February 2015 Open Thread

More thread.

Isn't it about time to give this blog a proper burial and move on...

LOL, a substantial proportion of the traffic on this blog is the usual suspects telling us the blog is dead. If they really believed that they'd go and stay away, and yet they keep coming back...

As tiresome and predictable as those revolving door flounces so beloved of the dimmer members of the suicide squad.

Should we start a book on who will be the next to try to remind us? Like Richard III's "inductions dangerous", my money is on the one that starts with "G".

"a substantial proportion of the traffic on this blog is the usual suspects telling us the blog is dead"

Sounds like a consensus.

Consensus? Does that mean you think you're wrong, then, Betty?

Or do you now think that consensus is right?

Starts with a 'G', I am not sure about that could be RN, DD or OP. Doesn't really matter for each would end up with a 'zed' score.

That old chestnut about climate scientists doing it for the funding but deniers (whether denying AGW completely or tone trolling about how unfair we can be if they stick to its not going to be so bad - R&R [1]) doing it for the benefit of humanity takes another hit, for when the money is followed this is what is found:

Exclusive: Bjorn Lomborg Think Tank Funder Revealed As Billionaire Republican 'Vulture Capitalist' Paul Singer

Ridley and Rose

Oops! [1] Ridley and Rose.

Of course it has already been shown why Ridley tries to make out it isn't so bad, he has lots more coal he wants to sell, and Rose likes to sell rags.

Thanks Lionel for the link. Another nail in Lomborg's metaphorical coffin. That anyone with half a brain still takes that laughingstock seriously is beyond me, but some - especially those on the political right with an axe to grind - apparently still do. Its the only reason he's still shoved in front of cameras and allowed to write op-eds. His worse than ludicrous views resonate with those with power and privilege.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Feb 2015 #permalink

"Is he still the best the deniers have got?"

Well, at one time - long since gone - he was young(ish) and relatively photogenic and the right-wing media just love a pretty face telling them what they want to hear. As was said, a pretty young man with right wing views will never go short of a lunch on the media mile (OK, it used to be Fleet Street, before that location became meaningless to those under a certain age).

That's more or less still the case, although you'd be hard pressed to find a Bjorny-photo less than ten years old these days.

And without the pretty media face, well - Jeff and other serious scientists exposed his bullshit encrusted schtick years ago,

"Isn’t it about time to give this blog a proper burial and move on…"

Ok, fine ... move on then.

"it is enlightening to learn that [Michael Mann's] current employer, Penn State, gets funds from Koch, and so does where Dr. Mann did his thesis from, the University of Virginia. Those darn facts, they are stubborn things."

The fact is that this sort of profound intellectual dishonesty among deniers is enlightening as to what sort of garbage they are and why they deserve only contempt, not engagement.

I see that meatball is linking to one of his anti-science pro-corporate denier sites again. Naughty, naughty. Should be called the 'no-brains zone'.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Feb 2015 #permalink

Here's a great post by Sou on Hot Whopper highlighting some of the nmore nonsensical predictions by AGW deniers tnat failed to materialize:

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/denier-weirdness-collection-of-alarm…

Note how Pierre Gosselin - meatball's latest source - was predicting a massive drop in global temperatures after 2010 in a post he wrote for WUWT back in 2008.

He's another of meatball's laughingstocks - writ LARGE.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Feb 2015 #permalink

He’s another of meatball’s laughingstocks – writ LARGE.

What was I saying up at #5 that OP could be amongst those who would soon pitch in. Is this entity so lacking in thinking skills and memory that he knows not that we treat notrickzone with derision because of the long history of it being wrong and farcically so.

Which one from the alphabet soup will appear next I wonder?

As a rider to Craig Thomas @ #8 I urge those such as OP to follow that link and investigate the documented critiques (e.g. Chris Goodall's study of some footnotes in Lomborg's 'Cool It' - interesting that there are two very different editions of this book, a tacit admission that US education is failing, well more than that other countries) of the way that Lomborg misuses sources.

He and Plimer are two of a kind but Lomborg appears the more cunning. There is no way that Lomborg does not know what he has done. Shameful and deserves more than a pie in the face.

Fellas, I agree with you. The evil fossil fuel lobby is green.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 10 Feb 2015 #permalink

Meatball's last attempt at humor falls completely flat. The fossil fuel lobby has invested billions of dollars in funding various front groups, PR corporations, think tanks etc. in an attempt to downplay AGW and thus influence public policy. That anybody would think differently shows truly how out of touch they are with reality.

By JeffHHarvey (not verified) on 10 Feb 2015 #permalink

... because of course, entities are one dimensional. That is if, like Olap, you're confounded by a one dimensional mind.

Less existentially pointless trolls, please.

It seems that poor Richard Tol cannot resist loosening his bowels in his pants and then leaving a trail of cack [1] wherever he goes and it seemed he left this one at Judith's:

A more important question is perhaps why the public lost so much faith in climate science that they prefer to believe Booker over you guys. The Telegraph suggests that 90% of 110,000 readers are with Booker.

I ran across this via Tolgate which provides evidence that he has dropped himself in it again elsewhere.

A comment there led to an article at ATTP in a comment by Joshua on February 10, 2015 at 12:35 pm

where in further comments Tol appears, briefly again, covering himself in more, ahem, glory.

[1] Interesting history aside: there were Spanish ships by the name Cacafuago a couple of centuries back the literal meaning of which is surprising if you have never thought about it)

Yeah, because Torygraph readers - actually listed, in this instance, IIRC, 70% white males over 45 - are as representative a sample of 'the public' as one could hope to encounter

Now all the lambs have to do is vote in a courageous new government that are willing to pull up their sleeves and legislate new, more popular, laws of physics...

(Wonder what the level of UKIP support is among 'the public', so defined?)

Lionel, I doubt Spanish ships ever had a name so profane - despite what you may have read about Jack Aubrey's early exploit.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 11 Feb 2015 #permalink

Just looked this up:
"the galleon Nuestra Señora de la Concepción was called by her sailors Cagafuego, which would translate into English as "fireshitter". Contemporary accounts presented the ship's name inaccurately as Cacafuego, which is the one that eventually endured."

Caca is a noun, cagar is a verb.

Richard Tol is certainly cacatastic.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 11 Feb 2015 #permalink

As if science 'lost' the public to Booker. Pfft.

Booker's readership never understood or accepted science they didn't like, so they represent a long-term cluster of rejection and determined ignorance. Booker is a beacon of blustering wrongness to their moth-like stupidity.

Tol is incredibly dull and disappointing, he's getting worse.

Since we have come to an agreement about Big Green's great dependence of Big Oil I wonder if you have any scientific news regarding the lake that warms faster than any pther lake on the planet, ergo Lake Superior?

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 12 Feb 2015 #permalink

"Since we have come to an agreement about Big Green’s great dependence of Big Oil"

... says meatball trying to inject his own brand of vacuous Swedish humor. Of course everyone with half a brain knows that energy corporations are investing millions to downplay AGW. Since meatball has less than half a brain, he is excluded.

And he's on about Lake Superior again, as if that represents a proxy for the biosphere as a whole. Its the old Serengeti Strategy that Michael Mann talked about. Meatball is an acolyte.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Feb 2015 #permalink

Jeff, my dear friend, I agreee. Big Oil is a great benefactor of Big Green, Its a no brainer neither hidden in plain sight nor in conspiracy ideation. :-)

And no scientific news on the lake that warms faster than any other lake on the planet? :-)

And you don't get it Jeff. I don't see Lake S as a proxy for the accelerating global warming. Its your side of the fence that's have that scale probem.

And I don't see Lake S as a proxy for the whole biossphere either. Again it's you tent-shakers and mouth-frothers that blow stuff out of proportions, and it's fun reminding you of your silly portentology dressed up as sicience.

But good enough if you recognize the scale problem with Lake S and the nutty claims that it warms (sic) faster than any other lake on the planet.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 12 Feb 2015 #permalink

Olaus

Since we have come to an agreement about Big Green’s great dependence of Big Oil

You are doing that liar thing again where you make a false claim that 'we' have reached 'agreement' when nothing could be further from the truth.

Dear BBD, it's not a lie. Big Oil donates hundreds of millions to Big Green and climate science. :-)

Maybe a swim in the lake that warms faster than any other lake on the planet could make you see the numbers? ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 12 Feb 2015 #permalink

Olaus

Read your link. The real money goes to universities, which is a very cost-effective way for the energy industry to get its R&D done. The scale of donation, even to educational foundations, is chump change to the industry.

The rest appears to be pennies scattered around for PR purposes. Again, cost-effective hedge against negative public perception.

A couple of things: the BEST project was funded by the energy industry because at the time it was thought that it would reveal errors in the surface temperature reconstructions. It actually demonstrated that they were robust, even slightly conservative.

The $25m proposed donation to the Sierra Club was subsequently vetoed by the board and monies received subsequently returned.

Etc.

Let's review your claim that 'Big Green' is 'greatly dependent' on Big Oil.

'Big Green' means the major environmental NGOs, not educational foundations carrying out energy R&D, which is where most of the money goes, so the 'Big Green' claim is false.

'Heavily dependent' implies that those recipients of funding that could reasonably be classified as elements of 'Big Green' are dependent for a significant part of their total funding on the fossil fuel industry. Also a false claim. Read your own link.

Lionel A & Craig Thomas

It would be reasonable to describe friend Olaus' general commentary as poppycock, although some might consider this both old-fashioned and rather tame. But IIRC the derivation is from the Dutch pappe kak which literally means 'soft shit' or 'diarrhoea'. Jeff might be able to comment on the etymology if he's about.

Olaus

BBD, the oil money is still in Big Green’s pockets. Donations are made frequently to Unis and NGO’s. Its a fact BBD, deal with it, like AGU does

Not Big Green, Olaus. We've dealt with this rather blatant conflation of ENGOs and educational foundations.

You are a liar, Olaus.

Olaus

To be clear, I understand perfectly well that the energy industry engages in widespread cosmetic donation. This is a simple PR strategy employed to misdirect public opinion. It is standard corporate behaviour these days, so much so that there's even a word for it. We call it greenwashing.

So in a couple of comments we've got to the point where you simply repeat your initial lie over and over again.

Well that was quick.

Never mind the nonentity, BBD; I thought of you when I saw this.

Jeff, my dear friend, I agreee. Big Oil is a great benefactor of Big Green

And since Big Oil doesn't want AGW to be real, it's evident that BigGreen and AGW can't be being affected by the money to make stuff up.

Glad we all agree that AGW is valid and undisturbed by corruption, Lappers.

Aha! Santana. Back in the day when I was young and ignorant, and when my job often involved pouring hundreds of gallons of AVCAT (F44) into aircraft driving a 3 litre straight 6 Wolseley 6/110 Mk II didn't seem that wasteful. The 15+ gallon tank could be filled with a few pennies change from a fiver at that.

I purchased it second hand and it was allot of car for comparatively little money (I used to do all my own servicing including tuning the twin SUs) with the previous owner having fitted a Motorola 8-track stereo to augment the radio. One of the tapes that came with it was Santana Abraxus which was just the thing for the motorway where this big car (approx 1 3/4 tons) for its day would achieve over 36 MPG at its optimum cruise of 83 MPH in overdrive. Colleagues at the time were getting less from their Sprites, Spitfires and MGBs. No prizes for guessing who won on impressing the ladies.

Meatball, I know how patently stupid you are, but I will still ask: ever hear of the term, 'good cop, bad cop'? Or E. Bruce Harrison, father of anti-environmental PR?

On both counts, I thought not. Let me enlighten your simple brain: polluting industries will often donate small amounts of money to conservation organizations and NGOs, whilst investing many times as much in anti-environmental organizations, think tanks, PR comapnies and astroturf groups. Why do they do this? Come on now, meatball, I can see the rusty old wheels spinning in your head...

Two reasons. First, they do it as a form of 'co-option'. In other words, an environmental organization or NGO may be reluctant to criticize the activities of a funder, even if that funder is a polluting industry with a wretched environmental record. Second, its great PR. The corporation can boast of funding environmental groups, giving the impression that its progressive, while behind the scenes it invests heavily in organizations trying to weaken legislation and regulations that protect the environment. There's nothing new in your latest nonsense. In my lectures I talk about this all the time. The same corporations also invest in both major US political parties at elections, under the guise that whoever wins will best serve them.

E. Bruce Harrison used to tell his corporate clients that the best way to beat environmental groups was to shut them up, and the way to do that was to give them money, or else infiltrate them. You might not be surprised to learn that directors of some of the most anti-environmental PR firms sit on the boards of some well known environmental groups. The fox is well and truly in the henhouse.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Feb 2015 #permalink

Craig @#26

You may like to look up "Nuestra Señora de la Concepción"

WRT O'Brian, he worked his novels around historical events from disparate periods with his chronology being very loosely bound to that of historical events, names have often been changed.

My reading on maritime history is rather deeper and broader than just O'Brian. 'Trafalgar and the Spanish Navy' by John D Harbron is a worthwhile study by any interested in the period with this book extending far back into the late 17th century.

The Mariner's Mirror (MM), to which I subscribed, included a very balanced account of Trafalgar by a Spanish researcher Julian de Zulueta in MM Vol. 66, 1980 Number 4, and a strange account by a retired French admiral in MM Vol. 91, May 2005 Number 2.

Oh the conspiracy ideation Jeff. :-) The numbers are on my side sine they are out in the open for anyone to see. Your facts on the other hand are hidden in a high pitched voice, vibriting invectives and unsubstantiated fantasies about others. :-)

A swim in the fastest warming lake on the plantet would do you a world of good Jeff. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 12 Feb 2015 #permalink

And so you agree that AGW science isn't being manipulated by the money, Lappers. Well done, boy :-D Have a bikkie!!! :-P

The numbers are on my side sine they are out in the open for anyone to see

YOU never supplied any, Lappers. Funny that. No bikkit for you ! :-(

But I guess when you were barking out "FOLLOW THE MONEY!!! THE SCIENTISTS WANT THE MONEY!!!" you already knew that the money they were getting was "please prove AGW wrong if you can" and therefore their results indicate they are not and never were fraudulently manipulating the facts, it's merely that the facts were proving AGW.

Go on, you can have that bikkit. Scooby snack for you uncovering that AGW is demonstrably real!

:-P

Good boy!

Well that was quick.

It's easier to just assume based on past behaviour that he'll end up there, and typically sooner rather than later.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Feb 2015 #permalink

Meatball, all you provided was a copy-paste page from a denier blog. That is your evidence?

I have bags of evidence but you just don't want to hear it. You didn't answer my questions. Know what 'good cop', 'bad cop' strategy means? Ever hear of E. Bruce Harrision? For that matter Burson-Marstellar? Edelman? Hill-Knowlton? Ketcham? Porter-Novelli? Shandwick?

The problem is when somebody who knows a lot debates an idiot who knows nothing (in case you forgot, you are in the latter category, meatball). I have been researching the anti-environmental movement for almost 20 years, given many lectures on it and teach a course on it. When think tanks, PR firms and other anti-environmental groups have been forced to disclose their funders, its a case of the usual suspects. And we aren't talking pennies here meatball. We are talking huge sums of money - many millions of dollars over the years. By contrast, they throw a few hundred dollars at an NGO and dopes like you claim that the environmental movement is supported by big business. I explained why they do it the last time. I won't repeat it. You have your predetermined views based on wafer think knowledge and go with that.

Again, you are plainly ignorant. Debating with you is like debating a kindergarten student.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Feb 2015 #permalink

PS. ....and the only ones who cry 'conspiracy' are those who are clueless. There's nothing remotely conspiratorial in what corporations do. They have profit-drivcen agendas, hire PR firms and think tanks to help them promote those agendas, and do whatever they can do to optimize their perception amongst the public and policy makers.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Feb 2015 #permalink

#41 Bill

Ah, a laugh at last! Thanks. I do love a good pastiche (was that DiMeola or McLaughlin, children?), and for the man who can do ten straight, chapeau :-)

Beats Olaus' twaddle effortlessly.

Meanwhile, Olaus is still struggling with the conceptual difference between an ENGO and a university and between greenwash and bankrolling.

Come on, Olaus! You can do it!

So now we're agreed that AGW is free from money-based fraudulent claims, Lappers, what do we do about AGW?

Come on, Lappers, don't keep posting links proving AGW is real, lets DO something about it!!!

you have close to zero in your bags (mostly strong emotions) but I have shown you tons in mine

All mouth, no trouser-contents, Lappers?

What a disappointment you are to your momma! LOL!!

We can also see the inherent misanthropic hatred of the deniers with Lappers in #49.

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=arm+candy

An especially attractive date, escort or other companion to a special event. Called "arm candy" because one locks arms with their "candy" (valuable possession)

Also indicating the internal "reality" of the denier. Knows absolutely nothing, but determined to believe it anyway.

As that wascally wabbit, Bugs, would put it: what a maroon! What a nincompoop!

Even when proving AGW is real and not a fraud for money, deniers can't accept AGW is real.LOL!

Meatball, your 'bags' consists of a copy-paste from WUWT. I've told you about E. Bruce Harrison, Burson-Marstellar, Hill-Knowlton et al. and the well-honed 'good cop-bad cop' strategy of corporate PR. I've lectured on it in several countries, and have read voluminous data on perception management and how this has been honed by corporations to advance their deregulatory agendas.

Fact is, you know absolutely zilch about any of this, and yet you're trying to debate me on it? Seriously? You're as daft as a brush. You think because an energy corporation throws a few bucks at an environmental NGO that they have a green agenda? They invest hundreds or thousands of times more in anti-environmental groups that aim to eviscerate public constraints in the pursuit of private profit. This is not even remotely controversial.

The reason that corporate sponsorship of the AGU general meeting is effective is because idiots like you swallow it in dollops. Its PR - 'good cop' money, aimed at giving the impression that BP, Exxon-Mobil et. al are responsible companies who support sound science. Then on the other hand they'll try and hide the much greater amounts they fund to think tanks, PR companies (see above) and other anti-environmental groups that are working hard to lobby politicians in Washington in an attempt to support a deregulatory agenda.

