June 2015 Open Thread

More thread.

More like this

By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
By popular request. Comments from El Gordo and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by El Gordo and responses to comments by El Gordo should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
This thread is for people who wish to engage Ray in discussion. Ray, please do not post comments to any other thread. Everyone else, please do not respond to Ray in any other thread.
By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.

As an aside, I have a Master's student of mine in Amsterdam doing a thesis project examining the current status of Polar Bear populations and projections under a warming climate; she has poured through the scientific literature for her project, and then she compares the actual science with discussions on the subject in (a) the media, (b) think tanks, and (c) blogs.

Her findings are indeed interesting. More than 90% of published papers show thew Polar Bears are indeed in deep trouble, either in terms of declining populations or declining per capita fitness or a tendency for a skewed ratio of older animals (reduced recruitment).

Contrarian blogs, on the other hand, are an echo chamber, and almost unanimously refer to the blog of Susan Crockford, a fringe academic with very few publications and none on Polar Bears. Crockford is linked with anti-environmental think tanks but downplays the effects of Arctic ice loss and effects on the species there. It is interesting that contrarian blogs (and some of the corporate media) all refer to Crockford's blog, despite the reams of published studies which draw very different conclusions. Moreover, none of the people in these denier blogs has any relevant expertise in the field. This is proof, if any were indeed needed, that their views are politically driven and have nothing to do with science.

We intend to submit her thesis as a paper to a journal in the near future.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

That great adventurer and scientist Lonnie Thompson has similar observations to yours cited at #95 Nick:

Lonnie Thompson: The world’s largest tropical ice sheet is shrinking

and

In Sign of Warming, 1,600 Years of Ice in Andes Melted in 25 Years

and the clowns try to hide all this, including a certain petroleum industry apologist at DeSmogBlog who offered this as a text on climate 'Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change' Edited by Lee C. Gerhard, William E. Harrison and Brunold M. Hanson .

Some of the contributors raise red flags, as does the lead editor. I suspect Lonnie Thompson has been embarrassed by the association and Wally Broecker too, although given the dates of publication I have a hunch that one of Michael Mann's allusions in his 'The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars' page 101 is on the money.

Jeff,

We intend to submit her thesis as a paper to a journal in the near future.

I hope it does well. Maybe you could do a Soon & Baliunas submit to two journals one being recognised for quality and the other E&E to see if they dare. No, second thoughts, forget E&E.

Crockford's name lends itself to ridicule.

Lionel

Here's an interesting fact about Geological Perspectives of GCC - Sherwood B. Idso's paper (the book's chapter 17) is one of only two papers reprinted by permission of the original authors.

One wonders what the other one was.

Drongo, you can rail against Watson et al all you like, and invoke your hatred of the CoR, but you have failed to address two key points...

1) Watson et al show that marine productivity harvesting is oversaturated, and

2) the implacable and inevitable truth of the thermodynamic limits of the physical universe.

Use a reasons scientific argument, backed by scientific references/data, to refute those points if you can, or accept the truth.

Or perhaps I could put it this way, and appeal to your Australia conservatism...

All the seafood bounty around Australia is being plundered by those dreadful foreigners such that our own share is diminishing, and will seriously do so more in the future. All those illegal fishing boats, taking good Aussie food and good Aussie jobs.

Does that make you in any way concerned...?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

Last night I attended the premier of The Climate Blueprint presented at one of the Climate Diplomacy Day seminars held across Australia and around the world. The movie itself was pretty much a mundane 'though well-constructed summary of the policy and political history of human response to global warming, but what interested me more was the mood of the dozens of climatologists and other scientists with whom I spoke.

It was grim.

I won't have time now to go into an in-depth recitation of what was said, but some comments that came up at various points are worth repeating. First was that all warming observed since the 1950s is human-caused. The lead author who said this was emphatic. He was followed by an economist who said the scientific and economic cases for acting and acting now are irrefutable, and that the only problem was a political one.

At this point the Australian government and Tony Abbott were referenced in explicitly unflattering terms, but what struck me was the discussion panel comments about climate change deniers and the disproportionate damage that they have done.

The metaphor of the evening came from the medico on the panel. He said that just as there is a golden hour for saving victims of a heart attack, after which action beomes rapidly futile, we are now in the golden hour to act to mitigate climate change.

It's an apt analogy, although I'd argue that we're about 55 minutes through the golden hour - and that the paramedics are still arguing at the station about the best route to get to the victim's house.

Another analogy followed this, likening Tony Abbott to a doctor who, instead of doing his best to treat the patient during the golden hour, has decided that what he needs is an injection of butter directly into the vein.

You just can't argue with that.

Unfortunately I had to leave early before the main part of the panel discussion started, but I was left with the ever-increasing dread that denialists and delayers have scuttled the boat for everyone, now and into the future. That they are to a person proud of what they've perpetrated is incomprehensible - but then, given that their whole reasoning falls into that basket I suppose that it could be nothing else.

Frankly - and it galls me to think it - I reckon that Francis might be the world's last best chance. If he can't shift the neutron-star inertia of public apathy to instigate serious policy change in the next year or two, nothing will before that golden hour has long since lapsed.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

Bernard J,

So it isn't just me, one outside academia, that having studied many texts to do with not only climate change but the dire state of the life support system which sustains us (Callum Roberts, E O Wilson and many others), and provides beauty and interest to this existence with a mounting sense of dread, dread for what my children and grandchildren are going to face, and indeed are facing.

The sheer wasteful polluting ways of thoughtless consumerism, and besting ones neighbour with newer, bigger, shinier toys, has to change. We are already at dangerous levels of many chemicals in the environment, chemicals not previously know to nature and which concentrate as they travel up the food chain (Theo Colborn).

And now the fracking fanatics wish to spread their brand of death and destruction like Sauron of Mordor.

Gyres and shorelines of plastic waste that ensnares wildlife and chokes it to death or debilitates it from ingestion.

But still we have the likes of SparklyDrongo, GobShiteWitless, OldPetrified and 2Stewpot coming here linking to articles by the perpetrators of a deadly propaganda campaign with an outcome so far reaching as to put those of history in the shade.

The purveyors, even those who falsely blow up uncertainty such as a certain Judith Curry need calling out in the strongest terms. It is way past time for politeness with the likes of Milloy, Delingpole, Booker, Morano etc. Perhaps an investment in stocks and watermelons (the latter for ammunition) will be the thing. Here you are Deler's have a watermelon.

Your heart attack analogy is very close, and having been through that near death experience (twice in two days) I think it more likely 5 minutes to the gong and the medics are still trying to decide whether it is a heart attack or a stroke. That decision is of vital importance. The use of streptokinase (I still have the card) on a stroke victim would be the end.

So much for the hiatus...

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/05/3666286/global-warming-spee…

... and 2015 is easily on track to be the warmest year on record. Its curtains for deniers. But expect them to try anything to dig out of the hole they've dig for themselves. They won't go away anytime soon, even in the face of accumulating data. I am sure that, as the Titanic was listing, there were those on board claiming that the ship wouldn't sink. Even as the great stern went underwater, denial must have been still present. Only when disaster was imminent did they face reality, but by then for many it was too late. An appropriate metaphor for humanity in the face of climate change and other environmental problems that are pushing our ecological systems towards the brink.

I guested on a panel at Wageningen University the other night on a topic examining the impacts of climate change on complex adaptive systems and the political forces underpinning denial. My prognosis was certainly bleak: if past civilizations are anything to go by, we won't take the radical measures necessary to avoid disaster until its too late. Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, The Mayan civilization, Easter Island - all of these collapsed because of ecological overshoot as a major factor. We can be sure that in every case there must have been some people warning of the impending abyss towards which they were headed and in every case they were clearly ignored. The only difference this time is that we are going to take much of the planet's life support systems down with us.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

Jeff, from what I read Abbott is practically toxic for most people.

The best he can do for his owners now is to so denigrate the idea of politician in Australians' minds that they won't like ANY candidate and fail to turn out AT ALL in elections, and passing on a win to his corporate overlords, killing democracy.

It is GENUINELY from what I've seen at the level of revolution in abhorrence of the corrupt Abbot lives under.

in the UK i've been for the past three years completely willing to stand in the front line of people (UNARMED) to throw EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN OUT of the houses of parliament into the Thames. I really do not care about the few good ones. They will *understand* the actions. The ones who don't aren't worth being called worthy of the role of politician.

And I see that Australia are one election broken promise away of doing exactly that: refute all authority of parliament.

Police can't do anything to people willing to merely refuse to be ruled.

Armed insurrection can be easily painted as terrorism.

Unarmed refusal to be cowed cannot with ay degree of success.

Fuckwitted climate research denialism, corrupt politicians paid by corporate honks. We need a new society with decent citizens.

A year ago Tamino posted a statistical analysis of the Denialati's wont to claim "pause"based on cherry picking an interval from 2005 onward.

The short of it is that with the year-to-year variability inherent in the data it's entirely consistent, within a 95% confidence interval, that the warming trend may be as much as 11°C/century.

I guarantee that Spamgled Drongo and Stupid Too did not know that,n or what the significance is for making conclusions based in such a short interval of time.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 18 Jun 2015 #permalink

"The short of it is that with the year-to-year variability inherent in the data it’s entirely consistent, within a 95% confidence interval, that the warming trend may be as much as 11°C/century."

Ha ha ha ha - Brilliant!
;)

Not surprising to see that gormless (GSW) doesn't understand basic statistics, amongst his various other forms of stupidity.

Since Steyn's self humiliation at the Heritage bash, I see that gormless has stayed pretty much away from that show of ignorance. Moreover, I see that this year it had to be held in the basement of some Washington Hotel - delegate numbers were down, as was coverage.

The AGW denial movement is shrinking under the sheer weight of empirical data. The rats are well and truly leaving the ship. Bye-bye gormless; you are heading towards your own well-earned extinction.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Jun 2015 #permalink

Gitter, did you only see one post?

Or were they uncomfortable for you because they are devastating to your faith?

Oh, by the way, while you laugh, do you have anything substantive on the validity of the claim? Or do you think that merely saying you're laughing is sufficient to indicate you are made yet more uncomfortable by people who know things?

In every class there is one person who makes idiotic comments and laughs a lot at things that aren't always funny, although they often convince a number of others to join in.

This laughter is conspicuously lacking whenever they are required to formally demonstrate their level of mastery of the course material, e.g. in an exam situation, because it finally dawns on them that their laughter was covering their lack of understanding (or for the less self aware, they realise they will badly fail the test).

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 18 Jun 2015 #permalink

Meanwhile SD still hasn't taken up my offer to deprive me of fistfuls of dollars based on the contiguous US cooling he says is obvious in the US temperature data since 1900, 1934 or 1936.

I'm almost ready to conclude that he's not prepared to put my money where his mouth is...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 18 Jun 2015 #permalink

GSW, do you disagree with Tamino's statistical analysis?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 18 Jun 2015 #permalink

Didn't you know? Spanked hates wealth. He thinks that anyone getting money is selling their soul to the devil, so his refusal to take your money on his "sure thing" bet is because he doesn't want to be engulfed in that evil.

Bernard, he doesn't understand Tamino's statistical analysis, except for the output which contradicts his D-K-esque world view....

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Jun 2015 #permalink

Craig @ #7 - Thanks, I got a laugh out of that.

I've been meaning for a while to trawl back through Deltoid and the Wutter Nuttery and review some of these "predictions", but time and unenthusiasm have so far prevented it.

After years of huffing and puffing about the accuracy of the mainstream's models, its time to review the accuracy of the denialati's guesses.

I remember SkS had a post with some of the denialist prediction greatest hits, which were quite impressive misguided. Might be interesting to work on an update ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 18 Jun 2015 #permalink

#10...you completely failed to understand the quote you posted.

Even though Bernard explained it to you at #8!

Quite a feat of incomprehension! What's next?

GSW clearly doesn't understand the point about drawing conclusions from this dataset.
He's like that drooling idiot at the back of the classroom who finds things funny thought nobody understands why.

GSW:
June 18, 2015
“The short of it is that with the year-to-year variability inherent in the data it’s entirely consistent, within a 95% confidence interval, that the warming trend may be as much as 11°C/century.”

Ha ha ha ha – Brilliant!

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 18 Jun 2015 #permalink

# 22 link broken again

Steyn is all piss and wind.

Griselda, as we know already can only second-guess his Font of All Wisdom, Jonas. Without really understanding anything.

And as poor old Jonas hasn't had a conspiracy-free thought in... what? ... five years now? GSW is having to improvise with its own meagre gifts.

In short, don't expect a coherent answer anytime soon. Although another blast of inane cackling is always primed and ready to go.

Doltoids don't do data. Only angels.

Neither does our BoM with its homogenised ACORN:

"The BOM Technical Advisory Forum report is out. Finally there is the black and white admission that the BOM “adjusted” dataset cannot be replicated independently, has not been replicated by any other group, and even more so, that the BOM will not provide enough information for anyone who wants to try."

But here is a paper by someone who has a better understanding of climate, that Doltoids should consider [if they were scientifically sceptical enough, that is]:

http://thermalscience.vinca.rs/pdfs/papers-2015/TSCI140902018A.pdf

Even a smart 7 yo would understand it, Bern, and it would broaden Jeffie's limited outlook considerably, too.

How does that song go again?

♪Never forget you might just end up being wrong♪

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 18 Jun 2015 #permalink

"How does that song go again?"

Nah nah nahh naah
Nah nah nahh naaah
Hey hey-ey
Good Bye

?

Or did you have anything that could be considered from an entity with a working cortex?

PS Still missing all that proof that 1934 was observed by you to have been the warmest year ever.

Spangled, the whole "adjustments are bad" thing isn't just ignorant and anti-scientific, it's wrong: BEST proved that the adjustments caused a cooling bias, not a warming one.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 18 Jun 2015 #permalink

"The BOM Technical Advisory Forum report is out. Finally there is the black and white admission that the BOM “adjusted” dataset cannot be replicated independently, has not been replicated by any other group, and even more so, that the BOM will not provide enough information for anyone who wants to try.”

This is a false construct. It is not even remotely connected to the conclusions and recommendations on page nine of this report

Read the report, drong. Don't parrot the whining of the professionally ignorant.

And good grief! I just checked Spangled's link: Abdussamatov.

You realise, Spangled, that Abdussamatov is a crank who denies the reality of radiative physics?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 18 Jun 2015 #permalink

"The Forum endorses the view that there is a need to adjust the historical temperature record
to account for site changes, changes in measurement practices, and identifiable errors in
measurement."

The panel members were not paranoid enough, it appears.

What does it say that Drongo parades the Soviet lunatic fringe to make a case.

Habibullo Abdussamatov is a certifiable nutjob who denies the greenhouse effect. He's been well and truly debunked in the past, and I'd have thought that no one would want to stand in proximity to him...

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/02/06/a-testable-prediction-by-a-nut/

https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/of-ice-ages-and-the…

But in Drongo's world anything - anything at all - is fair game for "proof" as long as it isn't dispassionate science that contradicts his cherished ideologies.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 18 Jun 2015 #permalink

Heh, beaten by Nick.

Drongo, you're going to have to try harder if you want to make a case. To date you've scored 0% in every one of your exams.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 18 Jun 2015 #permalink

Right, since Wow has pointed out that SD rebuts his own argument by citing dodgy Obamajunk science sites like "RealClimate", and SD has gone strangely quiet since I offered him easy money based on his claim about a contiguous US cooling trend, here's the next point.

Did anyone spot SD's 1934 lie-by-omission a page or two back? (If we want to be generous, maybe he didn't lie - just exhibited the almost complete lack of skepticism and rationality that he claims other people suffer from.)

Remember that he argues that there's no continental US warming because in 2007 a GISS update made 1934 was the warmest year again, and the other data set that starts in 2005 doesn't clearly show any warming in the last 10 years?

There's the obvious flaw in his argument - he alleges that GISS and NOAA and any other inconvenient temperature record are "fraudulent Obamascience" or what have you so his argument based on GISS is fallacious by his own admission. But even if we allow him to get away with that obvious fallacy, there's one other major problem. 1934 is not the warmest year in the continental GISS US temperature record as you can see by looking at the data here. 2012 is. Needing to argue that GISS says it's 1934 would explain why he had to mangle an 8 year old article for his "facts".

So, SD, how about it? Will you now admit your "no warming since 1934" was wrong and update your argument to "it's warmed in the US since 1934, but at least it hasn't warmed since 2012" and update all of your arguments that depended on that "fact"?

And my other offers are still open. Feel free to accept one of my offers to pay you an amount proportional to the cooling shown in those US data sets according to the procedures I set out above. My bank manager really does want to know.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 18 Jun 2015 #permalink

Doltoids don’t do data.

Crossed posts again.

Since you assert that I and others here don't do data, SD, it's really curious that you refuse to take advantage of my "not doing data" by signing up for one of my "contiguous US cooling means I pay you" offers. It's even more curious since none of the other "Doltoids who don't do data" has tried to usurp your part in the deal.

Surely since you're the data aware one here, you'd jump at the chance to make some smart money and rub it in the faces of all of us who don't do data like you do.

The Doltoids must be sorely tempted to conclude that when you say everyone else except you "doesn't do data" that (remember folks!) it's always projection - or even worse, that you do do data but then you lie about it.

Which is it, SD? Are you a blatant liar or a blustering fool who projects his own analysis deficiencies on others?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 18 Jun 2015 #permalink

But here is a paper by someone who has a better understanding of climate...

Bernard J., you're always looking for a "skeptic" to bet on climate outcomes. SD won't try and take thousands of dollars from me based on contiguous US cooling. Maybe he'll bet on Abdussamatov's prediction of a large and fairly rapid drop in TSI, or on a little ice age starting in 2015 as that paper predicts?

I'd have said that you made a tactical error by linking to Stoat which has a graph and commentary that might influence the betting, but since you and I don't do data and SD clearly does, I'd say the chances of SD taking into account what you might know that is relevant to the bet are slim to none. (And our friend GSW appears in comments at Stoat.

How about it SD? Wanna bet that Abdussamatov is right this time?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 18 Jun 2015 #permalink

Lotharsson, I was working toward backing Drongo into that corner...

;-)

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 18 Jun 2015 #permalink

Doltoids don't do data. Only ADJUSTED angels.

And even better when those AAs can't be replicated, eh?

Doltoids can make any claim they like. Woo-Wee !!!

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 18 Jun 2015 #permalink

Whatever it is that Doltoids do, it is about 1,000,000x more useful than providing a daily regurgitation of garbage gleaned from Joanne Nova's junk-blog.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 18 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo, here is Abdumassatov's (failed) prediction from 2012, based on his ridiculous modelling that excludes greenhouse gases from consideration:
http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/185_8.jpg

He, his crappy model and his nutty ideas have all been utterly debunked by real-world observations..

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 18 Jun 2015 #permalink

I've just been reading David Archibald's interpretation of Abdumassatov's weird theories:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

Basically, he has correlated
- average temperature over the period of a Solar sun spot cycle
- length of the previous sun spot cycle

He has this nutty graph where all the averages go, and so if you pick any sun spot cycle length, compare it with the last cycle's period, then subtract the average temperature difference to predict the future - that gives you the average temperature over the period of the following solar cycle.

And of course....it is now evidently obviously wrong, but Drongo is still referring to it.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 18 Jun 2015 #permalink

Y'mean, not quite as wrong as those 100 IPCC models?

And Cragie thinks not being able to replicate adjustments is just wot Doltoids need.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 18 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo writes as if the entire debate about AGW hinges on one or two blogs. The 'Doltoids do't do data' refrain spews forth endlessly from him; he writes as if this blog were a scientific institute and that the evidence for or against AGW hinges on what we say here. Can this clown get much worse? What about the thousands of universities and research organizations that do compile and analyze data, and how does he reconcile the fact that every one of them agrees that AGW poses a major threat?

This is one of the pitfalls of 'blog science'. It allows idiots like SD to hide behind an anonymous handle and to desperately try and give the impression that scientific debates are confined to blogs. Of course SD has never been near a university science lecture in his life, as he made clear when asked about his day job. The fact that he scrapes up just about every fringe wack job 'academic' to support his wafer-thin arguments is further proof, if any were needed. He's long since left the moose discussion, since he was demolished there; his Alma mater is SLR of which the prevailing academic view is that it also constitutes one threat associated with AGW. There are of course multiple stresses associated with it, and the scientific community is pretty much in unanimous agreement over most of these.

That leaves SD on blogs, where he pounds his chest and consistently throws arguments with little empirical support and gleaned mostly from cranks. What this shows, as has been said many times, is that he knows nothing nor cares about science but is driven entirely by his own personal idealogical and political bias. Why doesn't he just come out and admit it and let us get on with the important areas? I get sick and tired of intellectual wannabes parading their ignorance for all to see and veiling their ignorance as if it were science-based. As I have said many, many times, these clots don't do science. They aren't scientists, they do not read the primary literature, they do not understand this literature anyway, and they do not attend conferences and workshops where these issues are discussed and debated amongst people with relevant qualifications.

Instead, they contaminate the blogosphere, sent out in armies of anonymous ignorance whilst acting like they are authorities. They aren't.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

As an addendum, note that the 'paper' SD linked to was of course by an obscure crank and has not been published as far as I know in any reputable science journal.

SD, like other deniers, is so utterly simple that its hard to conceive if someone being any more intellectually dishonest.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

Doltoids can make any claim they like.

Of course they can. "Free country" and all that.

So can you, and you do.

The question is whether the evidence supports them or not.

You appear quite unconfident of your claims when someone stops laughing at them long enough to put them to the test. I offered some deals where you'll get thousands of dollars if your own claim is anywhere near realistic and you've conspicuously and obviously ignored it.

Apparently you don't believe your own bullshit, but you have so little self respect - and so much contempt for everyone else - that you try and deceive us anyway. And ironically, us "Doltoids" seem to twig to that fact immediately every time you try it on.

It's almost like your name calling is another case of (All together now, folks!) it's always projection.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

Sorry folks, HTML tag fail.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

Foolishly alarmist Doltoids exemplified by jeffie can't even assess that if, according to the RAW data, we have warmed by less than 1c since the end of the LIA, the coldest period in the Holocene, then we are not even at average climate variability levels and there is really nothing to wet the bed over.

Let alone the fact that we have since produced record amounts of ACO2 from the IR up to today.

A rational scientist would also consider that the UHIE, if considered correctly would likely account for a fair proportion of this tiny warming and would be happy to accept that the glass was still half full.

But then it is easy to see there are no rational scientists among the Doltoids.

Subsequently, they need all the irreplicable adjustments they can get their hands on plus any beat-up from Popes, Obamas, Schellnhubers, rag-tag press, blogs etc. All fuel for the roaring fire.

How many of you Doltoids are self employed? None? I suspected as much. You couldn't survive in the real world.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

Spanky, ever heard of "Garbage In, Garbage Out"?

"....then we are not even at average climate variability levels"

Meaningless claims are S. Drongo's specialty. He's not even wrong, in fact he's 'drong', a whole filed of wrong that he has made his own.

What's the average climate variability of the planet, your Drongness?. You know, the average of the 4 billion years of variation, in which an atmosphere developed, in which the sun's output varied considerably... what's the average variability, why is such a concept meaningful or not, and how much can little old you tolerate?

