism and syndicalism. And I beleive Jeff in on my sid now too, the right one.We don’t want any greens turning inte fascists, just because they don’t know what fascism really is.
#19 page 7 Dumbasses like you don’t get to redefine words or terms, although you may at some point wonder why you feel the need to do so.
Chek, I stay true to the original definition, and to history. :-)
Deltoid is a pit full of pus where cretins are screaming "fasicist" to anyone disagreeing with climate scientology.
I totally understand Tim's reluctance to engage in this blog anymore.
Struck out as irrelevant. The discussion that you have been refusing to have for ~200 comments now concerns topics in climate science, not some deliberate sidetrack into political history.
If you wish to continue commenting here, you can engage in good faith on the topics you have been desperately dodging for so very long now. Otherwise, strikeout.
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you agree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?
4/ If you *disagree*, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures not continue to rise as CO2 concentrations increase?
6/ What is your preferred estimate for ECS (with uncertainty)
7/ Do you believe that the MCA was global, synchronous and as warm as or warmer than the present?
8/ If you do, how do you reconcile this with a low climate sensitivity?
Nope, we didn't. (And dishonestly proclaiming that "we did" smells of desperation.)
Anyone who's fascist these days or even during the last few decades is clearly very right wing, and usages of the term "fascism" these days generally refer to the more recent and decidedly right wing incarnations. Dishonestly pretending that those using the term mean something else also smacks of desperation.
And didn't we go over this a couple of years ago, either with Olaus or one of his (ahem) fellow travellers? Or was it asserted that the Nazis were leftists back then on dubious grounds? Either way I seem to recall it was also a convenient foil being used to try and distract from the fact that those wielding the foil didn't have science on their side.
And I even think I recommended that the wielders have a read of Altemeyer's research, as adelady did just now.
Nothing new under the sun. Once they reach the end of their Gish Gallop they simply return to the beginning and start all over again. Why, it's almost like they don't realise just how obvious it makes the bankruptness of their positions to be!
Lothy, please try to make an argument for once. But what the heck, what's your opinion on "the young Mussilini" then? That he was a well financed right wing mole in the Socialist Party that fooled even Gramsci? ;-)
#17, "We don’t want any greens turning inte fascists" - don't worry, it was much colder back then.
Petri never read Mussolini. Pity, the guy at least wrote much better than AH.
#20 - 6, on the ECS, is bloody hard and if (just if!) we really took notice of climate revisionists the concept is even risky. I will not expand - some discussions around the Crok/Lewis paper do that well enough.
By the way, non-Europeans discussing fascism often get me smiling. The naivety. Except scholars on the subject.
cRR
The questions are not aimed at you. Rather at Olaus and GSW.
Olaus and GSW claim to be "correct" and accuse me - specifically - of having an "unscientific mindset".
I have pointed out that they refuse to engage at all on any topic in climate science raised here, and consequently neither of them has said anything.
Since they have said *nothing* they cannot, by definition be "correct". So that claim is a lie.
I also challenged both of them to demonstrate by relevant quotation that I have an "unscientific mindset". Neither has been able to do so, revealing the second claim to be a lie as well.
That about brings you up to speed.
Lewis & Crok is the usual cherry-picked, uninformative low-ball estimate derived from "observations" (including a notable under-estimate of negative aerosol forcing) and used to force a toy climate model. Needless to say, fake sceptics and libertarian ideologues everywhere believe it single-handedly overturns the entire - huge - body of work indicating that S is significantly higher.
Meatball, I never accused you of being fascist, you deceptive piece of scum.. I said EXTREMELY RIGHT WING.... libertarian... much like old gormless, whose world view coincides with the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Steyn, and probably a slew of other right wing loonies. You hate government, at least where government regulates private and corporate behavior, amongst other tenets of your right wing ideology.
Gormless can't help but wear his far right neoconservative beliefs on his sleeve, whereas you try and camouflage it with bullshit and more bullshit. Moreover, the reason Tim does not contribute here any more probably has more to do with twerps like you contaminating it than anything else. Why do you think so many on 'your side' have been banned or exiled to their own threads? Because Tim respects you? Think again.
Its great to know I've gone from Napoleon to Mussolini; you've pretty well stuck around Ted Bundy or Gary Ridgway, Olly. No evolution really; continued psychopathy.
PS Olly: Fascism is a right wing movement. End of story.
GSW, Nobody's trying to "silence" Mark Steyn.
All that has happened is that Mark Steyn is discovering the consequence of telling malicious lies.
Mark Steyn can provide his opinion whenever and wherever he wants, but if he breaks the law while doing so, he will get sued.
Pretty simple concept really, but from the shite you've posted here over the years, I realise the concept of factualness is a concept that completely escapes you.
Oh, a relapse for Kampen. :-) And apparently it wasn't cold enough in the 1930s:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Green-Brown-Conservation-Environment/dp/05216…
Jeff, you screaming "I'm right" doesn't make fascism less left. :-)
And you haven't told your story yet on why fascism is right wing. Any objections on Gramsci's take on Mussolini, for instance?
Anyone tell me why Petri is panicking?
#27 BBD, actually only the 'E' in ECS is debatable (e.g. measurability is hard like IPCC assessed). De facto better multiply the Crok/Lewis by a positive whole number for an estimate of Petri's kids' future reality.
#31, try Rousseau.
OP as I said up-thread you are barking and so here is your tune.
You would be a total waste of space were it not for the repeated opportunity to demonstrate to lurkers what a dishonest know nothing you are when it comes to science, and also that links to good stuff for us all to learn more from crop up in the process of whacking your moles.
Another thing we are reminded of is how thoroughly morally bankrupt are those behind YOUR sources of misdirection, fabrications and lies.
That is the hole you have chosen to dig.
Lionel, my fried friend, you know I'm more than willing to discuss the sources used in "the young Mussolini", for instance, not to mention the credibility of the books author. Do you mean that he is a Holocaust denier or something?
You keep on making no arguments whatsoever. You sound like a climate scare cultist...Always fresh on insults but short on science. ;-)
OK Olap monocorne, let's see how short on science YOU are.
I've chopped the hard sums part just leaving the secondary schoolkid level questions you have outstanding, although I think you're too "short on science and too much of a complete moron to understand the questions :
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you agree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?
4/ If you *disagree*, explain why
Can I have a go Chek?
1/ No.
2/ No.
3/ Yes.
4/ N/A.
Did I get it right?
Does Olaus know he can't answer those questions correctly, which is why he's avoiding them?
Judith Curry's presentation to the APS:
"Is there any mechanism that would allow the added heat in the deep ocean to reappear in the atmosphere?
• The deep ocean has warmed approximately 0.05K; if the heating is well mixed in the ocean, there is no way for
warming in the atmosphere to occur beyond 0.05K."
Huh? Surely she isn't confused about the difference between Heat and Temperature? 0.05K in a well-mixed ocean is a %#$^load more heat than 0.05K in the atmosphere.
@Craig #30
"GSW, Nobody’s trying to “silence” Mark Steyn"
Well he sees it that way Craig. Mark's quite an articulate freedom of speech campaigner, so he's unlikely to view it differently . Be interesting to see how it all pans out, Mann being a self aggrandizing dweeb and all. ;)
In the meantime, more from the irrepressible Mr Steyn; this time his hilarious take on liberal multiculturalism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K26kKDCCV9g
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/jc-aps.pdf
She states:
"20th century sea level trends co-‐varies with the AMO and the stadium wave"
...but...compare the "trends" she ascribes to Jevrejeva et al. with what is pictured in the original paper:
http://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/2008GL033611.pdf
And *their* conclusions:
"global sea level acceleration up to the present has
been about 0.01 mm/yr2 and appears to have started at the
end of the 18th century."
"there are periods of slow and fast sea level rise associated with decadal variability,"
"even if projected temperatures rise more slowly than the IPCC scenarios suggest, sea level will very likely rise faster than the IPCC projections"
So, a reference to a respectable paper, but no acknowledgment that it disagrees with the opinion Curry is pushing.
Or...am I misreading her...?
Well done Craig.
See liars (I refer to Olaus and GSW) - it's that simple. I bet Craig didn't really even pause to think about that. Just rattled them off.
That's because he knows what he's talking about and is intellectually honest so therefore *volunteers* to have a go.
I have lost count of the number of times the liars Olaus and GSW have refused to answer these questions, but it must be well into double figures by now.
Sorry Craig - that was in response to your #37.
She states:
"~47-‐60% of the Arc;c sea ice decline is natural (Stroeve el al. 2012);"
Huh? That's astounding. But wait...what do Stroeve etc actually say...?
Searching their paper for the figure "47%" the only mention of it is:
"47% to 57% of the observed September sea ice extent trend over the period 1979–2006 to anthropogenic forcing."
And "60%"?
"approximately 60% of the observed rate of decline
from 1979–2011 is externally forced"
Huh? Am I misreading something here, or is Curry doing a total Monckton?
Of all the contemptible garbage! Right -
Martin Niemöller. That's the version from the freakin' US Holocaust Memorial Museum, no less.
Game, Set, and Match. Rational people 1, psychopathic pseudo-libertarian creep 0.
The fact is that Olaus Petri (and his denier mates) remains afraid to answer BBD's questions, and mine.
Why is that?
Because they are lying scum, Bernard.
Mark fucking Steyn? Are you fucking serious?
And that is on top of stealing Jonah fucking Goldberg's entire idiotic shtick. What's the over under on these clowns even knowing they're parroting old, discredited, pathetic slop produced by the most idiotic wingnut welfare recipients?
For crying out loud. Mussolini was a socialist? Government healthcare is an assault on citizenship? These are the dregs, the worst of the worst, the douchenozzles and shills employed only because of nepotism and because the long-time engineers of the faux-populist backlash realized that no matter how fucking stupid Marky Mark and little Jonah are... there are mouth breathers out there that will actually believe this vapid, transparent shlock.
And then claiming to be liberal? That's simply beyond words. No definition can come close to even touching how idiotic that is. It boggles the mind. It beggars belief.
You are not deniers illiterate in science, or misguided well-meaning individuals.
Grade-A all-round full on waste-of-air morons. Too stupid to fucking think your way out of a paper bag. Just fuck off, you're too pathetic to even make fun of anymore.
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/8193.html
Jeff Harvey @ # 28.
By definition 'Libertarian' is an antonym for extreme right wing .
Neither does Libertarian mean:
" hate government, at least where government regulates private and corporate behavior, amongst other tenets of your right wing ideology."
By definition Libertarianism opposes corporate bullying or 'big business' just as much as 'big government'.
What you appear to be criticising is perhaps best defined as "Right Wing Authoritarian"?
"Authoritarian" is another antonym for "Libertarian" .
The terms 'right wing' and 'left wing' have their origins in the 'socialist' movement and Olaus' argument that political leaders such as Mussolini and Hitler were 'socialists' is basically correct.
They were certainly not 'Libertarian'.
#43 Craig Thomas
The bug-eyed thing, I think. This testimony was much-discussed elsewhere and IIRC determined to be seriously misleading. I missed all this, but try Tamino's if you are working through her stuff yourself.
Except of course that these current 'libertarians' are actually authoritarians playing at being pirates while fawning all over the Kochs!
Hey, but thanks for highlighting - yet again - for any casual readers who may remain what all-round headcases you guys really are!
Of course he does. Bully mouthpieces like Steyn always play the victim card when challenged. Good to see both CEI and his lawyers cut him loose. Hopefully he'll end up back in the gutter where he belongs.
...and what Stu said. Jeebus what a bunch of pathetic, waster loonies...
Bill, first Lenin came for the communist he didn't like, then the other communists he didn't like, then again the communist he didn't like. Then Stalin came for communists he didn't like, then other communists he didn't like, and then again the communists he didn't like....
Radical socialists (of any coulor) in power, national as well as international, kill each other en masse..
So what's your point? That you disagree with Gramsci's view on Mussolini?
And in walks Clownshoe #3. They were fascists, you moron. Which predominantly meant:
1. Corporatist
2. Authoritarian to protect 1
3. Expansionist to benefit 1
4. Psychopaths, and surrounded by psychopaths
5. Allowed to indulge in pet fantasies, psychoses and delusions as long as they did not interfere with 1
What calls itself Libertarian nowadays calls for
1. Free markets
2. Free markets
3. Removal of all protections against free markets
4. Removal of all protections against corporate aggression and greed
5. Free markets
6. Legalizing pot, usually
Sure, the lies are different, but EVERY SINGLE PROPOSED "LIBERTARIAN" policy takes us right back to the Gilded Age -- the few remaining parts that aren't already there, that is. There's not a single beam of light between them. Fuck the words, the results are EXACTLY the same. A little war here, a little war there, a culture war to keep the morons occupied and oh dearie me, it seems I have ended up with all the money you stupid peon. But hey, you're free! Free to die in the street like a dog.
Why do you think the pushback against a working health care system in the US is so massive, so continuous, so acrimonious? Guaranteed health care provides security. Security allows people to make demands, start thinking, organize... bad things.
We're right back to governments fighting wars for corporations. To every social safety net being under constant attack. To rolling back anything that might get in the way of maximum profit. The haves start wars, make sure the fracking stays away from the Hamptons along with the riff-raff. I mean, if the combined wealth on your street exceeds that of 1,000,000,000 of the poorest in the world... that just means they're not working hard enough.
Modern libertarians are part of the haves, sociopaths and/or pathetic stooges too fucking stupid to open a history book. You're one of the latter at the very least. So fuck you, whether you're just lying to us or actually believe this pig slop. You're part of the problem.
Bill @ # 50.
Would you care to explain why that changes the fact that 'libertarian' is an antonym for 'authoritarian' or that Mussolini was indeed a socialist?