But heck, this isn't at all controversial. Dave Helvarg, Andy Rowell, Sharon Beder and others have written books about it. Its common knowledge - hence why I am even discussing this with you is something of a joke. You are trying to play the ignorance hand - that is to say that since you've never heard of any of the PR firms I named, or E. Bruce Harrison for that matter, then they effectively don't exist. And if they don't exist then there is no such thing as corporate PR. Its obvious that you're as thick as a sack of potatoes. I've encountered some pretty vacuous pundits over the years, but some of the stuff you write up here is cringe-inducing - not just because you write it, but because you apparently believe what you write.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Feb 2015 #permalink

Jeff, I think you are wasting your time with Oily Prat he does not posses the intellect required to assess all that information, neither does he have the cognitive framework on which to hang it.

But just in case he would like to redeem himself here is just one item from your names, Sharon Beder: Anti-Environmentalism/ Green Backlash

and for a broader look here is a reference list from The Pandora Project.

It is not as if it were hard to find this stuff.

Why do you think a PR spinner became PM of our now well benighted country, the UK that is not so U.

Be interesting to see how he spins his way out of the HSB-Swiss/party doner imbroglio.

Looks like we overlapped there Jeff. ;-)

Go for it OP, stop digging your hole.

Lionel, you are right. I just like demolishing him. Its easy, but it makes me feel good at the end of the day. The three links above - and their are thousands more - spell out what i said above. I will leave it there. He's left with copy-pastes from WUWT, and no understanding of the PR industry. I sometimes wish I could debate someone like meatball in a public venue. It would feel so good watching him squirm.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Feb 2015 #permalink

As always dear Jeff tries to muscle up with a crab-pose but end up with a big fart of hershey splatter in his own face. His source backs my claim with even more hard numbers:

"By 1995 US-based firms were spending about $1 billion year on public relations advice on how to green their own image and deal with environmental opposition. Today public relations and marketing firms in many countries perform similar services."

The rest is the usual emotion and conspiracy crap.

That corporations often have a negtive effect on the environment is of course correct but their funding of "green" seldom is an act of evil. Many assholes and criminals exists, of course, mind you.

So Jeff, any more numbers you would like to share refuting "greens" getting funds from Big Oil? :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 13 Feb 2015 #permalink

Olaus

Read the words:

By 1995 US-based firms were spending about $1 billion year on public relations advice on how to green their own image and deal with environmental opposition. Today public relations and marketing firms in many countries perform similar services.

Image! Not substance. The PR guff is *instead* of substantive action. PR is a cover for the *absence* of substantive action. It is done to "deal with environmental opposition" by pretending to be environmentally responsible. This is what is meant by the words "green their own image". Image is not substance. Image is illusion. And PR is much, much cheaper than substantive action, hence its universal popularity as an alternative.

Crikey Olaus, even after sleeping on it you *still* can't grasp the conceptual difference between greenwash and bankrolling.

So Jeff, any more numbers you would like to share refuting “greens” getting funds from Big Oil?

No, because it is a strawman.

Would you like to tell us the difference between greenwash and bankrolling?

The difference between PR and substantive action?

That is the fundamental question your strawman is set up to prevent us addressing.

Thanks BBD. I would write a long rebuttal again but by now meatball has been annihalated in this discussion. The fact that I have researched this area for years and have lectured on it in 7 countries sails over his pin-sized head. He simply does not know any of the companies I listed earlier nor what greenwashing means. He's never heard of E. Bruce Harrison. His simple view is that if a polluting industry with a wretched environmental record throws a few cents at a green NGO, its because they truly care. The rest - including the many millions they spend in lobbying, funding politicians, PR firms, front groups and think tanks, all aimed at reducing or eliminating regulations that limit their profit making capaicty is all a 'conspiracy theory'.

He's so appalling useless at debating and yet he persists.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Feb 2015 #permalink

any more numbers you would like to share refuting “greens” getting funds from Big Oil?

Nobody is refuting it, lappers.

However, what does it mean?

Long on screaming, short on thought, that's the denier M.O.

Lads and lasses, don't play Ollie's game. Like with "It DE PAWSE!!!!" screaming from deniers before, this is merely an empty claim where you're meant to do all the heavy lifting.

Lappers, what does oil money going to universities mean?

#67, well yeah, you are to nice. I just bonked on OP's #66 there and blinked and thought 'should I sympathize after all, for this moron really cannot even read!!'.

But o yeah, too true, climate revisionism is devised to be leveled at that part of the brain that dominates so many people, the same part that's such a sucker for Austrian lackey porn.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 13 Feb 2015 #permalink

Jeff

Thanks BBD. I would write a long rebuttal again

Save your time for your students. They will probably learn something ;-)

Bugger the drooling imbecile. Next.

- 8 F when I checked at 7:15 this morning..

In an attempt to warm things up, and at the risk of killing a polar bear, I decided to turn on the air conditioning...

I think Betula was just making the point that, for a planet we've been assured is teetering on the brink of "thermageddon", it was f'ing cold this morning.
;)

Hey, its dark here now, what's all this nonsense about a sun thingamajig?

Strewth will you numpties wise up, birch & co, it isn't funny anymore:

Denying Physics: A Tweet .

Talking ballast all of you.

Batty, I suggest you go to Russia. Much of the country has had its warmest winter on records, well, well above normal. In fact this is true for most of Eurasia.

Too bad you live in one tiny sliver of the world where its been cold. Try the western US - also near record warm winter.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 Feb 2015 #permalink

Note how Gormless says 'planet' also when referring to about 1% of it...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 Feb 2015 #permalink

Numpty 1: - 8 F when I checked at 7:15 this morning..

In an attempt to warm things up, and at the risk of killing a polar bear, I decided to turn on the air conditioning…

Numpty 2: I think Betula was just making the point that, for a planet we’ve been assured is teetering on the brink of “thermageddon”, it was f’ing cold this morning.

And by such fools as these, Dear Future Generations, was your future blighted.

Where is Betula located?

The record Feb minimum temp at Boston stands unbroken since 1934.

Perhaps Betula is confusing the "amount of snow" with "cold"?

So far, this is the 3rd-snowiest winter, and it's still snowing. The previous record was set in 1996.

Now...what would cause an increase in record-setting precipitation? Hmmmm?
How do you get the atmosphere to carry *more* water?

.......

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 16 Feb 2015 #permalink

I think Betula was just making the point that, for a planet we’ve been assured is teetering on the brink of “thermageddon”, it was f’ing cold this morning.

So what?

@ Craig - No, I don't live in Boston area...

"Now…what would cause an increase in record-setting precipitation?"

I've got this one...... record setting drought.

Birch Bark

"...an increase in record-setting precipitation..."

and

I’ve got this one…… record setting drought.

Two faces of the same coin you numpty, have you not learned anything yet?

Thanks for dropping by to confirm your imbecility, Batty. Accelerated hydrological cycle, anyone?

As Mike Mann says, we're talking physics denial here.

I'm still waiting for them to answer "So what?". I guess Betty's shot was the best any of the deniers could manage in answer...

Boston average Feb temp is likely going to bust its cold record of 1936 (Dust Bowl, coincidence, anyone?).
Stuck Pattern Syndrome.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 18 Feb 2015 #permalink

Lionel, my friend, we are talking about the fastest warming lake on the planet.... :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 19 Feb 2015 #permalink

"Amazing what the fastest warming lake on the planet can do!"

Yes, even warming lakes can still freeze if the surface is cold enough.

I take it you couldn't come up with the answer to "So what?", then, and this was the best you could think up?

Good job you work for free.

"Lionel, my friend, we are talking about the fastest warming lake on the planet…."

Lappers, you're talking bollocks.

Take them OUT of your mouth before posting :-P

And you're talking about WINTER.

Get it?

W
I
N
T
E
R
!

POSSIBLE

R
E
C
O
R
D

ICE

I
N

THE FASTEST WARMING LAKE ON THE PLANET.

:-)

Well Wow, if you want your fastest wamring lake on the planet, you can have your fastest warming lake on the planet. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 19 Feb 2015 #permalink

Possible?!?!?

Ice ***IN*** the lake (rather than *on the surface of the lake*)?!?!?

Seems like you need to get the 'nads out of your *head*, Lappers. Your brain has run off! :-P

No, Lappers, we're talking about the "miracle" of ice forming on northern lattitude lakes in winter.

To people with a memory and actual working mind, this is not a miracle, but I guess to you you're amazed that the sun comes back up every morning.

It's just the way you've been homeschooled. :-^

Even lakes warming quicker than any other on the planet STILL varies it's temperature each season passing. A reality that passed you deniers by, obviously! Don't worry, McD will be happy to employ people like you, as long as you can work out the pictures on the till :-D

Hey, is it that you think that the lake is warming up even as it goes through winter?!?!? ROFLCOPTER!!!

Especially since YOU are the one calling it the "fastest wamring lake on the planet", you can't then go round pretending that that means the lake doesn't ever do anything other than increase in temperature with time!!!!

And whats;s all this "record ice cover" Bollocks you pulled from your bellend, Lappers?

Even your WTFUWT link says "about to freeze over" and the headlines in some papers call it as "could freeze over". One I have here says "it's higher than it was this time last year", which still isn't "record freezing".

So you're making a whole lot of shit up, with absolutely no sign you have a problem with lies, as long as they're from you.

This fact may well remove you from the only work remaining for you: Till operator at McD.

Sorry, dude :-P

About those generous industry donations to universities -- yep, they're happening alright. Heck, the Koch brothers alone have their fingers in research budgets of about 200 US universities alone. They've also (privately) stated why they do so:

- Easy first-dibs recruiting on the best talent
- Information on what research is being done that might affect their fossil fuel interests
- Siphoning off promising research and patenting it when it benefits their fossil fuel interests
- Killing research that might hurt their fossil fuel interests, be it by co-opting it and strangling it, or by steering it awry intentionally, or by flat-out strong-arming budgets to kill it off

This is not news, not a secret, and doesn't make the point you want to make. For fuck's sake.

and doesn’t make the point you want to make.

Stu, if you notice, the deniers don't MAKE points, they just blurt out a factoid without context, explanation or point accompanying it and then keep battering on it like a kitten with a ball of wool with a bell hidden inside.

They never make a point.

If they did, they'd have to explain it, and they don't know or care enough to do that sort of work, and it can be proven wrong.

They don't have to, either. They hope everyone else will leap to the conclusion they'd like.

Deniers will, since this lemming-like love of leaping off the cliffs of assumption is a never-ending fascination of theirs.

And realists will do so themselves so that they can do what they wish to do with all claims: discuss and show if they're wrong and how.

That means the fake point is written down by the realist rather than the denier, and the denier can therefore avoid having to nail down the point to any single disproved and can disavow any fault with making a fake claim on AGW.

They don't make points, just blurt out a pointless factoid. Deniers don't NEED the point, they knew what they wanted to know before the factoid, and reasonable realistic people will make a point for them. So they don't NEED to make a point. And all that exists is a risk of being proved wrong if they DO attempt to make a point.

Deniers don't make points. It never works well for them.

Global #2 January (2007 remains #1).
NH this Jan was #1.
Contiguous US a mild January at #24 since 1895.

But of course it snows somewhere sometime thus disproving global heating.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 20 Feb 2015 #permalink

But of course it snows somewhere sometime thus disproving global heating.

You'll notice that not once did Lappers or any other denier claim that snowing somewhere sometime disproves global warming/heating.

You're not thinking clearly: deniers have been told not to make any claims because claims need proof (as they keep insisting, despite proof having been provided, they keep "forgetting" it and need proof handed to them again), so they don't claim anything.

Nobody is claiming that the ice forming (IN???? ON!!!) a lake disproves GW.

Deniers know that can't be shown to be the case, and know that you'll make the claim for them.

Climate Change and Globalisation will lead to ecological and population disruption on unprecedented scales, some harbingers of things to come:

Australia storms: Cyclones hit Queensland and Northern Territory. Of course this is not happening and the reporting is all a part of a communist plot to install a new world order.

Besides as we have learned from one drive-by expert SLR is also a myth invented for the same purpose so what can go wrong? I figure those sheltering behind that wall are unaware of what happened at Dawlish on UKs South Devon coast. I am sure they have an inkling as that structure must be shuddering with each blow.

New Zealand: Single fruit fly prompts clampdown, imagine that, not being able to get your fruit and veg' because of the threat to crops from the spread of such small organisms, organisms which in other forms are essential to vegetation propagation.

and as if that isn't enough

Malaria on Myanmar-India border is 'huge threat'. Hold on tight, the future, promising to be short for ever larger numbers of the populace, is going to be a bumpy ride.

Those of us who have been attentive know that the above are only the tip of the disruptive phenomena and that our leaders are trying to hide all this by endless tergiversation (spell check don't like that one - too bad), which appears to be working on the trolls that arrive here - the ones that demonstrate again and again that they are not the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree.

Wow #1, you have a point well worth considering bloody well, thank you.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 20 Feb 2015 #permalink

Fellas, ignore meatball. The scientific community has moved on. He's a brainless twerp. Asia is having one of its warmest winters on record, and ice extent in the Bering Sea is at an all-time low for this time of the year.

Idiots like him have never been taught basic science. They cannot think as processes as being anything other than linear. Thus, in their feeble little minds, every year must be warmer than the one that preceded it at every location on Earth. They cherry pick data and trends to suit their own agendas. The western USA is having one of its warmest winters on record, as is Alaska. But to them every place on Earth must be warm.

Is it any wonder that meatball works (if indeed he does, because he refuses to tell us his day job) in a field not remotely close to science? Because if he did, his comic-book level views would have him booted out of academia. The fact that he is anonymous but still cannot get the courage to tell us his profession tells us clearly that it is light years away from anything remotely scientific. The same is true of his idol, meatball number 2, Jonas (whose inane comments are not missed). Both of these dopes never ever tell us what they do for a living - for the simple reason that we'd all be on our backs laughing our heads off if they did.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 20 Feb 2015 #permalink

Thanks cRR @ #1. Those data pretty well vanquish metaball's nonsense. Or should. No doubt he'll come back here with some tedious non-sequiters.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 20 Feb 2015 #permalink

Speaking of Swedish meatbll number 2, has anyone here bothered to visit the Jonas thread in awhile? He spends most of the time on there muttering about me. I am flattered! He obviously has an unhealthy fixation on scientists who disagree with him. That would mean about 99.9% of the scientific community. But in true Serengeti-strategy style, he fixates on me. Well, at least to vent his frustration in that he is a total non-entity. And to support a few outliers like Marohasy. He's a sad, sad person.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 20 Feb 2015 #permalink

Nope, they're experiencing weather, as defined by their changed climate, dearie.

DO try to keep up, pet.

BetulaLaLaLa,

Do you know what a boor is? No, then go look in a mirror!

@Jeff: that thread is just hilarious now -- every few months Jonas comes in to complain how long it took last time for his last comment to get approved. That comment, of course, being about how long it took the time before. The only interruption is a long screed about the "loony left" that is such a pathological exercise in projection that it should be framed.

I see John Birchbark cannot read. Pity. If he did, he'd have learned that January was the second warmest globally since records began, and that Eurasia is having a recored warm winter; temperatures in the far north of Russia around freezing. Temperatures in Alaska and Yukon Territory are also way above normal. But hey! Betula doesn't understand complex phrases like 'long-term trends' and words like 'variability'. He's clearly spent a few too many days up trees.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 20 Feb 2015 #permalink

Just an anecdote but my first daffodil came into flower just before Christmas...

By turboblocke (not verified) on 20 Feb 2015 #permalink

Jeff, the thing is that Betty et al DO know that for every cold place in the world, there's 10 places experiencing far warmer temperatures than normal.

Remember: no claim is ever made any more by deniers that "It's cold in Northern Bumfuckistan! Proves that it's cooling now!", they just tell everyone that it's snowing where it ALWAYS snows in winter. Context doesn't help them, so they don't do that. Consequences don't work for them (because it's record warming elsewhere), so they don't do that.

My recourse is merely to get them to MAKE a claim of consequence and point out they never do.

My recourse is merely to get them to MAKE a claim of consequence and point out they never do.

Good tactic.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 21 Feb 2015 #permalink

Just the option I generally take. Pointing out where it's anomalously hot would be another, but most then go on to be reasonable and explain the point. I don't think that's worth the effort. Just point to how damn hot it is in Adelade and go "Well, I guess it really is hot there!".

Or verbally bodyslam them, which is fun and easy to do.

Or...

But my method only works now deniers have discovered that claiming "End of AGW!" when pointing to some town where it's cold doesn't work any more and have decided not to put even that much effort into it, leaving it with "Bumfuckistan is being snowed on!!!!". Which really begs the question "So what?"

Oooooooo, that's really gonna hurt! And not just Soon...

Prediction: denial's winged monkeys will now become even scarcer around here than they did after the 2014 was declared the warmest year ever.

re #17, you mean it'll hurt willie too? :-P

Another prediction: as cited by ianam, expect to see a lot of the word 'deliverable'!

For those not into project management here is a rundown on deliverables and here is a video of Soon denying all Climate change denier Willie Soon questioned over Koch, Exxon funding at CFACT Campus event.

In Soon's own word's 'I would never be motivated by money for anything' Hum! and later, '..stealing peoples money is not principled...', so the taxpayer losing via fossil industry tax breaks is not an aspect of theft.

It is very rude to challenge the likes of Soon is it? So be it, let us all get rude. That video reminds me of that Python Black Knight sketch.

Lionel: That's a fun video to watch.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 22 Feb 2015 #permalink

Oops, HTM TAG FUBAR!

Soon may have been an astrophysicist ‘trained as an aerospace engineer’ but he ain’t no Galileo.

Will it or won't it?

Jeff, Jennifer Francis has appeared frequently of late, and over the last twelve months or so, explaining what is going on in the Northern Hemisphere. Now she IS somebody who should be paid attention to not the snake oil salesmen such as Soon. I note that his association with Monckton has not gone without comment let alone unnoticed.