"A rational scientist would also consider that the UHIE if considered correctly would likely account for a fair proportion of this tiny warming"

Rational scientists have considered that, and they don't agree with you. Sorry. You could look at their work, but you don't do any research. Probably because you're out on the lawn all hours personally observing sea level.

So spanky wants us to correct for any effect of CO2 on the climate by

a) Taking the *RAW* data
b) Adjusting it for the UHIE
...

But isn't that what he complains about in the same post? That "we don't use RAW data!" and that we SHOULD NEVER adjust it?

Foolishly alarmist Doltoids ... can’t even assess that if, according to the RAW data, we have warmed by less than 1c since the end of the LIA, the coldest period in the Holocene, then we are not even at average climate variability levels...

I pointed out this was nonsense - firstly, being akin to comparing the number of bicycles with the weight of apples, and for other reasons besides - when you first came out with it.

And several times afterwards.

And yet you continue to repeat it. Your "foolish" charge is (once again, folks!) another case of it's always projection! (Nick's "not even wrong" is right on the money, so I think we should all adopt his "drong" neologism.)

And you're apparently too stupid to grok that your inference can never follow from drongness, even after your nose is rubbed in your obvious drongness:

...and there is really nothing to wet the bed over.

Speaking of being right on the money or not, when are you going to agree to my offer to pay you for the amount of contiguous US cooling in the data set that you cited to support that claim? Everyone here can see that you're a complete coward who refuses to stand by his own argument, but keeps blustering that it's true nevertheless. And everyone who sees that is entitled to assume that will apply to any future argument you make...

A rational scientist would also consider that the UHIE, if considered correctly would likely account for a fair proportion of this tiny warming...

Man, you must have quite some fantasy life, seeing you're clinging to notions that even Anthony Watts' own peer reviewed paper has shown to be false, quite apart from all the other peer reviewed science that has considered the evidence and rejected your claim!

You really should stop outsourcing your "thinking" on this topic to demonstrated incompetents like Nova and Evans and Marohasy and Watts and Goddard and Tisdale and Archibald and Abdumassatov and Monckton and the rest of the whole sorry cavalcade of foolish denialists (except when they publish a paper that goes against the core mantras of denialism - then you pretend they never did)!

But you won't, will you? Perhaps that's because you're excessively incompetent yourself so you literally can't tell when you're being fooled, and to top if all off you really do like having someone piss in your pocket and tell you it's liquid gold.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

But isn’t that what he complains about in the same post? That “we don’t use RAW data!” and that we SHOULD NEVER adjust it?

Yes.

This has been another edition of short answers... ;-)

I do wonder how much time SD spends arguing with himself, and how much of that time is spent calling himself "foolish", and what happens when one of him beats the other. I also think professional help is warranted.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

Speaking of Drongo arguing against himself, there are a number of findings in that BOM Forum report that appear to go directly against some of what Drongo claims.

He doesn't seem to be changing his stance on those claims though. It's almost like he doesn't understand that his own citations argues against his own positions.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

I won't expend the energy to answer Drongo's latest steaming pile of dung... its been demolished already innumerable times here... and elsewhere in the scientific literature. Drongo is one of those desperate deniers who is begging others to trurst and believe him....

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

How many of you Doltoids are self employed? None? I suspected as much. You couldn’t survive in the real world.

You really do like to throw the cream-pie into your own face, don't you?! I am self-employed, for starters, and I bet I am not the only one.

As for the notion that anyone who is not self-employed could not "in the real world", what an idiotic stance! That goes double coming from someone who is almost as inept on Deltoid at making and backing up real world claims as Sunspot used to be - and just as foolishly keeps doing it anyway.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

Also what does that matter? 90% of business ventures fail in the first five years. Failed in "the real world".

Also someone who is self employed employs others to do things. Even a single-owner business employs the use of people they purchase from or get their accounts done by. But if doing these things yourself is required to be "in the real world", then no incorporated body or business entity with an employee of one or more (even part time) is run by someone who has shown they can survive in the real world.

If you can use the efforts of others, then anyone employed is showing they can survive in the real world, so everyone here displays the ability to survive in the real world.

Would Spanky survive in the real world of academia?

Absolutely and categorically NOT.

And the best the Doltoids can offer is Hot Whopper?

What about the Pope?

Says it all, eh.

Running your own show, hey Lothe? Well good for you. How much tax do you pay in excess of what the taxpayer puts in your pocket. I hope it's a positive number.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

Lothe, considering the raw data shows less than 1c warming since the LIA, how much of that would be due to UHIE?

Think there might possibly be some?

I suppose you do realise that most of the thermometers are placed close to huge infrastructure and any self employed person should be smart enough to do the temperature experiment on either side of a garden wall to note differences.

Have you checked the ever-increasing divergence between satellite and ground measurement lately?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

"Says it all, eh."

You said nothing.

OK, the Pope agrees. Does the number of people agreeing with something DISPROVE it?

"Lothe, considering the raw data shows less than 1c warming since the LIA,"

No it doesn't.

BTW, are you proving Tony Watts a fraud here? Because his pet project that looked into this UHIE and the *RAW DATA* proved that the effect of the UHIE was less than the cooling the adjustments to the global network data that the IPCC used put on it.

Yes, Spanked, the IPCC adjustments to the RAW DATA *reduced* the warming trend.

"Have you checked the ever-increasing divergence between satellite and ground measurement lately?"

So you're now trying to hide the decline of the satellite proxy of temperatures.

Is this you Manning up?

"And the best the Doltoids can offer is Hot Whopper?'

We offer you the world of evidence, drongo. All you offer is an allegation of self-employment at some time in your life after you saw a king tide in 1946.

How much tax do you pay in excess of what the taxpayer puts in your pocket.

So having failed to rebut my rebuttals of your nonsense, you then failed to smear me on one (irrational) basis that turned out to be yet another of your (faulty) presumptions, so you desperately try to smear me on another. You really don't come here for the hunting, do you?

One wonders what fantastical imaginings you must have about payments I simply must be receiving from the taxpayer, because given that I (inconveniently) demonstrate that I "do data" (like you say I do not), then I couldn't possibly be (inconveniently) "making it in the real world" either (like you say I do not), right?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

...considering the raw data shows less than 1c warming since the LIA...

How would you know, SD? You conspicuously failed to take several thousand dollars off my hands if the data you specified actually shows the contiguous US to have been cooling since 1900/1934/1936. Accordingly it seems very likely that you know on some level that you were wrong about that claim. (Everyone else knew before you did, but better late than never, eh? And if you keep up the barrage of personal smears and Gish Gallop on to a bunch of other claims, maybe the Doltoids won't notice that you've been caught out yet again, right?)

So, given your extensive record of bizarrely unsupported and even outright counterfactual claims, a smart working presumption is that any other claim you make about the data is false too - at least unless and until you demonstrate in some detail why your claim should be believed.

And you need to be careful if you try that. You really want to avoid relying on methods that you have previously rejected because they lead to conclusions that you also reject, or people will use the methods you now accept to point out how they reject your earlier claims. And that puts you in a huge bind. You reject reconstructions of global sea level rise from that combine data from the available local records from around the world, which doesn't leave you a lot of wiggle room to claim that the raw data for temperature records from around the world can be similarly combined to "show less than 1C global warming since the LIA".

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

Have you checked the ever-increasing divergence between satellite and ground measurement lately?

Er...you realise they measure different things, right (and they are expected to diverage in a warming world)? I mean you are not so completely and utterly stupid as to...

...oh, wait!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

#67 I don't know what you're complaining about , Lotharsson.

In drongworld, it is conventional for gentlemen to compare tax returns when engaging in casual conversation

Like I said, Doltoids don't do data:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/plot/hadcrut3gl/f…

And how much of that is down to UHIE, Hobby Job Lothe?

And when the gatekeepers have conned the Doltoids, the Pope, the Potus, [not that it was hard with their religious ideology], that recon beats raw any day, the sky is the limit.

Meanwhile, rational people keep their feet on the ground.

"conventional for gentlemen to compare tax returns when engaging in casual conversation"

I think you'll find it's more causal than casual, Nick.

But don't feel too bad. Just because some of us sceptics kick in hundreds of thousands PA while most alarmists have their snouts in the trough for similar sums doesn't change the real climate.

Just the perceived climate.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

"Like I said, Doltoids don’t do data:"

Yes, you said that. You were wrong every single time.

"And how much of that is down to UHIE"

one tenth of bugger all! Look at the literature, donut! UHI effects have been well studied for much of your adult life...while you were mowing the couch on Cleveland Bay.

And will you address the delicious tension between your contempt for data homogenisation and your desire for UHI to be accounted for, oh rolling-in-it gatekeeper of nonsense?

Your bank account dwarfs your IQ mate, even if you are on the pension.

WTF with this?: "But don’t feel too bad. Just because some of us sceptics kick in hundreds of thousands PA while most alarmists have their snouts in the trough for similar sums doesn’t change the real climate.

Just the perceived climate"

You brought it up, shit-for-brains!

"from:1850/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:%201850/trend:"
LIA was 1350-1850.

So it's irrelevant to use that graph in a discussion about the warming since the LIA, since there is no inclusion of the LIA in that period.

One of the reasons why Spanky wouldn't last five seconds in the real world of academia is because when you're not protected by "commercial in confidence" and "NDA" and "Private industry, butt out!", you're expected to show accuracy and honesty in your dealings.

Whereas Spanky managed to find some way to hide from his employees and customers that he was scamming the shit out of them, because he could always blame the terrible performance on that damn government interfering with business.

Poor Silly Nick doesn't get that if there is already "bugger all" warming from raw measurements and UHIE is evident to some degree anywhere we place a thermometer in the human disturbed environment, then there is only three fifths of five eighths of "bugger all" real global warming.

AWA UHIE, there is also the rebound from the coldest period of the Holocene.

So that huge increase in ACO2 since the IR can only be producing considerably less than "bugger all".

And he's too stupid to understand how his snout in the trough is changing the perceived climate.

I'll keep it simple for stupids:

"Look what happened to a butterfly ecologist named Camille Parmesan when she published a paper on “Climate and Species Range” that blamed climate change for threatening the Edith checkerspot butterfly with extinction in California by driving its range northward. The paper was cited more than 500 times, she was invited to speak at the White House and she was asked to contribute to the IPCC’s third assessment report.

Unfortunately, a distinguished ecologist called Jim Steele found fault with her conclusion: there had been more local extinctions in the southern part of the butterfly’s range due to urban development than in the north, so only the statistical averages moved north, not the butterflies. There was no correlated local change in temperature anyway, and the butterflies have since recovered throughout their range. When Steele asked Parmesan for her data, she refused. Parmesan’s paper continues to be cited as evidence of climate change. Steele meanwhile is derided as a “denier”'.

And Wow doesn't even get that that graph is the total global raw data since the end of the LIA.

You can only do so much to try and explain to ignorant experts.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

Doltoid Wow also doesn't get that to survive and succeed in the real world you have to offer a better product or service at a better price. He stupidly equates success with scamming.

That only happens in the climate "science" world, Wowie.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

Wow.
I do have a crush on you.
The real world of academia?
That's a very interesting concept.
You do realise, I hope, that there are plenty (as In lots and lots and lots) of people with 'academic' qualifications, including PhDs in all the sciences who aren't in your 'real world of academia'?
The ones I know use rather different descriptions for the world of academia.
:-)
Perhaps you could ask yourself who or what supports the world of academia and then add the how and why ?

Doing science as opposed to seeming:

“We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.” -Dr. Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize in Physics

Modern climate science. NOT.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

In drongworld, it is conventional for gentlemen to compare tax returns when engaging in casual conversation

LOL!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

Hobby Job Lothe?

My, my, is that another desperate and unrelated attempted smear based on zero evidence?! Your actual arguments must be untenable even to some small deep part of your feeble intelligence if you need to try that on!

But wait, there's more! I just finished pointing out that you cannot cite a global reconstruction from multiple local data series because you reject those kinds of reconstructions when applied to SLR - and you cite a global reconstruction using multiple local data sources to argue about temperature, which cannot prove your point according to your rules! That's even worse than "not doing data" - it's citing data that you have already argued is inadmissible! You are one seriously self-rebutting dude - only Sunspot was more consistent than you at posting links that undermined his claims!

So care to try and justify your claims again, this time using data and methods you haven't already rejected?

And do you think you'll have any better luck doing that than "the contiguous US has cooled, and here's the graph from Anthony Watts with the warming trend specifically highlighted to prove it"?

(Still not willing to put my money where your mouth is based on contiguous US cooling? What's the matter - you can't admit to yourself that your oft-repeated cries that "you don't do data" are another classic case of it's always projection - not only did you not do the data on that question, you actually linked to data showing the complete opposite of what you claimed!)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

Poor Silly Nick doesn’t get that if there is already “bugger all” warming from raw measurements and UHIE is evident to some degree anywhere we place a thermometer in the human disturbed environment, then there is only three fifths of five eighths of “bugger all” real global warming.

And once again poor silly SD is too confident of his own "bugger all" competence to ask his local high school kids for help working out why that is a fallacious argument.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

Lothe isn't game to come right out and state that the raw data from 1850 is what he is referring to.

But don't be shy, Lothe. Go right ahead and tell us why it's wrong.

And how, if it was up to you, you would doctor it off the face of the earth.

Also, give us your take on the split-up of that 0.8c warming between nat var warming, ACO2 warming and UHIE warming.

And don't hold back on the catastrophics.

And regarding your hobby job, Lothe, are you into contractual science? Where you try to prove yourself wrong as quickly as possible?

A consultant, possibly, but not collecting anything from the taxpayer? Only contributing?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 19 Jun 2015 #permalink

#81 As Foghorn Leghorn used to sigh when trying to teach the witless ferret how to raid the henhouse : "I'm cuttin' but you ain't bleedin'"...Drongo cannot understand how he's cut himself down with his own argument. How many times now has he blanked the contradiction of his position?

And cartoon level analogies while entirely appropriate for him will probably go clean over his head as well.

Now he's quoting Matt Ridley , the 'science writer' who owns a coal mine and crashed a bank....which the taxpayer very generously took from incompetent private management's hands.

So Drong, how many billions was Ridley into the taxpayer for? The face on him when he was reprimanded before a parliamentary committee for dereliction of financial duty.! shoulda seen it Drongo, he looked very peeved. Don't they know who he is?? He's the guy who's never wrong, just misunderstood! Ridley is the fuckwit's fuckwit, and the proof is in his abysmal posturing and self-promotion.

Stu2: acadamia supports the real world. Try living in one without scientists.

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

Of course Turboblocke.
No one wants to live without science.
But 'science' and 'academia' are not necessarily the same.
Perhaps you need to refine your definitions?
Science does not exclusively belong to or come from academia.
And vice versa.

"Doltoid Wow also doesn’t get that to survive and succeed "

More ad hom to disguise that you have to fall back on that because you have no proof or honesty behind your claims, Spanky.

"My, my, is that another desperate and unrelated attempted smear based on zero evidence?! "

It's an ad hom attack proving spanky has nothing to go on.

"But don’t be shy, Lothe. Go right ahead and tell us why it’s wrong."

He already did: you claim that doing this is invalid.

if YOU think it invalid, you cannot use it.

But you cannot explain why, so you trot out ad homs instead.

"Also, give us your take on the split-up of that 0.8c warming between nat var warming,ACO2 warming and UHIE warming."

More thtan 0.8C warming is due to ACC and less than 0.08C due to UHIE.

"And Wow doesn’t even get that that graph is the total global raw data since the end of the LIA."

But if it's since the end of the LIA, then your claim

a) has no relevance to the LIA, since it excludes it all
b) the depth of the LIA has no bearing since this is after the LIA ended.

Spanky doesn't understand that we know his bollocks is bollocks, and why.

Lothe isn’t game to come right out and state that the raw data from 1850 is what he is referring to

That's because it's not my claim, dear. You are referring to data, and you don't even appear to understand (a) where it came from, (b) that it has been superseded, (c) that it had limitations that undermine your claim, (d) that it is aggregated into a global reconstruction using methods very similar to methods you reject, and (e) that even if it were exactly what you seem to think it is you inference does not follow. Furthermore, you haven't even established that it is raw data yet.

If you ran your business like you run your mouth off here, it's a miracle you made any money. You pretend that key factors simply do not exist, that much of the available evidence does not exist, and you fixate on the first explanation for the subset of evidence that you are willing to let yourself perceive that comes into your head despite numerous flaws being pointed out to you.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 Jun 2015 #permalink

And how, if it was up to you, you would doctor it off the face of the earth.

Oh, my, someone call Lewandowsky! We've got a cracking multi-factorial case of conspiratorial ideation going here! And this, from the guy who tried to "doctor" a graph that explicitly showed a warming trend complete with a calculated centennial rate of warming into "cooling" - and seriously thought that no-one would notice his blatant lie!

And since it's always projection, this is arguably rather revealing of SD's methods...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 Jun 2015 #permalink

And regarding your hobby job, Lothe...

Still making up ad hom shit you can't back up in order to distract from all the earlier pseudoscientific shit you made up that you can't back up? Who exactly do you think is stupid enough to be fooled by that?

You've got a deeply entrenched and well deserved reputation, SD. Only a fool would think that piling more bullshit on top would help repair a reputation for spouting mountains of bullshit.

And speaking of shit you made up, when are you going to take up my offer to take thousands of dollars off my hands if the contiguous US cooled the way you said it did? Your conspicuous cowardice coupled with complete unwillingness to admit that it's not us, it's you who don't do data (even when it's explicitly done for you by one of your key sources of denialism), is quite obvious to all and sundry.

Do you seriously think readers will forget if you throw enough random mud in the hope that some will stick? And are you seriously stupid enough to think that if you throw mud at me that I won't keep reminding readers that you're throwing mud to distract from your Epic Cooling Fail(TM) or whatever your latest pratfall is?

In that light, please do keep up the ad homs! I'll keep reminding people that practically every attempted critique that you try to assert against others here applies in spades to you.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 Jun 2015 #permalink

Stu2 at #95. You should reread your #78 for the context.

SD, how big an effect does the UHIE have on the oceans in your opinion?

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

Turbo, you really think that raw data includes Argo? Maybe ship's intakes? Buckets?

Lothe and Wow, admit it, you really can't handle raw.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 20 Jun 2015 #permalink

Spanky, raw data includes all the data. Do you think it doesn't include Argo data? Ship intakes? Buckets?

They are all data.

And we really can handle data raw. Because we understand it, unlike you.

But you are again attempting to run a SQUIRREL!!!! to avoid the fact that your claims have been rubbish to an extreme and not only did you know this to begin with, it's been pointed out to you time and time again.

Raw data doesn't give you any UHIE information. You want others to pretend it does.

Reality doesn't go that way, spanky.

Lothe and Wow, admit it, you really can’t handle raw

"Admit" a falsehood? I won't do that, SD, as I'm not like you.

It wasn't me that looked at a graph of US contiguous temperature that had a conspicuous trend line showing clear warming painted on it and said "that shows cooling".

That was you, and you refuse to admit it. (All together now folks - it's always projection!)

And it's not me that repeatedly makes the same inference after receiving numerous explanations as to why they are invalid.

It's not me that insists that raw data is more representative despite the known issues with it (except when I find that inconvenient). That's you - and that's you not handling raw.

It's not me that makes spurious uninformed allegations about the size of UHI effects in raw data because I don't understand the evidence.

That's you.

It's always projection.

And that suggests that you don't come here for the hunting, as the bear said to the hunter after handing out the umpteenth reaming.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 Jun 2015 #permalink

I take it Stupid still hasn't answered BBD's question, right?

"in the real world you have to offer a better product or service at a better price."

That wouldn't be the real world, Spanky.

Obviously you've never worked in private industry and have been sheltered out of the need to interact with the real world too.

#95 Stupid man still stupid, news at 5

I wonder how long it will take Drongo to work out that the range of natural variability in a climate system is an indication of how sensitive it is to radiative perturbation?

So wittering about a wide range of NV on a centennial scale (even if factually incorrect on this point) is to witter on about how relatively sensitive the climate system is to radiative forcings such as that from... oh, CO2 for example.

How many of you Doltoids are self employed? None? I suspected as much. You couldn’t survive in the real world.

Wrong-o. I ran my own business from the age of 23 until I retired at 45.

SD had me on the floor in hysterical laughter when he described old hack denier Jim Steele as 'distinguished'. He's ditinguished himself as laughingstock alright - at least SD is correct on that score.

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

Yeah, Matt leapt off the cliffs of insanity well before then. Now he's drowning in the whirlpool of mania.

Given he was a whacko years ago, what the hell does your post signify? That some people still listen to the nutjob?

I *DO* realise that you want to up the link count to his bollocks by posting it here, because posting it on the blogrolls that contain mental midgets enough to actually swallow his tripe won't bring any ad dollars or google visibility.

IOW you're basically shilling.

Ridley's incisive article doesn't pull any punches. The Camille Parmesan butterfly paper for example has been cited here as evidence of impending doom in the past, As Ridley points out

"a distinguished ecologist called Jim Steele found fault with her conclusion: there had been more local extinctions in the southern part of the butterfly’s range due to urban development than in the north, so only the statistical averages moved north, not the butterflies. There was no correlated local change in temperature anyway, and the butterflies have since recovered throughout their range. When Steele asked Parmesan for her data, she refused. Parmesan’s paper continues to be cited as evidence of climate change."

Unfortunately environmental advocacy doesn't make for good science.

Ridley exposes the "Big Green" paid for advocacy further,

"Michael Oppenheimer, of Princeton University, who frequently testifies before Congress in favour of urgent action on climate change, was the Environmental Defense Fund’s senior scientist for nineteen years and continues to advise it. The EDF has assets of $209 million and since 2008 has had over $540 million from charitable foundations, plus $2.8 million in federal grants. In that time it has spent $11.3 million on lobbying, and has fifty-five people on thirty-two federal advisory committees. How likely is it that they or Oppenheimer would turn around and say global warming is not likely to be dangerous?"

Ooo... that's gotta hurt :)

More from Ridley,

"Why is it acceptable, asks the blogger Donna Laframboise, for the IPCC to “put a man who has spent his career cashing cheques from both the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Greenpeace in charge of its latest chapter on the world’s oceans?” She’s referring to the University of Queensland’s Ove Hoegh-Guldberg."

Well yeah, what could go wrong there?
;)

"Or that the length of the pause is now past the point where many scientists said it would disprove the hypothesis of rapid man-made warming. Dr Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, said in 2009: “Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.” It now has."

"And it’s not working anyway. Despite avalanches of money being spent on research to find evidence of rapid man-made warming, despite even more spent on propaganda and marketing and subsidising renewable energy, the public remains unconvinced."

Where do you guys stand on this? I personally don't know anybody who's concerned about Global Warming now - it's taken a while. but the consensus seems to be that the risks/dire warnings have been overstated.

Enjoy your self induced misery chaps.
;)

GSW

It's about physics, old bean. Radiative physics.

Ridley has nothing substantive to say about physics, which rather weakens his message.

“Or that the length of the pause is now past the point where many scientists said it would disprove the hypothesis of rapid man-made warming. Dr Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, said in 2009: “Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.” It now has.”

Except that it hasn't.

But Ridley, as does "Garry" Glitter So What, takes a shitload of words to SAY nothing.

Which is weird, really.

"Ridley’s incisive [LOL!! ROFTL!] article doesn’t pull any punches. "

Also doesn't bother with reality or sanity.

"Except that it hasn’t."