As explained above, a libertarian by definition opposes the concept of corporate bullying or 'big business' just as much as a libertarian opposes the concept of 'big government'.
Stu dear, do you have anything more substantial than your emotions to bring to the table? ;-)
I'll take it you too disagree with Gramsci's take on Mussolini's political preferences. Care to elbarote on why? ;-)
Guess not.
Did Mussolini (or Hitler) aid the democratic Spanish Republic, or the fascist Nationalist Franco? Or has that not been revised yet in fruitcakeland?
It's not just climate science you deny, it appears you're at war with rationality.
Exactly.
Just toss in something at the far-right tapering margin of the Autism spectrum bell-curve and you have your contemporary 'libertarian'...
Stu @ # 54,
I am not an expert on the American Health Care system. But I would agree that it does appear to be in a mess.
You do seem to be conflating definitions however.
Libertarianism does not oppose health care neither does it advocate 1 through to 5 in the manner you have outlined.
1 through to 5 favours big government and big corporate and big global monopoly, all being antonyms for libertarian.
And yes, Mussolini is described as a 'right wing fascist' but it doesn't alter the fact that he was also a 'socialist'.
We can probably safely assume Stootoo is the victim of US insularity, and the particularly grotesque manifestation of it in the form of its, *cough*, 'education' system, which has, ironically, been terminally fucked up by the very people and forces he idolises.
What excuse these Scandinavian Breitards have is anyone's guess...
It's like a shell game in here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
but rather than find the pea, one has to work out which of you "climate faithers" has borrowed the brain for the evening. It doesn't help that some of you appear to be drunk (stu 1, for example).
@chek
"Steyn always play the victim card"
Steyn is nothing like a victim chek, which you would know if you'd ever heard him speak or, I suspect, had any understanding of what "playing the victim" actually meant. By way of illustration, Mann is the past master at this,
"Attacks on my work aimed at undermining climate change science have turned me into a public figure. I have come to embrace that role."
What a guy!
;)
Bill, first Lenin came for the communist he didn’t like, then the other communists he didn’t like, then again the communist he didn’t like. Then Stalin came for communists he didn’t like, then other communists he didn’t like, and then again the communists he didn’t like…. Radical socialists (of any coulor) in power, national as well as international, kill each other en masse..So what’s your point? That you disagree with Gramsci’s view on Mussolini?
Getting even shorter on science Olap monocorne.
Look moron, nobody here is interested in your crank history or your quack understanding of science. You demonstrate no comprehension of either so take your crank quacking somewhere else.
You can't even answer these basic questions still outstanding regarding your quack hiatus.
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you agree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?
4/ If you *disagree*, explain why
Griselda @ #61
If you're going to quote someone, quote them accurately and not just however your turd-brain interprets it, you lying, manipulative piece of shit.
For fuck's sake, Olaus. If you're truly this masochistic, if you truly get off on humiliating yourself this much, I'm sure there's a leather bar somewhere close to you with very nice people willing to oblige. What the fuck are you still doing here? Still trying to go for the "BUT WHAT IF I'M WRONG ABOUT EVERY SINGLE ISSUE KNOWN TO MAN! THEY'LL NEVER SEE THAT COMING!" prize.
Let's see what we have going on now. See, you're such a full-service idiot that it doesn't even matter what the topic is. I see your name, copy the comment, scroll down, paste it in the comment box and only then read it. You'll be wrong. You'll be utterly, completely, what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you incorrect.
So, doop-dee-doo...
Sweetheart, I know this is entirely new to you and it's all the vogue to copy-paste them thar difficult words to demonize liberals over in the dungeon, but... seriously? Just by that nugget you prove:
You don't know what communism is.
You don't know what Marxism is.
You don't know what Leninism is.
You don't know what Stalinism is.
You don't know who Lenin persecuted.
You don't know who Stalin persecuted.
What fucking possesses you to put your fingers on a keyboard?
After we're all done laughing at yet another denialist too fucking stupid to use a spell checker, for those playing along at home: why is the word "socialist" in that sentence?
Actually, Olaus...
I think I haven't been plain enough yet. Let me try again.
YOU ARE TO FUCKING STUPID TO PARTICIPATE IN AN ADULT CONVERSATION. GO AWAY.
Bill @ # 60,
I am an Australian.
Most Australians would spot that comment from you @ 60 as mostly pseudo-intellectual & meaningless drivel.
Chek, so? Communist Vietnam was in war with Pol Pot's Campuchea and Hilter killed many national socialists too, etc
And you seem to have no clue regrarding the many charged phalanges in Spain. A very complexed war it was. Have you ever heard of the May days in Barcelona (1937), for instance? Read up on the communist death-squads and what side they annhilated:
http://www.solfed.org.uk/the-%E2%80%98may-days%E2%80%99-in-barcelona-19…
Note: I don't like Franco either.
@2:
You're an idiot (which one is a fact and which one isn't, moron -- pick), and now also a proven delusional asshole. That sentence has two obvious and stupid lies in it, and I have already explained to you why.
For the peanut gallery's benefit, let me try a different tack.
Words do not mean what you want them to.
You're sitting there bleating about how the definition of libertarianism is...
Well, sorry sweetheart, you don't get to decide that. There's a certain ancient symbol ruined forever just 70 years ago. Sitting there throwing dictionary definitions of libertarian like the desperate little organ grinder monkey you are might have sounded like a good idea last night, but here you are... pretending that everything is trumped by high school debate club notes.
YOU DON'T GET TO DEFINE WHAT LIBERTARIANISM IS, ASSHOLE. IT'S A REAL THING FUCKING UP REAL LIVES. What you're doing is really cute for a 16 year old, but you're not 16 years old, are you.
What do you fucking morons think you are accomplishing here other than open, abject, delusional masochism? At least your dungeoned idol was smart enough to har-dee-har and change the subject every time he was proven wrong.
You, failboat troika, lack the mental capacity to do even that. If you have an ounce of intellectual integrity left in your sad, withered bones, please, I beg you to ponder that.
And fuck off.
Dear Stu, let's not forget that I'm the one making an argument hear, not you. :-) You are just crying and stomping your little foot hard in the ground. Cute though.
So, try to collect yourself for a moment and compare "young Mussolini's" view on capitalism, liberalism and the bourgeoisie with the "old Mussolini's". Feel also free to comment on Gramsci's analysis of his Avanti!-colleague.
:-)
Stu, the global warming hiatus is around 16 years too. Must mean something, right (not left)? ;-)
Olap re-read this from four comments ago:
"Look moron, nobody here is interested in your crank history or your quack understanding of science. You demonstrate no comprehension of either so take your crank quacking somewhere else.
Remember that? It was with a reminder of those questions about the illusory hiatus you've been flogging until cornered.
Stu @ # 64 & # 67.
This is an occasion when I regret we share the same name.
In what way does your CAPITALS (shouting) re the 'real thing' and 'real lives' and the definition of liberalism have any bearing on what is being discussed here?
Chek, so far I'm delivering valid arguments, and you are not. :-)
Only foul language coming from your piehole. I guess the enlightment-process I have inititated forces the evil out of you.. ;-)
Call me Father Merrin, if you like Megan.
Random aside: my daughter stopped using smileys 4 years ago because they make you look like a brain-damaged imp.
I forgive her for using them before then... after all, she was 11.
And yet in response the best you could come up with is "piehole". Holy shit you're pathetic. No, don't tell me, you weren't going to stoop to my level, right?
You're openly tone-trolling now, Olaus. By doing so you have conceded the argument. Thank you for playing.
Goodbye.
@2:
Seriously?
Fucking seriously?
It isn't my full name (pronunciation issues), and it isn't yours either. We don't share a name. Never have, never will.
So you're whining for points now. Are you this much of a pussy in real life?
Better question, actually: who the fuck do you douches hang out with that you think this fools anyone? It's such an idiotic, vapid, pointless and transparent lie.
Oh, and as for the caps? I am often too lazy to do bold tags. But hey, I love hearing criticism about my typography from the intentionally dyslexic clown contingent. Really told me off there, sweetheart.
YOU GUYS ARE TOO STUPID FOR ANY DISCUSSION ON CLIMATE, POLITICS OR HISTORY. YOU ARE NOT HERE FOR THE HUNTING. I AM INDULGING YOUR NEEDS FOR HUMILIATION ONLY BECAUSE I AM BORED. THERE ARE WEB SITES AND CLUBS THAT CAN GIVE YOU WHAT YOU WANT.
Oh yeah, I forgot. I add caps sometimes when I'm giving advice to complete morons. I think I have this idealistic pinge somewhere, this hope, that large, simple letters will get through.
But yeah. You keep dashing that hope. So hey, I'll indulge. Actual, adult and sincere question. What do you think your children think of you when they read this thread?
You can't even answer four simple questions in defence of your "argument".
Is there some centralised on-line training that all these morons get that teaches them to make delusional statements as if they were prevailing - when it's patently obvious that they're not even close?
Stu @# 75.
You are simply ranting.
To make it simple for you.
Libertarianism by definition is an antonymn of Authoritarianism.
Which part of this simple observation is creating such aggressive behaviour from you?
What my children may or may not think about comments at this thread is entirely irrelevant.
However, I have raised them to be civil to and tolerant of their fellow human beings.
2 Stupid, let's clarify it for you. There is your pristine dictionary definition, and there's the real world, tea-party, Koch-funded fake libertarian neo-liberal ugliness version which is flapping it's little wings off for political ascendancy if not supremacy at present. It tends to attract rank and file idiots and oligarchs.
Which part of this simple observation makes you so faux naïve?
Chek.
Any group that is flapping wings for political ascendancy if not supremacy would be advocating a form of 'authoritarianism' .
Neo -liberalism is not 'libertarianism'.
Oligarchy by definition is also far removed from libertarianism.
Libertarians come in all colours , with left and right wings and with no wings.
One of the inbreds (O'lapdog) says, "Chek, so far I’m delivering valid arguments, and you are not."
Hahahaha....
I know it's not nice to laugh at people who are genuinely of low intelligence, but I just can't help it. I find it hard to believe that someone can be so lacking in self-awareness. That goes for that other scandinavian inbred GSW. Both of them posting here for I don't know how many years and they still can't say anything of any value; nothing intelligent or informative or insightful...nothing. E.g., they've been asked about 20 times a few simple questions on their favourite topic _ the hiatus _ and they still haven't answered them.
O'lapdog and the GSW moron are preparing themselves for their daily intellectual contribution, sitting on the toilet, grimacing, trying to force a thought _
"...aaaah....it's coming....PLOP! Another thought for the day."
Here's a question for the O'lap: Is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea a democracy?
The poor idiot most probably hasn't made the connection; he's still pondering why I'm asking that question. Ok, I'll make it explicit for it (I think we should start referring to the two inbreds as "it").
In what way is Hitler's National Socialism socialist?
Can it answer that question? When I ask for an answer, I mean an intelligent analysis. Not something that the other moron GSW would reply with, like _ "I am happy for you to play with yourself".
My opinion is that you weren't able to or didn't care to comprehend what I wrote in order to ask an irrelevant question in response.
And you want to continue with irrelevant political questions precisely because it is obvious to even you and your fellow travellers that you're avoiding basic scientific questions whose answers undermine your position.
Been wondering when someone's going to point that out ;-)
Much hilarity ensued when Goldberg's tome was published. I seem to recall Dave Niewert and associates provided some feedback at the time, and I suspect I referred readers here to that last time someone used Goldberg's schtick.
But all Gish Gallops must return to the beginning...
Libertarianism, as actually practised in the US, the US being the defining context for this discussion, does indeed oppose any kind of government involvement in the provision of healthcare, up to and including the piss-weak and extremely corporate friendly scheme that has been dubbed "Obamacare". And Stu's 1-5 are indeed widely advocated by Libertarianism-as-practised in the US.
Pretending otherwise is denial. (Doubling down on denial after the error has been pointed out is just stupid.)
And pretending that Libertarianism-as-practiced doesn't fit the "definition" of Libertarianism you wish to insist on is an Olaus-level attempt to redefine reality to sweep parts of it you don't care to acknowledge under the carpet.
Good grief. You're no better at comprehension or logic than Olaus, so you won't comprehend my comment either...
Yes, it means something alright - that you've left addressing BBD's and my questions because you're too scared to learn the facts - which are that you don't understand signal vs noise, complex systems, basic statistics, or how to learn to the level of middle high school comprehension.
You're covering yourself in glorious humiliation here, Olaus, and everyone's noticing. Even your denialist buddies, although they won't admit it - but they're avoiding those questions too, so they know that there's something uncomfortable right in front of their faces...
Pretending that you're not scared to answer the questions doesn't change the fact that you are afraid, just as pretending that the laws of physics don't exist doesn't change the fact that they do.
Stu, I know you are angry and that you seem to disagree with me, but how about some arguments to back up your emotional eruptions with? :-)
Only empty posing so far. Why not start with Gramsci's analysis? Maybe that will help you going? :-)
Jp, thanks for joing in with eveing more high-frequenced arm waving. Please feel free to make a point. :-)
Hitler's socialism sure contained a lot of socialism. Anti-capitalism and anti-liiberalism for instance. The wellfare program developed by the nazis during the 1930s in Germany was very progressive judged by international standards.
I think you are confusing hate speeches against well defined enemies and blame games as something unique for the right wing. Sorry, but it ain't.
Lotharsson and jp,
Exactly..
Just because a political system claims it is a democracy or socialist or libertarian or whatever, does not necessarily mean it is.
So the DPRK is not really a democracy and Hitler's National Socialists was not a socialist government.