Peter Sinclair has another post up on the Soon exposure with more at the Rabett's with three, so far, in a series 'Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Hi-Jinks...'.

More HTM porridge, sorry folks I give up on that one for now.

Jeff, Jennifer Francis has appeared frequently of late, and over the last twelve months or so, explaining what is going on in the Northern Hemisphere. Now she IS somebody who should be paid attention to not the snake oil salesmen such as Soon. I note that his association with Monckton has not gone without comment let alone unnoticed.

Peter Sinclair has another post up on the Soon exposure with more at the Rabett's with three, so far, in a series 'Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Hi-Jinks...'.

Taking a cue from Watts, we can also lazily assume his confabulation to be erroneously founded.

Taking the ulcer example as an example, it was lazily assumed by the medical world (de to lack of empirical research) that conditions inside the human stomach were too hostile for bacterial life forms to play any part in the condition, until Nobel winning research by Warren and MarshallLproved that not to be the case.

That Watts tries to (ineffectively) establish similarities with AGW (which is brimming over with empirical research) by similar lazy, fat-arsed, moustachioed, overfed, ugly, fat-faced Republican Californianisms is only to be expected from such a bought-and-paid-for specimen as Watts repeatedly proves himself to be.

I see DeSmogBlog has a tranche of interesting articles this week with another aspect in the mix and highlighted by John Mashey where he cites the leanings of one Rand Paul on vaccination.

Of course Paul bears the label of his dad's ideological leanings and it wasn't from the shaking of a book of maps.

WRT the harm that can ensue from a measles infection I can speak from experience as being one of those who when about seven contracted measles and chicken pox as a double act, first one and then straight into the other without a break, although I cannot recall which came first. I do recall the vivid hallucinations though which may be compared to what one would likely feel if sucked into a black hole.

I figure that measles factored in my later development of heart disease which first showed itself when in my early twenties whilst in the RN, when I pushed myself in the challenge team on a Cliff and Chasm course. It was transient but painful but I shrugged and got on with things but then, for the first time suffered exposure whilst walking the Brecon Beacons one dark, wet and windy morning soon after as another aspect of the Leadership Course. This course apart from that Cliff and Chasm (a bit like the Field Gun run and just as tough) as well as a regular assault course where once again I had found myself in the record challenge team and thus repeating it several times in the 'dogs'. [1]

Many years later, after collapsing with a cardiac arrest andhaving been revived I was repeatedly asked if I had had such a myocardial infarction before. I repeatedly replied NO, which clearly puzzled the medics as 'something had turned up in my blood'. It was only later with time to reflect that I recalled that incident with that Leadership Course. And then a number of other occasions when a sudden feeling of being drained came over me. These I passed off by their happening in the early hours during night watches mending Phantoms on an aircraft carrier. On one occasion, on the flight deck, it was as much as I could do to finish the engine test runs I was doing, shut down and depart the aircraft that had been spotted in the range.

Thus Paul is on the wrong side of this argument without a doubt.

[1] 'dogs' - dog watches are 2 hours thus half the duration of a normal watch of four hours so as to alternate the periods on watch from one day to the next on a two watch routine. In the days of sail the RN day began at twelve noon so that in clear weather the local time could be fixed by 'shooting the sun'. Hence the O'Brian joke of why two hour watches were called dog watches - from their having been curtailed.

How about a Deltoid moment of reflection for Rajendra Pachauri...we'll miss him at the helm.

"... we’ll miss him at the helm" - so now an ice age cometh :D :D

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 24 Feb 2015 #permalink

Let us not forget Global Warming: The Latest on False and Scary Greenhouse Gas Theory | Sallie Baliunas , which is a smorgasbord of denier talking points presented to the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness which has been described as being linked to Association of American Physicians and Surgeons by the Guardian.

Or reflect that Ben Goldacre has called it (AAPS) "the in-house magazine of a rightwing US pressure group well known for polemics on homosexuality, abortion and vaccines".

Betuala, never underestimate the power of a vodoo sex doll. I'm sure it hacked Pachys' computer!

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 24 Feb 2015 #permalink

Yep, with Pachauri gone, that'll only leave us with 97% of the world's climatologists, and all the world's major scientific institutions and academies of science. Oh, noes.

At lease he had the decency - and common sense - to resign. Something we're unlikely to see in some other quarters...

The reason why deniers are so damn pissed off at Rajendra is that he was an appointee by that noted commie environmentalist sympathiser George W Bush, who figured that a man who ran a big rail company would be most likely to toe the denier line.

Unfortunately, they didn't figure on him being honest.

So for once I agree with the deniers at their word (but not their intent), Well Done Rajendra.

What part of the science of climate change is altered by Pachauri's resignation?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 25 Feb 2015 #permalink

I wonder if Rajendra will step down from the external advisory board of The Earth Institute, where he shares a seat with that respected climate scientist George Soros?

I wonder if Rajendra will step down from the external advisory board of The Earth Institute....

Why should he when it could be that his email has been hacked in order to conduct a smear campaign.

Pachauri has strongly denied the allegations, saying his personal email account had been hacked to send inappropriate messages to a colleague.

It isn't as if there isn't history here. I mean you like to throw 'Climategate' around now just how was that kicked off.

Those who carried out that attack, and all those in the denial echo chamber who pushed and pushed it are climate criminals - crimes against humanity - make no mistake about this. Those such as Delingpole, Booker, Beck, Limbaugh, Watts etc. are some of the most odious entities on the planet, they make Putin look angelic.

Go look at a poster found here to find another list, with some overlap.

And here is a more comprehensive list, perhaps Guantanamo should be re-purposed, Delingpole would look good in an orange jump suit.

that respected climate scientist George Soros?

The only people who believe George Soros is a climate scientist are deniers like yourself, Betty.

Mind you, you also think that Tony Whats is a climate scientist, too, so you have little grasp of what climate science means.

Obviously.

But, I guess you have to scrabble for ANYTHING when Willie is being slapped around for fraudulent unscientific PR puffery pretending to be science, and the engagement of the fossil fuel industry and the richest individuals in the world in the attempt to suborn science for their personal enrichment.

And this is the "best" you can do, 'cos thinking isn't really a denier strong point, is it.

#36: Bernard asks Betty a simple question.
#37: Betty ignores it and keeps running off her good steed Tangent at a gallop.

Denier 101 in a nut shell.

Oops, good point Wow, let me rephrase..

I wonder if that resected climate scientist, Rajendra Pachauri, will step down from the external advisory board of The Earth Institute, where he shares a seat with George Soros?

There, that's better.

#36 - "What part of the science of climate change is altered by Pachauri’s resignation?"

What part of "we’ll miss him at the helm" suggests I said predictions will be altered?

12 comments on the 20th...
8 comments on the 21st...
1 comment on the 22nd...
6 comments on the 23rd...
8 comments on the 24th...
7 comments so far today...

Tim - Time to shut this buggy whip factory down...

Godspeed, Betty.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 25 Feb 2015 #permalink

I wonder if that resected climate scientist, Rajendra Pachauri...

Wow, you're ALSO under the delusion that Pachauri is a climate scientist?

How deep does it run?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 25 Feb 2015 #permalink

Loth and Wow - as quick as ever.

And Betty points out yet more amazing squirrels, hoping, like a cat with its cat litter, shoveling this around will hide the fact that Bernard's question at #36 is going unanswered...!

Betty, NOBODY BUT YOU has called him a "reselected scientist", if mainly because nobody (and this DOES include you, betty) knows what it means.

Of course, what this means (holistically, rather than semantically) is that Willie has been caught out in the open and thrown under the bus because he's been making fraudulent "science" that you give a complete pass to because you like what he says.

So you "SQUIRREL!!!" Rajendra to hide the fact that more and more denier "science" is shown to be fraudulent payed-PR-for-hire masquerading as science just so deniers can keep going on about how it's all completely unknown.

Which is why you can't answer Bernard's #36.

Answering with a question is not answering the question, dill-pickle

This memo surfaced recently from DeSmogBlog via Climate Crock of the Week:

IREA memo, implicating Michaels, Lindzen, Spencer, Balling, Craig Idso, Lomborg amongst others in the know well recognised dishonest disinfo campaign paid for by fossil fuel entities. This is evidence.

Lionel, when deniers were saying "Follow the money", they didn't mean THEIR money!

And Betty, these revelations show not that the denier papers are crappy quality or downright unscientific, since that can and has been proved without this information. What it DOES prove is that their campaign to produce naysaying screed is paid-for PR by companies and private individuals whose vast wealth is at stake if we do anything rational about AGW.

It doesn't prove their papers wrong, that is proved elsewhere, it shows WHY the papers were written.

Wow, if you're going to quote something i.e., “reselected”, that was typo i.e., "resected".....please misspell it correctly.

"Answering with a question is not answering the question"

Asking a question that has nothing to do with the comment deserves to be questioned.

Asking a question is asking a question, Betty dear.
Answering a question with a question is NOT answering it, Betty.

You see, you can EASILY say "It doesn't change the science in the least", but you cannot or will not say that, and this again is a discriminator of the proper denialist and the merely brainwashed: you CANNOT afford, for your own sanity, to say anything like that because it means you admit

a) your claim was a "SQUIRREL!!!"
b) it doesn't denigrate climate science
c) it (even though BARELY) hints at you being wrong

And despite the last one being the least appliccable to it, is the real psychological killer for you.

And so you do not answer Bernard's question.

You could easily: "It does not change the science at all".

You WILL NOT, though.

“resected” is what you said, Betty, and you are the only one who called him that.

And, as with George Soros, you deniers are the only one who called Rajendra a respected climate scientist.

He wasn't a climate scientist, he owned a significant company involved with railways, a big user of fossil fuels, which was why George W Bush insisted he be put in charge.

But we are again at the "SQUIREL!!" claim. Your use was ENTIRELY down to wanting something to hide the fraud perpetrated by fossil fuel money fueled PR masquerading as science to ensure the enrichment of those already hideously wealthy.

So to sum up, Betty hears the information showing that denier scientist darlings are being funded to produce a desired answer (AGW is not a problem) and then thinks of Rajendra.

Fake scientists being paid to produce propaganda discovered, which deniers repeatedly complain about happening and insist that is the BIGGEST PROBLEM with AGW, warranting the continued harassment of people like Michael Mann for what they insist to perceive as fiddling the science becomes less important than someone standing down at an unpaid position as chair of a committee when the fraud is shown to be done by deniers of AGW for fossil fuel interests.

Something tells me that fraud in science wasn't really the problem they had with it. :-P

Betula:

12 comments on the 20th…
8 comments on the 21st…
1 comment on the 22nd…
6 comments on the 23rd…
8 comments on the 24th…

21comments so far today…

OMG, a hockey stick !!!

I can't help feeling Betula is so keen to get Deltoid shot down because he hates getting pwned here, but can't stay away.

How are you going with Bernard @ #36, Birchy?

The fact that denier shit isn't staining the site with nothing but bollocks is why the site doesn't NEED to be closed down.

Lack of posting is entirely and utterly natural given the site owner's lack of any activity other than a new month thread. Only if something significant turns up will conversation happen naturally, so naturally there will be little commenting.

It's NOT natural to have 500 comments of denier blather and argument against the blather on a site with no activity by the owner. And the problem with it is that when there IS something significant, you have a TINY window to see it before it's shovelled under so much denier shite and responses to aforementioned shite that it might never have happened.

"resected” is what you said, Betty, and you are the only one who called him that.

“reselected scientist" is what you said Wow, and you are the only one who claimed I said that.

Hysterical.

"It is incompatible with social justice"

And there you have it.

The end.

"It is incompatible with social justice and sustainability." - fair dinkum. Unchecked capitalism is the Ideology of Plunder.

"Humanity better wake up to that fact before we push our systems over the edge…"
Better be, but it's not going to happen. Syria went over the edge following a 40% decrease of annual precipitation over the past half century, but people simply don't have the time or the stamina to gloss over this part of the cause of Syria's societal demise.

When our systems go over the edge, the Ideologists of Plunder will do exactly what they are doing now: it is to effectively put the blame on some ethnic group. In the end the muslims will be held responsible. That is why the oligarchy is so bloody tough to evade.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 26 Feb 2015 #permalink

When our systems go over the edge, the Ideologists of Plunder will do exactly what they are doing now...

And I wonder who will be Lee van Cleef to Clint Eastwood?

Which once again reminds me of my late model Wolseley 6/110 Mk II and its Motorola 8 track with one tape of the original soundtracks also good listening along with Santana's Abraxas on long rides.

Well said cRR. Batty lives in a corporatocracy anyway, and yet he probably doesn't even know it. Sheldon Wolin calls it 'inverted totalitarianism'. Pretty appropriate. Regulatory bodies in the US have been gutted by the government, and in the end have become a revolving door for industry. With over half of the world's wealth controlled by 1% of its population (a disparity that is growing), I agree that humans are going over the cliff.

The other day I heard a lecture given by a PhD student in which she described the findings of her research - based on soil ecology - in the context of the 'battle against climate change'. I told her there isn't a battle. Nothing is being done about it. Zilch. All the while humans continue with a slash-and-burn approach to the biosphere. At the heart of this is unregulated capitalism. Its driving wealth inequality, resource wars, ecocide, and poverty. If I saw us in the north freely sharing our technologies with the poor in the south then I'd thin change might be on the cards. But we don't. Life itself is being patented for profit.

And yes, there you have it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 26 Feb 2015 #permalink

Nope, betty, you first said "resected" in post #41. First appearance on this page.

Hysterical? Yup, that's you all right.

It's hard to follow along isn't it wow...you must have the IQ of a snail.

# 41 me - Typo "resected"

$48 you - "Betty, NOBODY BUT YOU has called him a “reselected scientist”....misspelling my typo.

#51 me - "please misspell it correctly"

#54 you - “resected” is what you said, Betty, and you are the only one who called him that."

#59 me - mocking your retarded comment...

“resected” is what you said, Betty, and you are the only one who called him that.
“reselected scientist” is what you said Wow, and you are the only one who claimed I said that

#64 you - being too dumb to pick up on it...
"Nope, betty, you first said “resected” in post #41. First appearance on this page"

You're exactly the reason I keep coming back. I'll miss you and the other 3 that visit this site when it's finally laid to rest...

Natural cooling of ocean? What pause?

"A natural cooling of the Pacific Ocean has contributed to slow global warming in the past decade but the pause is unlikely to last much longer, U.S. scientists said on Thursday"

And what is this word "probably"? You mean we don't know?

"The slowdown in warming is probably a combination of several different factors," Mann said

http://news.yahoo.com/cooler-pacific-slowed-global-warming-briefly-stud…

What the hell is going on? I thought the debate was over?

Wow, Hardley, how will we ever get social justice if the ocean doesn't cooperate?

Social justice is when Jeff can rule the world. A self loving guy that hates, sees conspiracies and evil everywhere must be a good world leader.

He can settle science better than anyone, I'm sure.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 27 Feb 2015 #permalink

Alternative meatball: " I do not understand basic politics and economics, and when confronted with evidence showing vast inequalities in the distribution of wealth that are growing and which drive environmental destruction and poverty, I still don't know what it means, so anybody who makes this point is into conspiracies". And then as an addendum, "And anybody that says these things is also a self-loving person who wants to rule the world".

This, fellow Deltoiders, is the level of intellectual debate coming from the Swedish meatball. The nickname I have allocated to him is wholly appropriate, as he's as dumb as an ox. He has no scientific cred, is jealous as hell of the fact that some of us on here do, and as a feeble line of defense has to resort to accusing me of being 'self-loving'. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that comment. My colleagues around the world and at the NIOO in Holland would certainly laugh, as they know me far better than meatball does, and they see me as a scientist who most certainly does not take himself seriously. But I do take the matter of science and global change seriously, and when morons like meatball write in here with their kindergarten level comments, trying to downplay it, then I will counter them. Being a scientist does make it easier for me when they wade into fields well outside of their competence.

Olaus is clearly into ritual self-humiliation because I am not the only one who easily counters his nonsense. All of us here do - with the exception of a few other AGW deniers/skeptics like Betula who also lack a basic grounding in the relevant fields. Its funny how the deniers keep writing in here begging Tim to shut down the site, yet at the same time they clearly read it very often. What they don't read is the primary literature and for two reasons. First, much of it is hidden behind a pay wall and that is unfortunate. Second, and most importantly, they do not have anything close to a relevant scientific pedigree and wouldn't understand it if they could. Meatball, as I have said many times, hasn't been near a science lecture theater in his life. Their 'education' comes primarily from anti-environmental blogs that reinforce their own inherent biases.

I've advised Olaus in the past to go 'instinct', quoting one of his hilariously gumbified earlier posts. I hope he finally heeds.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 27 Feb 2015 #permalink

Of course, if someone has lots of money and doesn't think AGW is a hoax, Lappers and Betty both "KNOW!" that this is why they support it: to become richer!

Their ability to hold two competely compartmentalised faiths is one reason why they are clinically insane.

I wonder if Willie rather than just being venal is actually insane in this manner?

Natural cooling of ocean? What pause?

What earth are YOU inhabiting, Betty, that constitutes only the Pacific Ocean.

And, yes, there is no statistically significant pause in the warming.

Northeast US Sea Levels rise 4 inches in two years.

Gosh.

From that Bet-u-la - dumb as a sack of hammers entity link @ # 66:

The slowdown in the rate of rising temperatures, from faster gains in the 1980s and 1990s...

Read those words slowly oh dim bulb and take in what 'slowdown in the rate of rising temperatures' really means.

After that the article descends one again into nonsense ignoring the stark reality that the Pacific has a huge area, is very deep and forms only one part of the entire body of water that are the oceans and limnic systems and that large portions of the same have been storing heat energy. All that has shifted is the relative distribution of that heat.

This is physics and without it cooling systems in vehicles and many domestic heating systems would not function.