Indeed. It didn't even last a year beyond that statement from Phil.

The intersection of reality and Garry Glitter's statements is the primal null set.

"I personally don’t know anybody who’s concerned about Global Warming now – it’s taken a while."

Yup, you had to go much further than the nutter on the bus to get everyone else afraid to be around you.

Turboblocke @#94 previous page
Do yourself a favour and look up the definition of academia.
Then look up the definition of science.
Perhaps along with Wow, you have conflated the definitions?
Academia may 'support the real world' but the concept of 'the real world of academia' and/or the idea that there would be no scientists without academia are both highly questionable or, as Lotharsson is fond of saying, ' fallacious'.
I note that a new comprehensive report from some 'academics' who work outside 'academia' has been released at climate4you. pp 35-38 are of particular relevance to the commenters at this blog.

I personally don’t know anybody who’s concerned about Global Warming now – it’s taken a while.

Rushing here to fluff up the predictable (and eminently disposable) opinions of a nonentity blogger, unrecognised shills and a failed feudal banker is what Griselda's reduced to for lack of any coherent case.

Keeping company with whatever structure it is that facilitates delivering such bilge largely explains its lack of awareness,

Stupid2 - wtf are you on?

Surely somewhere out there a site for Pedantic Nonsense for Pedantic Nonces awaits all your future "contributions".
Exclusivity would be a bonus, if not your main contribution to the world.

Whatever he's on about, I bet it didn't answer BBD's question.

:-D

See, there's absolutely no need to read his posts at all. You can already make solid and accurate claims about its content without having read a word!

Matt Ridley owns a coal mine, and crashed a largish bank. Which was rescued by the taxpayer in a gesture that runs opposite to his oft-expressed free-market-uber-alles beliefs.

Oooh, that's gotta hurt.

GSW, Matt sat down one weekend and figured out, by recycling debunked gossip and misdirection, how many 'points' he could score against the scientific community [score: none], and how many incompetent liars he could rebadge as 'distinguished' [score: quite a few]

Ridley has a poker face, a thick hide and a thicker head...there's a relationship there...and will continue to produce smug boilerplate-to-order for the aid of his coal industry brethren. Meanwhile, the real world has other plans.

#11 I met a lot of smokers who were unconcerned about their well-enhanced likelihood of serious chronic health damage after decades of use.

Now enjoying their lives of self-induced misery, GSW

Wow

Whatever he’s on about, I bet it didn’t answer BBD’s question.

Now you remind me...

Bit of a SETI thing going on there.

@#20.
Pedantic nonsense?
LOL!
:-)
And thanks again Wow for your outstanding work.

Ridley’s incisive article doesn’t pull any punches.

He certainly didn't pull any punches - and based on the quotes you provided, numerous strawmen (some already dead from old age) sustain solid hits from his flying fists! Actual climate science though, not so much. He's careful to avoid punching that most of the time - instead he serves up conspiracy theorising and innuendo because he knows it impresses the gullible and poorly informed.

...the public remains unconvinced.

...he alleges, writing in Quadrant of all places, which is so indicative of what the public thinks that almost no-one knows what it is let alone reads it. And he does so steadfastly ignoring recent Australian surveys reported in far more mainstream media that show otherwise.

The latest Lowy Institute poll of Australians' attitudes towards global issues shows a majority now willing to bear "significant costs" to tackle climate change for the first time since 2009 when international negotiations collapsed at Copenhagen.

Almost two-thirds of Australians also want the government to "commit to significant reductions" of greenhouse emissions at the next round of global talks in Paris later this year, in the hope other countries will be encouraged to do the same.

The fresh concern about global warming stands in contrast to 2012 during Tony Abbott's crusade against the carbon tax, when climate change was seen as a pressing issue for just 36 per cent of people.

The latest figure has reached 50 per cent – but is still a long way off a high of 68 per cent at the end of the Howard era.

Ridley is primarily playing to a small gallery of nutters and the gullible, and is a poster child for the kind of financial motivation that he projects on to others - but more importantly, many of the "facts" he claims are simply wrong.

It's almost like GSW isn't the slightest bit sceptical.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 Jun 2015 #permalink

Booker, in the Telegraph, also has a take on the Papal Encyclical,

"The Pope joins the EU in a sad world of make-believe"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11688994/The-Pope-joins-the-EU-in-a-…

"How forlorn in light of all this looks that would-be well-meaning 300-page document in which the Pope, under the spell of his chief scientific adviser, a fanatical German climate activist called Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, calls for an end to use of the very fossil fuels which keep the Vatican’s own lights on."

"The outside world is no longer listening to this claptrap. But it is not just the world outside the West which is beginning to call the shots. Reality itself is now knocking loudly at the door."

Booker, as we recall but GSW pretends not to, is quite frequently shown to be completely full of shit - and quite often in a fashion that appears to require mendacity to achieve rather than merely the kind of incompetence desired by certain media operators in their attack pundits.

It is notable how immensely disingenuous is the quote that GSW chose. If we accepted that logic, then no-one could ever call for systemic change unless they had already completed it for themselves which is quite clearly absurd - systemic change could only happen without intent.

One must thank GSW for highlighting that the attacks on the Encyclical and on climate science must rely on absurd arguments - for surely if there were good counter arguments, they wouldn't need to roll out this shit!

One must also thank him for exemplifying that the attack spruikers are entirely oblivious to the irony of denialists shouting "Reality itself is now knocking loudly at the door", given that he simply ignores the errors highlighted in his previous comments and Gish Gallops merrily on to the next error filled piece that denies reality.

...calls for an end to use of the very fossil fuels which keep the Vatican’s own lights on

Maybe Booker should read a rag called The Telegraph. I suspect he has heard of it or can find someone who has. ;-) Or maybe Booker is really a performance artist designed to test how gullible readers are?

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

Well done Loth, you posted a link to the article,

"Vatican installs huge solar panel energy system"

How amazingly uninformative.

"Last year the Holy See announced that it would become the world's first carbon-neutral state by planting trees in a national park in Hungary in order to offset its carbon-dioxide emissions."

Carbon dioxide emission from solar panels? It's a miracle!
;)

Your link continues,

"This latest initiative puts the Vatican at odds with Italy. The Italian government said this week that it would veto new European Union limits on greenhouse gas emissions unless it won concessions."

"Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said a plan proposed by France's President, Nicolas Sarkozy, to cut emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, was unrealistic."

"Italy's greenhouse gas emissions are around 13 per cent above 1990 levels – one of the worst performances in the EU."

"Analysts believe that Italy may be dragging its heels in order to secure a better deal for its industry and that the government would not dare risk the stigma of sabotaging the EU's self-declared role as the world leader in tackling climate change. "

Unrealistic(?), maybe they've found the "Reality" Booker thinks is creeping up on them. Keeping "Reality" at bay now seems to be EU&Vatican imperative.

"Our Solar panel,
Who art on the the roof,
300 KW be thy output..."

Lol,
:)

How amazingly uninformative

Only because you idiotically missed the point.

It shows that the Vatican is pursuing systemic change that it can independently pursue. That goes beyond Booker's bonkers position that no-one is allowed to call for systemic change until they no longer need that change, to "they are already pursuing the systemic change that Booker castigates them for not having completed yet".

Carbon dioxide emission from solar panels?

Oh, the idiocy! But thanks for highlighting again that idiotic rejoinders are the best counter argument you and Booker can muster.

Furthermore, the initiative that you misinterpret in order to try and lampoon the Vatican serves to further undermine Booker's argument!

Many thanks for pointing that out.

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

Ok Loth,

"Furthermore, the initiative that you misinterpret in order to try and lampoon the Vatican serves to further undermine Booker’s argument!"

How? The Pope installs 2,400 Solar panels on his roof, plants a few trees in Hungary and is somehow not living in his own little world of make believe? The world's poor will be pleased. Well done Pope!

Our Solar panel,
Who art on the the roof,
300 KW be thy output

Er, no. If you were awake enough and even the slightest bit skeptical you would notice that the article doesn't clearly state what the system size is. You would check and find that it's about 220kW which adds up to about 300 MWh per year. Also, note the units involved which any competent physicist would not casually botch. The SI prefix for thousands is a lower case k.

And 300 MWh/year makes a pretty useful difference for a State with only 800-900 inhabitants (although it has a shitload of visitors), even more so when combined with its other energy efficiency and emissions reductions initiatives.

It also seems to have completely escaped your and Booker's attention in the rush to attack the current Pope that this fossil fuel reduction effort on the part of the Vatican was started a number of years ago by the previous Pope.

But please don't stop posting your brand of nonsense! It's a really good indication that unskeptical nonsense is the level of the best arguments the denialists and delayists have for their position.

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

How?

So, you're too thick to figure it out?

Hint: it's not Booker's argument that it's the Pope rather than Booker et al who are denying reality that I'm referring to. As is clear from the context to anyone who passed high school English, it's his implied argument that no-one is allowed to call for systemic change unless they've already enjoyed the completion of that change themselves.

I realise that this is more than the late primary school cartoon level of discourse favoured by the average denialist, but if you want to argue about the real world then the need to deal with the complexity involved means a higher level of analysis and discussion is required.

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

"Hint: it’s not Booker’s argument that it’s the Pope rather than Booker et al who are denying reality that I’m referring to. As is clear from the context to anyone who passed high school English, it’s his implied argument that no-one is allowed to call for systemic change unless they’ve already enjoyed the completion of that change themselves"

"it’s not Booker’s argument that it’s the Pope rather than Booker et al who are denying reality" - That's just gobbledegook Loth.

Booker's argument is not about "systemic change unless they’ve already enjoyed the completion of that change themselves". The "Keeping the lights on" quip was not the point of the article. It's the political "make-believe" as in,

"They are all different aspects of the two greatest acts of political make-believe of our time, so all-pervasive that it is hard for us to grasp just how much effect they are having on all our lives."

and

"When future historians come to look back on our age, few things will puzzle them more than the extent to which our politics became so dominated and bedevilled by two belief-systems, each based on an obsessive attempt to force into being an immensely complicated political construct which defied economic, psychological and scientific reality."

Your not making this much fun Loth, have to read and explain everything to you that is.
;)

Are there any other far right wing, fringe, long discredited sources that GSW has'nt yet dredged up here? All of them are complete idiots whose views lie light years outside of the mainstream. Moreover, as is typical for AGW deniers, they cite single examples in diverse and complex fields to attack, leaving many hundreds of more examples that undermine them alone. That a nincompoop like Steele - distinguished only in the eyes of a shill like Ridley - and one who writes only on an appalling blog, would attack a truly outstanding ecologist like Camille Parmesan says it all. A thousand Ridley's and Steele's don't reach up to her ankles in terms of expertise or standing. I don't blame her whatsoever for ignoring a crank like Steele. If he wants to show he is 'distinguished' then start doing real science like the rest of us instead of standing on the sidelines. He is an intellectual light weight. Finally, dopes like Steele and Ridley would be far more useful if they were actively combatting those who are driving our vitally important ecological systems towards the brink instead of tacitly enciuraging them.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 21 Jun 2015 #permalink

Actually Loth, maybe this is why you struggle with things - you can't get past the trivia!

I've noticed that with the other Deltoids as well. The "Pause"/"Hiatus" for example, it's very important to you all that these is at least "some warming" and if it's possible to adjust some in, by hundredths of a degree, you all cheer - the fact that the models systematically over cast/are running way too hot completely passes you by. You get lost in trivia :)

Go on Loth, tell me about the Pope's lights and how he keeps them on.
:)

Sou takes on Ridley's Quadrant nonsense in her own inimitable style. This includes (amongst many other things) lambasting Jim Steele who has been touted here recently - and has form demonstrating incompetence and apparent dishonesty at HotWhopper - and Ridley for citing fake experts like Steele (and many of the other usual suspects).

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

"Sou takes on Ridley’s Quadrant nonsense in her own inimitable style."

Indeed, if the inimitable style of a bat shit crazy old woman is your sort of thing, go for it Loth. Maybe you'll find some other bit of trivia you can fester over.
:)

That’s just gobbledegook Loth.

No dear. It's upper high school/early university level English, albeit not wordsmithed for extra clarity for those who operate at a lower level. Would you like me to dumb it down further? Or can you grok it if you read it slower and sound out all the words, then go back and do it again?

Booker’s argument is not about “systemic change unless they’ve already enjoyed the completion of that change themselves”.

You could have fooled the rest of us when you extracted certain portions of it and omitted others. Since you appear to be admitting that you misrepresented his argument, how about you correct it?

Or since you routinely peddle complete bollocks, how about we verify it ourselves by taking a look at the context you chose to omit? What does the "all this" refer to (in part)?

...the last desperate throw by the EU and the US to achieve a world agreement next December to “halt climate change” is not going to succeed, not just because the “science” on which it is based is so increasingly questionable, but because the emerging powers of the East, led by India and China, are simply not prepared to go along with it. If the West wishes to commit economic suicide, so be it. In their own national interest, they are not willing to follow.

Let's ignore the false assertions of questionable science, the unsubstantiated claims that emerging powers aren't prepared to act on climate change, the outright lie that it's merely the EU and US trying to get a global agreement, the solid misrepresentation of the positions of the Chinese and if I'm not mistaken the Indians, his desperate attempt to ignore the recent G7 mini-consensus, the complete bollocks that halting climate change requires "economic suicide" and the astoundingly counterfactual implication that doing nothing about climate change is more in the interests of emerging economies than acting. Instead let us merely note that these fantastical assertions are what informs the immediately following paragraph:

How forlorn in light of all this looks that would-be well-meaning 300-page document in which the Pope, under the spell of his chief scientific adviser, a fanatical German climate activist called Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, calls for an end to use of the very fossil fuels which keep the Vatican’s own lights on.

So...the crack about the Vatican lights is completely superfluous to the wider context and to the argument that (a) it's not us and (b) if it is, it's too hard to agree to solve and (c) if it's not too hard to get agreement it will be too painful for some of us if we agree, so fuck it. In other words, the crack about the Vatican lights functions pretty much as I characterised it above.

But wait, it gets worse. That paragraph continues with a bit you left out:

In asking us to pray for that global climate treaty, Pope Francis solemnly trots out all those familiar plaints about “melting polar ice caps”, “rising sea levels”, unprecedented droughts, “extreme weather events” and the rest of that greenie litany which has no basis in honest science whatever.

Lies and the lying liars who loudly shout them from their media platforms, eh? He goes on:

The outside world is no longer listening to this claptrap.

This is interesting not so much because "claptrap" almost entirely counterfactual, but because the public surveys say otherwise. Booker's media role is to advocate for what he wishes reality (and public opinion) to be, not what it is, even if that means writing complete fantasies and hoping the gullible and the low information voters buy them.

Reality itself is now knocking loudly at the door.

Yes, that's what people have been trying to point out to him for some time, without success.

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

I’ve noticed that with the other Deltoids as well. The “Pause”/”Hiatus” for example, it’s very important to you all that these is at least “some warming” and if it’s possible to adjust some in, by hundredths of a degree, you all cheer – the fact that the models systematically over cast/are running way too hot completely passes you by.

When your physics incompetence becomes too obvious, or one talking point becomes obviously untenable, then the Gish Gallop must continue even if it means returning to a long dead zombie talking point, eh?!

How about you save us all some time and simply lay out the Gish Gallop as a sequence of numbered items, and when you need to move away from the current point you can simply write a one line comment indicating which point number you wish to move on to next?

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

It's quite obvious why the deniers now loathe the pope: they no longer are able to use God to excuse their insanity, since the top authority on it for over a billion people say otherwise.

"God would not let it flood again, saith the bible!" says Inholfe, and a million god believers believe him.

"Load of bollocks, it's happening" says the Pope, and most of the same people have the same reasons to believe him.

That's gotta hurt deniers.

"economic suicide”

????

What alarmists these deniers are!

Loth, isn't it interesting how corporate hacks like Booker feel as if they are the sole arbiters of honest science? Forget the fact that his so called 'litany' is spported by a vast amount of empirical evidence that he can dismiss with vacuous musings; he can merely wish it away in his filtered role at a corporate rag.

GSW, SD and other deniers get away with promulgating the bilge they rehash from long discredited sources because they are anonymous entities on blogs. They can preach their empty gospels as if these debates begin and end on the blogosphere.

Thankfully they don't. The scientific community accepts AGW as a very real and profoudly serious threat to humanity and the biosphere. As the evidence continues to mount, expect the corporate hacks and shills to mount ever more vocal attacks on the scientific community as well as on those pressing for real change. Booker's and Ridley's rants are actually symbolic of their desperation as their own myopic intellectual islands continue to shrink.

I will soon submit an article to Science or Nature on how denier blogs, think tanks and their supporters in the corporate media systematically distort the science of polar bear demographics. It is the work of one of my Master's students and its a real eye-opener. Describing these sources as an echo chamber is a massive understatement. Although all signs clearly show that we are pushing our ecological life support systems towards the brink, the fact that the denialosphere is in retreat is one major point of optimism.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 21 Jun 2015 #permalink

More gobbledegook from you Loth,

"So…the crack about the Vatican lights is completely superfluous to the wider context and to the argument that (a) it’s not us and (b) if it is, it’s too hard to agree to solve and (c) if it’s not too hard to get agreement it will be too painful for some of us if we agree, so fuck it. In other words, the crack about the Vatican lights functions pretty much as I characterised it above."

I've no idea what your talking about Loth. Obviously you're obsessing about the how, whether and why, of the Pope's lights and it's become a fester point de jour for you. Other than that clarity, I think you've lost it. :)

Oh yeah and the "Lies and the lying liars", from Fibland presumably :) , that deride the vacuous Green Litany expressed in the encyclical, where did that come from? Even BBD accepts that we're decades away from attributing "extreme weather events" to the failed CAGW theory. Before you go calling other "Liars", take a look at the shoddy constructions of your fellow Deltards
:)

"I’ve no idea what your talking about Loth."

Yes, and that's either

a) PEBKAC on your end of the internet
b) you don't want to

"Obviously you’re obsessing about the how, whether and why, of the Pope’s lights..."

Obviously, you were the only one to bring it up here, Lotharsson only responded to your post on it.

#45 Do you know why "we’re decades away from attributing “extreme weather events” to AGW? [sorry, I translated your frraming at the end there from batshit crazy to rational]

You can start talking sense, or does your 'science' stop at the Booker / Ridley level?

For more on vacuous Green litany, see Rev. Peter Owen-Jones, Sunday Morning Live.
;)

The lady from the Evangelical Alliance thinks Climate Change is a women's issue, in particular, human trafficking and FGM. - The Green's don't seem have the monopoly on loonie litanies the evangelicals have theirs too.

...they no longer are able to use God to excuse their insanity...

Got it in one.

What alarmists these deniers are!

Bazinga!

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

"For those in the UK, "

We already live there.

We know what's going on, dearie. We also know Dull Old Pole is a vapid windbag who has gotten his employers in hot water several times (unrepentantly) for his lies and fabrications.

"failed CAGW theory"

Denier belief in CAGW demonstrated again.

Stu2 well I don't know what your definition of academia is but this is what the OED says: The environment or community concerned with the pursuit of research, education, and scholarship: so could you please explain your claim: Science does not exclusively belong to or come from academia. because I'm finding it difficult to envisage science without research, education, and scholarship.

Oh then again maybe you mean "blog science " such as WUWT, JoNo, CA etc in which case your confusion is understandable.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 21 Jun 2015 #permalink

Been fun on twitter this morning, this tweet from Tom Nelson

https://twitter.com/tan123/status/612569202524721152

Pope's advisor a bullshitter according to ClimateGate emails,

"I just read that Schellnhuber got an OBE!!!! I didn't know you got those for spouting bullshit, but I guess that's how far standards have fallen. Pretty amazing..."
;)

I’ve no idea what your talking about Loth.

We noticed. And yet you're sure I'm misguided or wrong.

Astounding!

Even BBD accepts that we’re decades away from attributing “extreme weather events” to the failed CAGW theory. Before you go calling other “Liars”, take a look at the shoddy constructions of your fellow Deltards

I note the careful omission of all the really obvious Booker lies in your response, the introduction of the next Gish Gallop point (#37 in the Canonical Cycle), followed (apparently) by the rather generous assumption that Booker was talking not about the severity or preponderance of any types of extreme weather events being exacerbated by climate change but rather the attribution of specific extreme events to climate change.

I also note that you appear to be unaware of recent literature in this area (which itself is a generous interpretation), some of which does indeed estimate the change in chances of certain recent extreme events due to climate change - which is both consistent with the notion that we are decades away from doing this for some types or severities of events AND gives the lie to your claim that this is not possible at all.

But most of all I notice you implicitly sign up to the notion that claims should be based on evidence, but give Booker a complete pass on all the counter-factual claims he makes.

I'd wonder why that is, but the reason is obvious...

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

For those in the UK, today’s Sunday Morning Live debate on the Pope’s Encyclical with James Delingpole.

ROFL! From Booker to the even more perpetually wrong Delingpole!

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

Denier belief in CAGW demonstrated again.

Fucking alarmists.

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

Nick, in answer to your question, GSWs 'science' stops with Booker, Ridley, Watts, Delingpole, Nova ad nauseum. In other words, shill science. The primary literature is nowhere in sight, nor are the conclusions of every major Academy, University or Institute on the planet.

This explains why idiots like him end up as detritus on blogs. They have nowhere else to go.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 21 Jun 2015 #permalink

Been fun on twitter this morning, this tweet from Tom Nelson

If you can't rebut the Pope's positions, ad hom the Pope. If you can't ad hom the Pope ad him his advisor, preferably by citing someone else bitching about him. After all, everything those guys say is 100% God's unimpeachable truth, right? Even the parts where they say that the world is clearly warming quite a bit due to mankind and here's the evide...

...oh, wait, not those bits. They are complete liars who fraudulently made all that shit up and conspired with thousands of others to keep the fraud from the gullible public by publishing scientific papers and shit and we don't trust a single word that comes out of their mo...

...er, we have complete trust in whatever they say, honest! And here's a great example of our complete trust - look at this quote about Shellnhuber and forget all of that other unpleasantness - "character assassination" is such an ugly term - based on exactly the same document collection!

(And no, we're obsessing about trivia just like GSW alleges of others! Why would you think that?!)

Superb pie-in-their-own-face clown trolling, that. Sunspot would be proud. Sadly slapstick like that is way too sophisticated for GSW to get the humour.

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

The fact that GSW and SD recommend the likes of Ridley, Booker, Deilingpole and Steele also shows how simple their mindsets are. Everybody who reads this blog by now is fully aware that these people have no credentials and are driven by their own warped political idealogy. This simple fact continually eludes them - or does it?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 21 Jun 2015 #permalink

# 56, etc.

From Coal Miner Ridley to Press Council Regular Booker to Don't Read The Science Delingpole to Obscure Shill Nelson is going nowhere, slow. GSW is a bit slow. Yes, dear, there are 'commentators' whose job is to make noise. Noise they make, all singing the same 'song'. They are not obliged to get stuff right, only demand that the rest of the world should, on behalf of permanently aggrieved little pillocks like yourself. Isn't that kind of them?

Also, anyone looking at Shellnhuber's professional history and publication record might consider that the quotes in the tweet in question were quite possibly about a specific subset of climate science that those quoted work within, and might note that those quoted do not publish in most of the areas mentioned in that potted history and hence either weren't referring to it or weren't competent to dismiss it.