The US political system is not libertarian either.
Unlike Stu and Chek you do seem to realise that clear definitions are important.
Interestingly, it was Jeff Harvey's comment about and obvious dislike of 'libertarianism' that caused me to comment because what he was describing does not fit with the definition of libertarianism.
Libertarianism does not advocate for big corporate or corporate bullying or global monopolising or big government or the Koch's or any other form of authoritarianism or oligarchy or totalitarianism. In fact authoritarianism in all its forms and libertarianism are, by definition, antonyms of each other.
By the way, isn't Flush and the Pan an aussie group?:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/20/lewandowsky-paper-flushed-then-fl…
Lew-papers goin down so many drains it's impossible to keep up.
Flushed according to who? A second rate weatherman who has never done any primary research in their life?
This is the level of inanity reached by deniers. They sit at the sidelines, hardly if ever do any primary research, snipe away as if they are experts, and expect to be taken seriously.
If Swedish meatball wants to find actual hatred on the internet, he's found it alright - on WUWT. A bunch of w****** masquerading as informed opinion.
Funnily enough, 'libertarianism' suffers from exactly the same embarrassing shortfall between sublime theory and ridiculous reality as the other 'isms'.
And the same rash of apologists who hold out for the transcendent trooooooooth of the cherished vision, whatever the sordid empirical reality.
Actual libertarians are authoritarian muppets putting on a drag act and/or corporate stooges.
Take the videos online where the ever-patient Noam Chomsky allows himself to be interviewed by some of the TeaPartyite pseudo-libertarian droogs and tries politely to point out to them just how, well, Stoopid they are. That their Randian Übermensch corporate heroes can't believe their luck that an unpaid army of useful idiots would be daft enough to want to drown the gubmint - and all its pesky regulations and protections - in the bathtub because: 'libuuurty', and then hand them the world, and their own arses, on a plate.
Funnily enough, attempting to reason with these pseudo-libertarians doesn't work. Because they are ahistorical, anti-rational, anti-scientific fantasist loons.
Jeff, maybe the Swedish Secret Service's tune "A Flush in the night" better graps the conspiracy ideation found in Loo's paper. A good song at any rate. :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER6HYd-clxA&feature=kp
Bernard J #84
Oh yes. The stink of fear is cloying. GSW is reeking of it too.
And my oh my, just look at the desperate efforts to push the spotlight away. All this risible horse-shit about political history and the pathetically transparent lies about what libertarianism is. Oh yes. Desperate, frantic evasive tactics. The liars don't even mind that they are getting pummelled because their present humiliation serves as a distraction from their previous nightmare scenario.
* * *
Lest we forget, let's spare a moment to contemplate on the deafening silence and sinew-snapping wriggling surrounding this:
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you agree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?
4/ If you *disagree*, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures not continue to rise as CO2 concentrations increase?
6/ What is your preferred estimate for ECS (with uncertainty)
7/ Do you believe that the MCA was global, synchronous and as warm as or warmer than the present?
8/ If you do, how do you reconcile this with a low climate sensitivity?
Obviously Bernard J’s unanswered questions about the instrumental record remain unanswered, and there has been no response to Jeff Harvey’s multitude of points about ecological change.
Bill.
More negative & assinine pseudo-intellectual, meaningless drivel?
I see Oily has taken refuge in anality...
BBD,
No one is disagreeing with Jeff Harvey that the ecology has and is changing.
Actually, 2Stupid, this is spot on:
If you can't see it, then your understanding of political reality is on a par with your grasp of physical climatology. You are in good company with the others running scared from a few simple questions here. Which is doubtless why you have appeared out of the woodwork to help your extremely distressed friends O'louse and GSW.
Of course perhaps GSW and O'Louse are so very reluctant to answer those questions because they saw what happened to 2Stupid's ill-fated attempts over the last several weeks.
So maybe they aren't really your friends after all? You are more the goat driven into the minefield to see if there's a way through.
Bill, I have vague feeling that want to say something substantional that contradicts my very clear and well founded arguments.
So why don't write them down and share them with me? Unravel from you tight fetus postition and make an arguments of some sort, at least? Why not start with taking one a thumb out of any of your two major orifices? Should be a good start for some right forward talk, me thinks. ;-)
Stootoo - sorry, did reading all that makes your lips sore? Get a friend to help you with the hard words...
"Hitler’s socialism sure contained a lot of socialism. Anti-capitalism"
This guy Petri doesn't know what a complete fool he's making of himself. I guess next he will assert that three men from Gaza did the Reconquista, pogroms and Shoa and that Stalin is now the president of the USA. What a moron. Must be a member of the teafuck party.
#98, just learnt to write?
@Kampen, you are very welcome to comment on the "rightness" of the progressive welfare program in Germany or the outspoken anti-capitalism and anti-liberalim in the national socialistic doctrines, if you like. The same goes for Gramsci's analysis of Mussolini, of course.
So far you have just expressed strong emotions. :-)
And so far, O'Louse, you have said exactly fuck-all:
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you agree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?
4/ If you *disagree*, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures not continue to rise as CO2 concentrations increase?
6/ What is your preferred estimate for ECS (with uncertainty)
7/ Do you believe that the MCA was global, synchronous and as warm as or warmer than the present?
8/ If you do, how do you reconcile this with a low climate sensitivity?
Your diversionary shite about political history and libertarianism has been comprehensively routed, O'Louse. Your sitting there with a stupid smirk on your face denying this just makes you look ludicrous.
Why no answers?
What's the problem?
You have so very, very much to say about diversionary irrelevancies but not a single word when it comes to the subject of the main discussion, which was climate science. Why is that?
BBD, By now you should realize that meathead is exactly that - a Swedish meathead. He has no scientific expertise whatever and merely parrots the crap he reads on anti-environmental blogs. When challenged over the science in them, he resorts to childish smears and irrelevant waffle. He believes the crap he reads on denier blogs not because of science but because of political and economic ideology.
Its a simple as that. When he tried to engage in some science with me, it was kindergarten level stuff. What struck me right away is how utterly stupid meathead is. So now he's gone off on a tangent about fascism and Mussolini and other crap, merely because I argued (correctly) that most of those who twist and masticate science to downplay AGW and thus render meaningful action mute are on the far right end of the political spectrum. This is not even open to debate; its a simple fact. Pretty well every think tank and astroturf group and pundit who opposes actions to deal with climate change are right wing conservatives who want to eviscerate public constraints in the pursuit of private profit. Yet we can expect the old Swedish meatball to try and claim this isn't true. Given this fact, he's a blot who isn't really worth discussing anything with.
Jeff
Oh, I see it clearly enough, believe me. I'm just waiting for O'Louse to go away or be removed. Never back down to lying scum. Doubtless why we're both still here.
I'm also endlessly amused by the way that almost none of these clowns will actually admit that they are right-wing/conservative/libertarian ideologues whose political worldview compels them to deny the scientific evidence on AGW.
The absolute *lack* of moral courage is fascinating. It's as if at some level they are actually ashamed of what they are and what they are doing.
Or why not admit it, and admit it with pride?
#2, I expressed your strong emotions, yes. You are making so many typos - it must mean panic.
You are a historical revisionist if you state that Hitler and his cronies were anti-capitalistic. The reality is they were for capitalism, to be sure: for jungle capitalism/plunder ideology, not at all unlike e.g. the Koch Terrorists.
You probably fell completely for the Third Reich's antisemitic agitprop that attacked Jews for being both capitalists and communists - exactly the kind of antithetic craziness that would hypnotize you and is actually doing so.
#7 - yes, it takes their cowardice to new levels.
http://movie-sounds.org/fantasy-films-sound-bites/sound-clips-from-high…
http://movie-sounds.org/fantasy-films-sound-bites/sound-clips-from-high…
http://movie-sounds.org/fantasy-films-sound-bites/sound-clips-from-high…
@ Kampen, still no arguments besides Hitler had cronies that killed jews. Nobody is contesting that Kampen. Very disgusting, for sure, but not right in any sense of the word. Stalin's porgromes were also sanction by the bipolar hateful radical socialistic doctrines. The "evil" superstructure (the capital) was a parasite on the Base (people, workers). But the jews' association with trade and banking gave the superstructure an ethnic profile legitmizing and cultivating anti-semitism.
The NSDAP wanted to nationalise the German industry. How do make that coherrent "right wing"-capitalism?
I'm sure you will answer with more high-piitched unsubstantial mouth-diarrhea.
And that's only because don't have any arguments. :-)
Those ideologues (the three stooges) who are lost in the minefield of dodgy history would do well to read a few books which could set them straight on more than a few details and give food for thought.
'IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation' by Edwin Black
'Blood Money: The Swiss, the Nazis and the Looted Billions' by Tom Bower
Then these should be read together,
'Hidden Agenda: How the Duke of Windsor Betrayed the Allies' by Martin Allen
'Double Standards: The Rudolf Hess Cover-Up' by Lyn Picknet, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior.
With that latter a knowledge and understanding of some technical aviation background will help particularly with understanding technicalities of aviation fuels and engines.
'Web Of Deceit: Britain's Real Role in the World' by Mark Curtis which has an Introduction by John Pilger another who's books you should look up.
'Body Of Secrets: How America's NSA & Britain's GCHQ Eavesdrop On The World' by James Bamford.
There are many more I could add to that list but they should do for starters.
Try to lift that veil of ignorance which is obscuring your view of the world but do not engage further on this smokescreen of a topic until you repaired your cognitive framework and have answered those science questions posed to you which you are trying hard to ignore.
And you managed to entirely miss Jeff's point by doing so, and do it so determinedly that one might be forgiven for thinking you were TRYING to. What Jeff was referencing is libertarianism as practised in the US in this era, not libertarianism as you define it. Your quibbling that Jeff was using a definition that you failed to approve of - a definition that is widely used these days, so you can't legitimately claim that the definition is "wrong" - completely fails to connect with what Jeff said.
It's most interesting that this happened just when there was a movement afoot to try to distract from the lack of scientific support for certain positions and the blatant avoidance of the provision of answers to scientific questions by those advocating those positions...
#13, "The NSDAP wanted to nationalise the German industry. "
They "wanted to", Petri? Tsk, tsk. So you are corroborating your nonsense by dreaming up 'wishes & wants'.
"Stalin’s porgromes were also sanction by the bipolar hateful radical socialistic doctrines."
Petri, you really need your sedative. Your gibberish is becoming unreadable.
The word is 'pogroms', they happened end of nineteenth century and motivated zionism.
Your ignorance is disgusting.
Lionel A, he ignores the climate questions because he is a troll.
He probably knows the answers quite well. He just needs a flood of the millenium.
@ Kampen, heavy load you are coming up with. :-) To nationalize German industry was stated in NSDAP program. any comments besides emotions?
Stalin wanted to install perpect comunism. He didn't succed. But he sure "wanted" and "whished" to do so. :-)
Olap's lapsing into ranting gibberish and it's plain he knows less about politics than climate science.
And even less about the Right's war on the other.
...said the smiley-face, passive-aggressive, piss-weasel emoticon prince, with nary a hint of irony.
Chek,
You are right. Olly's posts are becoming more and more incoherent. His grammar, never much to begin with, is even getting worse with each post. Its a slow, inexorable slide into insanity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
#18 Petri, Stalin was a pure right wing fascist (but you probably read only 'SS' in 'USSR') and the pogroms were during Czarist Russia when 'Stalin' was still a Georgian boy.
Stalin deviated from 'pure communism' in sofar he decided the socialist revolution could not be globalized. You are fucking things up again and it is not even trolling, it is sheer stupidity.
The German industry was not nationalized. Do you realize what that means?
"I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative.", guess who said that.
@Kampen
Still in no-argument mode. :-)
I'm sure Stalin deviated from true communism (I told you that already) like Hitler deviated from NSDAP's program. Why is that relevant? Deviations are what politicians do best, dictators in particular. Accordningly is Stalin's actual politics compatible with him being a commie (or wasn't Stalin a commie? ;-) ), and Hitler's with him being a socialist. Elementary, my dear Kampen, and the examples can be multified.
The outcome od their actions is alswas disgusting even though, for instance, the German people was very happy for NSDAP's very progressive reform program.
And Stalin's antisemitism is well documented in the litterature. Here is a sample:
http://www.amazon.com/Stalins-Secret-Pogrom-Inquisition-Anti-fascist/dp…
And you call me a revisionist. Shame on you.
But I guess you are not susceptible historical facts of any kind?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
Most scholars consider German style fascism to be at the far right end of the political spectrum. As Wikipedia explains, Htiler's rise to power depended on support from extremely conservative and far right groups.
Meathead dabbles in political history and bingo! He's suddenly an authority. Where have we seen this before? With many AGW deniers of course.
OP, which way is Australia going?
Australian Anti-Protest Law Targets Environmental Activists With Fines And Jail
And who are the law protecting by this?
Police senseless vandalism adds to brutality
And here:
Duke Energy Caught Intentionally Dumping 61 Million Gallons Of Coal Waste Into North Carolina Water watch the video?
"Why is that any of this relevant? Deviations are what politicians lying denier scum do best"
Yes, that looks much closer to the truth now.
Beat me to it, chek.
O'Louse
Still in not-answering-basic-questions mode...
You have absolutely buggered yourself over this. It could not be worse. You were laughed at before, but I sense a new degree of contempt and derision among others. Quite an achievement really, considering where you were already when we started a few days ago.
What Olap doesn't seem to understand is that his rinkydink comprehension skills are what give him his rinkydink understanding of politics and his even more abysmal - and as we've seen indefensible - understanding of climate science.