Study the maps here you tosser, sorry but you have well and truly earned such epithets, and worse:

US Deep Freeze Stands out on Global Map

Is it any wonder that large holes are appearing in Yamal? And look at that US Senate idiot-in-chief holding a snowball, which I think represents his brain (due for meltdown) and also his heart (cold).

Me - "Natural cooling of ocean?"

Wow - "What earth are YOU inhabiting, Betty, that constitutes only the Pacific Ocean"

Wow, unaware of the plurality of his dumbness, only sees what Wow wants to see...

"Natural cooling of ocean?" means nothing, Betty.

Really.

A conflagration "naturally cools down", and that happens even if you're putting more fuel in it, even though the net effect is more fire.

"Natural cooling of ocean?" isn't even a question.

only sees what Wow wants to see…

And what I don't see (nor does anyone else) is an explanation of what you mean, Betty.

What isn't seen because it doesn't exist is a response to the query "What earth are YOU inhabiting, Betty, that constitutes only the Pacific Ocean”.

All that is seen is a circular argument:
Wow is dumb
Because Wow can't see where they're dumb
But I won't say where they're dumb
Because Wow is dumb

What we don't see either is any denier having been given proof of fraud in their "scientific" papers paid for by someone who desires a specific claimed outcome braying for their blood like they demand Michael Mann's blood, despite no proof of any fraud.

There are two differences:

Willie's guilt is proven, Mann's is proven innocent
Willie's result s claim AGW no problem, Mann's prove AGW is a problem.

I see that my question at #36 was a little too difficult for the ignorati here. I'll simplify it.

What part of the science of, say, Feldman et al 2015 is in any way altered by the resignation of Pachauri?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 Feb 2015 #permalink

@Hardley - Put out by Jeff Skoll"s Participant Media and TakePart.com....Indoctrination and Propaganda calling Disinformation biased

It's a comedy.

Just quietly, assuming a λ of 0.8 K/(W/m2) and few other (optimistic) parsimonious conditions such as business as usual and no emergent confounders to the current feedback system, the forcing observed by Feldman et al 2015 would lead to a further 2° C rise in temperature by the end of the century.

That would seal the deal for the fate of cohesive human civilisation over the coming centuries, as well as locking in the 6th Great Extinction.

Read the paper - it's a great piece of careful work.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 Feb 2015 #permalink

Bernard - In regards to your irrelevant question:

It's sort of like having a few hundred cows and you lose one, at which point you say...."I'm going to miss that old cow". And then someone asks..."What part of spreading manure will be altered by that cows departure?"
Nothing. The cow will be replaced and the spreading of manure will remain unaltered...

Betty the cow's cattle science. No, Betty the cow, it's not sort of like that. It's more like gravity pulls notwithstanding the number of cows, the amount of manure, any changes therein or Betty's beliefs. Likewise, CO2 is a GHG, always was, always will be, Betty or none.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 27 Feb 2015 #permalink

Note how Betula falls into the same trap of claiming that anyone who puts out a documentary he doesn't like is into 'propaganda and disinformation'. This is the age-old tried and trusted strategy of dopes like Batty. He doesn't like it: then its propaganda and disinformation. He likes it: then its sound and factual.

The video clip I attached is pretty sound if one bothers to listen to the protagonists. Or is Betula claiming that Marc Morano, Steve Milloy etc. are honest brokers whose views are worth listening to? Is he claiming that they are qualified to discuss a field in which they have no formal qualifications?

Like many Americans, Betula is ignorant. He probably believes it when Paul Wolfowitz, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, William Kristal or any other number of right wing neocon blowhards comes up on Fox news proclaiming the way it is in the world. I am sure he thinks Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly have a lot of useful things to say, and that American Sniper was a great, honest depiction of events in Iraq. I am sure that he loves to hear Rush Limbaugh go at those watermelons who claim that humans are dangerously affecting the planet's climate. He is certainly a fan of James Inhofe and Joe Barton and other Republicans who see climate warming as a great big left wing conspiracy.

He probably sneers at those who argue that the US is a democracy in name only, but a fully fledged plutocracy in reality. He will probably dismiss those who argue that government and industry are a revolving door in the US.

Why I respond to him is anyone's guess. I must be a sucker for punishment.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 27 Feb 2015 #permalink

And then someone asks…”What part of spreading manure will be altered by that cows departure?”

No, it's like asking someone "Why did you bring up how you'll miss that cow?", with the inference that the reason why you will miss that cow is because of your bestiality urges.

Betty, ARE you into bestiality?

Of course, with the resignation Betty brought up was due to trying to get nobody to notice how a denier-friendly scientist had been paid for their faulty "science" papers, and how many more are being found out as being likewise bribed to continue the fantasy that somehow AGW isn't known to be a problem.

That you made up an analogy to do with missing a cow is indication of your urges toward bestiality, betty.

*wondering what Betty will claim at that*

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 27 Feb 2015 #permalink

Betula, false analogy is a logical fallacy.

You lose.

Further, you've studiously avoided two simple but substantive questions. Using the label "irrelevant" doesn't alter the fact that they're not.

You lose again.

After all the years that you've trolled Deltoid you've not ever been able to mount a cogent )or otherwise) refutation of the science of human-caused 'greenhouse' gas heating of the planet. You just spend weeks of your time obfuscating, apparently expecting that the laws of physics will relent to your persistence.

Ain't gonna happen petal.

That's three losings in a row.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 Feb 2015 #permalink

“What earth are YOU inhabiting, Betty, that constitutes only the Pacific Ocean”

The earth that contains the article I linked that states "the Pacific Ocean". Why, what other earth were you referring to?

Are you now going to pluralize earth the same way you pluralized the Pacific Ocean? Actually, I guess that would make sense.... if there are two Pacific Oceans, then there must be two earths....ok, I see where you're coming from...

@ Hardley - Good link, good news, thanks...

"Antarctic sea ice extent declined rapidly in late January, but remains high"

@ Hardley - "the US is a democracy in name only"

Actually it's a Republic. But let's not dabble in details...

The earth that contains the article I linked that states “the Pacific Ocean”. Why, what other earth were you referring to?

Ah, so your comment wasn't any evidence of the end or lack of AGW.

Well, why didn't you SAY so, dearie?

Yes Wow, I love cows. Thanks God, that's in the open.

“Antarctic sea ice extent declined rapidly in late January, but remains high”

Yup, yet more non-comment. Not proof of the end of AGW or its nonexistence.

Shall we keep putting this footnote at the end of all your comments, Betty, or do you think you have the brains to manage that yourself?

#91 right, and Holland truly is a democracy because Holland has a King, is what Batty is trying to say.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 27 Feb 2015 #permalink

Bernard wants to claim first place in the manure competition....I concede.

#94, it is evidence for AGW, again, of course.
Oh and say goodbye to Larsen C.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 27 Feb 2015 #permalink

Actually it’s a Republic.

From Wikipedia:

China officially the People's Republic of China (PRC), is a sovereign state located in East Asia.

So you agree with Jeff that the USA has pretty much the same ruling class as China.

#96, no, given you've admitted to bestiality, Betty, I'm afraid you cannot claim a manure prize belongs to someone else.

You own it.

re #87, apparently betty's response is another "SQUIRREL!!" claim of something about manure and insisting someone else won awards.

"Ah, so your comment wasn’t any evidence of the end or lack of AGW"

My comment is a linked article. I don't recall the article claiming an end or lack of AGW, ....only the unpredicted continuance of a "pause" and the predicted continuance of warming. Unpredicted/predictions.

Oh, and DPRK.

'course redneck rightwingnuts think of Reagan like Koreans think of their glorious leader, but think the polar opposite of a black republican president.

The similarities between the republic of america and republics of despotic and corrupt regimes just keep piling up...

"The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10)."

http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

“Ah, so your comment wasn’t any evidence of the end or lack of AGW”

My comment is a linked article.

Do you know what non-sequitur means?

> Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"),

Why can't you say "Yes", Betty? If you could say "No" then you wouldn't have to nonanswer the statement, you could refute it.

But I guess hiding from Willie and the other denier scientists whilst they're being found out corrupt and purchased by big oil requires you make a torrent of drivel to distract yourself from the terrible truth: you've been willingly conned.

“The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy.

You could merely have agreed that it's a republic, just like China and North Korea, Betty.

No need to use a wall of text, though as mentioned before, you have to find some way to hide the troubling news of denier "science" corruption.

"The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy"

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA....etc. for page after page. I might as well be speaking to a wall. The US is a corporatocracy throught and through. Betula can believe in fairy tales all he wants. That's his problem.

Sraight from a comic book. As Wow said. East Germany was a 'democracy' wasn't it? The German Democratic Republic. The truth was brutally different.

By Jefff Harvey (not verified) on 27 Feb 2015 #permalink

Betula: Antarctic Ice grows because it sits atop a land mass. Moreover, why should that decline? Temperatures in the Antarctic, even under a warming scenario, are many degrees below freezing, Thus the increased ice could be due to enhanced precipitation. Last time I saw, the Arctic was primarily a marine system. It warms up a lot faster than land and is also not as cold as the Antarctic. Hence why the death spiral in the Arctic is profoundly worrying and an excellent fingerprint for AGW.

Good grief you are a simpleton. Is this the best you've got? That the US is a Republic and that the Antarctic has lots of ice? I think the neighbors kids argue their corner better than you do. You're incompetent.

By Jefff Harvey (not verified) on 27 Feb 2015 #permalink

Bet-u-la @ #1 above:

My comment is a linked article.

Yes that is true, you linked to an article at that well known academy of science 'Yahoo! News' Yaboo! more like for that exclamation is well placed.

Whatever:

Note my remarks on the previous page and what do we see in that article:

Examining temperatures of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans back to 1850, which have natural swings in winds and currents that can last decades, the scientists said a cooler phase in the Pacific in recent years helped explain the warming hiatus.

As I wrote, it is symptomatic of a redistribution of the heat in the oceans and not a stop in warming due to the continued increase in radiative forcing imbalance from increases in GHG atmospheric load. As long as the imbalance continues so will the build up of heat in the system, until the ECS point is reached.

But, the oceans have a considerable inertia to heating response, like a flywheel that has spun up which will continue to rotate long after the impetus has been removed then so with the warming of the oceans.

But we have yet to remove that driving force, the continued and indeed increasing emissions of GHGs.

Thus this part of that article:

Understanding the slowdown is vital to project future warming and to agree curbs on emissions, linked by scientists to heatwaves, floods and rising seas.

Is totally bogus. We know the what, we know the how and we know the why. All that paragraph does is invoke the uncertainty monster in the guise of more research needed before we act. Typical delayer tactics from the deniers and for the denier ignorati such as yourself.

Can you not understand the fundamentals here?

Silly me, I thought the cow Betula was talking about was Soon. It was the manure spreading that fooled me.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 27 Feb 2015 #permalink

Jeff @ #11

That was a point I was making to Bet-u-la for his #1 but of course you know that and he is too ignorant to connect the dots between the temperature anomalies on the map I cited and my Yamal reference - he probably thought tree rings and hockey sticks.

Hardley - You have to be the dumbest scientist on earth.

Are you saying the warming in Russia is due to global warming or weather? How about the record cold in many of the states...global warming or weather? The cooling of the Pacific Ocean, global warming or natural cooling?

There is nothing in the your linked article that says the craters are caused by AGW.... other than pure speculation.

So now speculation is fact in your world? Sort of like witnessing climate change first hand, right Hardley? And you call yourself a scientist?
Wanting something to be something it's not doesn't make it so....
You're a disgrace...

Betula, you are wrong again. Little Bonaparte has always relied heavily on conjectures fueled by conspiracies as scientific loadstar.

Like all portentologists he have also a great problem with scale, hence his inablity to differ weather from climate.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 28 Feb 2015 #permalink

Are you saying the warming in Russia is due to global warming or weather?

Odd coming from you, Betty.

He's saying that Russia is having its warmest ever winter on record.

Can you not read???

Little Betty</b< has always relied heavily on conjectures fueled by conspiracies as scientific loadstar.

FTFY.

Well, you too. Not leaving you out deliberately, Lappers.

I suppose in this time of tribulation for deniers, where their dirty laundry is finally being noted upon and all sorts of unpleasant things are being found in the bottom of your sock drawer, you have to keep finding something else to squirrel over...

Pity all your ideas are so weak sauce.

Betula, if I am the dumbest scientist on Earth and I am still light years more intelligent that you it says something... you're as thick as a sack of potatoes and just as naive...

What I am saying is that there are far more warm records being set that cold records - by a ration of more than 5 to 1 and this ratio is increasing. Russia's warm winter is unusual in the sense that several warm winters have occurred therein the past two decades, but before then they were virtually non-existant. So clearly they are connected with AGW. Just as the significant trend in the loss of Arctic ice is evidence of the same.

But isn't it you who wrote back in here saying how cold it was in your neck of the woods? Hasn't meatball tried to make hay out of a cold winter in the eastern and central US with his obsession over Lake Superior?

The funny thing about idiots like you and meatball is that you write into Deltoid as if I am the only scientist on Earth who argues that GW s primarily anthropogenic. You have whittled the scientific community down to one or two blogs and then use that - Mann's Serengeti Strategy - to convince yourselves that you are right and have science on your side. Both of you and other deniers steer well clear of scientific venues - conferences, workshops, and web sites - where many scientists gather to discuss GW and other environmental threats. My biggest flaw is that I bother to engage with fools like you and meatball. When I have spoken with colleagues around the world about blog science most of them laugh and tell me that i am wasting my time. The few that have read through deltoid clearly see what clowns people like you and meatball are, and wonder why i waste my time lowering myself to your level of discourse. All meatball and his buddy from Sweden, Jonas, have left - given neither of them has a scintilla of scientific pedigree in their bodies - is to insult me ands smear me and try and belittle my scientific qualifications, which, like it or not, are miles ahead of not only theirs but anybody they know personally. And the only reason I write in here is that I feel that scientists have a responsibility to step out of the lab and to counter disinformation. In doing so, the knives come out when confronted with the sheer stupidity of laypeople who don't know much but who realize that scientists are taken seriously by the general public, save for ideologically blinded people with an axe to grind. Olaus is even dumber than you. Every time he's put some feeble argument up here, its been demolished, and when he made his hilarious 'instinct' in place of 'extinct' comment last year it summed up is mindset perfectly. But I digress. You and him couldn't stand in the same room with me in debating the effects of GW on natural and managed ecosystems. You're relatively safe here in your own anonymous bubbles. And that's why, like Jonas, you will stay here where you feel important.

By jeff Harvey (not verified) on 28 Feb 2015 #permalink

Birch-Block

Are you saying the warming in Russia is due to global warming or weather?

Both. Global warming invokes climate change which in turn changes weather patterns and that is what we have been witnessing across the globe with incidences of greater severity of the extremes with altered temporal and spatial patterns. How you fail to see this beggars belief!

You are incomparably stupid or being atrociously disingenuous in avoiding the truth. Maybe you just like winding people up. If that latter then you need to seek psychiatric help for you are displaying the same traits as Inhofe.

Hint, this creature is now fulling deserving of his own sandpit where he can throw his infantile memes around at will, or at OP who should join him. That Birch-block should make you realise how low you have sunk being equated to that village idiot.

@Comrade Lunatic

Please cut out all the "I'm a scientist crap", we've been thru all this - you're not a scientist, just a feeble minded activist with a bizarre set of beliefs.

You don't do math, you don't read the primary literature, you demonstrate outstanding ignorance even on matters you purport to be your own field. Remarkable. As others have said, you're a disgrace.

Have you no self awareness at all? No idea what a complete arse you come across as? I'd be embarrassed for you if you weren't such a repellent individual.

GSW, "Please cut out all the “I’m a scientist crap”, "

why?

You're a nobody, a moron, a painfully ignorant buffoon, but still a nobody.

Who gives a shit what you want?

Nobody, that's who.

Mind you, Gitter, if you want to see a Non Scientist who should maybe consider dropping the "I'm a Scientist" crap, maybe Willie Soon (and soon others who are being investigated) should be your target.

Indeed Wow and for those who are unfamiliar with Soon's history of misleading and others who may not have seen this document, this is well worth study:

CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal.

Now do link to the Donor's trust PDF at the head of that article, here is a link for the intellectually lazy (our regular trolls):

GREENPEACE BRIEFING Donors Trust: The shadow operation that has laundered $146 million in climate denial funding.

From page 4 on CFACT:

CFACT refuses to accept any scientific evidence, not to mention the consensus, that human activity is causing climate change. CFACT maintains an FAQ webpage that attempts to refute arguments that the vast majority of scientists say climate change is human caused...

Marc Morano, the long standing climate denier, currently serves as CFACT’s primary climate denial spokesperson. The organization also sponsors and produces Morano’s website, ClimateDepot.com. Morano is frequently a “talking head” on cable television news, casting doubt on the scientific evidence of human influence on the climate. Recently on Fox News, Morano claimed, “[Climate change action] is now akin to medieval witchcraft, where we used to blame witches for controlling the weather."</blockquote?

So we see that once again Birch-Bark is way off when describing the video linked to by Jeff at 2:72 as a comedy for portrays the calumny of such as Marc Morano and there is nothing funny about that. Birch-bark, you owe Jeff an apology for that vacuous remark.

Wow! (the exclamation, not the poster) - Griselda @ #20 could very well be ranting in front of the mirror with that 'comment'. And projecting like a force.

Gormless claims I don't read primary literature yet I have 152 papers on the Web of Science, each one with many citations. If I didn't read the primary literature, I would never in a million years have received my PhD and become a Professor.

So how many peer-reviewed papers do you have gormless?

I am waiting... waiting....

ZERO! Thought so. That was easy.

With respect to reading the primary literature, (1) you are an AGW denier, and (2) over 95% of the literature supports AGW theory. And more than 90% of the scientific community along with it. That makes you an outlier. In your skewered worldview, that also makes all of these scientists, by association, 'activists'. You often come here with some b* link to a denier blog - you seem particularly fond of Bishop's Hill for some twisted reason - and yet you lecture me about primary literature!?