Readers would also note that quotes from the ClimateGate documents shorn of key context have been previously deployed to mislead readers, and wonder whether this is happening again here.

Tom Nelson might prove to be misdirecting the unskeptical and gullible here which describes GSW to a tee.

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

I've still no idea what you festering on about Loth. The whole "Keeping the lights" on thing earlier -Are you now good with the idea that Booker's article was not primarily about the Pope's lights? You were confused about this before and you are now good with it(?).

As for "extreme weather events", others here, BBD for example, have been very clear that, even according to failed CAGW theory, we will not be able to detect increases in "extreme weather events" for decades (from memory BBD had it at the second half of the century).

I'm conscious I'm having a conversation with something akin to a vegetable, but are you claiming that the thing that cannot be detected, you have detected, and it's happening now?

Looking forward to your paper in Nature.
;)

"preferably by citing someone else bitching about him"

Stupid does the same thing: say someone else says something, and if it's wrong, you can't show it is, because HE never said it, so he doesn't know if your proof of error in it is valid.

"I’ve still no idea what you festering on about Loth."

You still refuse, then.

Plus what do you mean "festering on about"? It makes no sense.

"even according to failed CAGW theory"

Denier belief of CAGW being demonstrated again.

The whole “Keeping the lights” on thing earlier -Are you now good with the idea that Booker’s article was not primarily about the Pope’s lights?

I never said it was primarily about that, so the confusion you think I exhibited is yours, dear.

...we will not be able to detect increases in “extreme weather events” for decades...

So, you're trying to shift the goalposts away from what I specifically said, eh? Or are you merely confused by straightforward English again?

I’m conscious I’m having a conversation with something akin to a vegetable...

Remember, folks, it's always projection!

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

Loth, after demolishing Lomborg in various places the right wing went after Stuart Pimm and me with vigor. Lomborg's puerile shallow (and politically naive) views were easy to debunk, but Lomborg never aimed his books or arguments at academia or at experts in the various fields he covers superficially. They were aimed at the general public - people like GSW - who swallowed them whole because they conformed nicely with their own inherent political perspectives, and damn the truth.

Scientists have always been the main targets of deniers and anti-environmentalists because we are not only the ones doing the research but scientists by and large are trusted by society. So when we argue that the current do inant economic system is destroying ecosystems across the biosphere upon which we depend in a myriad of ways, then the messengers are attacked. I am used to it by now. Look at jonas, confined to his own thread on Deltoid for 2 years now, and GSWs hero. Nowadays he contributes occasional mutterings there, aimed primrily at me. Its simply because I am a qualified scientist, and he isn't, and also because he truly thinks a formal education is not a pre-requisite for knowledge or expertise. Yet read some of his earlier posts and they are so utterly simple that they are truly funny. Egged on by his poodle, GSW, he still spews out the odd empty musing.

What is clear is that climate change deniers for the most part constitute an army of ignorance. Few if any are qualified researchers, and many of those who are at least on the academic fringe, like Willie Soon, are in the corporate payroll.

What's interesting is how they try and give the impression that the most important science is not done in universities or institutes but in blogs. They all do it. And they also appear to think that souces like Quadrant, The Telegraph etc. are honest and reliable. If they truly belueve this then they are more ignirant than I thought.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 21 Jun 2015 #permalink

" the quotes in the tweet in question were quite possibly about a specific subset of climate science that those quoted work within, and might note that those quoted do not publish in most of the areas mentioned "

Your over thinking it Loth - someone made just made a comment about Schellnhuber being a bullshitter - they didn't qualify it with an "outside his field of expertise" statement.

It's not difficult loth, and you're making a meal of it as usual
;)

"Your over thinking it Loth"

Ah, I see. You're admitting that it isn't good to think, and that you have to stop thinking for it to work.

Dumbass.

Your over thinking it Loth – someone made just made a comment about Schellnhuber being a bullshitter – they didn’t qualify it with an “outside his field of expertise” statement.

Never said they did. A context may be set for the interpretation of a remark without a specific qualification as you would know if you had listened to your high school English teachers. If that's the case then omitting the context can be used to mislead readers - which happened in spades when the ClimateGate faux scandal was whipped up (including by one of those cited in the tweet you mentioned, if I'm not mistaken).

The skeptical reader and the reader who doesn't wish to be gullible alike would not assume that sources like that were honestly representing the source material.

But you apparently do.

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

It’s not difficult loth, and you’re making a meal of it as usual

You got that half right.

It's really not difficult to see where the clear issues and the potentially significant omissions lie that indicate the claims being made probably don't stack up. But pointing out the obvious is not "making a meal of it" - it is so obvious that it barely qualifies as a snack.

I submit that the people working very very hard to create the propaganda in the first place are the ones making the meals of things here. You're looking in the wrong direction for meal makers.

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

"They all do it. And they also appear to think that souces like Quadrant, The Telegraph etc. are honest and reliable."

As opposed to HotWhopper, Desmog, Guardian etc that you lot fawn over.

Anyway Jeff, I'd have thought you would be too busy out poisoning young minds with tales of "transnational elites", evil corporations attempting to destroy your Purity Of Essence, witnessing climate change first hand and spiders etc.to participate in this sort of thing.

How is the environmental advocacy going? still managing to earn a living at it?
;)

"I’d have thought you would be too busy out poisoning young minds with tales of “transnational elites”"

Aren't you deniers the one going on about international elites at the IPCC???

"As opposed to HotWhopper, Desmog, Guardian etc that you lot fawn over. "

Yet you still refuse to show from a site that you think authoritative where Gavin said as you claimed regarding 1934 temps...

So you're saying you're Poe'ing us now?

"What is clear is that climate change deniers for the most part constitute an army of ignorance."

Nah, a platoon. At most.

And all convinced they're the sergeant.

As opposed to HotWhopper, Desmog, Guardian etc that you lot fawn over.

More projection.

As it happens I posted a comment at HotWhopper a couple of hours before you wrote your comment wherein I pointed out an apparent error in an article there. That is the opposite of "fawning over it" or presuming it to be accurate.

The reason some of those sites get cited here more often is that experience has shown that they mostly cite good evidence and generally tend to correct errors when they are pointed out - and because it is clear from examining enough of their output that they are not a pre-determined conclusion in search of a means to mislead the gullible, unlike most of your favourite sources.

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

Another reason for it is that Garry Glitter and his gang demands proof.

Then whines because he doesn't trust the source. Then does the same damn thing himself. Then continues to complain about anyone else posting links.

...it’s very important to you all that these is at least “some warming”

Actually, it's the opposite - we'd all rather that there was no warming, but unfortunately is is.

Oh, I know that you beg to differ so let me run this past you - last year was the hottest year since 1880, ergo it's warming. Last month was the hottest May since May last year, which was at that time the hottest May in the temperature record. Ergo, it's warming.

OK?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 21 Jun 2015 #permalink

Actually, it’s the opposite – we’d all rather that there was no warming, but unfortunately [it] is.

This.

Denialists want reality to conform to their position which seems to explain much of their stated opposition to scientific understanding. It's astounding how often they project "you are just taking that position because you want it to be true" on to people citing scientific evidence (often by trying to cast their beliefs as "religious" or some such) when those people fervently wish the evidence pointed the other way.

And then pretend it's not the case or ignore it when you point it out.

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

GSW

I personally don’t know anybody who’s concerned about Global Warming now – it’s taken a while. but the consensus seems to be that the risks/dire warnings have been overstated.

Damned fool you, here:

One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise.

Now you do know about someone, but can you tell us who wrote that, here is a clue:

The time has come to write a book about efforts being made to minimize the seriousness of environmental problems. We call these attempts the ‘brownlash’ because they help to fuel a backlash against ‘green’ policies. The brownlash has been generated by a diverse group of individuals and organizations, doubtless often with differing motives and backgrounds. We classify them as brownlashers by what they say, not by who they are. With strong and appealing messages, they have successfully sowed seeds of doubt among journalists, policy makers, and the public at large about the reality and importance of such phenomena as overpopulation, global climate change, ozone depletion, and losses of biodiversity.

That Tom Nelson is some 'intellectual' ain't he, notrickszone, bishophill, The Register and Breitbart - class climate science from him then - NOT, unless you are Abbotts other brain cell.

GSW

As for “extreme weather events”, others here, BBD for example, have been very clear that, even according to failed CAGW theory, we will not be able to detect increases in “extreme weather events” for decades (from memory BBD had it at the second half of the century).

It would help if you were to quote exactly what I wrote. I suspect that you are misrepresenting me.

I may have said that fractional attribution of extreme weather events to AGW is currently impossible and likely to remain so for some time (a few decades) but I doubt that I said that the frequency (and intensity) of extreme weather events will not increase over the coming decades because that is not my understanding at all.

GSW

I am so 'self-obsessed' to quote your meaningless quip that my views are shared by >95% of my colleagues in the Earth and environmental science community. Yeh, that's really self-obsessed. You truly are a piece or work - in all of my career you rank near the top in terms of self-righteous vacuity. Well done!

What is even more ironic (well it would be if GSW had even a scintilla of common sense, which he doesn't) is that those he slavishly fawns over - the Booker's, Ridley's, Delingpole's, et al. (even Deltoid's own resident loony, Jonas) - possess the biggest, most bloated egos one could imagine. Moreover, the word 'loon' fits the lost of them to a tee. Its too bad that GSW is so profoundly blinded by his own far-right libertarian blinkers that he cannot see his hand in front of his face.

The one thing I would like to ask you GSW - that is if you can understand it - is why do you write in here? Nobody aside from your hero, Jonas, and a few other similarly challenged deniers like SD agrees with you on anything. Your comments are loathed and ridiculed, and ritually demolished. I can understand why you wallow in BH. CA, WUWT etc., where you are part of a small army of sycophantic idiots, but here? The majority of us are laughing at you. Are you that much into ritual self-humuliation?

Moreover, I don't fawn over any blogs; I do, however tend to support the empirical data and the broad consensus as demonstrated by the joint statements of every major scientific body on Earth. Your comment about Hot Whopper, DeSmog was another own goal in a game full of them. You just don't geddit. You think that science is solely done on blogs. Is that it? Are you really that dumb?

Finally, on an intellectual level you are a minnow. You certainly don't intimidate me one iota. You'll have to do better that to continually link to the brazen shite that you do on Deltoid to up the ante even slightly.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 21 Jun 2015 #permalink

GSW.

I asked you a very simple and short question at #84. Are you too scared to answer it?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 21 Jun 2015 #permalink

@ # 55.
Very good but here are a few well recognised and similar definitions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia
"Academia is the internationally recognized establishment of professional scholars and students, usually centered around colleges and universities, who are engaged in higher education and research."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/academia
" noun1.
The definition of academia is the world within an educational community.
An example of academia is a college, its students,and its teachers"
or:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/academia
or:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/academia
Notice a recurring theme here?
So if we go back to the context of 'the real world of academia' and the original question to Wow I think your comment here:
" because I’m finding it difficult to envisage science without research, education, and scholarship."
Is not really relevant to this one:
" Science does not exclusively belong to or come from academia. "
Other than perhaps you have partly dealt with the 'why' part of the original question?

Stu2 is of course referring to the vast amount of break-through scientific research that has been carried out by the likes of (non-Academes) Christopher Monckton, Piers Corbyn, James Inhofe and Spangled Drongo.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 21 Jun 2015 #permalink

Did I forget to mention David Archibald, John Daly, Warwick Hughes, Walter Stark, and John McLean?

Sum total of the scientific contributions by all these people, frequently touted by the Denialists = nil? Or is it a negative amount, reflecting the disinformational nature of their opinions?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 21 Jun 2015 #permalink

Not to forget the zero contribution to knowledge stupid managed, Craig!

He acts like SCO in their farcical claims against Linux with their "Negative knowledge is copyrighted by us, and they STOLE IT!!!!".

No Craig Thomas.
Stu 2 is referring to 'academics' or 'academes' (ie lots & lots & lots) who work in the 'other real world' outside of 'academia'.
That includes scientists.
I work with some.

Stu2's persistent waffle reminds me of what Steve Martin says to John Candy in the film, "Planes, Trains and Automobiles".

"if you're gonna keep saying soMEthing, HAVE A POINT".

Like he often does, Stu2 is rambling on and on and on about nothing. Pedantics. The discussion over academia here is pointless. Most of the world's best academics work in universities or research bodies. Not all, but most. But also one has to question the term 'academic'. For instance, on Fb pages and elsewhere on the internet, Bjorn Lomborg is consistently referred to as an academic... when if one meets and listens to his garbage they will see that its hardly academic stuff but a polemic and that he's no academic.

Having a degree - even a PhD - does not confer wisdom on someone. It is what you do with it that matters. There are a lot of dopes out there with PhDs. So this whole discussion by Stu2 is crap.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 22 Jun 2015 #permalink

“Even the Onion wouldn’t publish this”:

Oh my, if that was a Poe it would fail because it's too obvious.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 22 Jun 2015 #permalink

Stu 2 is referring to ‘academics’ or ‘academes’ (ie lots & lots & lots) who work in the ‘other real world’ outside of ‘academia’.

In other news, Stu 2 is referring to 'hospital residents' who work in 'the other real world' outside of 'hospital'.

Stu 2 is referring to 'bank tellers' who work in 'the other real world' outside of 'banks'.

Stu 2 is referring to 'council workers' who work in 'the other real world' outside of 'the council'.

Feel free to add your own versions...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 22 Jun 2015 #permalink

“if you’re gonna keep saying soMEthing, HAVE A POINT”.

This, however, would require more effort than Stupid wants to put into this.

Like a Gish Gallop, but without the effort of trying to have something to say more than the word count.

After all, if he made a point, it could be proved (unnecessary, stupid KNOWS he's right, no need for proof) or (his fear) disproved.

As long as he doesn't make a point, he can't be shown wrong, proving he's always right (because there's nothing other than those two choices).

Cue Stu 2 deploying the term "just semantics", probably in conjunction with "quibbling"...

...in 3...2...1...

;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 22 Jun 2015 #permalink

Perhaps we should call it the Santa pause…

While we're on that article, remember when GSW projects a desire for warming that translates into allegedly false claims of warming onto people who point out that the data (regrettably) shows quite a bit of warming? That desperation for a pause is arguably the source behaviour that is being projected - pretending that the data shows what one desires, regardless of whether it does or not.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 22 Jun 2015 #permalink

Page 6 #78 Stu asked Perhaps you could ask yourself who or what supports the world of academia and then add the how and why ?

Perhaps Stu could ask all those scientists he knows how they became scientists without academia? You know without college, university, education or research?

By turboblocke (not verified) on 22 Jun 2015 #permalink

If anyone wishes to indulge their inner Monty Python... what has academia ever done for us?

By turboblocke (not verified) on 22 Jun 2015 #permalink

So a query to any Americans out there for their personal assessment, or to non-USians for their view as an outsider:

What is it with the Freedom of Speech in the USA?

Not the idea of it, just about everywhere (INCLUDING China, remember) have statutes for enshrining the freedom of speech, but the idea of USians that only that which is defined as Free Speech in the USA is the definition of Free Speech as per dictionary.

In particular, anything restricting free speech as defined in the USA done by any other country is "abominable" or some other hyperbolic dramatisation.

Take, for example, China. They have enshrined freedom of speech in law. NOT "Oh but they ignore it" law, but the law that is law in China and they do follow, at least as well as any other country does. It just doesn't cover many things.

For USians, this means that the law is reprehensible, because it covers things that they think must be free. But that's only by US law. China have laws and they are what many in China WANT to be law.

This is the reason I pick China. They, the people, in general, think that the government are protecting them from being harassed. The censorship is, for them, no different from us being protective of children by banning grooming or depicting children in a sexual way.

Because this goes the other way too: private industry and private gatherings can restrict free speech in their areas, even if open to the public, because they're not government. Note: NOT because it isn't a restriction on free speech, because if it were, then it would be fine for government to do it. SOLELY because it's not government doing it.

Now, if it were recognised as such, I would have no problem. I think China have the wrong laws, but so does the USA. And the UK.

A peculiar difference *from my experience* is that when discussing, say, UK libel law, described as horrific restrictions, the argument isn't "I think the law is wrong, for $X reason", it's invariably "I think the law is wrong because it's not a restriction that the US constitution allows!".

As if the very definition of free speech is defined by that single article.

Doubling down, even those so very against the idea of holding on to a belief without independent verifiable reasons, a la Matt Dillahunty, with the "It is just that this isn't Free Speech restriction because it isn't *government* doing it, which is what Free Speech is about: government interference in the speech of its people!".

Which is entirely the same thing as "Our constitution defines it that way", but pretending that the definition the constitution makes justifying the ban's limits is separately the definition.

And nothing shifts the USians who have gripes about laws "restricting free speech" elsewhere that I've conversed with.

So, to USians
a) Why is the USA's definition the only definition
b) Is that confirmation bias, and I've been "unlucky" in the limited pool I've been exposed to
c) Do you have a separate reason why the US constitution definition of what is and is not a restriction to free speech that doesn't just loop right back to "It's the definition we use"?

For non-USians:
a) Did you have those problems, or have I been running a confirmation bias?
b) Have you had any success in getting a different definition?
c) Do you have a better definition of a fair restriction of free speech that ought to be a benchmark of a "very basic minimum or maximum range" of what you can and can't be allowed to do that is merely communicative or intellectual, rather than physical?

The reason for the physical is that it's fairly easy to denote what should at minimum guide your laws there: are you unnecessarily harming another? Have you defined unnecessary in a way that can be justified? is something case law can answer, because that can change based on social norms of group v individual rights.

Ta.

Boy, you really have nothing else to do, do you? Go outside and prune a shrub or something...

Oh boy, betty, whataboutery? Why are you inside posting how I should be outside, hmm? Not got anything better to do than something even less better to do than what you claim I am doing?

@#4
Yes of course.
To become a scientist you need to be educated.
Who claimed otherwise?
That is not the point.
Where do most people with a tertiary education end up?
Why do most people pursue an education?
Where do you think most scientists & others are now?
@#2
No need Lotharsson.
You quite obviously spotted the 'fallacy' you created all by yourself.

You quite obviously spotted the ‘fallacy’ you created all by yourself.

Oh my, one can only laugh in disbelief.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 22 Jun 2015 #permalink

Stu2 says,
"Stu 2 is referring to ‘academics’ or ‘academes’ (ie lots & lots & lots) who work in the ‘other real world’ outside of ‘academia’.
That includes scientists.
I work with some."

The scientists in my extended family are evenly split between working within academic institutions and working outside of them.
Those who work outside of academia probably have the longer and more notable publishing record.

And here's the crux of it: within/without academia, what actually counts is this:
- do they conduct science research?
- do they publish the results of science research?

And *that* is the difference between actual scientists, and kooky gibberers who feel the need to put "IPCC expert reviewer" on their resumes.
Not to mention dishonest idiots who add a fake "PhD" to their resumes....

But scraping out the barrel is what denial is all about: they aren't interested in the science, they are interested solely in predetermined opinion, no matter how misbegotten, and any politically-compliant source, no matter how unqualified.

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

…kooky gibberers…

That’s what they are, and that’s all that they are.

Global warming/climate change deniers are no different to people who think that they see alien flying saucers or ghosts. Some of them actually believe that they have witnessed something real, and others are just along for the ride, but when push comes to shove and the evidence is dissected nothing substantial ever remains. With the advent of ubiquitous digital cameras one would expect that the rash of ‘UFO’ sightings from the 60s through to the 90s would have been thoroughly documented by now, but there’s zip. Same with ghosts and other paranormal manifestations. Zip.

And when one pokes at the Denialati’s “science” with the actual, real tools of science there is in fact… zip.

But just like the alien abductee, the seer of the departed, or the miraculously cured patient of a homeopath, the deniers will steadfastly claim that they are correct and that the rest of the world – the experts, the professionals - are wrong. And these deniers will continue to behave thus even though their ‘evidence’ is always shown to be doctored or misunderstood…

“They wuz green I tells ya, green, wiv antenas an’ ray guns and probes that they put up my bottom…”

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 22 Jun 2015 #permalink

Gob Smacked Wacko and Oily Putrid...

Priceless!

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 23 Jun 2015 #permalink

Interesting that the GWPF has attempted to stiffen the resolve of our fracking fanatics in the UK by having Judith Curry deliver a piece aimed at Preaching to Uncertainty in the UK House of Lords.

UK Climate Deniers Invite American Sceptic Judith Curry to Speak in the House of Lords

The PDF up at the GWPFs orc-pit is not encouraging, she includes a not properly cited graph by Ed Hawkins here (found after searching IPCC AR5 in vain for an exact match) and another by Roger Pielke Jr. and one by Ryan Maue.

Looking that last one up, Maue, was interesting, seems a favourite at the likes of WUWT, ClimateFraudit and ClimateDe(s)pot. Quote from that latter:

Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue of Weather Bell tweeted on Kaku: He’s ‘like a festering wound on field of meteorology, Michio Kaku says ‘we think’ harsh winter is due to global warming,” Maue wrote.

"Kaku has no effing clue what he is talking about – ‘unstable jet stream’ -- huh? How could someone supposedly so learned sound so doltish?,” Maue asked on Feburary 13, 2014.

Well with that Maue has blasted both feet.

Oh Dear Juddy! Is that the best you could find?

Kaku and Ryan have some history, from 2011,

"Climate expert Michio Kaku: “El Niña” or global warming causing snowstorms, or something"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/02/climate-expert-michio-kaku-el-nin…

"And, someone tell Kaku that El Niña does not exist. Go back to talking about aliens and supervolcanoes on Coast to Coast AM instead of trying to raise your profile, push your book, and make money off of the extreme cold weather hurting millions of Americans. West of the Rockies…"

I think Kaku turned up for the show and was asked about something he clearly knew nothing about. Video here,

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7309611n

"However, when you combine an all-knowing theoretical physcist with a book to push and the liberal media, you get more than garbage — you get “unadulterated trash”."

Which it was.
;)

FFS GobSmacked

We have been through this before and you drag something out of Watt's back passage. Here try this again read this report

and the three parts of this.

And while you are there study other articles and try to learn something by paying attention to scientists and not a non-graduate weather pretender.

Kaku clearly misspoke but with El Nina but ENSO is a factor in natural variability but at the root of this feature is building heat in the oceans. ENSO is a symptom of global warming which is bringing about climate change.

"Kaku clearly misspoke but with El Nina"

Yes he did.

"ENSO is a symptom of global warming which is bringing about climate change."

Not it's not you cabbage. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!
;)

I love this.

"Not it’s not you cabbage."

Yes it is you moron!

Of course ENSO is affected by an increase in the amount of energy in the climate system.

A primary attribute of ENSO is the rapid redistribution of energy between the Equatorial Pacific (specifically the West Pacific Warm Pool) and the troposphere.

So in a sense it is both driven and a driver.

Kaku mis-spoke but Watts is just a fucking clown.

"If you’re traveling at 80mph, how long does it take you to go 80 miles?"

Well, Garry Glitter So What wonders why anyone should draw a conclusion from answering that dumb and irrelevant question.

Then leaps to a conclusion he wanted to make.

Just like he does for asian boys.

"How could someone supposedly so learned sound so doltish?,”

Figured the same thing about Maue.

Then I figured they weren't so learned.

If you’re traveling at 80mph, how long does it take you to go 80 miles?

One and a half hours because.........

Now figure out why the because.

Kaku mis-spoke but Watts is just a fucking clown.

The only posts laden with more amusement than Griselda thinking it's being clever are those where its threadbare heroes (williwatts/Jonarse/Montford) are touted as the clever ones.

@#12.
I actually agree with your comment.
The 'real world' would indeed have employed the more talented.
There are also highly talented and highly qualified people who run their own businesses.
Many other highly qualified people work in state of the art labs and research centres that are not 'academia'.
Many of course work in mining, agriculture, food processing, exploration, medicine, vetinary, marine & etc.
They do indeed conduct research & publish results.
Unfortunately 'kooky gibberers' reside in lots of places, including in 'academia'.

Unfortunately ‘kooky gibberers’ reside in lots of places, including in ‘academia’

And in NRM, and on WUWT, and in the federal Australian government, and on morning talkback radio, and in News Corp, and...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 23 Jun 2015 #permalink

Luckily - we have peer review: if they gibber, they get caught out.

...hence Lomborg's appearance before the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty.

...hence McIntyre & Mackitrick's inability to get anything published outside of joke-mags.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 23 Jun 2015 #permalink

"Lionel A

June 23, 2015
If you’re traveling at 80mph, how long does it take you to go 80 miles?

One and a half hours because………

Now figure out why the because."

Huh?

It takes about 1 millisecond to travel 80 miles.
Unless you ignore the speed of the galaxy, in which case it takes about .7second to go 80 miles, unless you ignore the speed of the Sun, in which case it takes about 4.5 seconds to travel 80 miles, unless you ignore the speed of Earth, in which case it takes about 5 minutes to travel 80 miles (at the equator, longer as you get close to the pole), unless you ignore the rotational speed of the surface we are stuck to by gravity in which case it should take you 60 minutes.

Of course, only complete retards use senseless and archaic measuring systems such as "miles"...

Anyway, GSW's point was...what? exactly? I often find it close to impossible to understand the gibberers....

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 23 Jun 2015 #permalink

Stu2, if, as you assert, those residing "in the real world", "do indeed conduct research & publish results.", then WhyTF are you lot constantly reduced to quoting unpublished non-research from the likes of Walter Stark, David Archibald, David Evans, John McLean, Lubos Motl, Lomborg, Tol, Howard Brady and Murry Salby?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 23 Jun 2015 #permalink

Well said Craig: Stu2's real world is based on the views of just about every crank out there; few are bonafide academics with true stature in any fields. This is about sums up the denier mindset.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 24 Jun 2015 #permalink

Jeff Harvey
Bona fide academics?
Like Derek Jensen and DGR do you mean?
It does seem that 'published' as in a book or at a public website like hotwhopper or SKS or in the Guardian or whatever is fine by the regulars here if it matches what you must view as your side
as opposed to what you call 'deniers', but clearly not OK from
others who do indeed possess bona fide academic
qualifications including PhDs when they do the same?
For example, what's wrong with Judith Currie's qualifications or
Humlums or David Evans & etc?
And yes Bernard J.
I did say 'lots of places' - including academia.

I quoted an OP from Walter Starck .
He too possesses a PhD in Marine biology and has spent most of his career outside academia.
If I wanted to know something about coral reefs or perhaps dolphins I would perhaps ask him.
I did find his perspective about 'academic pissing contests' in the OP quite amusing.

I did say ‘lots of places’ – including academia.

I think the point (unsurprisingly) passed over your head.

It was a qualitative comparison. And an indictment.

But let's cut to the chase. Who exactly would you list in the top 100 climate researchers? Justify with reference to their work.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 Jun 2015 #permalink

Stu2

It's not about whether or not someone has a PhD.

It's about whether they are writing utter and complete bollocks wrt climate change.

Eg. Humlum and Curry.

Stu2

See Bernard J, just above:

Who exactly would you list in the top 100 climate researchers? Justify with reference to their work.

IIRC this question has been asked before and no answer was forthcoming. Let's try again.

Stu2

If I wanted to know something about coral reefs or perhaps dolphins I would perhaps ask him.
I did find his perspective about ‘academic pissing contests’ in the OP quite amusing.

Why? Stark is a nobody. He's never even been in an academic pissing contest (which he would doubtless have lost) because he is a non-entity.

And he is not outside the tent pissing in. He is outside the tent being entirely and justifiably ignored by the bona fide academic community.

Craig

“Lionel A

June 23, 2015
If you’re traveling at 80mph, how long does it take you to go 80 miles?

One and a half hours because………

Now figure out why the because.”

Huh?

There could be a number of qualifiers here.

If the statement is WRT 'how the crow flies' then the answer may obvious but even then there are a number of qualifiers, see last point..

For example if there was a large bend between the end points, or a big hill, then the mileage on the ground would be more than 80 miles so time would be more.

Another one is in the case of flying. One may be flying at 80 mph airspeed but if there is a headwind, say of twenty mph, then the time taken to cover the ground distance of 80 miles is greater. Of course if there was a tail wind then the time would be shorter. This is a part of the rationale for the different transatlantic flight paths East and West.

Stu2's question, apart from a red herring, is incompletely formed for a simple answer.

Stu2, if, as you assert, those residing “in the real world”, “do indeed conduct research & publish results.”, then WhyTF are you lot constantly reduced to quoting unpublished non-research from the likes of Walter Stark, David Archibald, David Evans, John McLean, Lubos Motl, Lomborg, Tol, Howard Brady and Murry Salby?

Indeed!

Hence Stu 2's ongoing flailing attempts to conflate the category of researchers publishing peer-reviewed research that is relevant to the claims being made with some other category that incorporates non-researchers in that field. This is sometimes attempted by adopting a rather idiosyncratic definition of "academic", other times by conflating "person with scientific credentials of some kind" with "research scientist with demonstrable research expertise in the relevant field".

More importantly, this is coupled with an attempt to focus the argument away from the defensibility of the claims themselves and on to the "credentials" of those making them (and snide "pissing contest" comments serve that purpose). Speaking of which:

For example, what’s wrong with Judith Currie’s qualifications or Humlums or David Evans & etc?

Ironically, Evans' credentials are essentially non-existent with respect to climate science so even if you ignore BBD's trenchant reply pointing out that Stu 2 conveniently (and repeatedly!) misinterprets the basis of our objections to their claims and simply accept that his faux-credibility argument is the right question to ask, then even that argument fails.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 24 Jun 2015 #permalink

It does seem that ‘published’ as in a book or at a public website like hotwhopper or SKS or in the Guardian or whatever is fine by the regulars here if it matches what you must view as your side

It might seem like that to those who have no idea how to assess the evidence or the defensibility of a scientific claim whether presented directly or cited in a book/website/newspaper/blog post, and simply project that lack on to everyone else.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 24 Jun 2015 #permalink

And once more for good measure. Here's how you focus attention away from the defensibility of someone's claims on to the individual making them AND simultaneously try to enlarge the scope of the argument-by-authority to those without a relevant publishing record:

He too possesses a PhD in Marine biology and has spent most of his career outside academia

You simply characterise it as a "career" without noting what that career has involved or that said career has produced almost zero peer-reviewed research.

I too have a PhD in my field and have spent most of my career outside of acadaemia not producing peer-reviewed research. Should you listen to me if I say that pretty much all the researchers doing peer-reviewed research in my field that their peer-reviewed research is mistaken, or should you tell me to get my notions into a peer-reviewed paper and defend it after publication as a minimum quality control measure before you spend the time and opportunity cost to assess the plausibility of my claims?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 24 Jun 2015 #permalink

Thanks Craig, Lionel your efforts have been duely noted. BBD are you similarly challenged?
;)

"It takes about 1 millisecond to travel 80 miles."

Or a few hundred million years. Or eternity. If you want to go counter to the motion, you'd be going at a hell of a lot less than 80mph away from your destination.

"…hence Lomborg’s appearance before the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty."

And Wegman's problems with his plagiarism and lies.

Not to mention Steyn's issues with truth.

Gary, here;s a real brain twister you won't get:

What is the sum of nineteen and forty-three?

I know, you don’t get it!

GSW

“The real meaning of MPH- The Original- TCHappenings”

So, you are like the girl in the video, I could not be bothered to watch all, saying 'I don't know how to work that out'.

Good thing you are not a pilot for the meaning of such concepts as IAS, CAS, EAS and TAS will totally escape you.

GSW

BBD are you similarly challenged?

No, obviously not. Read my comment about ENSO again.

"No, obviously not."

Well done BBD, knew I could count on you. Your team does seem to struggle with the trivial though, as we've already discussed. Cause for some concern I would have thought.
;)

Your team does seem to struggle with the trivial though, as we've seen with your recent inability to deal with post #48

BBD

How are you getting on with Kolbert's 'Sixth Extinction'? I figure Stephen Maturin would have been in his element during that Peru excursion.

Lionel

How are you getting on with Kolbert’s ‘Sixth Extinction’?

Very well, just finishing ch. 9. There's perhaps a little less new material there than I was hoping for, but I'm not really her target audience so this isn't her fault ;-)

I did notice that she mis-attributes Peter Ward's 'green sky' quote about the end-Permian extinction to Carl Zimmer (p104), but hopefully that's an isolated error.

GSW

Cause for some concern I would have thought.

You live in a fantasy world. Go away and learn something.

Sorry BBD, and I don't want to labour the point as you are obviously keen to move on, but don't you find it interesting just how much of meal your team can make of simple things?

Can you imagine what it would be like if the actually had to work out something that mattered? Doesn't bear thinking about and embarrassing for all concerned. Guessing you're on par ;)

"80mph - Travelling at 80 miles per hour, how long will 80 miles take... Funniest answer ever!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cecliv5BTNo
:)

don’t you find it interesting just how much of meal your team can make of simple things?

Like post #48.

Still don't get it, huh?

GSW

but don’t you find it interesting just how much of meal your team can make of simple things?

This is something *you* introduced to divert away from your ill-advised promotion of some idiocy at WTFUWT.

The only person 'making a meal of it' is you and you are doing so for tactical reasons.

Still.

It's not working, GSW.

We're certainly making a well grilled denier here.

Meanwhile he thinks he's doing a good job.

I'll let all that sink in a bit BBD- how comfortable you feel about being on the dumb side of the argument ;)

In the meantime, more from Alex Epstein, The Case FOR Fossil Fuels"

http://www.therebel.media/alex_epstein

GSW

I’ll let all that sink in a bit BBD- how comfortable you feel about being on the dumb side of the argument

But I'm not.

I've said *nothing* 'dumb'. You are simply lying.

It's pathetic, GSW.

"I’ve said *nothing* ‘dumb’."

Gary Glitter here on the other hand is, what is that folks? That's right: projecting.

Can't even add two numbers. Worries how dumb people who won't do his division for him might be.

Loon.

Alex Epstein? How about ask George Soros while you're at it, Gitter.

Shees, talk about talking to the secret overlords....

No BBD, I said you were on the dumb side of the argument (because of Loth, Liono, Craic etc). That is not the same as saying you are dumb.

But here we are again, your side gets "lost", its an emerging trait. I'll add it to the deltard list of known defects - communist sympathies, low levels of education, no math, no physics, gets lost easily, thinks everyone else lies.

It's not good BBD.
;)

Stu2, At least Jensen's views do not contradict the overwhelming amount of peer-reviewed data. Starck, on the other hand, is way, way out in left field. But what is instrumental in this 'debate' between us - if indeed you can call it that because I keep nailing your nonsense to the wall - is that you cite one fringe academic to support your arguments whilst ignoring the views (as well as the data sets) of dozens more real bonafide experts in marine biology who have piles of papers in the field and who probably think that Starck is a quack. Starck instead has a crappy blog as his outlet. Now there's a shock!

All of you deniers have the same habit, of citing fringe academics to support your clearly ideologically driven views (and damn that pesky old science). Look at SD and GSW linking to another fringer Jim Steele as an 'ecologist' whose views again contrast with those of 99% in the field. If these fringers are so legit, where are their scientific papers to prove it? Where are the data? They don't have it because they hardly ever were involved in actual research. Look at the contrarian echo chamber and how with respect to Polar Bear demographics it primnarily comes down to Susan Crockford- another fringe academic who has never published anything in the primary literature on these apex predators. At least in her prestigious (choke, guffaw, hack...) career she amassed a whopping 17 papers (I had 15 last year, but why quibble?) but again, none on Polar Bears. So where is the expertise? Because she runs a denier blog!!!!! Well, there you go. And the hacks on BH, CA, WUWT, CD, CFact et al. all go running to her for their arguments on Polar Bears and AGW.

Given that these blogs are for the most part staffed by non-scientists, you'd think that if they were seeking the 'truth', they would go to Google Scholar and look up the published studies. But there's one big problem! The published studies don't support their pre-determined views! OUCH! So they scurry off to the denialosphere blogs searching under every rock to find someone - anyone! - with even the most superficial qualifications but who downplays AGW as a threat to Polar Bears. Bingo! Out pops Crockford. End of story.

Golly gee its easy crushing every vacuous piece of bile you put up her Stu2. A cursory look at your posts suggests that you are literate, but that at the same time you are as deep as a puddle. Your views and arguments are virtually non-existent. As a debater you stink.

GSW isn't much better - actually with a straight face (I assume - perhaps I am wrong?) claiming that BBD is on the dumb side of the argument'. How much more deluded can he be? There's not a chance in hell that BBD or most of us on Deltoid are on the wrong side of the CC argument. None. The data are in. Every major scientific organization on the planet verifies it. Against this massive weight of scientific opinion, we've got a few schmucks like GSW who are not qualified in any way shape or form to comment, claiming to be on the right side of the science. It's so funny that they believe this in the face of >95% of the scientific community. But they truly do.

Its insanity.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 24 Jun 2015 #permalink

Look at GSWs latest post (# 66) as a case in point. He has the audacity to talk about physics, maths, etc... and then come up with complete nonsense about communist sympathies (is this idiot FOR REAL?) and the real laugher - education - leaving aside the inconvenient little bit that pretty well everyone he tries to lampoon on here has an education that shits all over his (I wont' even try and compare his puny little degree with mine - the point has been made before).

This is the level of 'intelligence' we are dealing with here folks. GSW is so utterly deluded in his comments that I think he's nuts. The last one was the clincher.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 24 Jun 2015 #permalink

GSW

No BBD, I said you were on the dumb side of the argument

Unlikely.

Another prime example of Doltoids reconstructing dancing angels.

There's nothing ya can't do with dancing angels, even weather balloon blending when millions of them have told us over 50 years that the hot spot doesn't exist, the Doltoids never fail to reconstruct the "facts":

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/university-of-nsw-c…

Are you embarrassed yet?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 24 Jun 2015 #permalink

Isn't it amazing that the deniers can always find the one outlier that supports their point of view, but not the myriads that prove them wrong. It's a feature, not a bug isn't it?

By turboblocke (not verified) on 24 Jun 2015 #permalink

I'd guess that's due to some dinky little factoid that chimes in their dinky little brains, reinforcing their dinky stupidity in confirming their dinky little beliefs.

Let's not overlook the twin facts that Spanky (and Griselda) think they're riding high and being 'clever' with their recent comments.

An outlier, turbo? All your angels are outliers?

You survive on angels and outliers.

♪We don't do raw, anymore
We don't do raw, that's for sure♪

You must even have to get your mum to count out your brekky bikkies.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 24 Jun 2015 #permalink

... and thus we learn that Spanky has never handled, organised or analysed data in his entire life.
But that minor trifle doesn't prevent the moron lecturing those who do.

Ah, so the barnacle scraper is still making vacuous assertions.

Drongo, you are misrepresenting the science to yourself. How does it feel to be kidding the guy in the mirror?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 Jun 2015 #permalink

Chekkie luv, I've spent my life collecting, observing and recording data.

"Whether the sea or the bush it be" to quote a famous Australian, but I have never corrupted data as Doltoids specialise in doing.

You not only need a stern lecture in the art of being able to look out the window, you need something a lot more painful in that same stern area.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 24 Jun 2015 #permalink

"I quoted an OP from Walter Starck .
He too possesses a PhD in Marine biology and has spent most of his career outside academia.
If I wanted to know something about coral reefs or perhaps dolphins I would perhaps ask him.
I did find his perspective about ‘academic pissing contests’ in the OP quite amusing."

I, too, find Walter Stark quite amusing.

But back to the topic: before we decide what value to assign to Stark's opinions, let us list here below all instances of
- Stark conducting research
- Stark publishing science
in the 54 years since he got his PhD?

???
blank sheet here
???

So, some of us place a high value on his opinions based on
- his science?
- his opinions flatter our pre-conceived notion?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 24 Jun 2015 #permalink

Spangled Drongo - instead of hiding your data, could you please share with us your entire sea level dataset.
Thank you.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 24 Jun 2015 #permalink

Got anything to report on personally observed SLR data yet, Bern?

Didn't think so.

But be sure to let me know when you have, won't you?

How are your vacuous angels going this morning?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 24 Jun 2015 #permalink

Craig, when you have built sea walls to the old AHD 100 [highest king tide level] datum as required by local councils in many parts of our coastlines and spent a lifetime observing the results of highest astronomical tides on those walls you have an indelible record of data going back a long time.

Many people who are also involved in building sea front infrastructure live in houses with similar walls and have also observed them for most of their lives because they need to know.

This is an enormous data bank and you can find and ask these people who live in the exposed sea fronts what is their opinion of SLR.

You'll find that they, like me, don't do angels [like John and Neil, here], only data.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 24 Jun 2015 #permalink

Coal futures, anyone?

"The past few decades have been characterized by a period of relatively high solar activity. However, the recent prolonged solar minimum and subsequent weak solar cycle 24 have led to suggestions that the grand solar maximum may be at an end."

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html

Do you think your angels can sort this out or do you possibly think you haven't got a clue?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 24 Jun 2015 #permalink

...when you have built sea walls to the old AHD 100 [highest king tide level] datum...

Don't forget to mention Drongo that your "sea wall" is a retaining wall on Chevron Island in the highly hydrologically-altered Nerang River, where tidal measurements are not relective of global sea levels.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 Jun 2015 #permalink

Coal futures?

ROTFL

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-19/peabody-bonds-plunge-…

"Coal prices have slumped amid a global oversupply and flagging demand. The thermal coal used by power plants is facing increased competition from cheaper natural gas and tougher emissions standards. The benchmark price of coal used in steelmaking is at a seven-year low of $109.50 per metric ton, down from $330 a metric ton in 2011."

Meanwhile, I note your admission that all you have for sea level "data" are inaccurate geriatric pseudo-memories involving your favourite spot, several km inland, which has been heavily geo-modified by human activity over the past 40 years.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 24 Jun 2015 #permalink

"You survive on angels and outliers"

No we don't. The science very much is on out side. And this is reflected, as I have said a million times, in the official statements of every Academy of Science and major organization on Earth. Sorry SD - you are on the fringe. This comment of SDs just again reflects the insanity of deniers. They are so far out of touch with reality that its impossible to have a rational discussion with such a deluded lot.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 24 Jun 2015 #permalink

@ # 36 & 38.
There's another interesting concept.
Top 100 Climate Scientists?
When I Google "top 100" I get things like top 100 baby names or top 100 bands or top 100 businesses or top 100 songs or top 100 restaurants & etc
There was nothing for top 100 climate scientists.
But these came up on the Google search:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientis…
And this:
http://www.world.org/weo/climate
Can't see Hotwhopper or SKS or DGR on there (or Jonova or WUWT).
And this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstrea…

I don't really think there is actually a top 100 list for any type of scientists, including climate scientists.

The Doltoid intelligence is something to behold!

That main river wall in the Nerang estuary is just one of many sea walls I have built to AHD 100. It just happened to be the oldest on the Gold Coast at over 50 years and longer than the local tide gauge history by many years.

Cleveland Point is ~70 years and Woody Point is older still and are not influenced by any change in hydraulics. They were built to the same king tide levels as were most sea walls and today SLs are noticeably below these levels.

And if you bothered to check you'd find the widening and deepening of the Southport Seaway has the effect on tides of bringing the Broadwater in closer equilibrium with the ocean which has a greater tide range. So it has in effect increased king tide levels but still these levels are not as high as 50 years ago.

And poor silly twisted Bern thinks that storm surge is an indication of SLR. Oh dear!

Storm surge in Moreton Bay was at its peak 80 years ago.

But what do you expect of someone who considers the demand for coal is over.

Doltoids even think Drax is the future.

"The science very much is on out side."

Is that right, Jeff?

You mean, only when you doctor the data and get those angels dancing.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 25 Jun 2015 #permalink

And I would imagine that if there was such a thing as a top 100 list for climate scientists, this person would have a good chance of qualifying:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
And if there was such a thing as a top 100 list for political scientists this person would have a chance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
Don't think this bloke would make either of those lists if they actually existed though:
http://www.derrickjensen.org/
Nor this one:
http://www.hotwhopper.com/About.php
Nor James Cook & etc.

"No BBD, I said you were on the dumb side of the argument (because of Loth, Liono, Craic etc). "

Ay, I see. Opposite aeon.

"Look at GSWs latest post (# 66) as a case in point"

What point?

You mean, only when you doctor the data and get those angels dancing.

Spanky, you need to show which data are 'doctored', and why they're incorrect.
Otherwise you're just attempting to re-live 2005 all over again, and not a single one of your denier chump sites or their operators have succeeded with that strategy in over a decade.
There's a reason for that. Can you guess what it is?

"Ah, so the barnacle scraper is still making vacuous assertions."

Just spanky? They all do that. Because substance isn't helpful to their cause.

"Chekkie luv, I’ve spent my life collecting, observing and recording data."

No you haven't, spanky.

Spanky, #79, that rant STILL contained absolutely no data.

"That main river wall in the Nerang estuary is just one of many sea walls I have built "

Proof or GTFO

When I Google “top 100″ I get things like top 100 baby names or top 100 bands or top 100 businesses or top 100 songs or top 100 restaurants & etc
There was nothing for top 100 climate scientists.

And in one simple example Stu 2 demonstrates so perfectly why he is completely ill-equipped to speak about scientific matters.

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

And poor silly twisted Bern thinks that storm surge is an indication of SLR. Oh dear!

No I don't, which is why I said (with irony invisible to you) "It obviously contradicts your river tide anecdotes." But thanks for walking into the room...

So Drongo, you think that a storm surge in and of itself is not an indicator of sea level. Good. You're learning. So now tell us why your "observations", uncorrected as they are for multiple factors that have been drawn to your attention on multiple occasions, are any more an indication of sea leve than was that impressive example of a storm surge.

Is the answer that you only believe in things that you believe that you see with your eyes, rather than in what other people see, or in how they correct your misinterpretations?

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

Storm surge in Moreton Bay was at its peak 80 years ago.

Do you hear what you're actually saying?!

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

And if you bothered to check you’d find the widening and deepening of the Southport Seaway has the effect on tides of bringing the Broadwater in closer equilibrium with the ocean which has a greater tide range.

If I "bothered to check"? I pointed this out to you years ago.

So it has in effect increased king tide levels but still these levels are not as high as 50 years ago.

Ah, so this is where you jump off the train. You see, when river mouths are dredged and opened the tidal heights up-river usually decrease, because there's less hydraulic impoundment*. The effect is exactly as we have been explaining to you for years, and as you yourself just described - peak levels are lower.

There's a classic example here:

www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/08-1143.1

Thanks for refuting your own argument Drongo.

[*The up-river dams are also contributors to lowered levels downstream, another fact that you persist in ignoring...]

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

Drongo #69 asks:

Are you embarrassed yet?

And accuses some researchers of falsifying their results although without troubling to provide any evidence to support this libelous accusation.

By contrast, here is what the libeled researchers say in the article Drong links:

After years of debate, University of NSW climate researchers Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant have resolved data issues that not only reveal those "hot spots" to be there – but they are in fact warming some 10 per cent faster than modelling has predicted.

"[We found] the global warming signal is stronger than we thought it would be," Professor Sherwood said.

For Professor Sherwood, it's just another example – along with the "global warming hiatus" that has been deemed this month by US scientists to be a data error – of how so-called climate sceptics can divert or distort debate.

[...]

Professor Sherwood said he hadn't bothered to follow how sceptics had responded to his paper, saying that scientist had merely identified a problem and worked to resolve it.

[...]

Sceptics' interest in "hot spots" they believed weren't there and the fact they couldn't account for the additional heat being trapped by the Earth from its increased greenhouse gases, pointed to a contrast in approaches, he said.

"They're not aiming for a self-consistent and reasonably comprehensive description of the world. What they are aiming at is to discredit something," he said.

Resolving issues such as the hot spot removed one more data dispute for sceptics to pick over, he said, adding, "the inconsistencies don't go on forever".

We're not embarrassed, Drongo. Why should we be?

And bed-wetting Bern thinks the current Cal drought is truly catastrophic and all down to CAGW.

Please go and study the history of droughts in that part of the world. The further you go back the bigger they get.

And what do you think has caused them, Bern?

Give you one guess.

So, chek, you still believe in what millions of instruments in balloons have told you is not there?

Gotta have faith in them angels, hey?

And poor ol' Woeful is too silly to understand that SLs measured against a known benchmark height represent real world data.

Better stick with your angelic assumptions, Woebegone. You're a complete waste of space. No point in discussing SLR with you.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 25 Jun 2015 #permalink

Open the other eye, Bern. When you deepen and widen a river mouth or a barred entrance you get BOTH lower low tides and higher high tides because the tide range is greater in the ocean than inside the entrance.

Stop boring us with your one sided rant when this is bleedin' obvious even to your 7yo.

The fact is and my point is, this has still caused no SLR even here in any part of the river or broadwater [in some places the reverse] and in many parts of Moreton Bay where there have been no hydraulic changes there actually is a fall in SLs over the last 70 years.

I realise it is completely foreign to your DNA to accept any raw data that conflicts with your CAGW ideology but go on, stick your head out the window anyway.

Stop waffling, check out the real world and give your dancing angels a rest.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 25 Jun 2015 #permalink

"and all down to CAGW."

Deniers demonstrating their belief in CAGW again.

"When you deepen and widen a river mouth or a barred entrance you get BOTH lower low tides and higher high tides"

No you don't. Because water doesn't move instantaneously.

"We’re not embarrassed, Drongo. Why should we be?"

Shall I give you a hint, BBD?

Sherwood has been 15 years of hunting the hot spot. He's as desperate as any Doltoid:

"The missing hot spot was always the crucial sign of water vapor feedback– the largest feedback in the climate models — but data from 28 million weather balloons showed that it wasn’t there. They had guessed the wrong way, and humidity wasn’t rising at 10km above the equator “thickening the water blanket”. Year after year teams of researchers have scoured the data for ways to adjust it to reveal the hotspot they are certain must be there. Stephen Sherwood was so keen to find it in 2008 he published a graph changing the color scales so that “zero degrees warming” was a hot orange red color — that produced a graph that looked like he’d found the hot spot. In another paper he “found” the hot spot by throwing away all the temperature readings from weather balloons and using wind shear data instead. As if measurements of the wind would somehow be more accurate in estimating temperature than the equipment designed and individually calibrated to do exactly that."

If you're not embarrassed by this BS, then you should be and it speaks volumes about you.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 25 Jun 2015 #permalink

"Shall I give you a hint, BBD?"

Can you give one that ISN'T a load of bollocks?

Hey Spangley!

Thank you for so comprehensively shooting yourself in the foot completely demolishing your own argument about sea level in your locality! And hence (according to you) the world!

A few posts up (and similar elsewhere) you say:

Open the other eye, Bern. When you deepen and widen a river mouth or a barred entrance you get BOTH lower low tides and higher high tides because the tide range is greater in the ocean than inside the entrance.

WRONG AGAIN! Open ocean tides are generally of smaller amplitude than coastal tides (see, e.g. http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/ShelfCoast/chapter01.html - scroll down to "Differences between the deep and coastal ocean"). This is well known to anyone who knows anything at all about tides. You are clearly not a member of this group!

This completely demolishes all of your banging on about sea level going down because a decrease in extreme heights is (as you say yourself - almost) ) a consequence of dredging to improve the linkage between Moreton Bay and the open ocean. The change in extreme heights you claim to have observed (even if it is real) is of absolutely no consequence.

Sadly your comments on other topics here are of similar quality.

I suggest that you change your nom-de-plume from "spangled drongo" to "Clueless Turkey"

Neil

By Neil White (not verified) on 25 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo

Shall I give you a hint, BBD?

Sherwood has been 15 years of hunting the hot spot. He’s as desperate as any Doltoid

You are accusing Sherwood of falsifying results. This is the most serious form scientific misconduct.

What I want from you is EVIDENCE supporting this (otherwise libelous) claim.

If you have nothing more than a profound personal conviction, you have nothing at all. And you are libeling Sherwood.

Drongo

Please go and study the history of droughts in that part of the world. The further you go back the bigger they get.

And what do you think has caused them

The usual muddle.

There were several 'megadroughts' in the American Southwest between ~900 - 1300CE associated with episodes of regional warming.

The same pattern of drying and drought is beginning to emerge again although the modern warming is not driven by the same processes that produced the various regional and discontinuous Mediaeval climate anomalies in the NH.

You can't argue that the modern drought afflicting the Southwestern US isn't a consequence of AGW just because something similar happened a thousand years ago for different reasons.

That would be silly.

Interesting graphic I have just found linked to: What's Really Warming the World, even the meanest intelligence should grok the meaning in that, therefore any idea that sea levels are not rising goes against physics and geography.

BBD in #54 previous page you alluded to Peter Ward and his 'green sky'. I take it you may have a copy of the book with that in the title, I don't nor anything else by Peter Ward but I think the ground is probably well covered in other works I have on geology, ecology and Earth's history of both. Besides, it is a little long in the tooth and some reviewers consider it basic.

In a similar vein to Kolbert, but from a scientist's perspective are: 'Driven to Extinction: The Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity' by Richard Pearson

and

'The Future Of Life' by Professor Edward O. Wilson

both being recommended with the latter providing many rich quotes including.

The race is now on between the technoscientific forces that are destroying the living environment and those that can be harnessed to save it. We are inside a bottleneck of overpopulation and wasteful consumption. If the race is won, humanity can emerge in far better condition than when it entered, and with most of the diversity of life still intact.

Lionel

Yes, I was referring to Ward's Under a Green Sky which is neither obsolete nor simplistic (whatever others may have said). I know of no better popular treatment of the very recent realisation that tectonically-driven CO2 forcing is the predominant driver of major and mass extinctions. Give it a go - it's quite short and very readable.

Drongo, you contend that:

When you deepen and widen a river mouth or a barred entrance you get BOTH lower low tides and higher high tides because the tide range is greater in the ocean than inside the entrance.

So why then are you claiming that high tides are lower now than before the dredging and other opening works?

Do you see your problem? Your two points are mutually contradictory, so parsimony dictates that at least one of them is wrong. And if one of them is wrong, then your premise collapses.

The fact is that highest river tides may in some cases increase after mouth-works, pepending on the particular hydrological structures that result, but in many cases all that happens is that hydraulic impoundment eases and so do highest river tides. The Murray example is a typical one:

http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/08-1143.1

If you're having difficulty grokking this it has to do with the fact that in rivers there's a net positive flow of water (volume) to the ocean. See if you can work it out...

And for about the five hundreth time, there are so many other confounders (that you persistently ignore) that you can't possibly identify with your eyechrometer the nature of the underlying trend. Your ideological brain is too susceptible to biases, including amongst many other things the phenomenon of a shifting baseline.

That's why we use science.

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

...depending on...

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

Whenever anyone writes SD, I can't help thinking " standard deviation ". And you know what? I can't persuade myself that it's wrong.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 25 Jun 2015 #permalink

Worries how dumb people who won’t do his division for him might be.

Never mind the smart comments in response that rang rings around his question and the presumed answer, and made some interesting implicit points at the same time. It almost appears as if that went over his head...or he doesn't mind it appearing that way as long as he gets to distract from whatever he's trying to distract from this time.

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

It’s a feature, not a bug isn’t it?

Yep. The notion that "supports their point of view" is the dominant selection criteria is a strong explanation for their selection AND for their rejection of findings reached by using different criteria.

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

Deniers demonstrating their belief in CAGW again.

Bloody alarmists!

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

You can’t argue that the modern drought afflicting the Southwestern US isn’t a consequence of AGW just because something similar happened a thousand years ago for different reasons.

Oh yes he can - and will.

"I submit, your Honor, that whilst it is true that my client was caught proceeding at pace away from the burning house in question with a partially depleted accelerant, a set of matches including some that had been recently lit, soot on his hands and the smell of smoke in his clothes, and that he had previously threatened the occupant with setting their house on fire, and that you have three witnesses who have come forward with video and photographic evidence that appears to show my client pouring accelerant and lighting it at the address in question, my client cannot have started that fire. As you know, Your Honor, as one looks farther back in history, especially in the centuries before my client was born, the more house fires one sees so this fire cannot possibly have been started by my client!"

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

Indeed, the fact that there is a supposed "consensus" on what my client did PROVES that they are in error, since it's unscientific to have a consensus on evidence!

YOU MUST ACQUIT!

YOU MUST ACQUIT!

I fear that you may be summoning the ghost of BK.

Only a touch. There was still some semblance of actually having a point in there, rather than circle jerked arguments about the meaning of meaning and thought of thoughts.

Neil, when it comes to foot shooting you can get both in one shot.

Did you check the tide range inside the Southport Broadwater as compared to the ocean prior to the opening of the Seaway?

No? You should have. Making generalisations isn't science.

In those days it was around 30% less range and since the opening it is now around 5% less range.

And you're the Doltoid go-to on SLR?

Says it all, don't you think?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 25 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo, you do realise don't you that you are consistently supplying evidence of past hydraulic choke and impoundment, consistent with the changes lowering peak tide heights in the Nerange estuarine milieu? Or are you going to ignore that in addition to your self-contradiction noted above?

And don't forget those pesky dams upriver...

And you still haven't explained why the tide gauges disagree with you, and why satellites disagree with you, and why basic physics disagrees with you...

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

Bern, you persistent prawn, I have been telling you for years that the Nerang estuary benchmark, while it shows a fall in SLs over the last 52 years, it is not the best example of the many benchmarks I have led you kicking and screaming to consider but it is the only one you wish to discuss because of possible hydraulic imponderables. It just happens to support other more black and white examples.

The much more exposed, older and undisturbed Cleveland lighthouse benchmark is a better example.

The Woody Point benchmark, where my grandfather owned the Jetty Store and flats up until the late '40s where he stored numerous fishing boats during WW2 for fishermen cum soldiers whose fishing boats they simply floated into his backyard on the king tides and left them there for the duration and which now has a highrise block of home units on it, is older still but the iron railway line post that was used to mark the top of the highest 9 foot Moreton Bay king tides has recently been removed and this has reduced the accuracy somewhat.

Nevertheless, what's left of those old breakwater walls support what is more accurately shown at Cleveland.

And the tide gauges don't disagree with me at all. The local tide gauges simply do not go back that far.

You just don't get that the aspect of SLR that affects civilisation is the highest fine weather tides. Storm surges are weather, not climate, related and tide gauges are supplying other data.

And to even seriously think you can conjure up enough dancing angels on your favourite pinhead via statistical crap from GPS satellites that have error bars of many metres to compete with human obs and experience shows you to be the foolish person you are.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 25 Jun 2015 #permalink

Deniers like Spanky Drunken, being sociopaths, are immune to embarrassment, which is why being called out on their errors and lies over and over again has no effect.

Ianam, the rational retort to your smartarse remark is: so you have personally-observed evidence of SLR rather than just Bern's and Neil's dancing angels?

Well, produce it or STFU !.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 25 Jun 2015 #permalink

Not only isn't that any sort of response to what I wrote, spanky, it's not rational in its own right, given what you surely and moronically consider "personally-observed", but yes, I have personally observed *evidence* of SLT, and so have you .... which, as I said, you lyingly deny but feel no embarrassment about.

Now go fuck off and die, shithole ... I'm not interested in wasting my time engaging with a sociopathic piece of garbage like you.

"The fact is and my point is, this has still caused no SLR even here in any part of the river or broadwater [in some places the reverse] and in many parts of Moreton Bay where there have been no hydraulic changes there actually is a fall in SLs over the last 70 years."

Show us your data, drongo

"Drongo, the rational retort to your smartarse remark is: so you have personally-observed evidence of SLR rather than just Bern’s and Neil’s dancing angels?"

Well, produce it or STFU !.

Indeed

"And the tide gauges don’t disagree with me at all. The local tide gauges simply do not go back that far"

That's a shame.

"You just don’t get that the aspect of SLR that affects civilisation is the highest fine weather tides. Storm surges are weather, not climate, related and tide gauges are supplying other data."

Storm surges don't "affect civilisation"?

"he stored numerous fishing boats during WW2 for fishermen cum soldiers whose fishing boats they simply floated into his backyard on the king tides and left them there for the duration and which now has a highrise block of home units on it"

ah, landfill is useful, isn't it?

The behaviour in New Orleans was particularly un-civilised after Katrina's storm surge hit...

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 25 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo.

1) "Many benchmarks"? You yourself have for years focussed on the Chevron Island wall that you featured in a post at Marohasy's. Your references to Cleveland Pt in the past were very infrequent and indirect if they occurred at all, and I don't recall you even mentioning it by name on Deltoid until I outed it a few weeks ago. Of course you might be able to point to a reference but I haven't been able to track one down.

Woody Point? That's a new one, but we can look at that too if you want to...

2) Tide gauges for Brisbane show distinct increase in sea level over the last 35 years (or here). Prior to that there was a record from a gauge at a different location in the estuary but it's difficult to compare the two gauge readings without knowing if their data have been calibrated against each other, but even if they have been calibrated the larger variability in the earlier dataset indicates that they are likely not directly comparable.

The Southport Operations Base shows from 200 a 0.4mm/pa increase (with a 0.7mm/pa and 0.2mm/pa increase resp[ectively for high and low tides).

The Gold Coast seaway from 1987 to 1999 shows a decrease in mean level and from 1999 is shows an increase. The inconsistent nature of the data though indicates that something weird happens with the tide heights there - which is what we've been telling you for years.

3) But let's put that long litany of advice aside for the moment Drongo. How do you explain the difference between the gauges that are further from a much hydrologically-altered river, compared with the Seaway one? And

4) And once again, what of the conflict in your statement about opening river entrances causing higher high tides, compared to your claim about lowered high tides in the Nerang?

5) And why don't all of the other confounders (barometric pressures, EAC, changes in average prevailing swell directions, upriver and bank alterations, etc) that we keep mentioning operate in your observational anecdotes?

6) "...statistical crap from GPS satellites that have error bars of many metres..."

Really? References please. I'd like to explore this in detail...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink

"Making generalisations isn’t science."

a) Ironic meter exploded
b) Meaningless rubbish

Bern, you twerp, two of those tide gauges show short term discontinuous data. And they have also been moved.

Very reliable, I must say.

And the other [very short term] shows nothing happening.

" And once again, what of the conflict in your statement about opening river entrances causing higher high tides, compared to your claim about lowered high tides in the Nerang?"

That's not a conflict for a rational mind, that's simply telling you that in spite of what should be happening, over 50+ years the reverse has happened.

The fact is that the many seawall benchmarks around the Gold Coast close to the Seaway vary from nothing happening to sea level falls of up to 250mm on king tide heights over periods ranging from 45 to 52 years.

The seawall that we built in 1946 at Cleveland Point at the then king tide height is now registering an average SL fall of 225mm over 70 years.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink

"And the other [very short term] shows nothing happening."

A conclusion that cannot be supported.

Remember: "Making generalisations isn’t science."

"the many seawall benchmarks "

of which we've seen none of them from you, spanky.

That's the way, ianam, if you can't put up, shut up.

You too, Nick.

CT, even Doltoids can't change the weather even though they may think they can change the climate.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink

"The fact is that the many seawall benchmarks around the Gold Coast close to the Seaway vary from nothing happening to sea level falls of up to 250mm on king tide heights over periods ranging from 45 to 52 years."

This is why we have standards and homogenisation, drongo. This is why we determine land movement, document site change. this is why we built SEAFRAME.
Because you learn SFA about real regional and global sea level behavior from uncalibrated, non-standardised, anecdotal, i-seem-to-remember-benchmarks at Uncle Ted's slip.

"That’s the way, ianam, if you can’t put up, shut up."

Spanky, if you're not going to shut up nor put up, then nobody else has to give a single fuck what you petulantly demand.

I think spanky here is just trying to get people so tired of dealing with his insanity bilge that they give up coming here or posting.

Goebbels was a primary figure for spanky's work here.

So, what a moron that Scalia is over in the SCOTUS.

"The WORD is STATE! How can anyone think it means anything other than EACH INDIVIDUAL STATE?!?!?!?!?

What's that? Second ammendment only talks about the right of a state to have a millitia? BOLLOCKS! The founding fathers obviously MEANT that individuals in each state could carry weapons!!!!"

You mean , Nick, the difference between Doltoids reconstructing dancing angels and the real world?

That BS on coral atolls where they don't suffer any freeboard problem only deck space?

They might be homogenisation but they're not standards.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink

More froth from spanky.

And what is his obsession with messengers from god???

#50 It reminds me you are not very bright.

Let's take the article at face value. How analogous is climate research and medical research? What does the pharmacological industry do? Where is the analogous industry pressuring climate researchers to pass their products as safe and effective?

#51 120cm in 80 years is distinctly possible. You may have read about the hows and whys, even if you reject it in that beautifully argued way of yours...

Bern, you twerp, two of those tide gauges show short term discontinuous data. And they have also been moved.

Drongo you twerp, I made both points in my previous post. Do you ever actually read what it written?

Or do you just deliberately miss the points, which is that sea level rise is evident, that the gauge at the choked Gold Coast Seaway shows trends different from the more open gauges, and that you persist in ignoring factors that compromise the use of instantaneous moments of tidal height, subject as they are to local stochastic weather and hydological vagaries, as a proxy for global sea level.

That’s not a conflict for a rational mind, that’s simply telling you that in spite of what should be happening, over 50+ years the reverse has happened.

Drongo, for the umpteenth time, you have NOT accounted for confounding factors. King tide heights are determined by multiple factors, on multiple scales of time (hours in the case of barometric pressure to decades on terms of fluctuations in ocean currents), and you can't compare a few non-scientifically controlled anecdotal observations with careful professional measurement across the global [umpteen + 1].

The fact is that the many seawall benchmarks around the Gold Coast close to the Seaway vary from nothing happening to sea level falls of up to 250mm on king tide heights over periods ranging from 45 to 52 years.

No, Drongo, no.

You can't directly conflate king tide heights with mean regional sea levels, and certainly not with global sea levels. Do you not get it even after all this time? Without accounting for cofactors your king tide heights are not measuring sea level in any way, shape or form [umpteen + 2].

The seawall that we built in 1946 at Cleveland Point at the then king tide height is now registering an average SL fall of 225mm over 70 years.

No, they're not "registering... sea level fall". They're showing you variation in the influences that impinge on maiximum/minimum tidal height. These are different things.

For the umpteenth + 3 time king tide heights are determined by multiple local factors - for chuckles let's see how many you can list. Mean global sea level on the other hand is mostly determined by two parameters very different from those that most strongly affect local king tide heights: for brownie points let's see if you can tell us what those two parameters are...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink

Spanky - let's just cut to the chase shall we?

Am I correct in thinking you believe yourself immune (or perhaps 'awakened') to an enormous global scam perpetrated by international communists/socialists/illuminati using CAGW for nefarious purposes ranging from stealing all your money and golf courses to polluting your precious bodily fluids? And that your leader Abbott is similarly minded?

Or would Tony and his transnational/transdimensional chums be involved in the scam as well?

Just trying to get a handle on what your problem is at root.

Drongo, your problem is that you are looking at isolated moments of stochastic variation rather than underlying whole-dataset trends.

Have you experienced a brain lesion that prevents you from understanding this?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink
By Bernard J. (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink

"Drongo you twerp, I made both points in my previous post. Do you ever actually read what it written?"

Oh, yes. But it's not going to stop the denier troll pretending that you're just an idiot, because that's all that spanky has to support his goal on.

It's rather fundamentalist christian of him, in fact: they go "If you can't answer this then GOD must be the answer", ergo anything not proven to their satisfaction as being their preferred answer, PROVES their preferred answer.

Just like spanked going "You don't have personally observed stuff, therefore I must be right!".

IOW "I don't accept it, therefore AGW IS A FRAUD!".

"You can’t directly conflate king tide heights with mean regional sea levels"

H will, though. Not for any valid reason. After all, if it showed SLR happening, he wouldn't think it valid at all, for reasons of "They dredged it!!!!".

He will continue to pretend he has evidence, when all he has is idiocy.

Of course, spanked donkey doesn't have to take his word for it, he can go there and watch the tide coming in and going out.

And tell us in 30 years he was right all along.

The WORD is STATE! How can anyone think it means anything other than EACH INDIVIDUAL STATE?!?!?!?!?

That's not his first moment of jaw dropping idiocy either.

I seem to recall exactly the same logic from one of our Aussie leaders just a week or two ago. Can't remember the context though.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink

That’s not his first moment of jaw dropping idiocy either.

No, but it IS his biggest indicator of hypocrisy levels over 9000.

Fellas, the portion of thick ice in the Arctic has improved and the ice cover looks like this: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

Yes, no need to tell me guys, the Ice was gone already in 2014. It is the tobacco and fossil fuel lobby that fabricates the graphs from DMI. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink

Pfweeeee!!!!!!

Did you hear that, Lappers? It's time for you to bark at the cars going by and scare them off!!!!

Look, Lappers, we ALL know what's wrong with your claim. There's no need to waste time talking about it.

Saves you hassle, saves everyone else hassle.

Win-win.

But while we're on the US Supreme Court, and getting back to "the word is STATE, damnit", Justice Roberts poked Scalia in the eye by pointing out how he completely reversed his claim about a factual matter from one case to the next by quoting Scalia's dissent back at him.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink

Aye, I *think* the difference is that Roberts is a Christian and willing to talk bollocks because God will punish him (oh, and the gays if they're not "cured"! Isn't he nice?) if he doesn't.

Scalia, on the other hand, is a complete whore for his politics.

Wow might enjoy this comment too:

I ask to which State does the US Dept. of State report?

I would pay good money to see Scalia answer that under some kind of oath.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink

This definition, as Justice Roberts heard during the case if I’m not mistaken, is nowhere near universal.