I do hope his mates at klimatgoons.se or whatever their denier clubhouse is called are having a good laugh at his expense too. It must be duller than a wet Sunday in Stockholm that he spends so much time here.
#24, so now you can safely preach your neo-nazism, because that is what the insane interpretation of Hitler-as-a-commie is for.
Stalin was an antisemite, yes, I knew that of course. But 15, fifteen Jews, picked up and partly killed in secrecy? You don't even know what a pogrom is!
#29, contempt and derision on a new scale, well observed. Contempt.
Since I've seen Dutch extreme right take on the US fringe extreme right fantasy of nazis having been leftists. It is a special variant of the genocidaires and wannabe genocidaires - after the act they always express a peculiar mixture of denial and pride!
#26 OM'G' that country is going down the drain fucking fast! That is a czarist, an Erdogan, an al-Assad measure! And fuck those killers have fans that somehow breed too.
And now there is this
Stephen Lewandowsky: Confronting the Anti-Science Thought Police
to go with works by Bob Altemeyer, Robert J. Brulle and John Mashey.
Note that omnologos has chipped in with his bent 2ps.
@Kampen, you are so boring. I have nowhere claimed that Hitler was a commie.
But I guess that kind of fabrications is the only thing you can muster.
And fascism isn't communism or syndicalism either, but it stems from both. Very simple, which Gramsci was well aware of
The silliest part is that you think that it is dangerous to view fascism for what it is, ergo a branch of the famillytree of socialism. In what way?
Kampen, can you please improve you game? I really find it troublesome that you are denyig Stalin's anti-semtism.
Correct Jeff, most scholars in history, like you, have en unsubstantiated opinion about fascism being right-wing. But they have not dared (or more correct: avoided) relating fascsims doctrines to their ideological background of Mussolini.
And people voting for Hitler wasn't far rigth. Many were, however, from a socio-economic backround that right wing politics normally courts. But like both Marx and Engels, people from that kind of background can preferr socialism.
Which has what, exactly, to do with radiative physics and physical climatology, O'Louse?
Absolutely fuck-all, you say? It's just a desperate diversionary tactic? Ah. I see.
Silly me.
BBD, it was Jef (for which time in order I don't remember) that started to shout about fascism.
Yes, I did get that. But prior to your desperate diversionary campaign, you were being asked some simple questions about climate science. Which you have yet to answer. Do you now feel able to proceed, Olaus?
Olap hasn't comprehended yet that his shit understanding of climate science and his desperate inability to answer simple questions points strongly to a similar (lack of) understanding of political history.
A clown who's read a book isn't suddenly an intellectual, just a clown who's read some words in a book.
Perhaps I should clarify the previous.
Bell-end clown parrots of denier shite in one subject (e,g. climate science) are extremely likely (with the emphasis on extreme) to be bell-end clown parrots in other things (e,g. dodgy Swedish right wing loony movements with appeal to brainless wingnut parrots).
There, that's better. I think that describes Olap to a tee.
Chek, unlike you, I read a books. :-)
I know you struggle with that the rest of the Deltoid bunch, incuding Jeff, laughs at you.
You are lying again Olaus. I don't laugh at chek. Nor does anyone else here who is commenting in good faith.
Which should embarrass you but won't.
That certainly doesn't indicate that structure or meaning penetrates your thick, neanderthal skull.
But thanks for playing, arsehole.
Now fuck off, and good riddance..
Since you are determined not to engage on climate science, here are a few random questions for you:
- Should Eddie Van Halen be regarded as one of the most influential rock guitarists of the C20th?
- Why is the sky blue?
- Should cannabis be legalised?
Well there you go. Chek again, and I'm not laughing.
Sic probo!
Stop lying BBD. We all laugh at chek and his silly efforts to be somebody.
But what about EVH's contribution to the evolution of the rock guitar solo? And why is the sky not green, or two different species of antelope?
And should we legalise marijuana? Thus empowering farmers in developing economies and depriving the criminal economy of a substantial revenue stream?
You all do?.
I must tell my therapist immediately that I was right all along!
Or.... are you just making that up, Olap?
Empirical evidence an' all dat jive, mon....
Don't fuck wid me now Swedish Nazi bro'....
Chek, you don't need to tell anyone that you have a therapist.It is more than obvious that you must have at least one, but most likely two.
And how ca I be a nazi-bro? I like nazism less than you do. I don't even like of Its socislistic garbage, like you do.
But Olap, you parrot all the anti-science garbage they publish, without even bothering to understand what they're saying" How can that be?
Truly pathetic. Why does Oily have 2 logins, by the way?
Okay, the EVH question was a bit specialised, but Olaus, why is the sky blue?
Come on, Olaus.
First google hit for "why is the sky blue" gets me this, from NASA, no less.
While it's true to say that EVH certainly popularised the tapping technique in the rock guitar solo genre - and was recognised at thee time by luminaries such as Michael Jackson as an innovator, and furthered by such Beckian stalwarts as Jennifer Battenh, in and of itself it doesn't make redundant non -tappers who work in other scales without retuning.
I refer you to the guitar sound - produced on the cheap and unbelievably never bettered - on the Pistol's NMTB. Except perhaps by that produced - and I use the word advisedly - on the Led Zep O² December 2007 comeback show.
So with that resolved, should we legalise pot?
What do *you* think, Olaus? Come on; you are very free with your opinions so let's have it.
chek
Yes on the tone Glen Matlock had on NMTB. Very close to the EVH "brown sound". Always loved both :-)
Lotharsson @ # 15,
Apparently, along with Chek and Stu, you are just wishing to argue for argument's sake.
In case you didn't notice I agreed that the US Government could not be described as 'libertarian'.
Your assertion that it's:
" a definition that is widely used these days"
Is nonsense.
Look up the definition of 'libertarianism"
It does not say:
" as practised in the US "
Perhaps you may need to reread jp's comment ?
I also note that Jeff has since omitted using 'libertarian' in his comments and criticisms of 'right wing' and US politics. @ # 5.
As for your inference about when this started - it was Jeff Harvey's political comments as he also concedes in his comment @ # 5:
" merely because I argued (correctly) that most of those who twist and masticate science to downplay AGW and thus render meaningful action mute are on the far right end of the political spectrum. "
twas brilig
and ye slithy toads
did gyre and gimbal
and wifully misconstrue?
Good grief. Olaus is in denial about even that! I am coming around to the opinion that he's a kangaroo short in the top paddock, and this affects all kinds of beliefs.
ROFLMAO! This is rank projection, Stu 2!
Your entire argument here has had ZERO to do with Jeff's point because you've predicated it on the pedant's standard fare - "that word doesn't mean that because I say so!"
In other words, you're picking an argument with the way Jeff used a word, not with the position Jeff put forth. That is precisely "an argument for argument's sake".
I predict you'll miss this point too, in order to continue in your favourite modus operandi.
You're stupidly projecting again, and you're relying on at least one of the fallacy of personal incredulity and the fallacy of personal ignorance to do so. My statement is borne out of spending a lot of time on US political blogs where the definition is widely used. In other words, I've seen it widely used in blogs that cover the domain - politics - that it refers to.
And you got that wrong too. I implied exactly that when I castigated you for failing to connect with what Jeff wrote, instead making a big fuss because he used a word without using the Stu 2-approved definition of it.
And your getting that wrong serves the purpose of recursively distracting from my point, which was that your quibbling about not using the definition you approve of served as a distraction from the lack of scientific support for certain positions, right when one was "needed".
I rest my case Lotharsson.
I am not interested in some type of petulant I said: you said argument.
Very boring.
Look up the definition of Libertarianism and reread jp's comment.
O'lap says, "Deltoid is a pit full of pus where cretins "
The fix is easy, O'lap: you remove yourself (the pus and the cretin) and everything is clean again.
He follows it with, "I totally understand Tim’s reluctance to engage in this blog anymore."
See, O'lap? That's what happens with generations of inbreeding. The logical functions of the brain gradually disappear. Tim is anything but a denier; I'm sure he can't stand lying denier shit like you and GSW. If he's banned Jonass from general conversation and confined him to his hole, it's not because he likes him. So an intelligent person, not you for sure, can only infer that his reluctance to engage is solely because of the persistent presence of yourself and the other denier pus-bags polluting this site.
Stu2, don't bring me into your argument; I've never said anything about liberterianism in the US.
cRR says,"This guy Petri doesn’t know what a complete fool he’s making of himself"
Well, it's either a total lack of self-awareness which a mark of very low intelligence or it's this right-wing trait of doubling-down; they're smart enough to be aware but when they've been proven to be wrong, or when asked questions which would expose their belief to be substance-free, they don't have the integrity or the moral courage to admit anything and so they totally ignore the question and keep repeating the same thing over and over, believing that the mere repetition of a statement will make it true.
As someone here has already mentioned, one of the basic mindsets of a right-wing idiot is that "truth" is only relative and not as important as winning in the big game of things. This has been demonstrated recently with right-wing parties in the US and Australia where all sorts of devious stratagems _ lying, cheating, and other methods employed to frustrate the process of government _ were employed to win. To a right-wing turd, winning is not only the main game, it's the only game. They can't allow themselves to question their beliefs as that would open up the possibility of being wrong. That just wouldn't be on _ you can't be a winner and be shown to be wrong at the same time.
In some contests you can be wrong and still win by cheating, but in an online debate the only strategies they can use are avoidance and "look, squirrel!" For O'lap the Petrified, his current strategy for avoiding answering the questions asked of him is "look, Mussolini!!"
Monkton is able to use dramatics, flourish, and bluster to fool the average simple-minded denier into believing that he knows what he's talking about, but online, where he is deprived of those tools, does anyone see him engaging in debate at RealClimate or tamino's?
As for Mussolini, I can't understand what point the idiot is trying to make. Yes, Mussolini was a socialist before he turned fascist _ so what? O'lap's stunted brain has concluded, very logically, that therefore fascism=socialism. Yep, if you were something before you became something else then the former is the same as the latter. Denier logic for you.
No you didn't jp.
The argument you raised re socialism and democracy was, nonetheless, contextually valid.
What Encyclopedia Brittanica says about Benedetto Croce's _ foremost Italian philosopher of the first half of the 20th century _ view of fascism. (my caps).
"The test was to be fascism, the political attitude that places the nation or race at the centre of life and history and disregards the individual and his rights. So gradual was this preparation that Croce himself did not at once perceive it. He confessed that he first saw in FASCISM A MOVEMENT TO THE RIGHT OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM THAT MIGHT RESTRAIN AND COUNTERACT THE LEFTIST TENDENCIES TOWARD UNRESTRICTED INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM released by World War I. But as the character of the Benito Mussolini regime revealed itself, his opposition hardened, becoming absolute, beyond compromise. He became, within and without Italy, the symbol of the opposition to fascism, the rallying point of the lovers of liberty. In fascism Croce saw not merely another form of political tyranny. He saw it as the emergence of that other Italy, in which egoism displaced civic virtue, rhetoric dislodged poetry and truth, and the pretentious gesture replaced authentic action."
The projection is strong in this one.
O'lap says,
"Please feel free to make a point. :-)
Hitler’s socialism sure contained a lot of socialism. Anti-capitalism and anti-liiberalism for instance. The wellfare program developed by the nazis during the 1930s in Germany was very progressive judged by international standards."
At least you attempted to give an answer, even if totally superficial and doesn't give any indication that you know what you're talking about.
As for the invitation to make a point, thanks, but I've made the points I wanted to make. The fact that you can't see one while at the same time giving a response to one shows what an idiot you are. Of course part of that last point I made was to highlight the stupidity of people, and you're definitely one of them, who think that just because the word "socialist" appears on a party's name it must therefore mean that it's socialist in principle. There's no comparative analysis of what the parties stand for and no understanding even of what socialism is.
"Anti-capitalism."
How? _ with reference please.
"The wellfare program developed by the nazis..."
Australia, New-Zealand, England, France and everywhere in Scandinavia (ironically) and to a lesser the US _ in other words most of the developed world _ has decent welfare programs. Those with the best welfare programs, mostly Scandinavian ones, are consistently rated as having a better standard of living than the US with its aversion to anything that could be construed as "socialist".
So would you label all those countries fascist, or socialist?
So is the objection to fascism, at least among normal people, related to its having good welfare programs? Is that what you're saying O'lap?
Quite apart from your general ignorance, I don't think you know what you're saying O'lap. You're not capable of logical, coherent thought. You're just a fucking dummy.
"”This guy Petri doesn’t know what a complete fool he’s making of himself”
That's part of his pathology. He thinks he's an expert on everything, and that most readers must, by definition, believe him. Every since he first came into Deltoid to support his equally deluded compatriot, Jonas, he has spewed nothing but gibberish. For a time Olaus was banned to the 'Jonas delusion' thread as well, but somehow he slipped the leash and end up re-contaminating the general threads. Somehow we have to get Tim to put him back in the cage.
@ Stu. Strong comeback. :-)
@Jp
So far you have only expressed opinions. Nowhere do you try to explain why and how "yong Mussolini's" anti-lberalism, anti-capitalism and hate of the bourgeoisie society suddenly become right-wing within a year or two?
Ever hareard the word "process"? And historically it's not uncommon that international socialists turnes into national socialist.
Socialism/communism isn't a monolith. Like today, its content changed and new types emerged, espacially in revolutionary circuits, something that often is made fun of.
And regarding state initiated general welfare programs, is it your political analysis that they are an invention fro the right side om the political spectrum?
Man, you are clutching after straws. :-)
And Jp, to understand the devlopments within socialism one has to place it on the left side of the fence. At its radical end point off-springs occur frequently (the road to utopia is a narraow one). Some of these of these off-springs take a left turn (stay international) and some take a right turn (become national).