Jump in the proverbial lake with your love-in hero, Jonas.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 28 Feb 2015 #permalink

Please cut out all the “I’m a scientist crap”

Come on GSW. Be sane. Jeff posts under his real name and his credentials and publication record are matters of public record.

Like most scientists, Jeff accepts the scientific consensus on AGW. That is properly objective and rational of him. Properly scientific, if you like.

Blast, this got lost in space last time WiFi drop out, I don't think much of this replacement modem-router from VM, my old Belkin Router gave a stronger signal!

Other creatures in trouble from the double whamy of increased CO2 and use of agrochemicals are the earthworms. This is bad news:

Reduce use of some fertilisers and fungicides
Highly acidifying fertilisers such as ammonium sulfate and some fungicides reduce worm numbers. Researchers have found that orchards sprayed with bordeaux or other copper sprays contain few earthworms and have peaty surface mats and poor soil structure.

Source:

How earthworms can help your soil.

Sadly, much good soil has been lost by overuse of agrochemicals and poor husbandry being little better than blotting paper to hold the chemicals and other soil has been lost by run-off from deforestation or sheep grazing and altered precipitation patterns.

Another factor in flooding was the soil and habit loss loss from the massacre of peat-lands for horticulture - gardens. Am I too much of a reactionary to dislike the ways of the annual RHS show which displays a certain collective mania amongst people who make out they like to grow things?

GSW

We’ve been thru all this, the stuff you publish, the views you express, the “transnational elites”, the capitalism rants, is all feeble minded crap.

Let me introduce you to the concept of logical fallacy. Yours is 'argument from assertion'.

Rather than lecture you on this point, I invite you to look it up.

No gormless, we haven't been through it. You've dismissed it because of your rank ignorance. That's your problem. Methinks you spend too much time with your head up a well known orifice.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 28 Feb 2015 #permalink

@Comrade

" we haven’t been through it."

Yes we have. It's was you that stated you don't/can't understand the climate science primary literature and "leave it to those who do" -you went off to have a go at it and gave up. How "sciency" is that? we'll not very much in my opinion, some of us actually learned "stuff" as part of our education and a darn sight more functional than you.

We've been thru it jeff, all you have left is bleating about "social justice". If you can't do the sums, stick with "social justice", the proles can't tell the difference, no offence BBD, Lionel et al.
;)

GSW

Yes we have. It’s was you that stated you don’t/can’t understand the climate science primary literature and “leave it to those who do”

Scientists are not expected to have domain expertise in all fields, only in their own. It is standard practice for scientists to accept the scientific consensus in fields other than their own because - as scientists - they understand that they are not qualified to question the domain expertise of others outside their own field of expert knowledge.

the proles can’t tell the difference, no offence BBD, Lionel et al.

Ah, but we can, GSW. We proles who have bothered to read a few textbooks have at least a basic grasp of physical climatology. You are a prole who has not even bothered to read a few textbooks. You and I have discussed climate science enough here for me to be certain that your topic knowledge is non-existent.

It should be obvious even to Griselda - were they able to take a step back and make a rational assessment - that their position relies entirely on the opinions of cranks, quacks and bought-and-paid-for shills.
And that's considered "objective", rather than what it actually is, which is a grubby, expedient maintenance of an unsustainable status quo.

It should be obvious even to Griselda – were they able to take a step back and make a rational assessment – that their position relies entirely on the opinions of cranks, quacks and bought-and-paid-for shills.

Which is proven only too well by the sources they used to cite but now dare not - so many times have they blown up in their faces. One only has to read at my links in #23 above for that to become crystal clear.

One only has to look up Richard Lindzen's record for further clarification.

Goodness,GSW really doesn't give a fig about bald-faced lies, does it.

I guess that's just proof that the turd is just an immoral toerag.

C'est la vie.

In true Dunning-Kruger-esque style, Gormless (GSW) tries to suggest that he's an expert in climate science and understands the empirical literature. In fact, he does understand it so well that he is able to say that 99% of it is wrong, and he proudly says this behind an anonymous handle and on blogs.

By association, this self-professed expert among experts also knows that every major Academy of Science in every country on Earth is also wrong in arguing that AGW is a proven fact, and once again, he's willing to go on blogs behind his anonymous handle and say it. He has no science whatsoever behind his arguments, and instead copy-pastes stuff from denier blogs run by - you guessed it - non-scientist Dunning-Kruger-ites.

Where have we heard this before? From his big online buddy, Jonas, that's who! These two clowns are two sides of the same coin. Neither has anything in the way of scientific qualifications, yet they both know that the scientific community by-and-large is wrong. They are joined in this perspective by the Swedish Meatball, Olaus, who - once again no surprise- has no scientific background.

These three clots spend an unhealthy amount of their time surfing the internet, dropping vacuous comments here and there because it makes them feel important. As they have something useful to say. As if their message is resonating across a wider general audience. If they'd bother to look in the mirror, they'd realize that they are complete nobodies whose views as purveyed by a few more publicized deniers like Soon, Carter, Singer et al. are seen as a complete joke by the broader scientific community. I am a part of that community, whether they like it or not, and my views on AGW - and on the potential ecological effects - are the mainstream. Go to any major international conference on the field of GW and the A part is taken as a 'given fact '; no controversy at all. The ecological effects, on which some of my research is based, are being investigated now. My lectures fit in well with those of thousands of colleagues around the world examining such processes as the effects of GW on multi-species interactions including range shifts, phenology, plant-herbivore-natural enemy interactions, plant-pollinaqtor mutualisms, above- and below ground interactions, and services such as nutrient cycling, pest control, seed dispersal, pollination, and maintenance of soil fertility. All of these areas are being intensively studied under the assumption that AGW is real.

That is why comments from deniers on here elicit such ridicule. These clots write as if AGW is some controversial, unproven theory. The main body of science moved on from that position more than a decade ago.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 Mar 2015 #permalink

@Comrade

You left Lindzen out of your "denier" list for some reason(?).

A recent interview here,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srVeSmXFX-w

Note how he plays down"plant-herbivore-natural enemy interactions" and the need for "social justice" that you advocate.

Enjoy Jeff!
;)

In which GSW proves that he doesn't understand logic, nor science, by conflating one branch of science with all of science:

How “sciency” is that?

And then claims that Lindzen "plays down”plant-herbivore-natural enemy interactions” and the need for “social justice”", which if accurate would be a textbook example of a scientist providing unqualified opinions outside of their own field, precisely what he seems to be charging Jeff with doing (noting that Jeff is clearly citing the strong consensus in the field of climate science, and it's not clear to me that Lindzen is doing the same when he wanders well outside of his expertise).

Remember folks, it's always projection.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 01 Mar 2015 #permalink

Well, you do have to give him credit for a better attempt to "LOOK! SQUIRREL!!!" attention away from Willie Soon's fraudulent actions, even willing to prostitute his own actions to do so!

Unfortunately, he's demonstrating exactly HOW a scientist can become so venal and corrupt when denial takes root in the psyche.

I wonder how many others will be found out to be committing fraudulent papers under orders by the fossil fuel industry and their money...?

Golf-Sierra-Waster

You left Lindzen out of your “denier” list for some reason(?).

Seeing as you are non specific in your address then that is yet another falsehood see here on P3 #36

Now go back and look at the memo cited at Page2 #49, you see Lindzen is not forgotten.

Now that video clip ( original CBN here - FWIW) shows Lindzen in cloud cuckoo land or at his most layman deceptive from being engaged in advocacy and not science!

Asked about the Global Warming threat,

'Personally I don't think its a in the big leagues of threats people face...'lot of the alarm is based on extreme projections frankly I don't think many people involved in the field seriously believe um on the other hand um I mean given the concerns about climate I suppose you could argue there is something to be careful about not even having to do with man climate is always changing....'

Sorry but at that point I bailed out with that last bit of nonsense being so deliberately misleading. This man deserves to be censured by any scientific body with which he is associated.

Thank you for bringing this example of Lindzen's utter disregard for truth and the fate of the millions that have already been impacted by something he dismissed as not being amongst 'the big league of threats'.

Note his lying use of the word 'frankly', this is not being frank. Now frankly, Lindzen is a disgrace and should be treated as such. He needs to be called before a board of his peers and repeat the narrative he gave there with each point being picked apart and recorded. Then he should be censured according to the level of calumny exposed.

I have just discovered that there is another of those fossil fuel funded AGW deniers featured in a clip at that CBN link I included in #42 above. Click Menu and, for the moment, the second one in from the left is 'Global Cooling Earth's Little Known Threat' where we find Pat Michaels explaining how 'the Sun is very cold right now'. To use a well worn phrase, 'You gotta be joking' as I throw my cup against the screen in imitation of John McEnroe.

Seriously, if that is the reason why we haven't seen warming in the past twelve years (and the year on year temperature anomalies and ocean behaviour tell otherwise) we are going to be in deep cacafuego when Solar irradiation increases again. That is another part Michaels hopes nobody appreciates.

BTW, Michaels also features in that IREA memo cited above another liar for hire.

we’ll not very much in my opinion, some of us actually learned “stuff” as part of our education and a darn sight more functional than you.

Well, grammar and punctuation clearly weren't part of the "stuff" that GSW learned, but this post makes me wonder - when was the last time GSW actually posted anything resembling scientific content? I'm not talking about a link to Dick Lindzen's opinion about something or another Jonas-proxy hate-on for Jeff, but something with actual science content.

The last time I can remember was five years ago when he accidentally found himself vigorously supporting the notion of a scientific consensus.

So here's the challenge for you, GSW - You claimed to have learned "stuff", more "stuff" than Jeff, by implication, so post something "sciency".

Anything will do.

Anything....

GSW: "some of us actually learned “stuff” as part of our education and a darn sight more functional than you."

Nonsense. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I've got the bonafides - a PhD, 150 plus publications in scientific journals (including 5 in Nature) and you have zippo. In terms of science, its my profession. I research, among other things, the effects of climate warming on trophic interactions and range shifts. You don't research anything.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 Mar 2015 #permalink

Ol' Griselda clings like a limpet to its outlier - Lindzen in its case - and disregards the rest. The reasons why might be of interest if they weren't, in its case, so mundane and predictable.
After all, if Jonarse the Nonentity are its guiding genius then what more are left to be said?.

Now OP WRT #47, do read the abstract and tell us in your own words what it means.

Be sure to explain the meaning of 'hiatus' in this context.

Lionel, the accelerating global warming is evident but not detectable, hence the hiauts seem appropriate :-) The settled science wonders where its hiding. I think its to be found lobally. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 03 Mar 2015 #permalink

Three scientists say there is a hiatus in a single paper and Olaus takes it as gospel. Many scientists argue that there isn't - given the time and spatial scales involved - and he ignores them.

This is what we scientist's call 'cherry picking' - amplifying a few studies or views and ignoring or downplaying many others with different views. Its also why simpletons like Olaus are ignored by the mainstream, and that would include the scientists who wrote this article for Nature. The last thing they are trying to do is get deniers like Olaus on their side, because they would correctly argue that AGW is very real and a serious problem. Olaus and others like him want to distort their findings to downplay AGW.

Remember, folks, it was Olaus and his ilk who a few years ago were saying that there was no AGW. Now they are shifting their goalposts to admit there was warming but that it has stopped. This highlights the level of their dishonesty.

And one final point: the paper was almost certainly accepted by Nature Climate Change before last year's record high temperature was officially declared. The gist of the debate is whether there is a hiatus or not. A huge number of scientists say no.

And as an addendum read Olaus at #49 and please tell me, given the kindergarten-level grammar and spelling that he's not either on some hallucinogenic drug or just plainly stupid. Hiauts? Lobally? Sheesh!

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Mar 2015 #permalink

"Therefore, given the recognized contribution of internal climate variability to the reduced rate of global warming during the past 15 years, we should not be surprised if the current hiatus continues until the end of the decade." according to that Nature abstract. True, given a 25% chance of the 'hiatus' continuing. Except, it doesn't and that is then exactly three times less surprising.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 03 Mar 2015 #permalink

The paper was received at the journal in early August, and was obviously written before then, so the fact that 2014 turned out to be the warmest year on record was not taken into consideration. Second, the authors explain that within 5 years or so it is expected to warm again and rapidly. Olaus is trying to say that this is conjecture; thus let's do nothing about the problem.

To use the analogy of his buddy Jonas, who also is challenged intellectually, this is what is called an 'own goal'. In addition to the cherry-picking I alluded to above. What is clear to me, as a scientist, is how so many deniers do not have a clue how science works. They think they can sit on the outside and be aware of all of the ins and outs of science, but in truth they just do not have a clue. They don't think that being trained in science, attending and giving lectures, publishing in the empirical literaure etc. is important. That's why they end up as detritus in blogs. They wouldn't last 5 minutes in an academic environment.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Mar 2015 #permalink

Jeff, my dear friend, you inventing thins about me, e.g. that I deny AGW, isn't improving your case. Howcome you have to fabricate all the time? :-) The truth hurts, doesn't it, but reality won't go away just because you make stuff up.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 03 Mar 2015 #permalink

@Olaus #47

Nice find Olaus,

First they deny it [the haitus], then they say it might last to the end of the decade! - not sure whether to mark that up as progress or not.
;)

OP

Lionel, the accelerating global warming is evident but not detectable, hence the hiauts seem appropriate :-) The settled science wonders where its hiding. I think its to be found lobally. :-)

That is a totally inadequate answer deserving 0/10, or rather less actually, more like -SQR-1.

Read the abstract carefully, I could have quoted extracts from it and started doing that but then realised that I would be quoting nearly the entire abstract but with the order of statements changed to provide easier understanding. So I avoided this by just asking what you made of it and I was expecting a silly reply thus was not disappointed.

You have once again impaled yourself on your blunt intellect.

Gormless-simple-wretch

First they deny it [the haitus]

Ah another village is missing its idiot.

I'll ask you the same question that OP failed to answer, define what hiatus means in this context, 'til you do that you are not worth further consideration.

Note how both Olaus and GSW are unable to discuss the alleged hiatus in the context of what the broader scientific community concludes. As I said, there are many climate and Earth scientists who disagree that there has been a hiatus because the time scales involved are too short for a largely deterministic system. In that context we have to work in decadel blocks at the very least; what this strongly suggests is that the warming is ongoing.

But Olaus takes one study by three authors and then makes out that this is the truth; no debate anymore, three scientists have spoken, end of story. There is a hiatus. He does not go on to discuss their views on the projected outcome; instead, he clearly cherry-picks. And he also does not understand those big sciency words in the abstract.

Then GSW chimes in as if he is some authority in that the scientific community is 'coming around' to his way of thinking e.g. that there is a hiatus and that the warming is over.

Folks, we are talking about the views (Olaus, GSW) of two non-scientists here; neither has any pedigree in any scientific field, and certainly not related to climate or the environment.
Seriously. This is how total neophytes behave on blogs. As if they posses the wisdom that the scientific community by-and-large lacks, and when a single study is published that says a little of what they believe, then this is evidence of scientists waking up to reality.

Is it any wonder that these dolts are stuck with anonymous handles on blogs? And again, note the wretched grammar and spelling by Olaus. He's as thick as two planks. 'Inventing thins [sic] about me' (Your stupidity? No invention needed there).

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Mar 2015 #permalink

"And again, note the wretched grammar and spelling by Olaus." - More like a symptom of losing it and knowing it.

Climate revisionism might go into a brief violent stage, be warned.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 03 Mar 2015 #permalink

"Now OP WRT #47, do read the abstract and tell us in your own words what it means"

I've got this one....

It means they are using GCM's to predict where the predictions of the GCM's went wrong...

It means they are using GCM’s to predict where the predictions of the GCM’s went wrong…

Total asininity from the woodman.

These three Bet-u-la, OP, GSW) should audition for those who use this as their entrance.

I think their vehicle has just disintegrated, they are dripping wet and walking around with buckets over head and feet. How else to explain this level of idiocy?

God, not the ****ing 'hiatus' again?

I simply cannot be bothered to repeat the usual response to this crap again (what would it be now? Twenty repetitions? Thirty?)

The morons are on their own, this time.

There is no statistical pause in temperatures, kids.

What is it with you morons and taking a specific definition and hanging on to it come hell or high water? Pause, trick, whatever, you'll figure out a meaning that supports your conspiracy theories and never budge, but when a scientist is caught cooking the books on the denier side for the money given by fossil fuels, you remain completely unaware of it, despite many comments pointing it out.

"Lionel, the accelerating global warming is evident but not detectable,"

Like kids, if they hide THEIR eyes, they think they are invisible.

I thought that sort of thinking stopped after about two years old, though...?

Poor old Olaus

Too abysmally stupid to understand that the troposphere is only a small part of the climate system. Even though this has been explained to him literally dozens of times.

What must it be like to be that thick?

I cannot even begin to imagine.

BBD is right. Not the ****ing hiatus thing again. And to illustrate how utterly and brazenly stupid meatball is, he then links to WUWT. Nobody on here, aside from the deniers, reads this s***. We all know that it is not a science site. Yet meatball writes as if his life depends on it. When are you going to realize meatball that the scientific community DOES NOT READ denier blogs?!

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Mar 2015 #permalink

...and remember what I said before. The deniers once claimed that it wasn't warming - the AGW was a doomsday myth. Now they are saying that it warmed but that it stopped in 1998. What bit of dishonestly will they parade next?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Mar 2015 #permalink

What bit of dishonestly will they parade next?

Perhaps they will be spouting, 'Marc MoranoMotorMouth was right all along'.

BTW I have already seen Oreskes being slimed by Heartland tools over her supposed false claims about coal industry memos. This of course because of the iminent release of a documentary they don't like.

What is it with you morons and taking a specific definition and hanging on to it come hell or high water?

The English language being a supple thing, the only person who needs a word to mean one thing and one thing only, every time, is someone who scores highly on tests for ambiguity intolerance - "Denier" always and only means "Holocaust Denier", "trick" always and only means "deceit, and so on.