Hell, it isn't even defined as that in ANY version of the bible.

If procreation is the only reason to get married, then why bother with anything to do with marriage anyway? Scrap the lot, now, instantly. Drop all clauses of married status benefits and rights of access. Cut it all NOW. Since these things have NOTHING to do with procreation.

Indeed sex outside marriage is just as liable to result in conception as sex within marriage. Therefore if it's your child, even if it's some random woman you banged once, you're the father in full title and obligation: pay up.

Re 87; Snrffff..

:-)

What is the State Of The Union Address addressing, too?

And surely it should be "State's rights" since State means the singular state in the united states of america, and therefore the possessive contraction of rights.

Meanwhile, the text of the constitution says only gold and silver coinage can be legal tender.

No wire bank transfers.

I guess it also means that fractional reserve cannot be managed, since each dollar has to be passed around to pay debt, and you can't hand over more coins than you have.

I think Roberts is almost as willing as Scalia to talk bollocks in order to serve his politics (and Scalia is also a Christian, albeit of the Catholic variety).

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink

Just browsing for "State" in the constitution and this:

"No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law,"

surely means that it's absolutely fine for the federal government to do so, right?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

Doesn't say anything about the president, though!

Re: 91: I think that the litmus test IS this one, and Roberts has shown that politics is not enough for him to engage in bullshit, whereas it's enough for Scalia.

Though maybe it's just that "there's a nigger in the whitehouse!!!", and it is THIS which marks the difference: one is just not able to get past the colour of the president's skin.

Remember, religion is a gateway drug. Roberts may be at the opium den stage, whilst Scalia is mainlining crack cocaine.

Lappers, we still all, including you, know what's wrong with your claim here. Lets just leave it at that, OK?

Hell, it isn’t even defined as that in ANY version of the bible

Touche! Apparently Roberts' Christian upbringing didn't teach him that (noting that many fundamentalist Christians have rather poor knowledge of the Bible...)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink

I think that the litmus test IS this one, and Roberts has shown that politics is not enough for him to engage in bullshit, whereas it’s enough for Scalia.

Yep, I think others on the occasion of other cases have indicated that Roberts seems to have limits, which Scalia may not actually possess any longer.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink

The dumb thing about all this literal creationist BS is the bible itself and the fundie faith in it.

"Do you think we're from monkeys?!?!!?"

According to Gen: You came from dirt. Waaay worse.

"It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"

However, it was supposed to be Adam and Flossie the Sheep, but Adam didn't fancy any of the animals god had made, so God made Eve.

Either god lets us choose who we wish to marry, or we're all supposed to fuck animals instead.

Remember, religion is a gateway drug...

...and speaking of lack of Bible knowledge, increasing said knowledge by actually reading the thing has been a gateway-out-of-Christianity drug for many former Christians.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink

Most priests who have had to study for their position are much less religious than the norm in their country. Even if they keep faith in *a* god, they know the bible isn't going to tell you anything *about* that god.

The book then becomes a reference work from which you select those passages that feel right to you, assume that those are therefore fine with god, and then promoted as a "Good Book" to *read from to others* about what is moral and good.

It is pretty similar to medieval religion: the laity could not read the book, therefore it didn't matter that it was so obviously bollocks on many positions. The only ones who could see that were educated enough to interpret it as being "non literal truth".

Nowadays so many can read and it is so far away from society's norms that nobody reading it can consider it a book of god.

Therefore the only ones left are

a) self selected as never having read the bible, only heard it read out to them
b) self deluded who refuse to accept the monstrosities even exist
c) the maniac who wants to pick out what they want to have justified for them

IMO the problem with much of the evangelical and other sects in the USA is that so many (c) can use the hard sell, fear and the reverence of the bible by the (a) group to gain unearned wealth and power. Ensuring that the (c) group grows at a maximal rate compared to the natural decay of such stains on human society as the rest of us leave them behind.

Dear Wow, I'm with you. I know the DMI is wrong. The ice is gone, like the settled sience predicted.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink

No, Lappers, don't pretend you think the problem is elsewhere.

You, me, everyone else here knows it. Stop trying to pretend when you know it doesn't work, all you're doing is making work for yourself.

Here's another conundrum: if your rights are given to you by god, then why the hell did you need to write it down and restrict your government from infringing on them?

If your god gave them to you, then he'll not let anyone take them away. Bullets will bounce off you, you'll come back from the dead, you'll have the forces of heaven throwing the government tanks out of your way if they try to remove your god given rights.

After all, if god gave them to you literally, then no man, nor group of men, can take them away.

Right?

Lotharsson at 9/99:

…and speaking of lack of Bible knowledge, increasing said knowledge by actually reading the thing has been a gateway-out-of-Christianity drug for many former Christians.

Indeed, I am the grandson of a Baptist minister and was indoctrinated from an early age. I still have the evidence here in a concordance. But then in early teens I sat and passed with high marks a scripture examination having studied large chunks of said text and that plus a copy of 'The Origin' which made much more sense cured me.

One only has to read about Lot and how he entertained visitors, or what happened next when the walls of Jericho came a tumbling down (although many suspect this whole event didn't happen) to get that Dawkins had it right in the opener to Chapter 2 of 'The God Delusion'

Q: What does a fuckwit have for breakfast?

A: Dunno. I don't think Olap's ever told us.

He'd never tell.

Just in case he gave something away.

Because the black helicopters are listening....

"And poor deluded Bern rushes back to tide gauges which rise and fall tectonically all over the world with the years"

but

"Stick with the long, level sea walls, Bern. When they move you can tell at a glance"

sea walls are declared free of tectonic influence?

Do you know of any tectonic influence with those east coast sand oceans, Nick?

Not saying there isn't, mind you, just haven't heard of or seen anything much.

Maybe you got some dancing angels claiming post glacial rebound or something? Why not? Be in it.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink

The Doltoid"s Prayer

Designed to encapsulate the Angels and the Holy Father:

Our Gaia, Who art in danger,
Sustainable be thy name,
Thy renewable energy resources come,
Thy Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s will be done
On Earth as it is in the upper atmosphere
Give us this day our daily organic ciabatta
Forgive us our carbon emissions
Though we can’t forgive those multinationals who emit against us
Lead us not into excessive plane travel
Deliver us from genetically modified crops
For thine is the moral high ground
The onshore wind farms and the subsidies
For as long as the taxes can be raised. Amen.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink

And of course the Doltoid Creed:

I believe in Global Warming,
which will destroy heaven and earth unless we change our ways.
I believe in Al Gore,
Who conceived the Internet
and the hockey-stick graph, born of Professor Mann.
It suffered under McIntyre and McKitrick,
was crucified, disproven, and was buried.
It was cast on the reject pile.
On the third day It rose again.
It was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science,
and is displayed in a prominent position in all IPCC literature.
It will apply again as soon as global temperatures start rising.
I believe in the CO2 tipping point,
the IPCC Assessment Reports,
a CO2 sensitivity figure of over 4 C/W,
the accuracy of GCMS,
an anthropic cause for all climate variation after 1970,
and grants everlasting. AMEN.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink

The Sceptic's Prayer [from a Doltoid's POV?☺]:

Our Dominic who art derang’d,
Ukiped be thy name,
Thy cliche’s come, Science be undone
On Earth as on News At Seven

Give us this day our Daily Telegraph
And forgive us our nonsense emissions
As we censor those who comment against us

Tempt us not into believing in science textbooks,
And deliver us from pontiffs who pontificate against us
For thine is the spin of the kingdom,
by the power and the glory of Mark Steyn and Murdoch,
Amen.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo, if the global sea level change was a consequence of subsidence then most of the coastal land mass of the planet is going down. That's the unavoidable consequence of your theory.

Except that there is no net subsidence. Those satellites that you are so fond of when they measure (with rather a significant error) the radiation emitted by the troposhpere, are much more reliably telling us that the continents are not sliding holus-bolus beneath the waves, and that sea level is implacably rising.

However, prove me wrong. I gave you a widely dispersed selection of sites around the world where there is a rising* sea level signal. Show us that these sites are in fact all subsiding at the rate that sea levels are apparently rising. And whilst you're at it, show us how the satellite measurements are incorrect, and that the erros are "metres" as you claim.

Further, please explain to us how sea walls built on sandy substrates are impervious to vertical movement - this one has me fascinated...

Oh, and Drongo, how come you've never referred to the recent isostatic history of south east Queensland? Surely this is as important to your case as it is to all those sites that you say are subsiding...

[*I also gave you some sites where the SL is falling, but you didn't pick those - I suspect that you didn't even bother to go through the list to grasp what is happening around the planet...]

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink

BTW, Bern, I think you'll find that satellites are somewhat better at measuring tropospheric temperature [even balloons can do it] than making billions of guesses at the varying heights of every ripple, wave, tide and ship on the ocean surface and then trying to statistically measure the average change in height to fractions of a millimetre per year.

That's gonna give even your angels a nervous breakdown

Especially when that same system makes errors a big as this with simple calculations:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-25/fatal-yacht-crash-inquiry-blames-…

They say it was only out by 100 metres but it was more like half a mile. Been there.

But it just supports what I have been telling you Doltoids for years. If you just put your head out the window all will be revealed.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink

More recommended reading, Bern:

Parker, A. 2014. Present contributions to sea level rise by thermal expansion and ice melting and implications on coastal management. Ocean & Coastal Management 98: 202-211.

And thus it is made clear that all of these real-world measurements, as Parker rightly notes, are in "conflict with theoretically derived ocean temperatures and sea level changes."

So who you gonna trust? ... the models or the measurements?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 26 Jun 2015 #permalink

if your rights are given to you by god, then why the hell did you need to write it down and restrict your government from infringing on them?

Indeed, and similar illogical rhetoric is out there today in the wake of the Supreme Court decision on marriage equality, presumably because it works on enough people.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2015 #permalink

Indeed, I am the grandson of a Baptist minister and was indoctrinated from an early age.

I was also indoctrinated from an early age in a somewhat fundamentalist Christian religion, and I'll see you one generation of preachers in the family and raise you two!

One only has to read about Lot and how he entertained visitors, or what happened next when the walls of Jericho came a tumbling down (although many suspect this whole event didn’t happen) to get that Dawkins had it right in the opener to Chapter 2 of ‘The God Delusion’

Yep. And the divine command to slaughter the children of your enemies but take the post-adolescent females to be forced into marriage - ongoing rape is the result - with your young men. Or consider the law that forces your own unmarried women to marry their rapist if one of your men rapes them.
Or if that's too distasteful to allow yourselves to comprehend it, consider the divine command to (merely!) commit acts of animal cruelty against your opponents' horses that would get you a serious amount of jail time these days. This, from a deity that the Bible says is the same yesterday, today and forever - so we can't argue that the god of the Old Testament had a massive personality change just in time for the New.

Speaking of not happening, I recall that Jericho's walls falling down the way the Bible claims is beyond "suspect" now. Last I remember the excavations there had found walls that had come down, but several hundred years before the Bible says they did. And speaking of not happening, a lot of Israeli archaeologists (who might be considered to have a vested interest in finding evidence) say that the Jews of yore were never captive in Egypt and never wandered in the desert for 40 years after escaping. Then there are the anachronistic camels. IIRC they appear in the Bible in regions several hundred years before they actually arrived.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2015 #permalink

Spanky and Oily are stupid lying shitholes, much like the right wing bigots who just got shown the door by the SCOTUS.

"I think Roberts is almost as willing as Scalia to talk bollocks in order to serve his politics (and Scalia is also a Christian, albeit of the Catholic variety)."

They're both Catholic ... two of the six on the Court; the other three are Jewish. Not quite in line with U.S. demographics.

Indeed, and with the same reason for lying their arses off: money, politics and religion.

#9 You poor fool, you have no idea, do you.

What underlies the sand masses, dummy? Why are sand masses overlying bed rock not going to rise and fall with the bed rock?? Why is your sea wall immune from the tectonic influence that supposedly confounds 'Bern's tide gauges'???

Can you engage simply with that contradiction you have invoked? Or is it beyond you?

Why don't you just answer the question, Nick, instead of mouthing off like poor pathetic Ian who also has nothing other than invective to contribute.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 27 Jun 2015 #permalink

"Why don’t you just answer the question, Nick,"

Because he wants tofind out if you know the answer, Spanked.

That's why he asked the question to you.

Do you not understand the meaning of "asking a question"?

The question is back at #9 Wowser. Pay attention!

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 27 Jun 2015 #permalink

No the question is at #22, Spanked.

Try to learn what the numbers are, dearest.

'Mouthing off'? Look in the mirror, drongo...

the question #9? I've already answered. You don't know what you're saying, thus you can't understand anyone's replies, poor fellow.

Yes, drongo, there is geodetic movement of the continental plate on which your local sand mass is resting. Duh. Trivially true. Christ, what is the seismicity under the indonesian archipelago about? What's moving horizontally also is moving vertically. Check any SEAFRAME station's geodetic surveys

Inquiring minds want to know from you, sir stupid, how you think your preferred benchmarks are immune from geodetic influence.

"Stick with the long, level sea walls, Bern. When they move you can tell at a glance."

This is priceless stuff SD.

I'm beginning to think that Spanky is no more willing to make any concrete claim than Stupid was. And for the same reasons and goal.

Until Spanky comes back with his raw data and proof, lets forget the moron and his wild claims borne of insanity.

Maybe he'll actually come up with the proof he claims he has... Not holding my breath for it, mind.

Ianam #19, your reference to the Supreme Court as SCOTUS reminds me of John Duns Scotus. While seen as clever in his own time, the "Doctor Subtilis" later became associated with a mulish resistance to new facts and ideas, empty sophistry and eventually with abject stupidity, and his name entered the language as "dunce".

While some philosophers regard some of JDS's ideas as having some substance, overall the is no doubt he used his best efforts to try to rationalise what he already believed. It seems appropriate to reference him in connection with the Olaus-GSW-Sparkles-RWA crowd...

BBD If you are looking back in here, I note you are busy with another clueless over at DeSmog who gets stuff from JoNova and media rags. try looking out a copy of:

'Architects of Eternity' by Richard Corfield

which I am sure you will find of interest. It has images of Jack Sepkoski, Svante Pääbo and Cesare Emiliani, the first two cropping up in the text of Kolbert's 'Sixth Extinction'.

I attended a talk by Corfield in Portsmouth Naval Dockyard a few years back, had my, much thumbed, copy of Architects and 'The Silent Landscape' (the later bought at time and which was the subject of the talk) and found it interesting. At that time Corfield did not appear to share the opinions of most scientists, I had looked up his web site at that time, about the causes of recent climate change but that now seems to have changed. Good.

One indicator of his current views is found under News & Events at the site linked above where he puts Delingpole in his box, scroll down to 'James Delingpole on Horizon', Posted 25 January 2011.

But as Delingpole says on the program – it is not his job to evaluate the primary literature, rather ‘he interprets the interpretations’.

Well, that’s all right then – as long as no one takes him seriously.

Not to put too fine a point on it; if you are not qualified to evaluate the primary data then you are not qualified to comment.

Would that certain GOP politicos, and politicians over here in UK (e.g. Lawson, Lilley, Singer), take the hint.

I think that at #10 etc that SD is quoting from the GWPF. How sad.

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

It's probably where he got the idea that sea level fell near him, picked it up and fabricated an entire ficitonal history of how he and grampy drunken had "personally observed" the sea level drop.

IOW he never looked, never was there and it's a fiction from start to finish.

Explaining how he didn't know that the measure was well inland and that there had been decades of flow changes on that river.

Apropos of Wow's point that if your deity is all powerful and meant you to have some rights, why bother making laws saying that no-one can take them away?

Mike Huckabee:

The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature's God on marriage than it can the laws of gravity.

But wait, Mike! They just did - if you're stupid enough to pretend that US law is your god's law - and no-one said they did, if you're smart enough to distinguish between the two.

Feel free to pick one, Mike.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2015 #permalink

" there is geodetic movement of the continental plate on which your local sand mass is resting"

Like Fort Denison has shown 2.5 inches of SLR in the last century but has actually sunk most of that. Yes, Nick, we know that.

And how about Moreton Bay? Got any data?

The fact is, if only you Doltoids paid attention, east coast SLs have gone nowhere in a hundred years.

And no SLR = no CAGW. Full stop. QED.

The ever widening gap between the Doltoid-Sci angels and reality:

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/spencer-73-cmip5-mo…

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 27 Jun 2015 #permalink

"CAGW. Full stop. QED."

Yet again, a denier showing their belief in CAGW.

The fact is, if only you Doltoids paid attention, east coast SLs have gone nowhere in a hundred years.
And no SLR = no CAGW. Full stop. QED.

If you were to be looking for an example of how many lies and how much ignorance can be packed into a single sentence, Spanky's offering at #34 would be hard to beat.

Lionel #30
I had a look in at BBD's heroic effort to educate a particularly rabid Steynian at DSB. He's playing a blinder, as he always does.

I can only think the Pope's recent intervention has so spooked the Protestant Ascendancy that all the stops (including dribbling centennial retirees like Spanky) have been drafted in.

chek, to prove that you are not blatantly telling lies yourself, where's your observed evidence?

As distinct from the regurgitated reconstructions and dancing angels, of course.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 27 Jun 2015 #permalink

chek, to prove that you are not blatantly telling lies yourself, where’s your observed evidence?

I've never actually been there, but I have good reason to believe from multiple sources that the sun is 93m miles distant.

As distinct from the regurgitated reconstructions and dancing angels, of course

From the previous answer, can you now understand why you're dismissed vas a deluded moron?

Never been to the seaside, eh, chek? How do you even know there is an ocean? Seen it on your phone?

Well, I'll let you into a little secret, chekkie. It's a lot easier to get to than the sun and you don't need such a long tape measure. In fact you can even judge it by eye.

But you have to be prepared to live in the real world, make real world obs and stop telling lies. Especially to yourself

Who the real moron is here, is easy to pick.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 27 Jun 2015 #permalink

Spanky, you don't have any 'obs', just repeated hot air.
Nobody has ever seen or verified your precious 'obs'.
They don't exist, except in your own head.

Chek, not all people are morons like you.

Several people have verified my obs. And reconfirm them every highest astronomical tide. At the same time reconfirming your stupidity.

A few are actually interested enough in their surroundings to take particular details of what's going around them. The late John Daly was one such and he records historically others like Humboldt, Ross, Lempriere etc who tried to convey the facts of SLs to future generations only to have Doltoids go to great lengths to muddy the water in true IPCC style.

Even though you haven't got a clue yourself you can always read up on what happens in the real world. It supports exactly what I have been trying to convey to you Doltoids:

http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 27 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo, I smacked John Daly down for you at the end of 2012 here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/12/12/sea-level-rise-acceleration/…

and here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/12/12/sea-level-rise-acceleration/…

You really do have a mental block with anything that corrects your misapprehensions, don't you?

And for the the zillionth time, highest astronomical tides are:

1) different to realised highest tides,

2) NOT the highest tides that can occur,

3) modified by non-average local meteorological and hydrological parameters.

Conflating observed high tides with astronomincal high tides simply indicates that you are not fully educated about sea level phenomena, no matter how many barnacles you may have scraped.

And as you agree that isostatic movement around SE Queensland is inconsequential you must then agree that these gauges show sea level rise:

http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/822.php

http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1154.php

http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/825.php

http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1493.php

http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1760.php

When are you going to stop pointing at imaginary squirrels?

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

[Sigh. Moderated again.]

Drongo, I smacked John Daly down for you at the end of 2012 here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/12/12/sea-level-rise-acceleration/…

and here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/12/12/sea-level-rise-acceleration/…

You really do have a mental block with anything that corrects your misapprehensions, don’t you?

And for the the zillionth time, highest astronomical tides are:

1) different to realised highest tides,

2) NOT the highest tides that can occur,

3) modified by non-average local meteorological and hydrological parameters.

Conflating observed high tides with astronomincal high tides simply indicates that you are not fully educated about sea level phenomena, no matter how many barnacles you may have scraped.

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

Spanky, you have been showered with the best available, globally recognised data in this thread, never mind for years now.

And your response is to link to the site of an unqualified, enthusiastic sunspot crank who made the same elementary error as you, and who further links only to other politicised, unqualified cranks.

That you see no problem to your credibility, were you to have any, with this is your problem.

Ian who also has nothing other than invective to contribute.

My name isn't Ian ... "ianam" describes the difference between you and me, you moron. And what I contribute is far superior to what you do because mine is true and is based on intelligence and intellectual honesty, whereas you are a stupid lying shithole who has the contempt of everyone here who isn't also a stupid lying shithole. Every time you say something, you prove how very stupid you are, like "a lot easier to get to than the sun" that shows that you have no concept of evidence and inference that all of science (and rational thought generally) is based on. You're a crank, a crackpot, a liar, a fool, and an asshole, and you deserve only contempt.

Now write "Doltoid" a few more times, you hypocrite ... it's all you've got.

Drongo, your view of the past century's SL history in eastern Australia is quite divorced from the measurements. Divorced from reality.. The longest records clearly show sea level is rising, what ever tectonic variations are being noted by annual, biennial and other periodic geodetic surveys. Recent satellite measurement shows that NE NSW SE QLD has a lesser rate of rise: I pointed that out to you in January, IIRC. SEAFRAME has near 25 years of data: there is quite a lot of variation around the continent, and all stations show rise.

Your view was bullshit when you rode in here on your seahorse months ago. It remains so.

"Like Fort Denison has shown 2.5 inches of SLR in the last century but has actually sunk most of that. Yes, Nick, we know that."

What we know about that claim is that it was attributed by you to Bob Carter, and it is utterly false. We pinged you on that six months ago. You simply do not acknowledge information that contradicts you, yet boringly champion some kind of 'science and observation' mantra.

It's been intransigence without substance all the way. It's sublimely comic that you should claim an 'ever-widening gap' between reality and the scientific view, when you still insist you can extrapolate from local anecdotal memory to claim that global SLR is a myth. You are absolutely potty, old man.

Bern, a twit like you is completely incapable of smacking down the likes of the late John Daly but read my link and refresh your muddied mind.

All you Doltoids can offer is dancing angels with error bars at least ten times the signal. But you always manage to muddy the waters.

When are you and the other Doltoids gonna put your collective heads out the window and chek for yourselves.

You might be pleasantly surprised to see and smell the roses.

But somehow I doubt it.

BTW, the net SLR from reliable Australian long-term tide gauges is negative.

And for your info:

Definition of Highest astronomical tide (HAT):

"The highest level which can be predicted to occur under average meteorological conditions."

Nothing to do with your sea surges.

And all poor silly feral foulmouth ian can do is call people names yet offer exactly nothing in way of facts or evidence. I thought you had agreed to put up or shut up, ian. But I see now you meant put up or froth up.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 27 Jun 2015 #permalink

"comic that you should claim an ‘ever-widening gap’ between reality and the scientific view"

And you seriously claim that there isn't?

It's interesting that in spite of all Doltoid regurgitations on SLR not one of you can point to a humanly, let alone personally, observed example.

Do you all really think that if it was truly happening, no one would notice?

Yet no one here has noticed.

Or has evidence of anyone who has noticed.

But you all swear blind that it has happened.

What sort of religion do you call that?

Ah! It must be the new Doltoid religion.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 27 Jun 2015 #permalink

Bern, a twit like you is completely incapable of smacking down the likes of the late John Daly...