So, Olaus, what is your preferred central estimate for ECS/2xCO2? Please provide the range of uncertainty +/-.
Thanks!
No thoughts on the blueness of the sky or the notability of EVH's contribution to the rock genre? Nor the thorny issue of legalisation? Where libertarianism meets fair trade :-) (TM)
Is this toxic little nonentity going to drone on forever, do you suppose?
Bill, you are coming on strong today. :-)
Omigosh, I can't wait to her meatheads analysis of neoconservatism...
"Nowhere do you try to explain why and how “yong Mussolini’s” anti-lberalism, anti-capitalism and hate of the bourgeoisie society suddenly become right-wing within a year or two?" [sic]
The outbreak of the first world war, and the rise of a movement in Italian politics that was above anything else, nationalist. Mussolini's conversion took place not within a year or two, but within a few months. But this was not a "process", but a break with the past. The Italian Socialist party threw him out because he was not longer, by any definition, a socialist.
Mussolini formerly subscribed to the class-struggle, cutting across international borders. In response to the new vocal irrendentism, he advocated national revolution irrespective of class. His sights had shifted from the bourgeoisie as a class to non-italians. In case I need to say it explicitly, he was no longer any kind of socialist, by definition.
There, thats your question answered. Now how about being a mensch and addressing (or even acknowledging this existance) of the questions put to you?
For anyone confused about how the denier 'hiatus' garbage could square with 2010 being the hottest year (and all the other big heat events during the supposed 'pause') this analysis from Tamino answers many questions.
Apologies if somebody has already posted it before, but the S/N ratio's been dreadful around here recently.
jp #66, well analyzed.
Look at this one, in #31 I said:
"Stalin was an antisemite, yes, I knew that of course."
Ofap's (panicky: typo's!) reply in #34:
"I really find it troublesome that you are denyig Stalin’s anti-semtism."
That is plain trolling.
I would like to mention it is not a game for them. My take on this sort of apes is they hate their life, must project it and do so by harassing other's and ideally (for them) by destroying other people's lives. Which is the object of fascism but never was for communism however misguided the latter may be.
#77 - it has to. Addiction/obsession.
Jeff, you are in top gear! :-)
FrankD, yes, fascism grew out of radical socialism, ergo communism and syndicalism. You got it!
I had missed this one on Loo's fury:
http://climateaudit.org/2014/03/21/lewandowskys-fury/
:-)
And have you read the comments over at Lew's place?:
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf1.html
Lots of fake sceptics *are* paranoid conspiracy theorists. Fact. You also tend to be right wing or libertarian, and sickeningly intellectually dishonest. All facts empirically established by talking to you.
FWIW, the journal should have told Barry Woods to take a flying fuck.
At a rolling doughnut.
Oh, and that nasty little shit Foxgoose as well.
#85, you missed that one - confesses where you read and where you don't and where you got your climate (and other) ignorance from.
#87 BBD so now we tell the journal to take that.
@Kampen, pay attention to what FranD writes. And then ask yourself why WW1 created fascism out of a blood thirsty commie with syndicalistic interest (and not from a liberal for instance).
I guess the capitlaists/superstructure singled out a radical anti-liberal, anti-capitalist and hater of the bourgeoisie society and then paid him handsomly to remain an anti-liberal, anti-capitalistic hater of the bourgeoisie society.
:-)
As it may have been missed in the noise from the children shouting in the corner, with their D (or should it be D-K) caps on, I once again link to the Climate Crocks article:
Stephen Lewandowsky: Confronting the Anti-Science Thought Police where one omnologos, aka Maurizio Morabito, is starting to throw his toys out of the pram.
Thank you OP at #86 for linking to Lewandowsky as if it strengthens whatever points you are yet to make. Some of those comments are hilarious but a 'bag full of hammers' like you misunderstands which ones.
I see Tom Fuller lying in comments there, claiming that Watts wasn't funded by HI. I've left a calling card.
"There" being Shaping Tomorrow's World, not Climate Crocks.
WRT #95 BBD taken as read, but probably not obvious to the dear children.
Noting Eli has commented over on the, ongoing, Recursive Fury I wandered over to his place to see if he had anything to say6 about it but found this instead:
Mordor Of Our Own Making wherein are links to some scary stuff:
Nasa-funded study: industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'?.
Climate Change: ‘Abrupt,’ ‘Unpredictable,’ ‘Irreversible’ and ‘Highly Damaging’.
Looks like some of our protagonists may regret throwing the label CAGW around after all. Looks pretty dire to me, but then I have already commented about what happens as civilization tries to recover from one blow but gets bowled over by another and the way that each particular threat - food supply, SLR, disease can act as threat multipliers, the complete threat being more than the sum of its parts.
Those of us with functioning cognitive frameworks could foresee all this.
Oooh, it's kicking off. Foxgoose has just libelled Gleick - accusing him of forgery... Funny how FG was straight on to the journal with his legal threats yet throws around libellous statements like it ain't no thing.
@ # 90 Likening the words of Corporal Jones,
"They don't like it up'em, Captain BBD, sir"
Sauce for the 'Goose.
:-)
Nice one, twice at that, BBD.
I go away, track down and hopefully fix a water leak (I am allowed being an ex FAA plumber as they used to derogatorily label we AAs - in 'The Mob' which latter is JackSpeak, also on Kindle for the RN) and find you have done the biz plugging a leak in somebodies head.
#92, WW's create nothing. They destroy.
chek
I've just realised that I have Glen Matlock playing guitar on NMTB, which must have been a surprise for Steve Jones, who is hopefully not a regular reader of Deltoid's bareknuckle forum.
I think what might have happened is that ancient memories of the fact that Jones played bass as well as guitar on most of NMTB (because Sid was abysmal and Matlock had left) confused me. Drink might also have played a part. Apologies.
SJ's tone is interesting. Everybody seems to agree that he used a Fender Twin Reverb which is a tube amp not typically capable of a really dirty overdriven sound. SJ says he had Gauss brand speakers in it, which would have toned down the rather cutting top end you get from these things and fattened up the middle, but I still can't really marry up his tone with an FTR as-is. SJ says that he laid down lots of guitar tracks one over the other on NMTB, which I'll bet has a lot to do with it, but for my money, he probably used some kind of fuzz pedal or overdrive (signal booster) to get that grind.
Just been listening to it again. Cracking.
No sweat BBD - I assumed you really meant SJ.
And I agree that bog standard FTR's are way too thin sounding compared to a Marshall or (my fave, until nicked Orange) valve top. But apparently he changed the speakers to Gauss, and having swapped out 4 xFane 12's for 4 x Celestion back in the day that can make a difference. I'll have to dig out the Classic Albums making of NMTB and pay attention to the scenery more!
One studio trick (in the Phil Jones - no relation - sense) that's used is to feed the guitar track back through the amp and re-record it with slightly different tone settings and preferably a treble boost, which when mixed together with the original applying a couple of ms delay and panned properly gives a monster sound with lots of crunch and cut in there.
Then again, he used a Marshall on the reform your, so I tend to think that with good players, getting a good sound is as much to do with feel and physicality before a volt even gets generated in the p/u.
p.s regarding Gleick's alleged forging that infamous Heartless doc, ISTR that Heartland swore that it didn't exist on their office PCs, but didn't mention their laptops or any other devices which were available then - way back in 2011.
An odd and far from cast iron affirmation.
Not that it matters either way now, except as a twig for deniers to beat up on.
chek
More apologies. I didn't realise you were a musician ("this is an FTR, chek" etc). Definitely agree wrt superiority of Celestions! Long ago, I had a 50W Marshall head and a 4x cab with Cs in it. But it was too loud for practice in farty little flats in London and too big. But back to SJ - if asked to guess I would have said "Marshall head" for the amp on NMTB. You might well be right about the mixing though - SJ says that he recorded several guitar tracks but that certainly doesn't mean he *played* them and layered. Much easier to do it electronically and you get a tidy result without the imprecision of layering individual, separate takes.
Re libellous accusations that Gleick forged the HI documents, I can't remember Watts actually denying that HI was paying him to produce a data visualisation tool to display NOAA temperature.
In fact I have a feeling that he may even have confirmed this, which would be rather strong evidence that the documents G obtained were genuine.
Does anyone know if this is correct? Did Watts confirm that HI was paying him?
No apologies required BBD. And that's a nice rig you had and more than adequate for live gigs before proper pro PA systems came along. God, I recall counting 22 WEM 4x10 columns as 'the PA' at a Fleetwood Mac gig when they were a big name in Peter Green days. These days I find my 45 year old WEM 15 watter valve combo more than adequate for annoying theneighbours!
'Ey up lad - Shall we break out the chateau de chassilier now?,
I'll have to go look, but ISTR that the majority of the liberated docs were authentic, with just some doubt about he one (which possibly included the school outreach program) I mentioned a couple of comments ago not refuted in an entirely convincing way.
Ah, it seems that Watts confirmed the HI funding:
If Gleick faked the document, how is it that the dollar amount paid to Watts is exactly correct? Lucky guess?
Back in reality, this is clear, even conclusive evidence that HI was funding WUWT to the tune of $88k and that the document is genuine. That's a hell of a lot of money for a data viewing utility.
I see Jeff Id in comments at Recursive.
Id frequently appeared at DeSmogBlog comments and is otherwise know as Patrick Jeff Condon who runs a 'contrarian blog the Air Vent'.
Exactly so.
Not to mention the HI funding to the New Zealand cranks (NSCSC I think) after they had repeatedly sworn blind they received no outside -let alone foreign - funding. That one was covered over at Gareth's Hot Topic. Maybe an email to him will save you time?
I'm pretty sure I've seen Condon elsewhere - but not the last year or so. But the boringpredictabletedious tends to blur a bit, so my memory may not be wonderful.
I understand Air Vent were one of the prime movers in the so-called Klimatgate nonsense, but not being a follower of crank blogs I have no idea of subsequent sewerage they may deal in.
I must admit I ROFL-ed MAO at this from omnologos' first comment at Climate Crocks:
Perhaps omnologos should inform all of those "skeptics" who are still attempting to wage war on "the Hockey Stick", or those that cherry pick the 1998 El Nino because their claims about temperature collapse if they don't?
One has to admire the tenacity and skill of John Mashey of which his link at Climate Crocks to the Murry Salby affair is worth a follow so I'll include it here:
Defamation By Internet? Part 1 - Murry Salby's Short-Lived Blog Storm
and to which John Mashey promises a sequel 'Defamation by Internet? Part 2 - SalbyStorm Surges Through (Un)skeptical Blogs'.
A new EU survey shows that the overwhelming majority of EU citizens accept the scientific case for AGW and back taking action.
Key results :
Nine in ten Europeans consider climate change a serious problem
80% of respondents agree that fighting climate change and using energy more efficiently can boost the economy and jobs
92% of respondents think it is important for their governments to provide support for improving energy efficiency by 2030, with just over half (51%) saying this is 'very important'.
(Each survey consists of approximately 1000 face-to-face interviews per country).
Sorry, that should be EU survey
A new paper on Sea Levels published in 'Nature Climate Change' 23/03/14
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2159…
"Present-day sea-level rise is a major indicator of climate change1. Since the early 1990s, sea level rose at a mean rate of ~3.1 mm yr−1 (refs 2, 3). However, over the last decade a slowdown of this rate, of about 30%, has been recorded4, 5, 6, 7, 8. It coincides with a plateau in Earth’s mean surface temperature evolution, known as the recent pause in warming1, 9, 10, 11, 12 Here we present an analysis based on sea-level data from the altimetry record of the past ~20 years that separates interannual natural variability in sea level from the longer-term change probably related to anthropogenic global warming. The most prominent signature in the global mean sea level interannual variability is caused by El Niño–Southern Oscillation, through its impact on the global water cycle13, 14, 15, 16. We find that when correcting for interannual variability, the past decade’s slowdown of the global mean sea level disappears, leading to a similar rate of sea-level rise (of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm yr−1) during the first and second decade of the altimetry era. Our results confirm the need for quantifying and further removing from the climate records the short-term natural climate variability if one wants to extract the global warming signal10."
"We find that when correcting for interannual variability, the past decade’s slowdown of the global mean sea level disappears, leading to a similar rate of sea-level rise (of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm yr−1) during the first and second decade of the altimetry era."
Wow. So a period biased to La Nina has the expected effects on both global temperatures and sea level. And sea level rise is proceeding apace.
Thanks, "2", for confirming what we already knew. No doubt this explains why this wasn't published in a leading journal - not breaking new ground.
I see Richard 'Groene Rekenkamer' Tol is up to his old tricks again ina new climate change report. And the state-corporate media is buying it hook, line and sinker. Trust the BBC to overplay Tol's as-usual nonsensical contrarian argument as if it is shared by many scientists. In fact, if one reads this stupid BBC article, its Tol alone who has concerns over its conclusions.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26655779
Stu2
Old news. LN drives precipitation increase. Recent powerful LNs caused so much rain over land that MSL *fell*. Paper you link quantifies the effects.
See also Boening et al. (2012) The 2011 La Niña: So strong, the oceans fell
Press release.
I see Tol has asked for his name to be removed from the WGII SPM, which is a step in the right direction. Self-marginalisation can achieve more than the concerted efforts of others in that direction.
For whom the bell tolls
It Tols for he.
I expect that Delers is raving at the moment with news that Siemens confirm Green Port Hull wind turbine factory to be built.
I may be going dark er long as XP support being pulled catches me at a low ebb financially and health wise and with much else going on around me. I have devices which ain't likely to work well on Win 7 or even less likely Win 8 (which has a god-dam awful interface). Microsoft a message for you - ! The hassle is just not worth it.