Intolerance of ambiguity is a hallmark of deniers everywhere - it is a trait that sits comfortably with the authoritarian, the extreme right-winger, and some, well, less savoury personalities as well. The Wikipedia article has some interesting nuggets which I won't quote here, but the descriptions fit with GSW, Olaus and Betula (and some less frequent visitors) to an uncanny degree. I will quote one bit of it though, it refers to personality traits including "Early selection and maintenance of one solution in an ambiguous situation" - in spite of the mountain of evidence, which only continues to grow, none of these people have changed their position one iota. Double down, dig in, stick their fingers in their ears and hope it goes away.

As a public service, I would like to point out that this trait is an predictor of depression - again I quote: "ambiguity intolerant individuals tend to see the world as concrete and unchanging, and when an event occurs which disrupts this view these individuals struggle with the ambiguity of their future."

Some people here would find their happiness improved by some professional help to improve their ability to deal with an uncertain future. Unfortunately, the very people needing it the most will be the least likely to seek it, I fear.

I have a simple question for the non-science-trained, ideologically-motivated global warming deniers here )yes, OP and GWS, I am talking to you especially).

What would the mean annual global land/ocean temperature anomaly need to be this year in order that the cessation of the "hiatus" was statistically demonstrated?

When supplying your answer please refer to:

1) the variability in the modern annual global temperature record.

2) how your nominated temperature anomaly was calculated, including the realrionship to the aforementioned variation and number of preceding years to which you are referring.

If this question is too difficult because it involves things that haven't yet occurred, you are welcome to substitute last year for this year, with the same reference to the other parameters.

If you can't answer this question defensibly I will assume that you are explicitly acknowledging that your comments here are nothing more than ignorant blather...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Mar 2015 #permalink

It seems these days that the thing deniers do is to deny they are deniers, and their shit-for-brains" think tanks" are in denial that there's a denial industry., as Jeff pointed out

Large-scale self-deception is an unlikely solution to anything.

"What would the mean annual global land/ocean temperature anomaly need to be this year in order that the cessation of the “hiatus” was statistically demonstrated?"

Irrelevant. Waste of time.

1. It's a hypothetical.
2. The term "hiatus" was brought up by scientists, so it's really something should take up with some of the great scientific minds of our day....like Professor Hardley.
3. A one year time frame isn't close to representing any kind of a trend. It means nothing.
4. It is debated by scientists that the missing excess heat has gone into the oceans, causing the "hiatus" of land/surface temperatures.....and some scientists say the cooling of the Pacific ocean proves it.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html

“What would the mean annual global land/ocean temperature anomaly need to be this year in order that the cessation of the “hiatus” was statistically demonstrated?”

Irrelevant. Waste of time.

Translation from Captain Obvious translation: "I can't without looking like a moron with no idea of what's going on".

1) Yes, this "hiatus" is hypothetical, as in it doesn't even exist,

2) YOU brought up the haitus. Remember, scientists include Willie "Available for rent" Soon. And when some denier says "there's a haitus", then to refute it, a scientist has to talk about the haitus and explain it doesn't actually exist.

3) True, so what period is needed? 30 years? If you can say it's NOT a year, you can say what period it is. Otherwise you can't say it's not one, since you don't know what period it is, which also means you don't know what period it isn't.

4) It's not debated, it's been seen. However, the records aren't long lasting and this has been known about for ages, ever since Trenberth's comment on how we can't take measurements of enough of the ocean to see it's going in there, which you deniers then "mistook" as "We don't know why it's not warming!" and therefore haitus.

For someone who "knows" that the IPCC are wrong, you don't seem able to say what makes them wrong.

Ask Willie. He's looking for a job again.

From AR5 - "the hiatus is attributable, in roughly equal measure, to a decline in the rate of increase in effective radiative forcing (ERF) and a cooling contribution from internal variability (expert judgment, medium confidence)"

Pesky Deniers...

Yes, from the AR5, the temperature record of the atmosphere alone is lower than it was 16 years earlier.

That doesn't make it a haitus, any more than 30 years ago, where the trend was nearly double the expected rate meant it was a runaway greenhouse.

Of course, if you had ANY capability or even desire to answer Bernard's question, you would not have made your mistake.

Deniers. What a load of morons.

Just look at the collapse of Morano, Soon, et al with this evidence of pushing PR as "science" so they can get sweet talking gigs at HI promoted money troughs.

Moron's can't and won't read either:

And when some denier says “there’s a haitus”, then to refute it, a scientist has to talk about the haitus and explain it doesn’t actually exist.

"Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase."

So the year following publication of that article became #1.
And 2015 has a great start, too. And a (weak) Niño has come into existence, so expect a series of #1 months and another record breaking year.
Wot, Betty? Did you google 'hiatus' and found 'hiatus'? Clever. Now google 'chemtrails' and believe in 'm please.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 06 Mar 2015 #permalink

cooling contribution

Cooling contribution from what and to what?

from internal variability

After answering the first above you should now be able to expand on that, so do so.

Context required, context required. Cherry picking such quotes will not answer.

A paper from 2013 cherry picked because of its title eh BirchBark!

Then you wonder why we pour scorn on you deniers.

. A one year time frame isn’t close to representing any kind of a trend. It means nothing.

...in which Betula demonstrates that basic comprehension really isn't his strong suit, let alone any of that statistics stuff.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 06 Mar 2015 #permalink

Are you really this stupid Birchman? Any hiatus is not a stop to the ongoing accumulation of heat energy in Earth’s systems because of the radiative imbalance caused by a build up of GHGs.

Only a small part of the system has shown a slow down in the rate of warming increase. The acceleration in this warming having reduced.#

You continue to miss the reality which is spelled out here: The oceans may be lulling us into a false sense of climate security which discusses the very paper suggested at your link.

Note, not all of the Pacific is showing cooling what is happening here is a redistribution, via multiple mechanisms, of some of the heat building up in the system.

But I guess it is too much to expect a wooden-top such as you to comprehend this.

”whack a scientist”

You mean spanking the willie soon?

I note that you still have a serious blind spot when it comes to reading this bit:

And when some denier says “there’s a haitus”, then to refute it, a scientist has to talk about the haitus and explain it doesn’t actually exist.

Can you see it yet?

To betty, every time he puts what on his fork into his mouth, he's seeing a haitus in dinner time...

What a moron!

"Only a small part of the system has shown a slow down in the rate of warming increase. "

Which isn't a haitus, except to deniers, who then point to people talking about a haitus as proof it's a haitus.

What a moron!

The moron comment was to betty, the quote was pointing out what the AR5 was talking about really was, which isn't a haitus by any possible reasoned definition of haitus.

And suddenly, the dormant deltoid switchboard lights up with exploding heads....

Well go on, Betty, tell us what hiatus means.

Seeing as you figure you're all so smart and all, should be easy peasy.

Oh by the way, batshit, what the hell is supposed to be inferred from your post?

"Oh, look, posting on a blog causes posts!"?

Betula

Even scientists can be guilty of sloppy terminology. 'Hiatus' has become a term of convenience because it is less of a mouthful than the correct description which is 'a slow-down in the rate of surface warming'.

You *do* need to remember that OHC 0 - 2000m is rising *fast* so energy is continuing to accumulate in the climate system exactly as predicted.

Short-term variability in ocean heat uptake modulates the rate of tropospheric (surface) warming.

Hiatus is not the correct term, no matter what you think or who says it, however qualified.

BBD - "Even scientists can be guilty of sloppy terminology"

Which bring me back to my response @74....

"The term “hiatus” was brought up by scientists, so it’s really something you should take up with some of the great scientific minds of our day….like Professor Hardley."

Thanks BBD, for shielding Wow's brain splatter...

Wow - "what the hell is supposed to be inferred from your post?"

Left on your own, the 3-4 Deltoidians that frequent this site have nothing to discuss...

March 4th - 1 comment

March5th - 3 comments

March 6th - Wow's head explodes...

"Which bring me back to my response @74…."

Ah, so you're willing to accept as truth that there was no haitus and that, indeed And when some denier says “there’s a haitus”, then to refute it, a scientist has to talk about the haitus and explain it doesn’t actually exist..

Note that you still are unable to describe what haitus is, but if you agree that there has been no haitus, just that the word has been used for the actual phenomena which ISN'T a haitus, then you don't have to.

Fuck's sake, talking to deniers is like talking to a four-year-old with a grudge.

"Left on your own, the 3-4 Deltoidians that frequent this site have nothing to discuss…"

So then you post, you then complain that people are posting. And therefore you're right: people post on the site.

Do you see why my previous posting was probably a little too appreciative: you're like a two-year-old with a grudge, not four.

Left on your own, the 3-4 Deltoidians that frequent this site have nothing to discuss…

That is because we read past the titles of papers and headlines on articles and appreciate that mostly they fit in with our paradigms of the various science fields that inform on AGW and climate change, paradigms constructed from studying countless articles on top of an already firm grounding in the sciences.

But when numpties such as you drive-by leaving bubkes in your wake (thanks Eli) we sometimes chose to jump on you because of these displays of ignorant bad manners. Displays of wilful ignorance are bad manners because it means that you have not bothered to even attempt to understand the issues explained, time after time after time.

Occasionally some of us post when we have something of wider interest and also both purpose and content.

I don't know what chemicals you have been exposed to in your line of work but maybe you need to seek compensation for you have clearly been harmed - mentally.

Wow - "a scientist has to talk about the haitus and explain it doesn’t actually exist.."

So when scientists title a paper - "Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus"....what they really mean is the "ongoing non existent warming hiatus".

Well why didn't they just say so?

Or when a scientist titles a paper - "Quantifying the likelihood of a continued hiatus in global warming"....what he is really talking about is the continuance of a hiatus that doesn't exist...

Interesting....and thanks for clarifying.

Lionel, Betty basically admitted there that, yes, they're posting here then complaining that this is causing posting to happen.

Maybe the problem is Betty would prefer never to be contradicted on this blog.

Rather Stalinist of them, really.

So when scientists title a paper – “Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus”….what they really mean is the “ongoing non existent warming hiatus”.

Yes.

There is no haitus.

This is explaining why there isn't

Is this somehow difficult for you?

Wow - "So then you post, you then complain that people are posting"

Where did I ever complained about your exploding head? I just observe it for what it is...

That's the problem with exploding heads, they are always missing some pieces...

“The term “hiatus” was brought up by scientists, so it’s really something you should take up with some of the great scientific minds of our day

Actually, the 'hiatus' meme was ferociously peddled by the 'sceptics' and - lamentably - has entered standard scientific discourse as a term of convenience.

Betula

You can leave off the trolling now. There's nothing to dispute over except sloppy terminology.

When you consider the climate system as a whole - as you should when discussing radiative imbalance - there has been no pause or hiatus at all.

When you consider the small part of the climate system that is the troposphere then there has been a slowdown in the rate of warming as more energy is going into the oceans than in previous decades.

And that's it. Nothing really to hang your hat on.

And when the AR5 states - “the hiatus is attributable, in roughly equal measure...."

They are attributing it to something that doesn't exist...

Brilliant scientists.

Betula

Scientists are using the term 'hiatus' as shorthand for a slowdown in the rate of tropospheric and surface warming. They are not talking about the climate system as a whole. I had hoped you would have grasped this distinction by now since I have tried to explain it many times in comments here.

They are attributing it to something that doesn’t exist…

They are attributing the slowdown in the rate of surface / tropospheric warming to variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake, predominant ENSO phase, volcanic aerosols, and reduced solar activity.

OK, Batshit, you don't seem to know what haitus means after all.

Care to pony up proof you do, or should we just go ahead and accept that you really don't have the faintest clue?

Wow – “So then you post, you then complain that people are posting”

Where did I ever complained about your exploding head?

Where does what you quote from me say anything about head explosions?

Is this how Willie Soon got fingered for a patsy to post PR garbage and pretend it was science? By reading words that weren't there that apparently make it accord to his needs and desires?

And now Richard Lindzen, already implicated in John Mashey's earlier post at DeSmogBlog steps in to Soongate Denial For Hire: Richard Lindzen Cites Debunked Science to Defend Willie Soon in Wall Street Journal.

The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics
Members of Congress send inquisitorial letters to universities, energy companies, even think tanks.
By
Richard S. Lindzen
March 4, 2015 6:50 p.m. ET

Research in recent years has encouraged those of us who question the popular alarm over allegedly man-made global warming. Actually, the move from “global warming” to “climate change” indicated the silliness of this issue. The climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. This normal course is now taken to be evidence of doom.

The rest is pay-walled - well their problem..

Global warming and climate change are two different things, although linked and that is why his statement is so egregious.

Lol: so he doesn't know that the IPCC was set up in 1988. Or maybe he thinks that the CC stood for global warming.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 07 Mar 2015 #permalink

When even the deniers' holiest of cows and scientifically most prominent voice is reduced to whinging over the GW v CC terminology, you know the bottom of the barrel hasn't got much scraping left in it.

Lindzen writes:

The climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. This normal course is now taken to be evidence of doom.

Beggars belief. How can someone with a high-level understanding of physical climatology make such a statement? I try not to impute dishonesty whenever it is possible, but the only alternative is incompetence.

The climate has been changing since the Earth was formed in response to changes in net forcing. It is changing now because GHG forcing is rising at literally unprecedented levels. Unless this tapers off pretty fast, there will be very serious consequences (I dislike word placement games so we'll get rid of the tendentious 'doom').

Yes, I thought of highlighting that bit of what can only be deliberate misdirection too BBD, but in my post less was more and I left that for others.

Whatever, is Lindzen really too stupid or ignorant to realise that when climate has changed rapidly in the past it has spelled doom for many organisms and that there is a definite uptick in the rate of warming and climate change going on right now - with an extinction event under way.

Or does he understand this only too well but is trusting the ignorati will continue to believe in him, and I mean the lay public not the likes of Monckton, Lilley, Ridley etc.

Lindzen needs a serious calling out by his peers.

I urge Lindzen to take a time travel trip back to when the Earth was formed and see personally whether that spells doom for him.

the move from “global warming” to “climate change” indicated the silliness of this issue

Frank Luntz's memo to the GOP leadership to eliminate "global warming" from all their rhetoric and replace it with "climate change" was anything but silly ... it was a deadly effective propaganda move:

http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf

Sadly, Lindzen has revealed himself to be a run-of-the-mill denier repeating talking points from WUHT, no better than idiots like Betula or OP.

Coming back to Soon:

Eli has cited, in two recent posts, an article by Donald Prothero which lays out the nature of Soon's actions including this assessment:

This is not a simple slip-up by Soon, but a deliberate effort to not reveal the obscene amounts of money he was getting paid, and where it came from. Such an ethics violation, if proven, would typically lead to a strong action (such as dismissal) by any university or research institute in the country, no matter how famous you were, and how good your previous reputation might have been. In particular his description of his work as “deliverables,” something bought and paid for by his funders, clearly shows his intent to act as a “hired gun” and give his funding sources what they paid for—not following the data wherever they may lead, and interpreting them honestly and in an unbiased fashion, as a real scientist must do.

Maybe this is one snowball rolling that Inhofe will hope Soon stops gaining mass.

Maybe it is time to pin two Soon clips up here, clips where Willie accuses the IPCC of respectively:

Gangster Science

and

Still Gangster Science

As Bob Inglis remarked back in November 2010, 'it's on the record'.

" I try not to impute dishonesty whenever it is possible, but the only alternative is incompetence."

Reverse that. Dishonest until proven innocent. Usually just one climate revisionist' utterance will do fine. Lindzen is just another thug.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Mar 2015 #permalink

"Whatever, is Lindzen really too stupid or ignorant to realise that when climate has changed" - this is once more attritution of innocence to a proven thug. Quit it!!

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Mar 2015 #permalink

'attritution' *attribution

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Mar 2015 #permalink

@cRR

"Lindzen is just another thug."

Bizarre.

Last week I asked this of Betula, Olaus, GSW, and whomever else might camp in their land of science denial:

I have a simple question for the non-science-trained, ideologically-motivated global warming deniers here (yes, OP and GWS, I am talking to you especially).

What would the mean annual global land/ocean temperature anomaly need to be this year in order that the cessation of the “hiatus” was statistically demonstrated?

When supplying your answer please refer to:

1) the variability in the modern annual global temperature record.

2) how your nominated temperature anomaly was calculated, including the realrionship to the aforementioned variation and number of preceding years to which you are referring.

If this question is too difficult because it involves things that haven’t yet occurred, you are welcome to substitute last year for this year, with the same reference to the other parameters.

If you can’t answer this question defensibly I will assume that you are explicitly acknowledging that your comments here are nothing more than ignorant blather…

I'm willing to now accept their collective concession that they are simply and nothing more than ignorant blatherers, but I also acknowledge that I probably framed the question in terms too challenging for them to comprehend and to which to respond. So, reframing...

What would it take for the abovementioned deniers of warming to acknowledge that warming has "resumed"? And how would this relate to the data that has been collected to date?

I am deliberately trying to give these folk as much rope lattitude as they require with which to answer in a scientific fashion. It's up to them to demonstrate (or not) that they have the statistical and scientific acumen to explain how one detects a cessation to a "hiatus", and for brownie points to define wht that "hiatus" actually is, with reference to the moving accumulation of data and the physical parameters that impinge on it.

Can it really be that difficult for them?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Mar 2015 #permalink

"What would it take for the abovementioned deniers of warming to acknowledge that warming has “resumed”?" - an explicit go ahead from S. Fred Singer. So forget it.
Or a direct hit from some CC-induced weather extreme. That is my actual hope because it is the best one can hope for.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Mar 2015 #permalink

One for the numpties:

Within this video is an in your face list of the things that make human influences on climate unmistakable:

Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

Now in any subsequent post, from GSW, Betula, OP, or whoever, before launching into any more stupid can you list and explain each one of the five major parts of Earth that is demonstrating effects of such change.

No more nonsense.

And, answer Bernard's questions.

@Bernard

I think this has been already explained to you BJ. The reason we come to this blog is to view the funnies “Lindzen is just another thug.” and jeff claiming to be a scientist, lol.

You go to the chimp enclosure to amuse yourself with how comically human they are - not so they can find you little tasks to do. You get it now?
;)

"jeff claiming to be a scientist"

Funny thing gormless is that my peer-reviewed publications out-cite Lindzen's. So if I am not a scientist, what does that make him?

Fact is, in any scientific endeavor, you can't stand in the same eon as me, let alone the same century. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. My bonafide's are light years ahead of yours.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Mar 2015 #permalink

“Lindzen is just another thug.”

And bizare. Don't forget bizarre

"and jeff claiming to be a scientist"

Yes. He does claim that. Why shouldn't he?

Wow, the reason I am not a scientist is because my views on climate change differ from GSW's. By association, gormless won't admit it, but 97% of the scientific community aren't scientists. Willie Soon, Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels and a few other GW skeptics/deniers are, in the view of gormless, scientists, because they downplay or deny the existence of AGW. In fact, some people gormless would claim are scientists probably have publication and citation records much like his (meaning two BIG FAT zeroes). It is all down to whether one argues that GW is primarily anthropogenic or not. Three per cent or less are in the view of gormless scientists; 97 per cent of us aren't. In fact, we 97 per cent are all 'activists'.

This is the intellectual level we are dealing with here, folks. I have not yet encountered an AGW denier on here who has much of a clue about anything to do with any field of science. Where are the people with PhDs or lengthy publication records on blogs? They don't exist. In reality, they don't exist either. Lindzen is their 75 year old pin-up boy because he's a skeptic. But his publication and citation records are good but nothing exceptional. And he's the best they've got. As I said, my published work garners around 100 citations more a year now than Lindzen's. And I have only been publishing since 1993; Lindzen started in the late 60s or early 70s.

This should say something about the 'scientists' who downplay AGW.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Mar 2015 #permalink

"Wow, the reason I am not a scientist is because my views on climate change differ from GSW’s. "

No, that's not a reason for not being a scientist.

Otherwise Newton wouldn't be one (There was no GSW alive then)

So that's not a reason for you not to be a scientist.

If that IS why Jeff shouldn't call himself a scientist, GSW, then you're wrong.

No worries, no charge for this advice.

http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/gfs/2015031000/gfs_pres_…

That'll be an uncontested world record. For comparison to that other planet thing called Cyclone Pam there's an 'ordinary' cat 3 object east of York Peninsula.

When this verifies we'll know about the upped potential for typhoons and might already learn that Haiyan wasn't that special in this time & age.

Call Pam a rehearsal for Sandy 2.0 ;)

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 10 Mar 2015 #permalink

GFS06z now setting Pam at 861 hPa.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 10 Mar 2015 #permalink

GSW.

It was a simple task. Answer a couple of simple questions:

What would it take for the abovementioned deniers of warming to acknowledge that warming has “resumed”? And how would this relate to the data that has been collected to date?

And you failed.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Mar 2015 #permalink

Right, my little Deltoids, you must stop all this holding hands in a (tiny and rapidly shrinking) circle and chanting your mantras because this is serious.

Your hero, nay, your Godfather, Michael 'Hockey Schtik' Mann, is in dead trouble! He is trying to sue the arse off various publishing houses and the mighty Mark Steyn and his legal team assumed that he would have a plentiful supply of 'amici' witnesses, that is, expert, scientific witnesses ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with him in his fight against these wicked 'deniers'.

But ... but ... not one has come forward, no, really, not one single scientific entity has volunteered to support the poor man in this his hour of need.

Thus it is imperative that YOU, the Brethren of the Deltoid Chapel, step forward and volunteer your support. Of course, you will not have quite the scientific clout of, say, IPCC or Al Gore or Penn State University or the University of Virginia or the University of East Anglia’s Climate Science Unit or the AAAS or the WMO, all of whom are on the missing list, but then you don't even have the scientific clout of me, a man who proudly failed 'O'-level maths, physics and chemistry, but still, someone has got to have the guts to stand up for poor little Mikey.

Come on, Deltoids, do it for, er, well, the laughs, if you like!

By David Duff (not verified) on 10 Mar 2015 #permalink

because this is serious.

No it isn't.

Craig, interesting quote from the Visicunt Monckers of Bonkers in your link, putting "Hitler and Goebbels on the left".

I recall similar spectacular contortions from one of the Scan crew attempting to place Mussolini similarly a while ago.

What is it with these pussies? Why can't they just 'fess up and own the monstrous, inevitable consequences of their life-hating ideology? It's not as if transferrance is an unknown pathology these days...

It appears that every couple of months or so, someone invents 'a cause' and tells the remaining global cell of Les Dufferanus and his ilk to go forth and spread it.
And he just .... does.
Without question or even the first clue about whatever the fuck he's talking about been told to say.

On reflection, it occurred to me that poor David might yet still not appreciate that Dr. Mann can point to something like a further 10 or so independent past climate reconstructions and 97% or so of global scientific opinion indicating his 'abused' data, while Steyn has the collective know-how and resources of Les Dufferanus at his disposal.

I can't put it any plainer than that, Duffs.

It's so sad - Michael Mann is out there on his own, with nobody else supporting his "hockey-stick".

Er...except for all these people who've replicated his work:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-10.html

Amusingly, most of these replications seem to show that Mann's "handle" was understating the real angle of the "hockey stick" which turns out to be far worse than Mann's work even indicated.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 10 Mar 2015 #permalink

When Duff says, "this is serious" he is obviously projecting an emotion communicated to him by somebody who has gotten himself into a sticky situation as a result of broadcasting lies about Michael Mann's work, (not to mention the disgusting personal abuse aimed at Mann).

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 10 Mar 2015 #permalink

Duff's popped over here from WUWT, obviously, all pumped up with the latest ignorance and lies from that den of idiots.

Apparently this amuses them:
"an overly simplified and artistic depiction of the hockey stick that was reproduced on the frontispiece of the World Meteorological Organization’s Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999.41 Dr. Mann did not create this depiction, and the attempt to suggest that this report suggested an effort by Dr. Mann to mislead is disingenuous."

There's one idiot called Barry Woods who even quotes the material that proves the entire article is based on a false premise, without realising that this is what it says:

"Front cover: Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using

palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long
instrumental records. The data are shown as 50-year smoothed differences from the 1961–1990 normal.
Uncertainties are greater in the early part of the millennium (see page 4 for further information). For more
details, readers are referred to the PAGES newsletter (Vol. 7, No. 1: March 1999, also available at
http://www.pages.unibe.ch) and the National Geophysical Data Center (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov).
(Sources of data: P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa and T.J. Osborn, University of East Anglia, UK; M.E. Mann,
University of Virginia, USA; R.S. Bradley, University of Massachusetts, USA; M.K. Hughes, University of
Arizona, USA; and the Hadley Centre, The Met. Office)."

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 11 Mar 2015 #permalink

All the fuckwit denialists are carrying on about this. their basic premise is as retarded as everything else they do:
Because Mann points out that he did not author the graphic gracing the cover of "WMO STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IN 1999".
...something....
because Mann authored the graphic on the front cover of "Temperature Changes Over the Last Millenium, 2000".

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 11 Mar 2015 #permalink

Even Steyn's lawyers wanted to cop a deal outside court to stop losing in court. Steyn couldn't let that happen (if he did, he'd lose the fundraising he's got the denier morons putting money into, you'll notice Tony Watts isn't putting any money in the pot for his mate, just asking his congregation to place in the offerey) so he abandoned his lawyers.

Of course, when that happened, it wasn't serious to duffski.

Duffski's a clown who appears to have just woken up after time with his head up the arse of a Fox creature.

The refusal to allow connection of the dots between the fossil fuel in the ground and the rapid acceleration of AGW and CC if we extract and burn it all (which latter would be a crime because much of it is a damned sight more useful if you don't burn it for energy) is all pervasive with the real rulers of the world, the ones that pull the strings of the marionettes in governments, large or small, local or national.

This article: Keep fossil fuels in the ground to stop climate change: There is nothing random about the pattern of silence that surrounds our lives. Silences occur where powerful interests are at risk of exposure,

was brought to my attention by way of a tilt at those who change the legal playing field when the boundaries don't suit their plans You Will Never Guess Which Industry Insider Drafted New Law Maximising Oil and Gas Extraction....

You need to understand this stuff Duff.

Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry, do you mean the IPCC, Al Gore, Penn State University, the University of Virginia, the University of East Anglia’s Climate Science Unit, the AAAS, the WMO REALLY ARE going to stand with Brother Mann as his 'amici' witnesses?

Whodathunkit?

By David Duff (not verified) on 11 Mar 2015 #permalink

No, we didn't mean that either.

The American Petroleum Institute has just released a report in favour of renewables: Few things threaten America’s future
prosperity more than climate change.
But there is growing hope. Every 2.5 minutes
of every single day, the U.S. solar industry
is helping to fight this battle by flipping the
switch on another completed solar project.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 11 Mar 2015 #permalink

Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry, do you mean

..followed by the usual force-fed drivel.

Much as I hate to 'write people off', it seems Les Dufferanus (of the diminishing global clique de fuckwit) has condemned himself to be nothing more than a pair of reflexive galvanic frog's legs.
Dance, Duffer, dance.

Duff, why would anybody file anything in support of Mann?

It's Steyn who is on trial, not Mann.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 12 Mar 2015 #permalink

"It’s Steyn who is on trial, not Mann."

Not quite, Craig, because Steyn is counter-suing Mann. Anyway, don't waste time here, go and help your glorious leader in this his hour of need:

"Well, yesterday was the deadline, and not a single amicus brief was filed on behalf of Mann. Not one. So Michael Mann is taking a stand for science. But evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for Michael Mann."

Pity there's no global warming because poor little Mikey must be feeling rather chilly alone in the cold.

By David Duff (not verified) on 12 Mar 2015 #permalink

“It’s Steyn who is on trial, not Mann.”

Not quite,

No, it absolutely is Steyn. You can loo at the court docket and see it there: Steyn is the defendant. That means he's the one on trial.

I'm sorry you didn't know that the "defendant" was the person on trial, but that's what it means.

"Steyn is counter-suing Mann. "

A pathetic reaction to the impending legal and economic doom he has brought upon himself by being a sordid liar.

His grounds for suing Mann? He reckons being sued for libel is "punishment".
All he had to do was say sorry when confronted with the unassailable facts of the libel he was responsible for - instead, he *invited* Mann to sue him, and Mann did. At his invitation.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 12 Mar 2015 #permalink

Why does Mann need amicus briefs filed in support of him?
He has the law.
He doesn't need any desperate and half-arsed attempt to influence the court's decisions through submissions made by persons unconnected to the action.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 12 Mar 2015 #permalink

“Steyn is counter-suing Mann. ”

yes, but that's in what we like to call here in reality "A different case, not yet in court".

So that he's going to be, at some point, issued with a suit does not mean in this case he's the accused.

I realise that this isn't what you hear, though.

Pity there’s no global warming...

Now it is up to you to supply accredited evidence for that supposition.

You will not be able to find any for it is a lie, with any so called 'pause' or 'hiatus' arguments to support it being based on a lying hoax. That is the real hoax, a point that the apparently senile such as Inhofe and yourself fail to grasp.

You are a sad case. But then I think your only purpose in posting your bilge is to get under our skins and stir so only grass before breakfast is likely to make you stop the stupid.

Since duffer is one of those who thinks that there are no worldwide temperature measurements, therefore it can't be shown that there is global warming, how can duffer claim that there is no warming? If there's no information to say there IS warming, there's no information to say there is NO warming.

Or is duffer not understanding anything again?

Lionel, then "Garry" Gitter, Social Warrior and "Handbag" Betty will turn up here and go "See, lots of posting now, isn't there! That means this site is worthless and has no traffic!" (somehow).

Remember: they post, fine. People counter, not fine.

your glorious leader

Science has 'leaders'?
Who knew?
More piss-obvious projection, as expected from Duffer.

You just have your head stuck firmly up the wring place.

I agree Jeff. Duff is, as we used to say 'thick as two short planks'. [1] I generally use an aphorism to describe the motions of the likes of Duffer: 'You just have your head stuck firmly up 'seventh rock from the sun.'

[1] Common idiom in the RN as long as I remember back which is January 1963, thus well before some 'net citations.

With immaculate timing, Jeff, a really, really, you know, proper boffin, as he will tell you, er, several times over if you let him, refers to an essay claiming that arctic sea ice is dwindling.

Just as the Boston Globe reports:

The beaches of Cape Cod are taking on an Arctic look, even as the temperature warms. Months of bitter cold created huge sheets of ice that are now breaking up and washing ashore. In Wellfleet, there are chunks of ice reminiscent of those found in much harsher climates.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/03/10/mini-icebergs-washing-asho…

But then, the Boston Globe reporters actually live there where-as dear old Jeff swans about in Holland.

By David Duff (not verified) on 12 Mar 2015 #permalink

By the way, could someone give our host a gentle nudge and tell him it's March! I know he never reads this garbage and I don't blame him but still, it goes out under his mantra.

By David Duff (not verified) on 12 Mar 2015 #permalink

Les Dufferanus is back, with a slight hint of his customary knuckle-dragging attempt at a triumphant 'hurr hurr'.

Of course, being terminally stupid, he has no context for today's feed-line he's been given and therefore no intelligent response to the facts in context. His feed-line alludes to 'no global warming', and being a moron, that's all he needs: an allusion to illusion.

As reported by those who study these things seriously, that is, the NSIDC:
"With the Arctic Ocean completely ice covered, the remaining areas of potential new ice growth are limited to the margins of the pack in the northern Pacific and northern Atlantic. Sea ice extent is below average across the entire sea ice margin, most prominently along the Pacific sectors. A small region of above-average ice extent is located near Newfoundland and the Canadian Maritime Provinces."

"The Arctic maximum is expected to occur in the next two or three weeks. Previous years have seen a surge in Arctic ice extent during March (e.g., in 2012, 2014). However, if the current pattern of below-average extent continues, Arctic sea ice extent may set a new lowest winter maximum."

For greater comprehension, Les Duffs could even read the page for a seasonal overview of the decline. But we know he won't; he only has time for reading garbage denier blogshite for his 'understanding' of climate change.

Duff, you old coot, the last time I checked the northeastern coast of the US represented about 1% of the planet's land mass. Check out temperature patterns over the globe so far this year and it reveals that the vast majority of it have had a very mild winter - well above normal. All of Arctic Siberia has had their warmest ever winter. In facgt, Eurasia has been very mild as a whole. Moscow has had virtually no cold spells the entire winter, with 30 days at or above freezing. Alaska and the western NWT in Canada have also been above normal. This partially explains why the Arctic death spiral continues unabated.

You are so scientifically illiterate that you point out one anomalous outlier and ignore the larger trend. This is why its so easy to ridicule you and your comments. You set yourself up for ritual humiliation, then retreat into the shadows to lick your wounds.

As I said the other day, "Deltoid's Deniers" (sounds like the title of an old B-film from the 50s or 60s like the Jeff Chandler flick "Merrill's Marauders"!) are for the most part a bunch of planks - none of them are qualified in anything remotely scientific. Yet they collectively pound their chests as if they have something useful to say.

They don't.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Mar 2015 #permalink

By the way, I see another self-righteous blowhard, Brad Keyes, is doing his best all over the blogosphere to argue that Michael Mann is a discredited scientist, blah, blah, blah.

In his dreams. Mann's got more knowledge, expertise, prestige and dignity in the little pinkie of his left hand than Keyes has in his entire body. The scientific community recognizes Mann's expertise. His work is very heavily cited and positively by his peers, a sure indication that he and his work are respected.

IMHO Keyes is a nobody with a boated ego. No cred.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Mar 2015 #permalink

The beaches of Cape Cod are taking on an Arctic look

And you know this because you've been there today, duffer? No? Surely not appealing to authority, are we?

And here's a tip for you, my geographically disadvantaded compatriot: Cape cod isn't the arctic. There's a hell of a lot more of it, and it always looks arctic.

Silly little boy.

But then, the Boston Globe reporters actually live there where-as dear old Jeff swans about in Holland.

Duff, do try to find out why parts of the US have had a winter, yes winter, to remember, that is until next year or the year after.

It is to do with global warming, increased radiative imbalance from additional GHGs, causing climate change.

Climate change is alterations to spatial and temporal patterns of prolonged or repeating weather patterns.

You are a very dull troll, as predictable as a clockwork mouse.

self-righteous blowhard, Brad Keyes, is doing his best

The keyster is long on verbiage, short on traction; shorter yet on credibility.
File under blog equivalent of 'nothing to say but likes sound of own voice'.

IMHO Keyes is a nobody with a boated ego. No cred.

Indeed Jeff I suspect he is a failed legal secretary or something like. Always seen to be in a semantic battle trying to draw somebody into a long and ultimately pointless argument, likely to shift between logical and lexical semantics at will in an attempt to bamboozle.

Unsurprisingly he is after articles on Merchants of Doubt such as this: Merchants of Doubt Film Debuts, Textbook Denial Attack Campaign Led By Fred Singer Ensues

And yes chek you have his number too.

What makes it weird (if you were to make the insane assumption that Bray acted logically and consistently) is that Merchants of Doubt is basically proving that a consensus of people asserted as authorities can be wrong, which was always one of Bray's assertions. Yet he attacks the documentary as if it were entrenching that meme even further.

Of course, Bray asserts the fallacy is the case in 100% of places (except himself: you're meant to take his word on it), even though you can't apply it like that, applies it to things that ARE NOT arguments of authority, merely arguments of consilience and consensus of evidence, and doesn't care to agree with anyone on a common understanding of words.

And he doesn't apply it to denier screed.

Rather indicates his problem isn't fallacious argument.

Nor that he's trying to poke fun at "both sides".

Nor even that he's just trolling both sides.

It does indicate directed un-reasoning.

Is this your piece Jeff? Sounds like your, even though its 30 years old:

The recent forecast by the Environmental Protection Agency that a general warming of the earth's atmosphere will occur during the next decades has sent shivers all along the East Coast.

In Florida they are afraid that the coastal cities will be submerged by the rising Atlantic Ocean. In Arizona they are wondering whether the recent floods will become a permanent feature of their climate. And in New York they are thinking of selling the city's snowplows.

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/11/02/opinion/l-the-great-promise-of-the-gr…

The scale issue! :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 13 Mar 2015 #permalink

Fetch the stick, boy! Fetch the stick

Goooood boy, lappers. Goooooood boy!

Oh look, Olap the master baiter is back with his extra weak sauce.

With immaculate timing...

I think that you meant "impeccable".

If not, you should have.

On "Brad Keyes", I'm firnly left with the impression of florid psychopathy and/or narcissism. Just saying.

Olaus Petri. It has not escaped our notice that you failed.

Just saying...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Mar 2015 #permalink

OK, but it is much like the way that ferns leave impressions...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Mar 2015 #permalink

Is it just me, or is BK becoming increasingly ridiculous as time goes by?

BBD

I suspect that you have already come across the blatherings of BK here on Donald Prothero's Skeptic site seeing as you have crossed the path of Canman at DeSmogBlog.

The focus on Mann is telling as is the support for Wegman, I don't think some had heard of DeepClimate until that name was put under their nose.

Lionel A

I was there right through the ~4500-comment Brangelina Thread on this very blog. A wearisome experience if there ever was.

Is it just me, or is BK becoming increasingly ridiculous as time goes by?

Nope, not just you. Having had a quick scan of the threads Lionel referenced, 'as time goes by' is the operative phrase.

There he goes, still splattering around in his most treasured 'climategate' quotes as if there's something there, like an olde soothsayer slitting open an endless batch of chickens hoping all those innards will reveal something.

Chek

Thanks to the march of progress, we* know that chicken guts are chicken guts. If you want predictive skill, you need AOGCMs :-)

What bemuses me about BK is that someone so obviously intelligent can be fooled by the evident nonsense of 'sceptics'. It's also troubling that he doesn't recognise that the 'activist scientist' meme is the *only* way 'sceptics' can prosecute their argument in the absence of a scientific counter to the mainstream position.

Someone as deft at argumental chicanery as BK should be aware that they have been reduced to the rhetoric of irrelevance.

* Rational, sane people.

What BK hasn't realised - or, more accurately professes to not understand - is that the revelation contained therein is that deniers are lazy, shill-guided, derivative, rent-seeking, plagiarising c*nts without an original thought amongst them or the slightest clue of how actual science is done.

Yet BK is still blubbering that they were called out for that by Those Who Already Knew.

What bemuses me about BK is that someone so obviously intelligent

Hmmm, I'd take issue with 'intelligent', BBD.
Educated, yes; but intelligence is as intelligence does.
And what he does is dumb, dumb, dumber than dumb.
God, it's so excruciatingly dumb.

Hmmm, I’d take issue with ‘intelligent’, BBD.
Educated, yes; but intelligence is as intelligence does.

That's what's so odd. Intelligence is required in order to absorb education. Brad has clearly absorbed a top-notch education. But there is this disconnect when it comes to climate.

WTF?

That’s what’s so odd. Intelligence is required in order to absorb education. Brad has clearly absorbed a top-notch education. But there is this disconnect when it comes to climate.

Which is where pathology comes in.

For another smacking of one's gob remember the BK display of DK at Shaping Tomorrow's World, in response to the conspiratorial thinking paper...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Mar 2015 #permalink

For additional round-off-the-weekend laughs, williwatt's sidekick (can there be a more humiliating job title?) Smokey aka db 'I is a physicist' stealey is currently promoting OISM as a scientific gold standard
Just when you'd think deniers couldn't become any more abject than they already are, they do.

That is a real problem for deniers for now they can only act pseudo-green by recycling.

WRT 'Keyes of the Kingdom'

From the comments at the DeSmogBlog article on MoD Brad's performance at SkS has been outed, and timely see:

Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations wherein Keyes gets banned but not before Lotharsson @ #56 points people to that Brangelina thread here. Is that about to be inflated again I wonder?

Al Keyes is doing is recycle his argument methodology which becomes as interesting as watching paint dry.

chek

Just when you’d think deniers couldn’t become any more abject than they already are, they do.

Well, with no coherent scientific counter-argument to the scientific consensus it's ever-decreasing circles, all the way down. Thank goodness for the right-wing media and the generously support from vested interest, where would denial be?

Thank goodness for the right-wing media and the generously support from vested interest, where would denial be?

Thank goodness for the right-wing media and the generous support from vested interest. Without these, where would denial be?

http://www.amazon.com/Climatology-versus-Pseudoscience-Exposing-Predict…

Misinformation, lies, and nonsense
By Brad Keyes on March 11, 2015
Format: Hardcover
If you’re looking for a work of science fiction detailing a vast conspiracy similar to Naomi Oreskes' ‘Merchants of Doubt’, this may be the book for you.

The only problem is that this book claims to be non-fiction. Nuccitelli weaves a crazy tale of data manipulation and vast conspiracies which have very little semblance to what actually happens with regards to the infamous ‘climate debate.'

As long as you don’t take the book seriously it makes for an entertaining read. Just think of the book as another Oreskes story, sit back, and enjoy a fun conspiracy theory.

The only problem is that the story claims to be true, but is filled with misinformation, lies, and nonsense. And for that, I can only give it 1 star."

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 15 Mar 2015 #permalink

Well Dana had the last laugh: Brad bought the book!

He wouldn't write a review of something he didn't read, would he?

That’s what’s so odd. Intelligence is required in order to absorb education

Not really. You can put a lot of facts into an expert program, but it doesn't make it intelligent.

Just full of information.

In Brad's case I think it a combination of histrionic personality disorder and an "education" in philosophy where Brad noticed that this course looked a lot like "How to win any argument" and that' all they learned from it.

He wouldn’t write a review of something he didn’t read, would he?

+1

Oh no, it's worse than we thought,

"Climate change to make steak and chicken taste worse, ruining barbecues for future Aussies "

http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change-to-make-st…

"That could mean cattle farmers switch to more heat-tolerant, but lower eating-quality, cows and winemakers will have to migrate south or face lower-quality yields."

Lower eating-quality cows(?). A new depth in reporting climate alarmism surely.

What? The scandal of several denier scientists like Willie Soon is EVEN WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT??!?!?

OMG!

Craig @ #95

That second comment by Harry Belafonte providing a list of typical Keyes vitriol

"John Cook the SkSFürher; Lewandowsky's halfwit henchboy."

"Naomi Oreskes is unusually ugly, very dull and a deliberate traducer of the scientific method."

[Merchants of Doubt] "was a farcical anti-Semitic conspiracy pamphlet "

"Mann's private, home-coded, non-standard, unexplained, undocumented statistical methods"

[Mann's data is freely available] "thanks to years of FOI campaigning."

"The "Hockey Stick" has always, always referred to the almost-1000-years-long shaft followed by the 100-to-200-years-long blade"

"We know, thanks to the Climategate whistleblower,..."[about the external hacking of the CRU email system].

is telling, as is Brad's response describing those above statements, and more, as:

a list of the pithiest, wittiest climatoskeptical epigrams of the last decade.

This relentless tune surely was composed in anticipation of the Keyes with his relentless insulting sophistry. I sometimes wonder if he has once again been given computer use privileges.

Yes, I saw that Amazon review too Lionel.
The BK entity is so deluded he seems to be substituting denier myths and legends for actual facts. Long after he's been corrected and had his arse handed to him regarding all of them. I suppose his fantasy world seems more accommodating for him.

I must thank Brad Keyes for reminding me about that new book by Dana Nuccitelli I have just ordered a copy.

He'll be sadly missed, as is Colbert.

Yeah, the guy was just worn out with him, as a comedian, doing a damn sight better job than the media at being a news information service, and getting looked down on as "having it easy, 'cos you're a comedian".

Bill Hicks probably felt much the same.

Brad is an IT geek and an attention-seeking troll.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 17 Mar 2015 #permalink

He's certainly got no future as an Amazon reviewer.

It's obviously wrong, Garry "My Gang" Social Warrior. Then again, you ought to work out what the heck is scientific about twitter.

Because the laws of physics are determined by popularity contest.

When did the warmest 12 months on record occur, incidentally, moron?

bill: [i]
When did the warmest 12 months on record occur, incidentally, moron?[/i]

Do we get to vote on that?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 17 Mar 2015 #permalink

(I still don't know how to do this...)

bill:
When did the warmest 12 months on record occur, incidentally, moron?

Do we get to vote on that?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 17 Mar 2015 #permalink

BK is that someone so obviously intelligent

Intelligence is largely the ability to make rational inferences from information, especially information that is novel or contrary to previous assumptions or conclusions. BK displays training but not intelligence.

Both Chomsky and Orwell would point out that to be truly Stupid pretty-well requires a high level of intelligence. We may call the combination of high intellectual capability and extreme motivated reasoning 'zealotry'.

Scarred-knuckle chum-feeders like GSW, on the other hand, we just call 'moron'.

An unholy alliance between zealots and idiots has caused trouble throughout history, particularly where the zealots have access to elite power, and the idiots are looking for someone else to blame for their plight...

Is it just me, or is BK becoming increasingly ridiculous as time goes by?

He's been "defending the integrity of science" since 2012 ... I don't think he's changed much at all over that time. Notably, in all that time, I've never seen a hint of actual science from him.

Both Chomsky and Orwell would point out that to be truly Stupid pretty-well requires a high level of intelligence.

I don't think they would. It certainly isn't true ... unless "truly Stupid" has a special meaning that's distinctly different from "stupid" ... it looks a lot like a No True Scotsman fallacy.

We do know that more vociferous science denial is correlated with higher levels of education ... uneducated people are less likely to care, and are less likely to be libertarian.

Uneducated people are also more willing to accept expert opinion:
it isn't the blue-collar neighbourhoods that are suffering measles epidemics.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 17 Mar 2015 #permalink

I guess uneducated people often have their own expertise - having had to develop an area of expertise in order to make a living, thus they understand what expertise is.

People who stayed on at school, however, have been exposed to post-modern thought and often fallen prey to the current fashion of rejecting the concept of meaning.
A society that rejects meaning is a society that cannot appreciate expertise - hence falling vaccination rates.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 17 Mar 2015 #permalink

Stupid with a capital S - institutionalized, ideological Stupid = GWPF
Just plain stupid = GSW

Craig,

so I ordered my book yesterday

I have just done similar today, thanks for the heads up.

Nuccitelli's latest has just arrived. Have to fit this in around Mike Robinson's 'The Battle of Quatre Bras 1815' (my home county regiment played a since well illustrated part, also Egypt at Korea battle honours) and 'The Phantom in Focus: A Navigator's Eye on Britain's Cold War Warrior' by David Gledhill.

More grim news, and still the scientifically-illiterate deniers of human-caused climate change march on:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2388.html

I hope that they all live very long lives, and that the people around them know of their obfuscations of truth and their fomenting of inaction...

If only Hell was real: the Denialati would spent their eternities there as payment for the hell that they are bringing to the future of life on Earth.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 18 Mar 2015 #permalink

ISTR raising the issue caused by the Totten glacier danger here about a year or more ago after finding this at AntarcticGlaciers.org with more than issues with Totten mentioned therein and this:

Observed thinning of Totten Glacier is linked to coastal polynya variability., Khazendar A1, Schodlok MP, Fenty I, Ligtenberg SR, Rignot E, van den Broeke MR.

Will those nested HTML tags work as expected?

I recall then that there was concerned

There is also this Atlas of Antarctica: Topographic Maps from Geostatistical Analysis of Satellite Radar Altimeter Data which may be worth a punt if they publish an updated version.

Otherwise one can use GeoMapApp to draw topographical transects, instructive with Greenland too.

How can the contrarians (I agree with Dana on this term but deniers is still good too) airbrush this away? Of course this is why the likes of Ted Cruz are trying to cripple NASA's Earth Sciences budget even further after the Bush administration gave themselves free reign by removing a salient phrase from the NASA mission statement. Better than killing the messengers is to stop them being created in the first place. I figure we will see more of this as the debate gets even uglier than it has been up to now. As with warming, we ain't seen nothing yet.

Having mentioned Ted Cruz above I thought I had better fill in on why this ignorant numpty or dissembler has made an appearance.

Earlier this week he turned up at Climate Denial Crock of the Week where in a comment I explained the NASA mission statement skulduggery

and now I see he has turned up at Climate progress in this: Seth Meyers Confronts Ted Cruz On Climate Change: ‘I Think The World’s On Fire, Literally’, where Cruz regurgitates this old crap:

Cruz continued:

“Satellite data demonstrate for the last 17 years there’s been zero warming — none whatsoever. It’s why, remember how it used to be called global warming? And then magically the theory changed to climate change? The reason is, it wasn’t warming, but the computer models still say it is, except the satellites show it’s not.”

Such people are dangerous and should be removed from ALL positions of influence.

"Satellite data demonstrate for the las2t 17 years there’s been zero warming — none whatsoever. "

So it shows that it was colder 17 years ago.

That's what global warming means!

I still think the best expression to counter the 17 year meme (although that number is flexible depending on the innumeracy and general bone-headedness of the individual denier) is that what was then a freakishly hot super El Nino year, is now just the global average.

Lionel - I have similar issues with my current reading list - I think I have about 6 in progress at the moment, including a newish edition of Turing: The Enigma, originally published in 1983, with a new preface where the Author uses 30 years of hindsight to cast an eye over his treatment of the subject.
(Also re-reading some Neal Stephenson - never get tired of him...he has a new one out soon:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22752699-seveneves )

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 18 Mar 2015 #permalink

chek #33

A good point, but the problem with the 'pause' meme is that it treats the troposphere as if it were the entire climate system. This is a huge and fundamental error and nailing it should be the start and end of any response to wittering about the pause.

I try never to let the deniers direct the argument away from the facts and towards their chosen misrepresentations. That just allows them to play word-placement games for dozens of comments. Others see all this 'argument' about 'the pause' instead of an immediate rebuttal centred on the modulation of tropospheric temperature increase by variability in ocean heat uptake.

I completely agree, BBD.

And we are generally dealing with the same kind who point to RSS' NOAA-15 satellite with its decaying orbit to proclaim no warming.

And we are generally dealing with the same kind who point to RSS’ NOAA-15 satellite with its decaying orbit to proclaim no warming.

Indeed chek, and I note that the cartoon based upon that RSS data which was once used as a masthead on the GWPF Mission Statement page, which I have linked here and elsewhere, has now vanished and comparatively recently. Unless that is it is lurking in another dark corner at their place. Poking around over there for too long brings on a feeling of nausea, and this for someone not phased by practice intercepts in naval all weather fighters.

The cartoon in question was once a favoured illustration for his Moncktoness.

BBD, it also requires not understanding statistics, proof, satellite measurements and what the hell they're talking about. But it's pushed by people who don't care about being right, only about winning.

The satellite measures a depth of atmosphere, so the rate of warming would be different from the surface and be affected differently by the processes in the atmosphere.

Statistically, the trend is no different from IPCC's value.

Scientifically, a 95% confidence limit means 5% of the time you get a false negative. This is the basis of the cherry pick.

Satellites require models to turn their values into temperature profiles that are then projected to surface values. Models that are also used in GCMs and show AGW's effects.

The denier will not ask for the raw data from a satellite record, though. And definitely not as long as it is used by the ignorant to disprove AGW.

There isn't really only one problem, or at least not one connected by the ears of the denier itself.

It's not just "The Pause", the AGW "weather on steroids" is looking a bit doubtful as well,

‘Climate to Severe Weather Linkage’ Falls Flat – No US tornadoes reported in March
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/19/climate-to-severe-weather-linkage…

"We are in uncharted territory with respect to lack of severe weather,” Greg Carbin, a meteorologist at NOAA, said in a statement. “This has never happened in the record of [Storm Prediction Center] watches dating back to 1970.”

Obviously its impossible to unattribute cause from a single non-event, but it's certainly "consistent with" CAGW theory being bollocks, as per usual.
;)

Tornadoes are a small subset of "severe weather", GSW. Nor is there expected to be an increase in the intensity and frequency of severe weather events in general at this relatively early stage. That is expected to kick in as the century progresses.

I notice you link to the laughing-stock Watts. Clowns standing on the shoulders of clowns are still clowns.

‘Climate to Severe Weather Linkage’ Falls Flat – No US tornadoes reported in March

Is March over yet?

Besides you should be aware of the unusual, split, weather conditions across the US continent over recent months.

Whatever; as there is more to the world than the US of A(pathy) this Severe Tropical Cyclone Pam and Climate Change should take your attention. I know more than ten words and you are stumped but,

While Pam and Haiyan, as well as other recent tropical cyclone disasters, cannot be uniquely pinned on global warming, they have no doubt been influenced by natural and anthropogenic climate change and they do remind us of our continuing vulnerability to such storms.

over to you mastermind.

So GSW sees unusual weather not seen in 45 years and concludes that "nothing's happening".

Weird.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 19 Mar 2015 #permalink

"‘Climate to Severe Weather Linkage’ Falls Flat – No US tornadoes reported in March"

Since that regularly occurs, so what?

Nowt but the mouthbreather still, I see.

GSW.

It was a simple task. Answer a couple of simple questions:

What would it take for the abovementioned deniers of warming to acknowledge that warming has “resumed”? And how would this relate to the data that has been collected to date?

And you failed.

Of course you could always try to redeem some small part of your disasterous humiliation by actually answering those very straightforward questions in a sensible fashion.

Is that really so far beyond your abilities?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 20 Mar 2015 #permalink

Is that really so far beyond your abilities?

Or put another way, GSW's long-standing refusal to answer these questions shows that he is either incompetent or dishonest, or possibly both.