But I did. Point out which of my refutations are wrong if you disagree.

I know that you can't.

“The highest level which can be predicted to occur under average meteorological conditions.”

Nothing to do with your sea surges.

Which is my fucking point you daft old bugger. I keep telling you that realised heights are not HAT heights - on any specific occasion the latter are compounded by positive and negative meteorological and hydrological factors. And yet you persistently refer to your observations as HAT heights.

Have you had a lobotomy? Or are you being deliberately stupid to avoid the ringing of cognitive dissonance in your ears?

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

Bern, all you did was offer up the junk paper that claimed that PA benchmark was not installed at MSL.[Which is most unlikely]. It's all the same Doltoid dancing angels dubiousness.

I didn't argue too much because there are unknowns in the PGR with the1880s shockwaves but the fact that Eaglehawk Neck is wider now than it was in the 1840s tells us that there has likely been a considerable fall in SLs.

And you're the one who keeps feeding me storm surges to promote your argument while I keep telling you they are only weather and it's the highest good weather king tides [which are the only ones I ever quote you] that are the real climate indicators.

I have been consistently making that point and you must be crazy to think otherwise.

And stop ranting. You're the one losing it.

.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 28 Jun 2015 #permalink

spanky, to prove that you are not blatantly telling lies yourself, where’s your observed evidence?

Your worldwide observance of SLR, personally observed by you to be dropping everywhere.

So spanky, are you claiming that you're John Daley?

Or was your link there to that .com site not proof of your personal observations?

This is what Bern thinks is Climate Change related SLR as per one of his previous comments a couple of days ago:

"Got anything to report on personally observed SLR data yet, Bern?

I have indeed Drongo. Did you see this last year?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-24/emergency-crews-inundated-with-ca…

It obviously contradicts your river tide anecdotes."

It's plain to see why you don't understand what constitutes SLR and why you are a complete waste of time and effort.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 28 Jun 2015 #permalink

So you still have nothing, spanky.

How like Stupid you are.

' “comic that you should claim an ‘ever-widening gap’ between reality and the scientific view”

And you seriously claim that there isn’t? '

Yes. 'The ever-widening gap' is a lazy rhetorical fiction, a desperate wish-of-the-day shared amongst your ignorant troglodyte friends, championed by intellectual failures like Mark Steyn and A.Watts. Grow up, drongo. You views are absurd, only for nutters and the political animals that parasitize them.

You do not have any data. None. Just an anecdote. How do we know this? Because you keep repeating your anecdote...and rejecting observation and knowledge that puts your anecdote in context, and destroys your claim for it..

You can drive a planet through the gap between your claims, and the facts and observations of reality. Global scale claims about confirming a SLR, in its slow and varied nature, involve global scale data collection. And then analyzing that data and accounting for influences.

Bern, all you did was offer up the junk paper that claimed that PA benchmark was not installed at MSL.

Junk? On what basis do you make that claim? What's your evidence?

And what of the errors of interpretation that I pointed out in Daly's nonsense? Are you studiously avoiding those?

It’s plain to see why you don’t understand what constitutes SLR and why you are a complete waste of time and effort.

Ah, but I do Drongo, far better than you. You just keep on, year after year, ignoring the fundamental point that king tide heights are subject to the vagaries of many confounders and that they in and of themselves, without compensation for these factors, are not indicators of sea level.

Please tell us why you're nothing more than an idiot Drongo, a fool and a moron, and why you've never once been able to explain why the science is incorrect.

When you're on your deathbed I hope that you're finally haunted by the realisation that you've been wrong all along, and that you at least tell whomever is wiping the drool from your chin that you want to recant in order to resolve that cognitive dissonance which is quietly buzzing in the corner of your brain, however buried in your subconscious it might be.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 28 Jun 2015 #permalink

SD:

Never mind, here’s some Paul Ehrlich you can take to your bosom:

Do pay attention for you will see some of us here have been mentioning 'The Sixth Extinction' on this very thread with particular mention of a book by that title by Elizabeth Kolbert.

Other researchers, scientists have been mentioned in this context including:

'Driven to Extinction: The Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity' by Dr Richard Pearson

The Future of Life by E. O. Wilson

with more thought provoking issues highlighted on

The Unnatural History of the Sea by Dr Callum Roberts. Dr. Roberts' later book 'The Ocean of Life: The Fate of Man and the Sea' should also be studied.

Have fun when that jellyfish bloom comes in on a SLR and climate change aggravated storm surge swamping your boats at their moorings.

You really do have a mental block with anything that corrects your misapprehensions, don’t you?

Morton's Demon, archetypal example thereof.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 28 Jun 2015 #permalink

Bern, a twit like you is completely incapable of smacking down the likes of the late John Daly ...

An excellent example of the Ad Hominem fallacy, and one that was deployed instead of demonstrating that your claim about Bernard's argument was valid.

It's almost like you know somewhere deep inside where you keep squashing it down to because it keeps vying for your attention that your argument hasn't got a leg to stand on.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 28 Jun 2015 #permalink

Not to mention the appeal to authority fallacy.

He knows he's talking bollocks: he's never read the king tide heights personally, he's just latched onto it as an excuse to troll with.

For those playing with Sparkles, a community service announcement.

Some may not recall from previous threads that the reason he is so wedded to his Moreton Bay Anecdote-set is because he believes one station can measure global SL changes; apart from a small amount of lag, sea level is like a billiard table wrt to the geoid, and any SLR should affect all stations equally.

Even were someone to succeed in the utterly unpossible (and sysiphean) task of persuading him that his "data" (LOL) was invalid, all they would have achieved is peeling back a layered stupid to reveal a deeper layer of deeper stupid.

This has been a community service announcement...

"Some may not recall from previous threads that the reason he is so wedded to his Moreton Bay Anecdote-set "

Rember, Frank, we have absolutely no evidence that this anecdote is his, as opposed to a complete fiction he invented or was given.

Oh dear. Bray now is it, Gary?

No better than using poptart, is it.

Some may not recall from previous threads that the reason he is so wedded to his Moreton Bay Anecdote-set is because he believes one station can measure global SL changes...

We remember that's his position. That's why we keep pointing out stations that show local SLR which implies by his own logic that it must be rising everywhere ;-)

That uncomfortable inference presumably explains why he insists that the only observations that are valid are the ones personally made by the relatively small number of people who bother to pay him any attention any more - because he can't bear to acknowledge that other people have personally made observations of rises, and he knows it even if he won't admit it to himself.

This is quite apart from his insistence on not employing standard scientific data quality measures both during data gathering and the subsequent analysis, and quite apart from his insistence that his data free handwaving is sufficient reason to dismiss all the confounding factors, and quite apart from the fact that the data show his billiard table argument to be incorrect.

But it's good to remind him and readers of all this every now and then ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 28 Jun 2015 #permalink

Bern, like all you Doltoids with your devotion to dancing angels, reconstructions and general fakery at the bakery, yet absolutely no personal observations to back your fakery, Pugh, Woodworth et al make assumptions at Ross' benchmarks at both the Isle of the Dead and Falkland Is to agree with Church and Whites GPS-contrived dancing angels.

How wonderfully convenient.

But pardon my extreme scepticism.

If you choose to believe doctored data which include these sort of dubious assumptions that put all your songs in the same book you are a fool.

They could have honestly stated that because of one or two imponderables there is a range of conclusions that could be drawn, stated what they were and left it at that with their scientific reputations still intact.

But no, instead, like you, they are fixated on their ideology and not the real world.

With more honest assessment the balance of probabilities would show both those sites indicating either no SLR or an actual fall over the last 170 years.

But that is just too alarming to contemplate for Doltoids.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 28 Jun 2015 #permalink

This one's a beauty, Bernard:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/405.php

Putting my scientist hat on, I can think of 3 reasons this could be happening:
- The UN fascist/leftist cabal hasn't made it to Juneau yet to doctor the data
- Isostatic rebound (fast!)
- A nearby Fjord has a rapidly receding glacier whose gradual disappearance is affecting local tide levels, just like the tide levels at Spangled Drongo's "benchmark" (3km inland from the sea) are being affected by changing dynamics in the waterway it sits on.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 28 Jun 2015 #permalink

But that is just too alarming to contemplate for Doltoids.

Good grief, the man is completely thick. If he was correct about global sea level that would be a great relief - you know, the very opposite of "alarming".

If you need that kind of counterfactual conspiratorial ideation to support your position, it's time to consider abandoning it.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 28 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo, you're not addressing specific points.

You're not providing evidence to support your assertions.

You're not laying out the alternatives to any issue (for and against) and assessing the merits thereof.

You're not using parsimony to account for the fact that independent pocesses conducted and analysed by independent workers give the same results.

You employ no logic in your nonacceptance of the science, and instead you argue from assertion and personal scepticism.

In other words, your entire approach to the subject is fallacious.

On the Lempriere benchmark, why is it that you refute Pugh's <et al work on establishing the postioning of the datum? I've pointed out to you that the best reading of the plate inscription is consistent with the high tide relationship, that the time of striking as recorded by witnesses is consistent with a high tide relationship, and common sense should tell you why a higher tide datum is most useful - can you figure why that would be so?

Amd um... what's your personal experience with the Lepriere mark? Huh? I've "personally" discussed over lunch with John Hunter* the issue of the measurement of tides using this mark, and I would happily take his word over the analysis of this datum over the rantings of a sun-struck conservative barnacle scraper who can't understand the need for the accounting of relevant cofactors. I've seen the bugger, and I know from long "personal" experience how the oysters, limpets, and Ulva lactuca grow in the tidal zones around the SE Tasmanian coast. If the mark was struck at mean sea level and then underwent a 30cm subsidence in a few decades as Daly claims, it would practically be sitting in a lovely skirt of encrustations now. To the contrary, it's still quite distant from intertidal growth.

But stuff my own personal impressions. Why do you think that a mark carved into the rock on the Isle of the Dead would be set closer to the high water level than at mean sea level? For brownie points explain why 19th century tide recorders would fixate on mean sea level in the first place, rather than low or high water marks... And explain the internal inconsistencies in Daly's muddled theories.

On satellites, you still haven't explained why the error in measurement is "metres" as you claim, rather than the millimetres that the professionals indicate. What do you know that they don't?

[*By the way John Hunter is a man of great integrity and it ill-behoves you to speak so poorly about him (and about his colleagues) on the basis of your own confected assertions.]

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 28 Jun 2015 #permalink

Bern, go and read Daly again, Parts One AND Two.

I'd believe Daly, Ross and Lempriere long before modern day ideologists.

Stop having yourself on.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 28 Jun 2015 #permalink

Craig, I snuck Juneau in to see what Drongo would say. :-)

His lack of notice is telling.

There's anotherone too, with a bit of an inplicit swipe at him. He left that one alone too...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 28 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo, you can't be serious.

You mean Joanne Codling? She and rational, factual analysis are very poorly acquainted.

And no, I don't mean Envisat. Have you ever heard of TOPEX/Poseidon and Jasons 1 and 2?

If you're so convinced about Daly then defend his actual claims Drongo. Don't just tell me to go read him again. I know what he says and I've told you time after time where he went wrong. If you are going to hold him up as your evidence defend the issues that I've pointed out as errors. Explain (if you can) why I'm wrong, using referenced data, and why Daly is correct, again using referenced data. I've given you lots of specifics to address, and two and a half years later you're still avoiding doing so.

Just waving your hand in Daly's general direction is not defensible you old coot. It's not scientific, and it's not in any way supporting your case.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 28 Jun 2015 #permalink

Stupid Bern, I've already replied but you didn't even notice.

Have you worked out yet what the net rise or fall in the world's tide gauges are?

And as for GPS, have you ever used one to save your life?

The error bars used to me a mile each side of a dangerous object but they have improved somewhat.

But as per my link above [which you also must have missed] they'll still kill you if you don't keep a lookout.

And that's not your strong suit either, is it?

To have the temerity to think they could possibly measure SLs to a variation of a tiny few millimetres per year is a screaming joke.

Do you even have any idea what the range of difference in measurement was between Topex/Poseidon, Jason 1 and Jason 2?

Just think about that and then explain to me how they would arrive at that 3mm+ per year SLR [and still pass the believability test] when they have error bars of metres.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 28 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo, tide gauges used for determining sea level are all adjusted for any isostatic change. Have you never read a methodology to understand this?!

I've used GPSs since 1997. I've used them to map (stinky black anoxic) tidal creeks, to pinpoint home ranges of a variety of animal species, and to locate traps. I also use the to play - I'm the fastest geochacher of all my friends. I've never been stupid/careless enought to need to use them to save my life.

You?

"Error bars" on a GPS location are different beasts to error bars on a satellite telemetry dataset. It's extremely telling that you conflate the two, and further, that you attempt to use GPS location as a defence of your claim that altitude telemetry has an error of "metres"...

To have the temerity to think they could possibly measure SLs to a variation of a tiny few millimetres per year is a screaming joke.

Argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy. Your assertion proves nothing, except to demonstrate your abject ignorance of the technology.

Do you even have any idea what the range of difference in measurement was between Topex/Poseidon, Jason 1 and Jason 2?

Absolutely. I can see that you struggle though when it comes to satellite error margins, so take a gander at some literature. You could start with this:

http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-2009.html

And have a read of this too whilst you're at it:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490419.2010.491031

Their conclusions:

"A continuous series of satellite altimeter sea level measurements from the T/P, Jason-1, and Jason-2 missions have been calibrated and assembled to form a climate data record for sea level change. They show that sea level has been rising over the last 17 years at a mean rate of 3.4 ± 0.4 mm/yr after corrected for glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA). However, there is considerable interannual variation due to ENSO processes, so the rate average over any individual four-year period can be significantly different. A longer time-series is required to definitely show that sea level rise is accelerating."

Really, read it. Read the methodlogies, and the references, to understand how this technology actually works.

Just think about that and then explain to me how they would arrive at that 3mm+ per year SLR [and still pass the believability test] when they have error bars of metres.

Because they don't have "error bars" (or margins or error, as a sensible person would term it) of metres. That you are stuck with this misapprehension really shows how ignorant you are.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 28 Jun 2015 #permalink

Bah. Tag failure.

Drongo, tide gauges used for determining sea level are all adjusted for any isostatic change. Have you never read a methodology to understand this?!
I’ve used GPSs since 1997. I’ve used them to map (stinky black anoxic) tidal creeks, to pinpoint home ranges of a variety of animal species, and to locate traps. I also use the to play – I’m the fastest geochacher of all my friends. I’ve never been stupid/careless enought to need to use them to save my life.
You?
“Error bars” on a GPS location are different beasts to error bars on a satellite telemetry dataset. It’s extremely telling that you conflate the two, and further, that you attempt to use GPS location as a defence of your claim that altitude telemetry has an error of “metres”…

To have the temerity to think they could possibly measure SLs to a variation of a tiny few millimetres per year is a screaming joke.

Argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy. Your assertion proves nothing, except to demonstrate your abject ignorance of the technology.

Do you even have any idea what the range of difference in measurement was between Topex/Poseidon, Jason 1 and Jason 2?

Absolutely. I can see that you struggle though when it comes to satellite error margins, so take a gander at some literature. You could start with this:
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-2009.html
And have a read of this too whilst you’re at it:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490419.2010.491031
Their conclusions:

“A continuous series of satellite altimeter sea level measurements from the T/P, Jason-1, and Jason-2 missions have been calibrated and assembled to form a climate data record for sea level change. They show that sea level has been rising over the last 17 years at a mean rate of 3.4 ± 0.4 mm/yr after corrected for glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA). However, there is considerable interannual variation due to ENSO processes, so the rate average over any individual four-year period can be significantly different. A longer time-series is required to definitely show that sea level rise is accelerating.”

Really, read it. Read the methodlogies, and the references, to understand how this technology actually works.

Just think about that and then explain to me how they would arrive at that 3mm+ per year SLR [and still pass the believability test] when they have error bars of metres.

Because they don’t have “error bars” (or margins or error, as a sensible person would term it) of metres. That you are stuck with this misapprehension really shows how ignorant you are.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 28 Jun 2015 #permalink

The net SL rise or fall, Bern?

And do you really think that a three dimensional satellite dataset is going to be more accurate than a two dimensional one?

Give me a break!

And I wonder why "you don't mean Envisat"?

But it's nice to see you're embarrassed about it.

And you haven't told me your take on the range of difference between those other three satellites and how much "adjustment" had to be made for that. Is that because you don't know?

But it is nice to see they are getting embarrassed about their silly claims and are trying to retreat gracefully and gradually.

Could it be that unlike Doltoids, they are smart enough to suspect the dancing angels may just be somewhat capricious?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 28 Jun 2015 #permalink

Forget your ideology and use your imagination, Bern.

Tides change up to 10,000 times that 3mm every day as do waves and it varies enormously. As I've asked you many times, what happens when the sat signal hits a ship? I'll give you one guess. Chaos?

As Dr Carl Wunsch said regarding satellite altimetry:

“It remains possible that the database is insufficient to compute mean sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming—as disappointing as this conclusion may be.”

To put it very mildly.

Climate "scientists" have to add many more fudge factors to the raw data here than probably any other form of raw climate measurement.

And none of this BS is ever testable so all the more reason to do your own observing and decide whether or not to believe your own lying eyes.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 29 Jun 2015 #permalink

The net SL rise or fall, Bern?

Can't you read italics Drongo? I quoted it for you. "[S]ea level has been rising over the last 17 years at a mean rate of 3.4 ± 0.4 mm/yr after corrected for glacial isostatic adjustment" [my emphasis].

And do you really think that a three dimensional satellite dataset is going to be more accurate than a two dimensional one?

Give me a break!

No I won't give you a break Drongo because you obviously do not understand what you're talking about. GPS triangulation with a civilian receiver is subject to all sorts of errors, including the quality of the receiver, the number of visible satellites in the constellation, and the local conditions at the time. It's a time-stamped process too, which is important because...

Satellite altimetry is a different process altogether. It's radar-based and required knowing the position of only the one satellite.

It's apples and oranges Drongo, although just quietly even the GPS system working with the best equipment has an error much less than "metres"...

And I wonder why “you don’t mean Envisat”?

Because I'm not talking about Envisat. Really, are you brain-damaged. Heck, why don't you use Seasat as your standard?!

And you haven’t told me your take on the range of difference between those other three satellites and how much “adjustment” had to be made for that. Is that because you don’t know?

What's up Drongo, can't you read the papers to which I linked?

And it's a bit rich you asking for my interpretation (of something which is clearly explained in the papers) when you can't ever address substantive points on your own. If you really want to know though see section two of Nerem et al - I accept this as a good estimation of the accuracies of the satellites

And if you're not sure about the actual error in altimetry results, go for another lesson here:

http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/data/products/ocean-indicators-product…

which gives a précis of Ablain http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-2009.htmlet al

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 29 Jun 2015 #permalink

Tides change up to 10,000 times that 3mm every day as do waves and it varies enormously. As I’ve asked you many times, what happens when the sat signal hits a ship? I’ll give you one guess. Chaos?

You have no idea about the statistical power of multiple measurements do you Drongo? No about how data are scrunitised for confounders. Do you think a satellite sails around and once a day bounces a blip in the proxinity of a ship?! FFS you Dunningly-Krugered knuckle-dragger, men and women far, far smartter than you have worked this stuff out decades before you even thought that your wizened peanut of a brain knew better.

As Dr Carl Wunsch said regarding satellite altimetry:

“It remains possible that the database is insufficient to compute mean sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming—as disappointing as this conclusion may be.”

He might have said it, but where is his work supporting that comment?

Climate “scientists” have to add many more fudge factors to the raw data here than probably any other form of raw climate measurement.

Really. Prove it by showing us just such a "fudge factor". You time starts now...

And none of this BS is ever testable so all the more reason to do your own observing and decide whether or not to believe your own lying eyes.

I know not to automatically believe my own "lying eyes", which is why I'm a strong proponent of scientific mearement and analysis. You, on the other hand, are a victim of your own lying mind, and of the subtle tricks of your ignorant psychology (eg the phenomenon of shifting baselines) that can convince you just as was the apocryphal frog that you're not in a pot of warming water.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 29 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo.

Simple question for you. Where's the specification document/published paper that indicates that the satellite altimetry error is on the order of "metres" in measurement of sea level?

No waffle, just tell us how you know that the errors the rest of us have put to you are wrong.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 29 Jun 2015 #permalink

Don't be obtuse, Bern. The net SL rise or fall as per the world's tide gauges.

And there's no need to get flustered when you don't know the answers. Just come clean and admit it.

Could it possibly be you don't want to know about Envisat because until it was "adjusted" it showed no SLR?

Exactly what Wunsch was talking about. How embarrassing!

I must have missed it, Bern but I didn't see in your link how much variation there was between your three satellites and how much fudging was required to normalise them.

Y'know, like they had to do eventually to Envisat too.

Remind me. Or don't you know either?

When you're feeding billions of varying measurements that are individually thousands of time larger than the single tiny amount of change you are trying to measure annually, what do you think might be the percentage of error?

You are realistic enough to accept [like Dr Wunsch} that there would be an error, I take it?

Go on, have a stab.

Or go and ask Neil. He just might whisper it into your shell-like.

And after all that if you're a realist [which is somewhat moot] the best you can hope for is to believe your lyin' eyes.

I do hope you're not beyond redemption in that regard☺.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 29 Jun 2015 #permalink

"Drongo, you’re not addressing specific points."

Of course he isn't.

"You’re not providing evidence to support your assertions."

He can't.

"You’re not laying out the alternatives to any issue"

He doesn't WANT alternatives.

"You’re not using parsimony"

It doesn't help him lie.

"You employ no logic "

It would be devastating to his case.

There's no difference between Spanky here and Stupid when he refused to answer BBDs question (which he still hasn't). None at all.

Because they're driven by the same ideology to the same need.

"What’s up Drongo, can’t you read the papers to which I linked?"

He doesn't read a thing: it won't help his case because he doesn't want to know any different than the tale he was told about king tides and has stuck to.

Remember: spanky never observed king tide heights at that location. Remember: he didn't even know it was inland.

#77 Another Drongo classic!

GPS is inaccurate and unreliable,sat telemetry, geodetic surveys too. All hopeless.

But Drongo's memory is so well calibrated it's kept in a climate controlled room at the National Measurements Institute!

Actually, you set two national benchmarks, one for self-ignorance, the other for unintended comedy, drongo.

Unfortunately for metrology, Spanky's ignorance continually expands, making it an unreliable measure for historical use.

The net SL rise or fall as per the world’s tide gauges.

What, the ones you reject unless you personally observed them? The ones that Bernard provided you links to but you clearly didn't even look?

Pull the other one. That kind of lame dodge wouldn't fool a primary school kid. You sure don't come here for the hunting.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 29 Jun 2015 #permalink

And do you really think that a three dimensional satellite dataset is going to be more accurate than a two dimensional one?

Argument From Personal Incredulity fallacy.

Also appears to be Argument From Personal Incompetence.

And there is the minor point that global sea level rise is necessarily a 3 dimensional problem - you're measuring a change in the Z axis averaged over a 2D surface!

There's also the other minor point that Drongo doesn't have a 2D data set, so by his own logic his claims are baseless.

His clown trolling by shooting his own argument in the foot is getting better every day!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 29 Jun 2015 #permalink