Lionel
If money does somehow permit, buy a cheapo Win8 box and connect to the internet using that. Network it to your XP box and peripherals via your router and everything stays much the same. Just don't use the insecure XP box for internet access. Block it. Set options to "Access Local Only" or whatever the XP equivalent is in network setup.
Iffy link there. Hopefully this is what you were pointing at:
Siemens confirms Green Port Hull wind turbine factory to be built
Also, Lionel, Windows 8.1 can boot directly to the Desktop. You don't get that irritating touchscreen interface.
Craig, its also worth observing that the Queensland floods in 2010 & 2011 (I suppose related to La Nina, but a notable excursion from the standard La Nina) had a measurable effect on Global Sea Levels. Since this comes towards the decade they were studying, it would necessarily flatten the trend through that period - possible accounting for all of the 30% decline.
Removing interannual variability makes trends more visible. In other news, water is wet.
BBD Yes thanks for adding a working link.
I have worked at manufacturing in GRP, polyester and epoxide for aircraft (Perspex too) and am impressed by the size of that mould.
And thanks for the OS tips, space is an issue with having two boxes and a notebook is out from gout. I feel like saying sod it and falling off this treadmill all together.
'Where do I want to go today?' To dump obsoleted kit on Microsoft's doorstep.
Why not consider an external keyboard? I never use a notebook keyboard if I can help it - they are vile.
Have you looked into specialist keyboards for damaged hands?
Don't give up.
;-)
FrankD: "Removing interannual variability makes trends more visible. In other news, water is wet."
When "Stu 2" posted his link and quote, do you suppose he actually understood this is what it was saying?
Somehow I tend to think that 2Stu doesn't subscribe to Nature, but rather was told by someone 'here's another final nail in the coffin of AGW'.
I just hope 2Stupid doesn't spend the next month trying to defend his incomprehension like he did with Abbot & Pierrehumbert and Snowball Earth deglaciation.
There's stupidity and there's aggravated stupidity...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__nHqyLfeFE
Aside, the Moscow March stats (near two centuries of them) may be trashed.
Old March record was +17.5° C from way back in 2007.
Day before yesterday, +18.8° C.
Yesterday, +19.7° C.
(AGW will not beat records once by a tiny margin. It will smash them multiple times in a row)
It seems that this is apropos the thread at Shaping Tomorrow's World (and I'm talking about the main body, not the small mention of the withdrawn paper at the end).
(Delingpole apparently horrendously misrepresented the article that post discusses. It's quite telling that he needs to do that over and over again...and as Torcello points out "...it is clear that the bloggers misrepresenting my views knew exactly what they were doing with the scandalous headlines and crafted misquotations. Even when they linked to my article, they felt secure in the judgement that their audience wouldn’t read it.")
Yes, I read the DeSmog article. The vile tactics of the fake sceptics and the right-wing media need to be brought to wider public notice. Most people have no idea what these vermin are doing.
We spoke briefly last week about Michael Mann's attack on "the right to free speech" in the Mark Steyn case. Judith Curry has more on this "Trial of the century?" here,
http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/25/trial-of-the-century/
And BBC podcast here,
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/newshour/newshour_2014…
(Main segment of report at 29:45)
JC Quote: "The key statement of concern made by Mark Steyn is that Michael Mann molested and tortured data – specifically the tree ring data that were used in his famous hockey stick analysis. Unlike data that you collect in a controlled laboratory environment, climate data is messy. First you have to select which data you are going to use, and this selection process inevitably leads to concerns about ‘cherry picking.’ Second, you need to calibrate or adjust the data, particularly if you are using proxy data such as tree rings. And thirdly you need to select the statistical methods for analyzing the data. Mann’s data analysis has been criticized with regards to all three of these issues"
Indeed.
That comments section at the Torcello article had grown rather since I first looked in and I see one Brad Keyes who once haunted us in the mix cheer-leading for a Helen Stream both of whom have had many comments pulled. Alastair Leith has the measure of Keyes though with Brad's,
. Spot on Mr Leith.
It is a shame so many comments are removed, maybe one day a Collected Edition of the most egregious blog comments will be published with appropriate cautions.
It is clear that some bloggers are just plain ignorant, some are malicious but that does not exclude them having both of those qualities, if qualities can be considered an appropriate designation that is.
Trust GSW to inhale and exhale Judith Curry's second hand smoke.
JC's career, as a trusted scientist, will soon be in a more rapid spiral of decline than Arctic sea ice.
Do you really think that Mark Steyn understood the principals of Mann's research any better than you do? Besides Mann's resultant paper is long in the tooth now and has been backed up by many other studies using other proxies [1] since.
[1] Do you think that temperature can be measured without proxies of some form?
Steyn is fucked. He is a nasty, right wing thug who tried to smear the wrong scientist - someone who has had enough of lies and smears from the right wing thugs and the industry shills. And now he is going to get what he richly deserves.
More from Mark steyn here, his post,
"What Kind of Fool Am I?"
http://www.steynonline.com/6201/what-kind-of-fool-am-i
Mark seems to have newly acquired some celebrity[?] free speech lawyers lined up to fight his case, which is being billed as a "Trial of the Century"/"The Mann vs Free speech".
These guys are unlikely to be cheap and those of you with an interest in supporting the right to free speech can do so here.
"Give the Gift of Steyn
...and help support free speech"
http://www.steynonline.com/6048/give-the-gift-of-steyn
;)
BBD said it. Steyn is IMHO an obnoxious right wing quack. Trust gormless to side with this kind of idiot.
GSW
Even you might understand this: MBH99 validated by PAGES-2K:
Source.
* * *
We go from 1999 to 2013. Many studies have validated the Mannean hockey stick but PAGES-2K is a multi-author, multi-institutional collaboration bringing together the very latest data.
Look at the graph above and read the words:
PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia
Mann was broadly correct. Liars from McIntyre to Steyn are simply wrong. There is no room left for doubt. Not intellectually honest doubt, anyway.
We also noted that this was not an attack on "the right to free speech", but (unsurprisingly) that concept was too difficult for you to grok.
Speaking of too difficult to grok, Curry is conflating two different things, eithe to mislead her audience or because she's not very good at grokking herself:
Steyn didn't merely say that Mann had been criticised on "all three of these issues" - let alone establish that any of the criticisms were scientifically valid. He said far far more than that. And it's the distinction between what Steyn said and Curry's whitewash of it that matters here.
Ha. So Steyn is fucked *and penniless*. Well in the lovely, touchy-feely world of US law, he's chum then.
Byeee Mark.
PAGES-2K authors and affiliations:
Affiliations
Department of Botany, Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology, Karachi, 75300, Pakistan
Moinuddin Ahmed
Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York 10964, USA
Kevin J. Anchukaitis,
Brendan M. Buckley,
Edward R. Cook &
Jason E. Smerdon
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 2543, USA
Kevin J. Anchukaitis
School of Earth Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Asfawossen Asrat &
Mohammed Umer
Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune, 411008, India
Hemant P. Borgaonkar
Dipartimento di Matematica e Geoscienze, University of Trieste, 34128, Italy
Martina Braida &
Barbara Stenni
Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Birmensdorf, 8903, Switzerland
Ulf Büntgen &
Raphael Neukom
Département Paléoenvironnements et Paléoclimats (PAL), Université Montpellier, Montpellier, 34095, France
Brian M. Chase
Department of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies and Religion, University of Bergen, Bergen, 5020, Norway
Brian M. Chase
Laboratorio de Dendrocronología y Cambio Global, Universidad Austral de Chile, Casilla 567, Valdivia, Chile
Duncan A. Christie &
Antonio Lara
Center for Climate and Resilience Research, Universidad de Chile, Casilla 2777, Santiago, Chile
Duncan A. Christie &
Antonio Lara
Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Tasmania 7050, Australia
Mark A. J. Curran,
Andrew D. Moy &
Tas van Ommen
Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, Tasmania 7005, Australia
Mark A. J. Curran,
Andrew D. Moy &
Tas van Ommen
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado 80305, USA
Henry F. Diaz
Department of Geography, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, 55099, Germany
Jan Esper
Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yunnan, 666303, China
Ze-Xin Fan
Faculty of Science, Nepal Academy of Science and Technology, Khumaltar, GPO Box 3323, Lalitpur, Nepal
Narayan P. Gaire
Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China
Quansheng Ge &
Xuemei Shao
School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia
Joëlle Gergis
Departamento Astrofísica y CC de la Atmósfera, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, 28040, Spain
J Fidel González-Rouco
Lemaitre Center for Earth and Climate Research, Earth and Life Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1348, Belgium
Hugues Goosse
School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, Wits, 2050, South Africa
Stefan W. Grab &
David J. Nash
Hydrologic Research Center, San Diego, California 92130, USA
Nicholas Graham &
Rochelle Graham
Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research & Institute of Geography, University of Bern, Bern, 3012, Switzerland
Martin Grosjean &
Heinz Wanner
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, 00014, Finland
Sami T. Hanhijärvi &
Atte A. Korhola
School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011, USA
Darrell S. Kaufman &
Nicholas P. McKay
International Project Office, Past Global Changes (PAGES), Bern, 3012, Switzerland
Thorsten Kiefer &
Lucien von Gunten
Department of Symbiotic System Science, Fukushima University, Fukushima, 960-1248, Japan
Katsuhiko Kimura
Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, 106 91, Sweden
Paul J. Krusic
Laboratoire d'Océanographie et du Climat: Expérimentations et Approches Numériques (LOCEAN), Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris cedex, 575252, France
Anne-Marie Lézine
Department of History, Stockholm University, Stockholm, 106 91, Sweden
Fredrik C. Ljungqvist
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd., National Climate Centre Auckland, 1011, Zealand
Andrew M. Lorrey
Department of Geography, Climatology, Climate Dynamics and Climate Change, Justus Liebig University, Giessen, 35390, Germany
Jürg Luterbacher &
Johannes P. Werner
Laboratoire des Science du Climat et de l'Environnement, Gif-sur-Yvette, 91 191, France
Valérie Masson-Delmotte
Department of Geography, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK
Danny McCarroll &
Maria R. Prieto
Desert Research Institute, Nevada System of Higher Education, Reno, Nevada 89512, USA
Joseph R. McConnell &
Michael Sigl
Instituto Argentino de Nivología, Glaciología y Ciencias Ambientales (IANIGLA), CCT-CONICET-Mendoza, Mendoza, 5500, Argentina
Mariano S. Morales,
Ignacio A. Mundo &
Ricardo Villalba
British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, CB3 0ET, UK
Robert Mulvaney
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Nagoya University, Nagoya, 464.8601, Japan
Takeshi Nakatsuka &
Masaki Sano
School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, Brighton, BN2 4GJ, UK
David J. Nash
Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32308, USA
Sharon E. Nicholson
Department of Glaciology, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association, Bremerhaven, 27570, Germany
Hans Oerter
College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4RJ, UK
Jonathan G. Palmer
Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
Jonathan G. Palmer,
Steven J. Phipps &
Chris S.M. Turney
ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
Steven J. Phipps
Centro de Estudios Cientificos, Valdivia, Chile
Andres Rivera
Department of Chemistry 'Ugo Schiff', University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino, 50019, Italy
Mirko Severi
Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA
Timothy M. Shanahan
LASG, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100029, China
Feng Shi
Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 119017, Russia
Olga N. Solomina
Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA
Eric J. Steig
National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research, Goa, 403 804, India
Meloth Thamban
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA
Valerie Trouet
Department of Biology, Ghent University, Ghent, 9000, Belgium
Dirk Verschuren
Department of Geography, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, K1N 6N5, Canada
Andre E. Viau
Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, 2100, Denmark
Bo M. Vinther
Institute for Coastal Research, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Geesthacht, 21502, Germany
Sebastian Wagner &
Eduardo Zorita
National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado 80305, USA
Eugene R. Wahl
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
James W.C. White
Department of Forest Science, Shinshu University, Nagano, 399-4598, Japan
Koh Yasue
Deceased
Mohammed Umer
Consortia
PAGES 2k Consortium
Moinuddin Ahmed,
Kevin J. Anchukaitis,
Asfawossen Asrat,
Hemant P. Borgaonkar,
Martina Braida,
Brendan M. Buckley,
Ulf Büntgen,
Brian M. Chase,
Duncan A. Christie,
Edward R. Cook,
Mark A. J. Curran,
Henry F. Diaz,
Jan Esper,
Ze-Xin Fan,
Narayan P. Gaire,
Quansheng Ge,
Joëlle Gergis,
J Fidel González-Rouco,
Hugues Goosse,
Stefan W. Grab,
Nicholas Graham,
Rochelle Graham,
Martin Grosjean,
Sami T. Hanhijärvi,
Darrell S. Kaufman,
Thorsten Kiefer,
Katsuhiko Kimura,
Atte A. Korhola,
Paul J. Krusic,
Antonio Lara,
Anne-Marie Lézine,
Fredrik C. Ljungqvist,
Andrew M. Lorrey,
Jürg Luterbacher,
Valérie Masson-Delmotte,
Danny McCarroll,
Joseph R. McConnell,
Nicholas P. McKay,
Mariano S. Morales,
Andrew D. Moy,
Robert Mulvaney,
Ignacio A. Mundo,
Takeshi Nakatsuka,
David J. Nash,
Raphael Neukom,
Sharon E. Nicholson,
Hans Oerter,
Jonathan G. Palmer,
Steven J. Phipps,
Maria R. Prieto,
Andres Rivera,
Masaki Sano,
Mirko Severi,
Timothy M. Shanahan,
Xuemei Shao,
Feng Shi,
Michael Sigl,
Jason E. Smerdon,
Olga N. Solomina,
Eric J. Steig,
Barbara Stenni,
Meloth Thamban,
Valerie Trouet,
Chris S.M. Turney,
Mohammed Umer,
Tas van Ommen,
Dirk Verschuren,
Andre E. Viau,
Ricardo Villalba,
Bo M. Vinther,
Lucien von Gunten,
Sebastian Wagner,
Eugene R. Wahl,
Heinz Wanner,
Johannes P. Werner,
James W.C. White,
Koh Yasue &
Eduardo Zorita
Contributions
Writing teamg: D.S.K. led the synthesis; N.P.McK., E.Z. & S.T.H. performed the synthesis analyses; D.S.K., R.N., L.v.G., T.K., H.G., H.W., C.S.M.T., F.C.L., V.M-D., E.R.W., & T.v.O. prepared the manuscript. Africa: D.J.N., A.A., B.M.C., S.W.G., S.E.N., T.M.S, D.V., A-M.L., M.U. compiled and evaluated the proxy data. Antarctica: T.v.O, M.B., A.D.M., R.M., H.O., M.Se., B.S., E.J.S., M.T., J.W.C.W., M.A.J.C., J.R.McC., M.Si. & B.M.V. provided proxy data, contributed to their dating and interpretation; M.A.J.C., J.R.McC., M.Si. & B.M.V. correlated volcanic markers; T.v.O & R.N. produced the reconstruction; M.A.J.C. managed the data. Arctic: A.A.K., D.S.K. & S.T.H. coordinated the study. S.T.H, D.S.K. & F.C.L. collected and reviewed the proxy data; S.T.H. calculated the reconstruction and managed data. Asia: M.A., K.J.A., H.P.B., B.M.B.,Q.G., E.R.C., Z.F., N.P.G., K.K., P.J.K., T.N., J.G.P., M.Sa., X.S., O.N.S. & K.Y. contributed, collected and analysed the proxy data; K.J.A., B.M.B., E.R.C. & P.J.K. performed the reconstruction; T.N., M.Sa. & F.S. provided technical support and managed the data. Australasia: J.G., A.M.L., S.J.P. & R.N. coordinated the study. R.N. & J.G. collated, managed and analysed the proxy data; R.N. & J.G. developed the reconstruction with input from S.J.P. Europe: U.B., J.E., S.W., E.Z., D.McC., F.J.G.-R., F.C.L., J.E.S., J.P.W. & J.L. collected, reviewed and analysed the proxy records, and provided input in the analysis and interpretation of the European reconstruction; S.W. managed the data; J.P.W. & J.E.S. produced the reconstruction. North America: H.F.D., E.R.W., V.T., R.G., N.G. & A.E.V. designed the study, analysed the data, and produced the reconstructions; E.R.W. & A.E.V. collected and archived the data. South America: R.V. & M.G. coordinated the study; R.V., D.A.C, A.L., I.A.M., M.S.M., L.v.G., M.R.P. & A.R. provided proxy data; R.N. calculated the reconstruction; R.N. & I.A.M. managed the data. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Competing financial interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
GSW
Do you UNDERSTAND what you are being shown here? This isn't some trivial bit of paper. This is a mountain of work undertaken by a huge consortium of authors from institutions around the world. It is the state of the art.
Do you UNDERSTAND this?
Who the fuck is Mark Steyn?
Who the fuck is McIntyre?
And GSW you may care to peruse the many posts at Eli's place on Mark Steyn v Mann, to get your story straight, starting with his last:
All of a Sudden the World Famous Attorney May Realize He Is In Over His Head
and Curry whitewashing on this could be bad for Curry who cannot seem to resist putting distance between herself and respectable scientists.
You may also care to go to Eli's Home Page and scroll through the page noting a number of recent articles which you SHOULD read with a thinking head on, if you can find one that is, they will help set you straight on many misconceptions you have.
But of course that last suggestion is most likely wasted because you either won't or you can't.
As became clear during the Real Climate and its complementary Collide-a-Scape thread on Montford's novel, a few years ago, Curry really was utterly clueless when confronted on her comprehension of Mann's work.
And judging by the Steyn defenders that pop up on the Rabbet threads, he's attracting plenty of crank idiots. I doubt he'll be able to tell the difference when he chooses one for his defence.
ISTR mentioning rspung awhile back but as Lotharsson points out him making libelous claims. I guees that it is the eight in the 'rspung 26/3/14 6:43 AM' post in
All of a Sudden the World Famous Attorney May Realize He Is In Over His Head.
Note to our crank followers, that raft of comments from rspung is a salient lesson on what not to do if you judge by the responses given.
As for this gem:
Note to all tempted to go a hunting with rspung (I doubt that there would be many) - use your own arrows or starve.
What a fucking moron rspung is. Thanks for shortening my life by directing me to that comment thread.
Someone should inform the fuckwit that the reason RSS is an outlier is because of its geographic coverage: RSS: 82.5N – 70.0S compared to 85.0N - 85.0S for UAH.
RSS misses the strong Arctic amplification of warming over the last decade and it is enough to bias it cool. And that's before we consider the cherry-picked start date...
The cool bias from lacunae in surface temperature reconstructions is also evident, as we see from Cowtan & Way (2014).
As I said, a knob-head. Quite why Eli puts up with these tossers is beyond me.
There's also the factor that the NOAA satellite used by RSS is in constant orbital decay, with no propulsion system to correct it.
Being an older satellite also means it's weighed down by those big, heavy mercury thermometers rather than the lighter alcohol ones used on UAH's spacecraft and are therefore subject to less gravitationally induced decay.
Dr Inferno has covered this very subject some time ago.
Great plot idea from my friends at Medialens (UK):
"Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies"
We're living in an age where parody is becoming less and less possible.
Ugh - Denial and Deniers, uuuuuuuuugly.
Correction:
“Plot idea: 97% of the world’s scientists with the aid and abetment of the biosphere, the cryosphere, the hydrosphere and the global climate contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies.”
Chek, you'd be referring at least in part to Tony Abbott's grasp on the important issues facing us I suspect?
Thanks for that Bernard. Indeed, its now better!
I see that the comments thread at The Conversation Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent? article has been taken over by the Orcs chuntering amongst themselves, probably best left that way - more fuel for Stephan Lewandowsky.
Did Richard Tol declare that he was refusing to sign the IPCC Working Group II Summary for Policymakers on climate impacts and adaptation to pre-empt news that his name was being removed for non-cooperation?
Reading the last paragraph of Eli's latest: The Ferret Cornored
It could look that way to the casual reader.
Strange situation for an author to volunteer and then refuse to do the work. Then again it must be difficult reconciling the divergent aims of two organisations - working for the IPCC (for free) and the GWPF (probably not for free).
Chek @ # 63.
While you are partially correct that authors (either as invited or as volunteers) are not paid directly by the IPCC; they do not work for free.
" The IPCC is currently organized in 3 Working Groups and a Task Force. They are assisted by Technical Support Units (TSUs), which are hosted and financially supported by the government of the developed country Co-Chair of that Working Group/Task Force. A TSU has also been established to support the IPCC Chair in preparing the Synthesis Report for an assessment report. "
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml
Tol was clear about the reasons for requesting his name be withdrawn:
"Prof Tol, the lead co-ordinating author of the report’s chapter on economics, was involved in drafting the summary for policymakers – the key document that goes to governments and scientists. But he has now asked for his name to be removed from the document.
He said: ‘The message in the first draft was that through adaptation and clever development these were manageable risks, but it did require we get our act together.
‘This has completely disappeared from the draft now, which is all about the impacts of climate change and the four horsemen of the apocalypse. This is a missed opportunity.’
And also:
"Prof Tol does not dispute the view that climate change is caused by man – but he says its impact has been exaggerated."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2589424/UK-professor-refuses-ap…
Stu2
"Prof Tol" doesn't know the first thing about the relationships between biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the importance of these to human civilization. Without a basic understanding of the myriad of ways the natural economy both works and supports the material economy, one's opinions are pointless. The way I see it Tol doesn't understand even the basics os systems ecology, and it is these same systems that sustain us and which are being challenged by AGW and other environmental threats posed by human actions. The fact is that Tol appears to advocate a form of neoclassical economics - which IMHO makes him a dinosaur. Also it appears to me that he's got an ego the size of the Titanic.
The fact that the IPCC accepts people like Tol into any of their working groups shows how desperate they are to dilute the process of promoting mitigation. And the important point is that, even with people like him on board their conclusions are stark. But to reiterate, until Tol can show that he possesses even the most basic understanding of how climate change will impact biodiversity - meaning populations, ecosystems and biomes - his views are virtually useless.
As an aside, I invited him to lecture in a course I am preparing at the Free University in Amsterdam (I am a Visiting Professor there) on Science, Advocacy and Society - and he never responded to my email. To be honest, I don't want skeptics in my course because my belief is that they are dead wrong, but I was willing to let bygones be bygones and hear what he had to say. I also invited a Dutch science journalist to speak and got a curt 4 word reply, "I'll think about it". This is the kind of response that will make me tell him to 'jump in the lake'. s it is, I have some excellent speakers there, including a leading science writer from the UK. I don't need Tol or any of the other skeptics who are on the wrong side of science.
Stu2
"Prof Tol" doesn't know the first thing about the relationships between biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the importance of these to human civilization. Without a basic understanding of the myriad of ways the natural economy both works and supports the material economy, one's opinions are pointless. The way I see it Tol doesn't understand even the basics os systems ecology, and it is these same systems that sustain us and which are being challenged by AGW and other environmental threats posed by human actions. The fact is that Tol appears to advocate a form of neoclassical economics - which IMHO makes him a dinosaur. Also it appears to me that he's got an ego the size of the Titanic.
The fact that the IPCC accepts people like Tol into any of their working groups shows how desperate they are to dilute the process of promoting mitigation. And the important point is that, even with people like him on board their conclusions are stark. But to reiterate, until Tol can show that he possesses even the most basic understanding of how climate change will impact biodiversity - meaning populations, ecosystems and biomes - his views are virtually useless.
As an aside, I invited him to lecture in a course I am preparing at the Free University in Amsterdam (I am a Visiting Professor there) on Science, Advocacy and Society - and he never responded to my email. To be honest, I don't want skeptics in my course because my belief is that they are dead wrong, but I was willing to let bygones be bygones and hear what he had to say. I also invited a Dutch science journalist to speak and got a curt 4 word reply, "I'll think about it". This is the kind of response that will make me tell him to 'jump in the lake'. As it is, I have some excellent speakers there, including a leading science writer from the UK. I don't need Tol or any of the other skeptics who are on the wrong side of science.
Jeff Harvey times two.
Tol was not the lead coordinating author for a chapter on biodiversity.
He was the lead coordinating author for the chapter on economics.
Professor Tol hasn't pretended otherwise.
I wasn't questioning anything other than Chek's comment @#63.
Stu 2, Tol is listed by the IPCC as a Coordinating Lead Author, and the IPCC page that you linked to says:
I seem to have missed the bit where it says that Coordinating Lead Authors are paid for their work - perhaps because I was distracted by the sentence that said "None of them is paid by the IPCC."
So perhaps you are implying instead that Tol was paid by virtue of being a TSU member:
However that doesn't necessarily mean that members of the TSU are paid for their work. There are a whole bunch of costs of running such a unit that do not constitute payments for expert contributions.
And even if that were to be established, one would need to show that Tol was a TSU member (which seems like a rather lowly position compared to Coordinating Lead Author). If it helps, here is the WG2 staff page showing the bureau members and TSU members. I may have missed him on that page, so feel free to point him out.
He may have been clear, but that doesn't mean his clearness was accurate and not misleading. Others have pointed out facts that appear to undermine his clear claims.
So...another case of someone with no expertise in the relevant disciplines other than economics, there being several such disciplines that are relevant to the claims he is making, who is telling whole fields of inquiry that they are wrong.
If you weren't an expert yourself, who would you back - the experts, most of whom broadly agree - or the non-expert who disagrees with them?
Yes Lotharsson.
Well done.
They are not paid directly by the IPCC.
Chek has apparently assumed that means they work for free.
I assume you realise there is a difference?
Tol is an expert in his particular field and has not pretended otherwise.
Yes, of course. That's why I asked if you had any proof that he didn't work for free, even allowing for the possibility that he might be paid as a TSU member out of a different budget than the IPCC budget. Since the IPCC says that people in his role are not paid for their efforts and you have brought no evidence otherwise, not even evidence of being financially supported via a TSU, then I will continue to infer that he was not paid for his efforts.
He appears to be making pronouncements outside of his field of expertise. Citing the fields that he is an acknowledged expert in doesn't change or excuse that fact in any way.
Stu@,
What I am saying, and try to understand this, is that without a good working knowledge of the effects of climate change on natural systems and on the services that emerge from them, Tol might was well be writing about basket weaving. You appear to think that economics and biodiversity are independent topics. They most certainly are NOT. The natural economy underpins the material economy. This is the problem with many economists; they think that the material economy is somehow physically separated from any deleterious effects on nature. One thing for certain: people like Stu2 are certainly clueless when it comes to this. No wonder so many laypeople are AGW deniers or downplayers. They have not even a basic understanding of the fact that the human material economy is a small subset of nature,
In summary, I argue that Tol's contribution to any discourse on climate change and its effects is likely to be garbage, unless he tries to link collapsing ecosystems, fraying food webs and failing supporting services into his little econometric models.
"Tol is an expert in his particular field and has not pretended otherwise"
More spurious waffle from Stu2. By downplaying the effects of AGW on humanity, he most certainly is overstepping his remit. Humans are not exempt from the laws of nature, although it appears that many economists can only measure their views of the effects in terms of winter heating bills, the effects on revenues lost from ski resorts, and other unimportant waffle. They cannot get it through their heads that human civilization is utterly dependent on natural systems and a myriad of conditions that emerge from them. They largely ignore or downplay this area, and focus on pedantics. That's why its a waste of time listening to any economist and their views on any aspect of human-mediated global change unless they have thought very deeply about effects on natural systems. In doing so, they need to take courses on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, as some, like Geoffrey heal has done. As I said, Tol, could have learned a lot had he come to my course and discussed relevant areas with me. But, IMHO, his bloated ego gets in the way.
2Stupid,
Why, oh why, do you insist on linking to stories (for children) in the Daily Fail, even somebody like you, about as dense as teak, would have noted the poor track record for accuracy of this gutter press paper for the would be upper class from comments here over the years.
One does not read the Mail on climate and expect the truth and sure enough there is an egregious untruth right off the bat in that article - highlighted to assist in your comprehension:
Tol is most definitely not a climate scientist, he is an economists a group that with a few notable exceptions are clueless about the magnitude, speed of onset and impacts of the climate change which is already under-way. Jeff Harvey has put you straight there and he would not have had to put in that effort if YOU chose to investigate the relevant literature instead of feeding at denier/pseudo-sceptic blogs and the known shaky press.
For those interested in a description of a history of Britain's coastal erosion and flooding the I can recommend Outrageous Waves: Global Warming and Coastal Change in Britain through Two Thousand Years.
I purchased this book on sight from a local bookshop at about the time it was published and, in the light of recent events, I have dug it out and started reading it again. A very interesting section on the Somerset Levels is just one of many in a journey that travels around the coastline.
My only criticism is that Basil Cracknell has been taken in by the work of Willi Soon on the MWP which colours the discussion on this facet.
Lionel, Yes, I noticed that the Daily Fail article listed Tol as a 'climate scientist'. How pathetic. They also do not disclose his links with a number of what IMHO are anti-environmental groups like the Groene Rekenkamer.
This is typical of the corporate media. Take one outlier like Tol, who isn't even a scientist, and blow his importance out of all proportion.
Tol is (was) a CLA and as such unpaid.
2Stupid is applying denier logic essentially of the 'if you tilt your head and squint just so...' variety, as usual. While blowing smoke about TSU's when challenged.
Meanwhile out in the world the right wing press spins it as "A climate scientist has accused the United Nations of being too alarmist " (h/t Lionel) and we can safely assume Tol's extra-curricular buds at GWPF are calculating his bonus as we speak. Job done.
It's a war, and once again, just as 80 years ago, the Daily Mail has chosen the wrong side.
#75, nice find. Such catalogues keep their value whatever the author's stance on climatological issues (if they don't do what revisionists do: change or cherry pick the data to fit the ideology). Books like this hold value for a century or more in these times.
Meantime today I had a gig with someone who holds that the Sahara is vegetation starved because the atmosphere has been CO2 starved for such a long time.
Never mind taiga or Amazon and Congo.
Holland begins tomorrow a stretch of some four days skirting the date records again. AGW in Holland is higher temps (+1.5° year average compared to around 1900), more precip (+20 inland to +35% coastal) and more sunshine hours (+20% or so). Thus the sunniest March in the record is already from way back in 2003 but it will be smashed.
With circulation patterns getting stuck in totally unseen ways this could stick a half year like the westerlies did past half year. Then I have what I want for Holland: the inferno, that everyone says to hope for but will in reality be suffered bigtime. The days the country record of +38.6° C goes to 39.9° C then 40.8° C (using the margins Moscow updated its March record last weekend - I am the only one in Holland who believes that 40+ is possible in this country, try to realize that).
In other words, I have nothing to say about an economist who thinks he can do climatology because Delingpole said an artist's degree is among the best credentials.
cRR
I hope you explained equatorial convection and the downward, dry leg of the Hadley cell to him.
#79, BBD, stoop down some more. That would only give trouble. Apparently the Sahara desertificated sometime shortly after the Holocene optimum and how does the present Hadley constellation help then?
The point is he argues the Sahara is desert because there's too little CO2 in the air. Temperatures, he thinks, are good and if there were more CO2 plants become 'more water-efficient'.
Stoop low and witness how he mixes up percentages with absolutes and changes the subject when shown Amazon and taiga because, well, CO2-starvation didn't kill those.
This guy is like a Jehova. Known the case for years. Trying to get at his brain but my instruments snap on the skull. Interesting.
A war with Wow would end the world within a night.
Indeed chek on the Spanish Civil War the Daily Fail it is clear where their politics lay, and it wasn't with socialism as the paper tried to denigrate the volunteers:
Spanish Civil War.
The Daily Mail's owners were also pro Mussolini and Hitler during the 1930s and it would not surprise me if some from there were involved in the Hess affair (re 'Double Standards' Picknett et. al.) and even the shooting down of the plane on which they thought Churchill was flying for the plot in Double Standards makes clear that Churchill was aware of a higher state echelon plot to change the administration to a pro German faction. The way that the counter to Operation Cerberus failed could also be linked to similar entities involved in the Hess affair.
Conspiracy ideation, maybe, but more like joined up thinking. I have a folder of stuff I have collected on that Hess affair and it all makes very interesting reading.
I see that rspung really went off the rails in an earlier thread Unclear On the Concept over at Eli's. I missed the tail of that thread somehow, so much stuff flying around at the moment.
As the climate change signal emerges ahead of schedule and people are taking notice so the noise from the suspects increases.
Damn. This will probably bring Duff and Rudolf out of the woodwork!
The Sahara did indeed desertify after the HCO and for the same reasons that the HCO was fading by ~6ky: precessional forcing. Precessional forcing peaked ~11ka and has gradually fallen ever since. Precessional forcing seems very likely to influence summer monsoons (orbital monsoon hypothesis).
The best discussion I have is that in Ruddiman (ch. 8) which is not available online AFAIK but here is a teaching aid with illustrations from that text.
The best think your interlocutor could possibly do is read Ruddiman. All of it.
Good find that BBD, the chapter mismatch 8 & 9 no doubt due to different edition sources. Which reminds me, an updated version has been published recently has anybody commented on any contents change?
Excellent book BTW which should be 'shoved under the nose' of the likes of rspung.
I just caught the tail end of a documentary about The Gulf, Saudi Arabia and that carbuncle of energy and water waste that is Dubai. Astonishing waste of water with the fountain displays every evening which out-displays Vegas and some. Also the staggering amount of water that is pumped up from aquifers for desert agriculture. So much water it draws in migratory birds and their hawk predators. Future is short as the water runs out in about a decade. What then, more economic migrants.
That's what the desert needs, water not more CO2!
F*ck but I loathed Dubai. All the slaves from India keeping the place spic and span; all the petrodollar-fat indigenes being arrogant and vile; all the expats sucking the teats. A foul place.
Lionel
As far as I can see, nothing really major (publisher's website statement on 3rd edn.)
Save your pennies and spend them on Ruddiman's Earth Transformed, now at last available in the UK.
Clearly one has to watch Amazon. I bought a copy on release, about ten days ago, for £25. Now the main Amazon listing is £37, which is a non-trivial price inflation. See alternative suppliers list in link.
One for Jeff Bonaparte, article in der spiegel on the leaked IPCC draft,
" UN Backtracks: Will Global Warming Really Trigger Mass Extinctions?"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/new-un-climate-report-casts-d…
"In 2007, the IPCC predicted that rising global temperatures would kill off many species. But in its new report, part of which will be presented next Monday, the UN climate change body backtracks. There is a shortage of evidence, a draft version claims."
Passenger pigeons get a mention (too tasty apparently), as do Polar bears,
"At most, the draft report says, climate change may have played a role in the disappearance of a few amphibians, fresh water fish and mollusks. Yet even the icons of catastrophic global warming, the polar bears, are doing surprisingly well. Their population has remained stable despite the shrinking of the Arctic ice cap."
I'm sure somebody said PB's were doomed a few years ago ;) and I like the 'may have played a role" in the disappearance of a "few" amphibians.
"Uncritically blaming climate change for species extinction is dangerous..."Monocultures, over-fertilization and soil destruction wipe out more species than a temperature rise of a few degrees Celsius," he says. "
Overall quite positive, combination of "better than we thought" and "still unknowns",Author of the piece is Geologist/Journalist, Axel Bojanowski.
So Griselda, what makes a "Geologist/Journalist" your go-to authority on biological impacts?
Would you consult (and I hope for consistency's sake you would) consult your dentist on your brain tumour?
By 2014?
Give it time, GSW. Take a broad, general view of things.
Jeff Harvey @ # 72 & 73.
Try to understand this:
I was questioning Chek's comment @ # 63:
"Strange situation for an author to volunteer and then refuse to do the work. Then again it must be difficult reconciling the divergent aims of two organisations – working for the IPCC (for free) and the GWPF (probably not for free)."
Quite clearly you do not agree with what Tol has said in public. I have not offered an opinion about what Tol said. I questioned Chek's comment.
... and got slapped down by the facts.
Just out of idle curiosity though, what was the point of your question meant to imply? That Tol was paid and didn't do the work, or he bites off more than he can chew for the money ... or what?
Just more irrelevant noise from you would be my guess.
It all boils down to whether we trust economic analyses of CC impacts over ecological ones. The former are not necessarily fully informed by the latter.
Nice to see R. Tol marginalising himself in his professional sphere as he has done in the blogosphere though.
BBD, I agree. Dubai is utterly foul. A cesspit of moral corruption.
Read more here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/johann-hari/the-dark-s…
Great piece of journalism.
"Tol said farmers, for instance, could grow new crops if the climate in their region became hotter, wetter or drier. "They will adapt. Farmers are not stupid," he said.
Perhaps Tol should speak to those farmers who were unable to "adapt" during the 1930's dustbowl and ask them what they were thinking, letting a minor issue like just three years of continual drought force them from their land. I'd bet an economist such as Tol would have nice, pat answers as he pretended to have the first clue about events occurring in nature.
The other piece of nonsense in Tol's statements about farmers adapting is that he completely avoids discussing crucial changes in parameters which are heavily studied and their impact routinely analysed when talking about financial quantities: volatility and variance.
Climate change is going to make (and is already making) the weather more volatile and variant, i.e. less predictable with extremes becoming more extreme. Any economic analysis that told people they could simply "adapt" to changing financial conditions which left out the impact of volatility or variance changes would be considered negligent.
This makes him look like he doesn't even apply key concepts from his own field of expertise to this issue, let alone factor in the available knowledge from the other fields he is not expert in.
Gormless is back with more utter bilge. The ariticle he alludes to says this: "On the other hand, the IPCC admits that there is no evidence climate change has led to even a single species becoming extinct thus far"
Again, this statement alone exemplifies the sheer and crass stupidity of those who just do not understand cause-and-effsct relationships in ecology. The fact is this: extinctions are hard to verify. It is easier to say a species exists than to prove it does not. Second, extinctions are not instantaneous events but generally occur over protracted periods of time. You don't alter environmental parameter 'X' on day one and expect 'Y' number of extinctions on day 2. Populations undergo dynamic shifts towards new equlibria or not; this can take decades after the initial trigger. We know that the loss of tropical forests (and even temperate forests decades earlier) are still rippling through ecological communities. This phenomenon, known as the 'extinction debt' (Tilman and May, 1994, Nature) is something we ecologists understand well. Brainless idiots like GSW apparently not, as I have discussed it numerous times on Deltoid and each and every time its gone straight over his simple little right wing Steyn-loving head. And lastly, for a species to be officially recognized as being extinct by the IUCN, it must not be formally recorded in the wild for 50 years. The IUCN is a conservative body and thus extinctions are not measured lightly. The bulk of the warming has occurred since the 1980s - well under 50 years.
So, of course, Der Speigel's article is a load of bullshit. Many studies are showing species in population free falls, as well as demographic shifts and other changes in response to warming. And as I have said on here also numerous times, AGW exacerbates other anthropogenic threats such as habitat destruction, other forms of pollution, invasive species, et al. In other words, many current and future extinctions will be 'embedded' in multiple stressors in which AGW might just be the 'straw that breaks the camel's back'.
If this is the intellectual level of your knowledge GSW, no wonder that I thrash you every time. Some advice: don't try and debate me on anything remotely linked to conservation biology and ecology. I will annihilate your arguments every time.
Chek: Clearly 'geologist/journalist' Axel Bojanowski has a kindergarten level understanding of environmental science. Der Spiegel is wearing its heart on its corporate sleeve publishing this kind of drivel.
After reading GSW's ignorant blather I was going to ask him if he understood the term 'extinction debt' but I see that Jeff beat me to it.
Nothing further needs to be said, except that my question would have been rhetorical...
That Der Speigel piece is a disgrace and this paragraph is one example of its inanity, or insanity at that:
So that ex-pert is qualified to discuss this because he knows something about Alpine trees but is clueless about what is going on in the rest of the ecosphere like er, um, oceans for example.
But considering the changes already taking place in the Alps such as an increase in erosion as rocks glued together with ice start to tumble at increasing frequencies and heavier rains cause more landslips, now he should know that, how can he paint such a rosy picture?
What utter bilge. It is more of the same old, same old - more research and more information before we can be sure. Aaaaaaargh!
On extinction debt here is something by which maybe even Gratuitously Simple Worms could grasp the issue:
Extinction debt suggests endangered species are doomed
and there are plenty more other examples.
Matt Ridley strikes again:
Matt Ridley op-ed is a laundry list of IPCC misrepresentations,
and as I read down this article I was already prepared for these obvious contributors to Ridley brain (cerebral if you prefer) infarction: