August 2015 Open Thread

I'll break this More thread.
Curry food.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4687114,00.html

More Curry.
http://famagusta-gazette.com/heatwave-causes-electric-network-to-conk-o…

And some Curry.
http://famagusta-gazette.com/jordan-in-full-gear-to-face-unprecedented-…

Curry, anyone.

Some locations such as Prague, Berlin and Warsaw will approach monthly and all-time record highs during the second half of this week.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/madrid-paris-berlin-face-ano…

Hiatus = records keep challenged, this second time this summer, or third? Lost track again.

Hottest July Austria, regionally hottest month in 150-250 years of records. Signifies ice age already came, old record was already móóóóre than 700 days old.

Best stretch of 35+ days in Tokyo was four, so today the 5th and two more to come. 11.000 people hospitalized for heat stroke symptoms and a couple dozen confirmed died of it.

Then, there's Oregon, where the Julyrecord was already móóóóre than 360 days old, high time it went. Only talking Oregon which is just a small patch in the other huge extreme heat area of the NH, western North American continent (the first huge heat zone is from Central Europe to Central Asia).

But there's snow in Tasmania, which would cover 97% of the globe for as long as that lasts.

Yep, the idiots are on a hiding to nothing at the moment, but they'll learn nothing from this because... they're idiots.

Here's a thought.

For the USA and Australia (and the UK? Probably), how about we all agree that we will not pay any relief fund to those countries if there are any sea level rise inundations at any time in the future.

Not a penny.

So the next Sandy: the USA gets fuck all from anyone else, they have to pay all the costs themselves.

If the WAIS drops off in the next 20 years, no money for Manhattan or Sydney or London from anyone else. All costs borne by the host country.

If China, who IS doing a lot about climate change, are impacted by WAIS dunking, they DO get international aid.Though there may not be much to go around.

California Drought? Fuck it, see to it yourself.

If you aren't willing to pay the costs of protecting against those disasters possibly occurring, then you don't get paid to clean up and repair if and when they do.

It's simple insurance.

If decent city citizens would identify an arrogant climate change denier on the street and bash him and I would be close by I don't know how I would react.

It would depend on the denier.

Mad "Lord" Monkfish? Smack the silly twat upside the head until his eyes stopped popping out of his head.

One of the Kochs? Shoot the fucker dead. Beating him to death with my hands would be more satisfying but pointless.

Some random moron denier? Watch.

Wow #6, add Holland to that!!
Euro average renewable energy 25.4% and rising every year, Holland now a little over 11% and fell last year for the second year in row; Germany did it with 78% Saturday a week ago.
Kabinet here works for Shell, see.

We NEED those milleniumfloods. We wil see about 2-3 million people displaced when it is our turn and i truly kid u not.

#7, kim, step in and save him. It might be the moment you can stick an argument around a moment of shattered DK cognition.

I have to add a sentiment of my own, maybe, to do with kicking back a climate revisionist into his own flood waters et c...

But... Although I maintain that unarmed pacifism is dead pacifism I'd like to remain non-violent... Which is no real problem because reality will pull the triggers.

Seriously, guys, reread your comments. You sound like the angry old farts you argue with, like the WUWT-ards who are just waiting for One World Government to turn up at their door so they can put that AR-15 to use like they've been promising all these years.

I know exactly how I'd react. And I know because I've had the unfortunate experience of twice intervening to stop idiots being beaten up for their own stupidity. The second in particular was a mouthy racist arsehat who "brought it on himself", which didn't really change anything.

WUWTards, and our own resident clowns, aren't the problem. They do not have the reach, the voice, the power to do genuine harm beyond their own narrow sphere (that's why they are the way they are). Change can only come via politics and if you want to get your yayas out, that is the only productive way - protest, agitate, become more active, whatever. But for the powerless morons that you see from day to day, all you can do is persuade, rebut or deride.

Supporting a violent response, even tacitly, makes you the bad guy, even if you're right.

"Seriously, guys, reread your comments. You sound like the angry old farts you argue with,"

I read yours, rereading mine wasn't necessary: I WROTE IT. I know what I said. I was there.

And no, I don't "sound like the angry old farts [I] argue with".

IN YOUR OPINION I do.

So with all due respect, fuck off and die in a dumpster.

It's how you deal with lowlifes & criminals, which is what climate revisionists are, FrankD.
This now is a situation where that sick Bush doctrine is true for: not with us = against us, and against all of humanity.

Every climate revisionist's post is accompanied by extra die-off from some exorbitant heat wave striking the world somewhereS (multiple, as of a couple of years). Those deaths can simply be attributed to those criminals. So there, FrankD. Take up the insight now, I loathe being right all the time two years before everybody else gets it.

@FrankD

Tone trolls are the most stupid people on the planet, even dumber than deniers.

Supporting a violent response, even tacitly, makes you the bad guy, even if you’re right.

Fine, I'm happy to be a bad guy, retard. But then what do we call the people destroying human civilization?

Change can only come via politics

Then why do you waste your time reading and posting at this backwater, you silly hypocrite? What do you gain by attacking people who are simply venting their perfectly reasonable frustration, and likening them to stupid shitholes like sunspot and accusing them of violence? Do you really think that's an effective strategy of persuasion? No, it's just you being smug pompous patronizing sack of intellectually dishonest shit.

If I had in my possession a magic scroll, the reading of which would cause the immediate death of every denier, I would gladly read it and dedicate it to FrankD.

[Now watch the moron's head explode a he takes that seriously.]

Speaking of serious ... I'm doing a bit of introspection, trying to decide whether, given an opportunity to strangle Monckton or poison the Koch brothers and get away with it, whether I would go through with it. (I'm pretty sure I wouldn't if I thought I could be caught and punished for it.) I honestly don't know whether I would.

Does that make me "sound like the angry old farts you argue with, like the WUWT-ards who are just waiting for One World Government to turn up at their door so they can put that AR-15 to use like they’ve been promising all these years"? No, of course it doesn't ... only a deeply intellectually dishonest shithead full up to the brim with himself (ooh, he does racist rescue missions!) could claim that.

Ok, that was fun. I hope it will cause FrankD to realize the futility of his attempt to " persuade, rebut or deride" and so to be at least slightly dissuaded from being such a giant asshole in the future. And if not, I hope he dies a horrible death.

I don't think FrankD has anything other than a different opinion.

His error is in demanding others do the same as he would.

Not in defending deniers. 'cos he's not doing that.

Yeah, well, you can fuck off and die in a dumpster.

Bye now.

Oh dear.

inane is back. :-(

But with an incredible display of integrity.

I dunno. "Yeah, well, you can fuck off and die in a dumpster." doesn't seem to contain any integrity as a response to "His error is in demanding others do the same as he would.".

It doesn't even contain anything new.

#12: Wow tells me my opinion is my opinion.

Thanks for the heads up on that wow.

In my opinion, you still sound like the angry old morons you argue with. Oh, and in my opinion your invitation to fuck off and die makes you sound like you are utterly intolerant of hearing an opinion that differs from your own. I hope that works for you in your web wanderings :-)

#13 No, its how you deal with them. Are we arguing about the merits of capital punishment now?

#14. Not "tone trolling". If you think it is then despite your nym, you ARE a moron.

#15 mostly, "callously stupid". Probably a few variants on "nihilistic" and whatnot

But if you want to be seen as the good guys, expect to be held to a higher standard than the fuckwits you disagree with. All you've given us is unedifying bile - so you hate people you disagree with....and thats newsworthy because.

Tiresome narcissist.

#19. Tell me, where did I demand anything? I just said that in my opinion there is only one productive course of action. And to be explicit where I was implicit, more than "persuade, rebut or deride" varies from the unproductive to counterproductive.

But if you guys want to be "angry man shouts at cloud", knock yourselves out. You make me laugh, if nothing else.

"#12: Wow tells me my opinion is my opinion.

Thanks for the heads up on that wow. "

No, frank, you retard, I told you it is ONLY your opinion.

Do you get the difference?

Or not care.

YOUR opinion is NO reason for me to abide by its precepts.

But you really didn't care, did you. You really REALLY didn't care.

"#19. Tell me, where did I demand anything?"

Goodness, you took your time coming back.

Butthurt finally too much?

"Seriously, guys, reread your comments." ring a bell? Or did you not bother to follow your own exhortations? At least when inconvenient.

How about "all you can do is persuade, rebut or deride."?

No?

Then with all due respect, fuck off.

"#14. Not “tone trolling”. "

Yes, tone trolling.

Look it up on the rationalwiki.

“Yeah, well, you can fuck off and die in a dumpster.” doesn’t seem to contain any integrity

I felt that quoting you in that context made a point that intelligent people can grasp, and it's as far as I wanted to engage with you because, as you know, I actually despise you, unlike my pretend-despise for FrankD:

14. Not “tone trolling”. If you think it is then despite your nym, you ARE a moron.

You're a fucking stupid lying moronic vile sack of asshole shit and I'm hoping for that horrible death of yours to linger:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument

From that article,

The tone argument is to dismiss an opponent's argument based on its presentation: typically perceived crassness, hysteria or anger. It is an ad hominem attack, used as a derailment, silencing tactic or by a concern troll.

Now, how can FrankD's comments not be tone trolling? Well, if he's really so stupid as to think that people here are really supporting violence rather than venting, and if he is so stupid and blind and intellectually dishonest that he simply ignored what I wrote about that. Ah, I think I've hit on it ...

But if you want to be seen as the good guys

I don't give a fuck how you see me, you tone trolling sack of dimwitted shit. I don't give a fuck about your opinion -- especially since I can see how stupidly it is arrived at -- of how you think I sound -- especially when I know that your stated opinion is self-serving bullshit not based on the evidence in hand and is probably a lie about your own beliefs. I realize that you are too dimwitted, thickheaded, and full of yourself to comprehend this, you pompous git, but in all regards I favor my own judgments over yours. While you may offer me citations of facts that will change my beliefs about the world, not a single thing you say about how you feel about my behavior will change it because I've already taken everything relevant into account.

Now tell me again that

But if you want to be seen as the good guys

isn't tone trolling and that for me to think it is makes me a moron, and I will tell you that I want to hunt you down and wrap your intestines around your neck.

All you’ve given us is unedifying bile – so you hate people you disagree with….

Ah, see, that's the same sort of dishonesty that we get from the denier scum. These pages are full of extensive factual evidence of the basis for disagreement, and of why people are so frustrated with the denialati.

Tiresome narcissist

That, sir, is you, with your pompous bullshit about your opinion about how other people should act, as if such judgments had any value.

Well, at least June is finally over. Have a nice August, folks.

I sincerely hope that Tim is doing well.

"I actually despise you,"

And I have contempt.

However, it doesn't stop me form agreeing with a point well made merely because you made it.

But that's because I use my brains. The forebrain, where the seat of higher reasoning lives, rather than the hindbrain, which you apparently let overrun everything that lifted you up from the lizard ancestor.

it doesn’t stop me form agreeing with a point well made merely because you made it.

It does whenever it disagrees with a view you already hold, you dishonest sack of stupid shit ... we've seen this over and over and over again, not just with me but with Loth and others.

Now I go back to forgetting that you exist.

blah blah blah blah.

tautology/tɔːˈtɒlədʒi/
noun
the saying of the same thing twice over in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g. they arrived one after the other in succession ).

see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology

#25 FrankD, you're right, resp. let's not (no merits whatsoever).

For goodness sake people do you want this area closed down? It is not helping anybody.

We do not need to act like the Limaughs and Becks of the world, or the Moranos and Milloys for that matter. Their time will come, time when they will answer for their betrayal of humanity and of the ecosystems which support all life in a system into which we have evolved. An environment that we are changing in so many ways and at such a rate that we undermine our own well being.

I have to say this isn't pretty.

As dear old Granny John Lydon said, anger is an energy. We should always be careful how we use energy.

"For goodness sake people do you want this area closed down?"

Half of it is pointless parades of tag teaming deniers. So what? Tim ought to be doing something, but isn't. Doesn't care. Should I?

"We should always be careful how we use energy."

And energy expended on nothing is pointless. Your point of view defines the point of the exercise.

We shall over come! :-)

You Wacoids are something extra, I’ll give you that. :-)

Me and my friend Jeff think it’s time for a group hug!

Bark little doggie.

Bark!

Good lappers.Lap it up.

Goood boy.

More tone trolling, of an even more stupid and unreflective nature.

The idea that this forum matters outside of itself is beyond laughable.

As dear old Granny John Lydon said, anger is an energy. We should always be careful how we use energy.

So you've given up on physics and have taken up oldwifery instead?

Alas Olaus you have no friends here go take your inanities elsewhere!

Going over the blog post at

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/08/icymi-theres-no-stopping-rise-in.html

and I got thinking.

Run models from Hansen's 1988 version to latest with the actual trends of inputs (sun, volcanoes, emissions) and compare the measured temps against the median line of the average of (9?) runs.

1) How has each model compared

2) Is there any evidence of an unprecedented "pause" in the data anywhere in the last 150 years

3) What is the trend between runs of greater and greater complexity

4) What would one of the best ones of the previous century have done with todays' time and space resolution? This may require rewriting a lot of it since it would have been parameterised based on the size of the grid, so "training" to get those grid issues seems appropriate.

#4 would see how we've done in improving the situation with greater and greater complexity. If there's little difference between a hi-res Hansen and a modern HadGM2 at the same resolution, then we know that there isn't much in the way of known or unknown unknowns, even 30 years ago on the climate trends.

I suspect the complexity is only helping determine the regional details, not the global issue. But it would be nice to see the proof.

It also got me thinking about zombie arguments, which are propped up again in that blog.

See, the think is that the response is to attack the argument. Which is no different than killing the dead body being propped up by the random passer by again. The passer by isn't affected ONE LITTLE BIT since it's only the dead body that is harmed. And being dead, it doesn't notice.

So maybe it should be that you attack the one propping the dead corpse up instead a hell of a lot more. Attack them, not the dead body which can't feel a thing.

It also got me thinking about Deadpool. Despite being a fandom favourite, he's a monster. But being unkillable, "nobody" has managed to deal with him.

Thing is, his horrors are enacted by him being mobile and ambulatory.

So why not put him in a huge blender that takes the chopped up pieces of deadpool at the bottom and carries them to the top again, to be chopped again and again and again. For ever.

Or use a grinder. Or a chopping grate going up and down.

If his cells aren't superhumanly strong, chop him up to chunks and put the chunks in concrete. Concrete sets and there's nowhere for his body to move to get back into one piece.

Hell, just do it for a century or two and you've saved tens of thousands of lives in the marvel universe. Or is he DC?

Thing is, killing deadpool isn't necessary.

And if the rules about monstrous torture don't apply to him (he breaks them all), then lets see how far he accepts this premise and not worry about what he's going through.

Wow, you are correct, the reason I stopped by yesterday was my interest in zombies.

Deltoid is a very tiny village of living dead. Basically it's only a shaking tent where a few intolerant moutfrothers hate all and everything. Could the lack of accelarating global warming have made its inhabitants brains melt beyond a point of no return?

:-)

Shhhh.

We're hunting wabbits.

YOU have run out of buwwets.

Olaus really cracks me up. This clown has tha audacity to call Deltoid the "living dead" when he inhabits blogs run by organisms long since extinct. Then he comes back with the hilarious clincher... "Lack of accelerating global warming"... in this, by far the warmest year in recorded history, eclipsing all others by a very wide margin.

I kid you not, dolts like our Olaus truly do exist and think that somehow science is on their side. Forget what is discussed at every major scientific conference, the views and agreed positions of every National Academy, our Ollie has erased these from his Dunning-Kruger infested noggin. They simply don't exist, erased by ideologically driven dogma. Instead, Ollie thinks that the general scientific views are those of shills like Morano and Monckton. Seriously folks. This is the intellectual level of Olly and the small number of other deniers who write in here.

If they think Deltoid is dead, so be it. But in the scientific community the serious nature and reality of AGW is very much alive and dominates intellectual discourse. Denialism may not quite be dead yet, but current trends and events are pushing it towards extinction. Sadly, those who have distorted science for the past two decades have pushed our ability to deal with the serious consequences of warming to the brink. Science is demolishing them but they will hang on until the bitter end, by which time it may well be too late.

"This clown has tha audacity to call Deltoid the “living dead” when he inhabits blogs run by organisms long since extinct. "

And whilst infesting Deltoid itself.

A lack of self-reflection there.

Oh, note how it's no longer his claim that it's cooling.

It's no longer his claim that it's paused.

He's now claiming that it's not accelerating and that this was predicted by AGW.

Except the claim doesn't hold up in that AGW doesn't rely on accelerating warming.

Retreating like the tide, the deniers pretend that each low water mark is merely the deep breath before "The Scam" is "uncovered" and the veil lifted from our eyes (tm).

Now, how can FrankD’s comments not be tone trolling?

Goodness, Iamnota really is that stupid! Perhaps then, based on his quoted definition, Mr Moron can summarise the argument that has been derailed by my comment? Oh, that's right there wasn't one. No argument, ergo no derailment, ergo no tone trolling. QED. I thought posting links that defeat one's own argument was a Sunspot specialty, but it seems others are catching on to his schtick. But a handy tip for beginners - the scary Doctor Whiteface act only works if there's an Auguste to be scared of him, Ian.

I don’t give a fuck about your opinion

Sure, I can tell. Its the lack of response that shows them how little you care...

Well, keep on yelling at the clouds, if you want. If its okay for you to vent your denier-frustration, I'll presume its okay for me to vent my people-yelling-at-clouds-frustration.

We all seem to agree that posting here is pointless, yet keep posting here. Nowt so queer as folk...

Sorry - for "we all" read "many here".

As you were.

"Sure, I can tell. Its the lack of response that shows them how little you care…"

OK, conversational English 101. He is letting you know that your opinion will not change his actions, therefore you know that telling him off can only be of service to you at best, or a complete waste of time if not.

It may even be counterproductive and exhort them to higher efforts in order to display how little effect your desires have on them.

Here ends the first lesson of conversational English 101.

You could consider "I told you I didn't care" as the conversational "Zero Point Energy" of Quantum Physics. It is impossible to care EXACTLY ZERO, since every quanta of experience affects you.

You could also consider it a service to you in letting you know that your efforts are wasted. You may or may not take that to heart, but their offer would still be genuinely helpful.

Olaus

Deltoid is a very tiny village of living dead.

Physics doesn't care who thinks what. Which is why all the confusion about physics at the moment is a bit terrifying.

I'm always amused by imbeciles like FrankD who blather about how bad it is for appearances to have certain sorts of conversations, but keeps coming back to stir the shit after the discussion has died down.

And what the fuck is the imbecile on about? Whether something is tone trolling isn't predicated on whether it derails something, and the RationalWiki page doesn't say that. As for "argument", "Tone argument" refers to his argument. Really really fucking stupid.

As for what argument the cretin was ad homineming, it's discussed by Kampen in #13. The question was raised by kim in #7 of how one should respond if encountering a denier in the wild. Wow laid out his multi-tiered approach in #8. The reasoning for these different approaches are not explicitly stated, but people who aren't retarded can figure it out.

Of course, the term "argument" refers to propositions that can be disputed, such as whether one should cause Lord Monckton's eye to pop out of their sockets given the opportunity.

But any even slightly intelligent person recognizes that "tone trolling" refers to a sort of behavior, and that doesn't need to apply to an argument per se. Once again, I'm not a moron to think that FrankD was tone trolling or that the RationalWiki page supports that claim. It's particularly amusing to look at the example at the top of that page:

Person A: [bigoted statement]
Person B: The fuck?
Person C: Now, now, let's have civility.

According to FrankD, who is clearly an imbecile and an intellectually dishonest sophist, that isn't an example of tone trolling because "The fuck?" isn't an argument.

#60 Yes, thank you Wow. I had naively assumed that the imbecile would realize that I was responding to his #24 and #28 about how I should behave, and saying that his opinion doesn't determine my behavior and, if anything, influences me to go in the other direction. I of course was not claiming that I have no reaction to the fact that he stated his opinion, or even to its content. But then, I wonder whether that's stupidity or dishonesty ... he offers so much to choose from.

BBD, Detloid isn't physics, it's a pit of pus where fanatics like you swim around blaming the rest of the World for being a-holes.

The lack of accelerating global warming has that effect on certain people.

Still in what you consider a village? Your social life must suck, lappers.

Now Olaus, a vile piece of pus if there ever was one, is claiming to know about physics. Him being a non-scientist and all. And veritable pite of real pus and vile dishonesty - WUWT, Bishops Hill, CA, Climate Depot, et al ad nauseum, are, to Olly, sites of scientific integrity.

And again, he talks about a lack of accelerating global warming during a year when - yes - global warming is clearly accelerating compared with previous years. To Olly, 95 per cent of the scientific community are fanatics along with every major scientific organization on Earth. Living in this kind of scary world where he only has a tiny band of shills on the academic fringe or outside of it who share his world view must give Olly sleepless nights. I wonder why, given the massive weight of intellectual opinion that differs from his, that he hasn't yet shacked up with some far right wackos in Oregon in a fortified underground and well defended bunker. These are the kinds if people with whom he can clearly identify.

"Now Olaus, a vile piece of pus if there ever was one, is claiming to know about physics. "

Thing is we know he's full of shit. HE knows he's full of shit, EVERYONE knows he's full of shit.

His aim is purely to make believe that AGW is faked. And our purpose is to show he's full of shit so it doesn't spread.

Wow dear, I'm being nice when using "village". I'm perfectly aware of that you Wacoids are only a handful, though totally out of touch with reality.

I think we should ask Tim to ban Sunspotty and Olausi due to severe incivility and behavioral misconduct these leper islanders of climate nihilism constantly exhibit here. Fuck off Olaus and Sunspot, you pus of vile shit, and hang yourself on the next tree.

"I’m being nice when using “village”. "

So your life is so crap you hang about in what you consider "even worse than village" voluntarily.

Quite how you thought this was a good comeback is nobody's guess.

Really enjoy reading these open threads.
Its unbelievable how much punishment the
muppets take.
The explainations given to the muppets are
a good way of understanding whats going
on. Cheers

Reality for Olaus are a small number of shills and right wing pundits. Fiction for him is the actual empirical evidence, supported by pretty much the entire scientific community and every major scientific body on the planet.

Problem is, people like Olaus and Spotty give the impression that climate science is confined to contrarian blogs and that any opposing views represent a 'handful'. The people he calls Wacoids, in fact, are only reiterating what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying. And you know what? Olly knows it. He knows that the prevailing view among scientists differs from his. Denialism is for him a desperate last act of defiance.

Like I said, nothing here but a few unpleasant white priviledged males that can't tell the difference between facts and fiction.

A fabricating bunch of four or five individuals. :-)

Up, lappers, up, up!
Good boy.

Now beg! Beg, lappers!

"nothing here but a few unpleasant white priviledged males that can’t tell the difference between facts and fiction."

And what's the phrase of the day? "It's always projection!"!

Nobody forces you here, lappers. Only you.

Olaus

BBD, Detloid isn’t physics, it’s a pit of pus where fanatics like you swim around blaming the rest of the World for being a-holes.

The lack of accelerating global warming has that effect on certain people.

I'm not a fanatic about anything except cheese.

Physics does what it does and denial will change nothing, so you and your chums are on a hiding to nothing. Always were. Sadly, so are the rest of us, in all probability.

Like I said, nothing here but a few unpleasant white priviledged males that can’t tell the difference between facts and fiction.

If I were the lone imbecile in the room who did not understand the physical basis for CO2-forced warming, shame would keep me quiet.

Wow dear, I’m being nice when using “village”. I’m perfectly aware of that you Wacoids are only a handful, though totally out of touch with reality.

Effectively all scientists working in the field of Earth System Sciences plus every major scientific institution in the world accepts the reality of AGW.

You, Olaus, and your fellow nutters are in fact the fringe minority here.

The way you invert reality is spectacularly disturbing. One wonders what other flatly counter-factual cobblers you have convinced yourself is true and real.

We should explore this further, but I am going to a cheese and chilli festival now, so it will have to wait.

Seriously folks, Olaus is in serious need of medical attention. As I and BBD have said, every major scientific body - NASA, NOAA, AGU in the US, and all National Academies of Science in every nation - accept both the reality of anthropogenic global warming and the urgent need to address it. These organizations are augmented by the conclusions and recommendations of all IPCC reports, which went through 12 rounds of internal and 3 rounds of external peer review. The pages of all of the major scientific journals are full of articles detailing the link between C02 and climate change and of the effects of CC on both natural and managed ecosystems. The vast majority of the scientific community are in consensus over the issue.

Now with respect to Olaus there are 2 possibilities. The first is that he knows all of this and is just stirring the pot. If he has a scintilla of common sense, he knows darned well that he and people who share his views are very, very, very few amongst academics. He would obviously know that science is not conducted in blogs and that those sharing his world view are a tiny minority that is shrinking as the empirical evidence grows. He just comes in here to wind people up.

The other option - and the one that would require immediate medical attention - is that he thinks that Anthony Watts, David McIntyre, Roger Pielke Jr., Bob Carter, Wille Soon, Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, Judith Curry, the Idsos, Tim Ball, Christopher Monckton and a few others are the only ones who do climate science. He has therefore wished away 95% of the climate science community as well as the broader scientific community in general. For him, in this mindset the above named organizations and bodies, as well as universities, just don't exist.

Debating with a person employing either strategy - the 'stir the pot' or 'wish away reality' mindsets - is clearly a waste of time. Olaus has never ever had anythinbg useful to say here. The reason is that he has not a shred of scientific knowledge. His world is that of WUWT, Joanne Nova, BH, CA, Climate Depot etc - in other words rank comedy.

David McIntyre

Nice one, Jeff!
To not even give those vermin nonentities a name check.

As for Olap, with his fellow visual cripples forever visiting here to claim that black is really, in essence, white - all that can be done for them is to continually refer them to the visual spectrum as understood by that portion of humanity who have fully functioning matter between their ears.
Arguing their daily, corporately-updated, stupid 'talking points' merely allows them to ignore their irrationality that little bit longer.

Er... soz.... the missing link in #80 is, of course IPCC AR5

OP

...totally out of touch with reality.

Here is some factual reality for you to consider:

Lakes are warming at a surprisingly fast rate

and a new paper:

Change points of global temperature

time you stopped the silly Oily Prat.

Hong Kong, Tokyo, Warsaw, Strasbourg, Wroclaw...

Salvete perverts and cheese fanatics!

How goeth the climate alarm mongering? ;) More bad news,

"Obama’s climate policy is ‘practically worthless,’ says expert"
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obamas-climate-policy-practically-worthless-…

“The actions are practically worthless,” said James Hansen, a climate researcher who headed NASA’s Goddard’s Institute for Space Studies for over 30 years and first warned congress of global warming in 1988. “They do nothing to attack the fundamental problem.”

Oh dear, presummably we're all doomed? then again maybe not.
:)

Ain't you got no kids to groom, gary?

May I ask the moderator to clean up this thread? The language used here is totally unacceptable.

For the people on the science side: Please do not let yourself be provoked into a shouting match; it does not help you, it only helps the mitigation sceptics. Nasty language makes people switch to tribal mode and hinders their mental processing of rational arguments.

The “Nasty Effect:” Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies by Anderson et al., in Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

GSW

Oh dear, presummably we’re all doomed? then again maybe not.

By chance, you have accidentally asked a sensible question. Hansen is, as usual, correct:

“The actions are practically worthless,” said James Hansen, a climate researcher who headed NASA’s Goddard’s Institute for Space Studies for over 30 years and first warned congress of global warming in 1988. “They do nothing to attack the fundamental problem.”

“You’ve got to be kidding,” he wrote, when asked if the plan would make continued climate activism unnecessary. Obama’s plan, and for that matter the proposed plan Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, he continued, “is like the fellow who walks to work instead of driving, and thinks he is saving the world.”

Hansen suggested a gradually rising fee for fossil fuel extraction, collected at the port of entry or, in domestic cases, the place where the material actually comes out of the ground. “As long as fossil fuels are allowed to (appear to be) the cheapest energy, someone will burn them,” he wrote in an email to msnbc. “It is not so much a matter of how far you go. It is a matter of whether you are going in the right direction.”

The right direction is away from a global temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times. If that grim milestone is reached the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that irreversible damage to society would be the likely result.

Another 'Jahrhundertsommer' in Austria within a dozen years.
Last 'Jahrhundertsommer' there was the scorcher of 2003, which gave Vienna a record number of >35° C days being 5.

2004-2014 saw a total of 14 such days in Vienna.

This 'Jahrhundertsummer' delivered 6 of them until last week, now another six in a single stretch have been added, and still counting (the stretch will be 9 long and this Jahrhundertsummer will be three times last Jahrhundertsummer).

Sahara is decidedly entering Europe and presently crossed the Alps producing also an unseen heat wave in Poland.

Danube, ha ha: http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=6450 .
Two years ago that river together with Visla, Elbe etc produced the Millenium Flooding of Central Europe. It was the second Millenium Flooding in 11 years time.

One of the vanguard of ecosystems that is succumbing to climate change:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12436

This is just a canary - the turkeys come later, but will be well roasted.

The deniers and delayers behind media fabrications now have a new microscope that examines the activity of these 'roaches Climate Feedback.

You are going to have to up your game Alas the Prat and GooSeyWart.

Bernard J @ #88

but CO2 is plant food dontyaknow!

I have not visited this blog for some time.
It's reading like it's about to self implode?
Maybe this article could perhaps get people discussing some worthwhile goals?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-times/all-that-matters/P…

And yes I know that some of you are quite scathing of Lomborg.
I don't think that changes the fact that he does care about many of the things you all claim to care about.

Stu2, you allege that Bjorn Lomborg cares about the things you claim that he does. Where's the proof? I claim that he has a bloated ego and likes to see his face in front of the camera. The reason he's been endlessly promoted by the corporate media to spew his simplistic garbage is because his views and message resonate with those in power and who control the vast majority of the planet's wealth.

His arguments lack any kind of political realism: that the rich countries export their ecological damage, plunder resources from the south, have a vested interest in keeping developing countries poor (to ensure that capital flows remain largely uni-directional) and thus support corrupt regimes that maintain the status quo.

With respect to scientific acumen, Lomborg is a complete idiot who does not understand even the basics. He's become a rich man because of the factors I describe above, proof positive that one can be a complete simpleton if they say the things that those destroying the planet for profit want them to say. To me Lomborg is like a ventriloquist's dummy: put back into mothballs and hauled out when necessary.

Stu2

You would be well advised to follow links that we supply.

As an example the one in my #89 above would have provided for you so that you would not embarrass yourself by pushing that charlatan Lomborg. Through that link you, if an honest broker, could have discovered this: Analysis of Bjorn Lomborg’s article “The Alarming Thing About Climate Alarmism”, which tells you how misleading Lomborg is.

Lomborg cares only about Lomborg, and anything that helps Lomborg gain fame, prestige and money is what he does.

See his attempt to get a cushy government job with tenure in Australia,

I doubt he knows that StuPid even exists.

Just came across this over at Bishop Hill,

"On warmer Earth, most of Arctic may remove, not add, methane "
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-08/pu-owe081715.php

"However, new research led by Princeton University researchers and published in The ISME Journal in August suggests that, thanks to methane-hungry bacteria, the majority of Arctic soil might actually be able to absorb methane from the atmosphere rather than release it. Furthermore, that ability seems to become greater as temperatures rise."

Hopefully this will go some way to putting to bed the "Arctic methane bomb" myth that alarmists/activists have been pushing over the last few years.

So the kid didn't let you touch him, eh, gary?

Interesting article linked to by GSW. One thing that doesn't change though: the Earth is warming rapidly, extra methane or not. The climate bomb exists under enhanced C02 regimes alone. Second, this is a single study. Many others may disagree with its findings. That is how science works.

Well, at least how it works for those doing honest research. For shills and those peddling lies like the web sites GSW reads, the word honestly does not exist. I am sure that the authors of the article would be annoyed that climate denial web sites use their findings to downplay the seriousness of AGW. But all of the denial blogs do it. They cherry pick to their hearts content and then distort the findings of the studies they do cite. Its their modus operandi.

What puzzles me is how can the arctic be melting when it's supposed cooling?

There is one thing that deniers are consistent about that being their inconsistency. They also love cherries.

Only this years' favourite cherries, though.

The cherries they had last year never happened.

Thanks GSW, yet more methan escaping the climate scare bubble. :-) And what about the kids? No school children have experienced the accelerating globla warming. Poor bastards!

And the canary survived 2012 and 2014 and son also 2015. The volyme has even increased. Good for the canary, bad for the portentologists.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

Putrid, actually 2015 will end up with the 3rd lowest ice extent on record after 2012 and 2007:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

As one can see, Arctic ice is way lower then median 1981-2010 levels and will fall below the two standard deviations area in the coming days. But why let a little science get in your way in this, by far the warmest year on record and almost a slam dunk to well exceed 2014, which stands at Number 2? So much for your much vaunted 'hiatus'. What's your next dishonest lie?

Go back to your coloring books because that is the level of your scientific education. You, Gormless, Sunspot et al deserve one another. Youa re all a bunch of simpletons.

Woof woof, lappers.

Jeffie, my dear friend, the canary is alive but not the Death spiral. And still no accelerating global warming. Goody. :-)

That's it, boy. Sit up and beg!

Hey Olaus!

Good to hear from you and, yes, the "Arctic Death Spiral" seems to have been a hisrionic statement of affairs and, as we are now learning, the "Arctic methane bomb" was Alarmist propaganda all along as well.

It's all wearing a little thin now guys, is there anything else you think we should all be Alarmed about, or are we pretty much done with this?

:)

GobShiteWitless

So things are wearing thin are they you plonker.

If you had comprehension ability and were able to absorb more than one statement at a time you would know that methane from tundra is going to be an issue and that the Arctic sea ice melting is for real and only one part of the cryosphere that is suffering huge mass losses year on year.

Take note of this you silly herbert How Hot Is 2015? Put Down Your Coffee Before Reading This from NOAA..

No stop being such a silly billy.

More tedious misrepresentation by the usual suspects:

“However, new research led by Princeton University researchers and published in The ISME Journal in August suggests that, thanks to methane-hungry bacteria, the majority of Arctic soil might actually be able to absorb methane from the atmosphere rather than release it. Furthermore, that ability seems to become greater as temperatures rise.”

Hopefully this will go some way to putting to bed the “Arctic methane bomb” myth that alarmists/activists have been pushing over the last few years.

A few points to consider:

1/ Big methane increase at the end of the last glacial as ice sheets retreat creating wetlands out of permafrost. Why will this not happen again as modern permafrosts melt?

2/ The 'methane bomb' isn't just permafrost melt. It is the result of marine clathrate destabilisation, so even if this study has any merit (and the rise in CH4 at the end of the last glacial pretty much rules that out) then there's still a methane bomb.

3/ Expert opinion seems to be that the clathrate bomb is unlikely to detonate at least during the course of this century.

What's up, gary? No school?

Turns out, when you look at the actual atmospheric sampling data, the rate of Arctic methane release is skyrocketing.

And, dear contrarian friends, let's not forget the elephant over there with CO2 daubed in red letters across its arse.

Methane is not CO2. Methane is only a part of the larger greenhouse gas problem.

Methane is not CO2.

And before somebody 'corrects' me - yes, I do know that CH4 is oxidised by solar radiation to produce CO2.

:-)

GSW opines, "It’s all wearing a little thin now guys"...

Can one be even more delusional or brainwashed than this? Again, every major scientific organization on the planet recognizes both the reality and seriousness of AGW. Yet GSW writes as if he and Olaus represent the baseline scientific view. And remember that neither he nor Olaus have any pedigree in anything remotely scientific.

And again to reiterate: the authors of the latest cherry picked study still recognize the serious implications of climate change. Nowhere do they suggest that 'its wearing a little thin'. This is the construct of a very deluded mind.

As for accelerating AGW, sorry to rain on your denial parade Olaus, but 2015 is indeed showing very real signs of a major jump in temperatures. We may see this year end up a full .10 degrees warmer than 2014 - a very significant rise and one that certainly falls under the heading of 'accelerating'. Your hiatus is history. But that won\t stop you moving onto some other canard that will also end up being discredited in time.

"GSW opines, “It’s all wearing a little thin now guys”"

He's right, though not for the reasons he claims.

The antics of the increasingly desperate and insane deniers are more than a little thin now. They have been for some time.

The chances of anything changing in the denial machine are a million to one, they say.

And still they come.

BBD @#11

Which is why I indicated very selective reading on GSW's part.

and your '#12 was taken as obvious as the following indicates another methane to CO2 process:

Now if it (he/she/or bits of both) had bothered actually parsing the text at EurekAlert it would have seen this and noted the final clause:

The researchers found that this ability stems from an as-yet unknown species of bacteria in carbon-poor Arctic soil that consume methane in the atmosphere. The bacteria are related to a bacterial group known as Upland Soil Cluster Alpha, the dominant methane-consuming bacteria in carbon-poor Arctic soil. The bacteria the researchers studied remove the carbon from methane to produce methanol, a simple alcohol the bacteria process immediately. The carbon is used for growth or respiration, meaning that it either remains in bacterial cells or is released as carbon dioxide.

The problem with closely focused research is that those involved take it as read that the context is well understood by those working in the fields of climate science and thus no attention is paid to ignorant numpties like the peculiar brand of trolls that appear here.

Joe Romm shows exactly what the word 'acceleration' means during this, the largest El Nino on record. Look at the temperature graph through July. It puts an almighty dent in Olaus's 'non-accelrating' argument.

For the deniers, its almost over. Good riddance to the lot of them.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/17/3691712/godzilla-el-nino-gl…

Olaus Petri, your fixation with acceleration of warming is a red herring, a pure logical fallacy.

The current rate of warming is 1.7 ± 0.3 °C per century:

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/nasa-and-noaa/

Warming could remain in this range of increase even for the whole of the rest of the century (that is, not accelerate at all until 2100) and the result will still be a climate that will wreak profound damage to the planet's biosphere.

Note: my my comment is predicated on the assumption that you know that 'acceleration' is a change in rate (not a change in a particular parameter value), and that non-zero, constant rates are not exhibiting acceleration even though they are describing an active process of parameter value movement. Of course, I would not be surprised if you do not understand this. The bottom line though is that any comment about a second derivative (the rate of change of a parameter rate) is separate to a consideration of the first derivative (the parameter rate itself), and as long as the parameter rate is positive (and global warming is significantly positive) then the value of that parameter will increase.

The planet is warming, and that warming is continuing. Most importantly, this warming is not deccelerating.

If this is still too confusing for you go and learn some more about rate change elsewhere - the interweb is replete with useful material - but keep in mind that you can no longer make fatuous, erroneous claims about accelerations and allege that global warming is not a Thing - you've been told otherwise.

Thanks BBD, I've noted your "weasel words" (your #9) and attempts to make something else a/the problem.

It looks as though we can at least agree that the "Arctic methane bomb", as far as it pertains to permafrost melt, has been oversold and can now be put to bed. ie. it's a non problem.

So I think that is some progress at least. We just need you to start thinking critically about the other alarmist statements.

It's the summer holidays, right, gary? Lots of free time for you now.

Thug #18, rappél of BBD's #11: http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/arctic-methane-skyrocketing.h… .

What, thug?

GSW cracks me up: "We just need you to start thinking critically about the other alarmist statements"

Who is this 'we'? You, Jonas, Olaus and a few other idiots?
'We' meaning the scientific community by-and-large have already thought critically about AGW and have agreed that it is happening and that it is a serious threat. You are not taken seriously, because you don't do science. You just twist and distort it to support your own narrow political views.

END OF STORY. Go somewhere elese where they swallow your crap.

... and now look whats happening in the Antarctic...

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2015/08/Figure5a.png

and compare that with the disaster unfolding in the Arctic...

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeser…

Dire days indeed for deniers.

Actually the second should be:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeser…

And of course this only measures extent and not ice thickness. Clearly the Artic deathy sprial continues.

Jeff, since they are the source of the alarmist comments, and they have indicated zero thought in them before uttering them, they are right on this claim. More thought HAS to be put into them. And then that thought ACTED ON rather than ignored.

BBD, I see you have been 'enjoying' an interaction with a self declared 'lukewarmist' at ATTP. Rather than me jumping in there (Representative Concentration Pathways) I picked up on the RC suggestion and had a look at DT's contributions there and this one blew his claims of sincerity out of the water for he clearly has done little homework in the interim, besides his language oozes Curryisms.

GSW

Thanks BBD, I’ve noted your “weasel words” (your #9) and attempts to make something else a/the problem.

It looks as though we can at least agree that the “Arctic methane bomb”, as far as it pertains to permafrost melt, has been oversold and can now be put to bed. ie. it’s a non problem.

Not until you explain to me why this supposed sink did not prevent the huge increase in methane at the end of every single glacial for the last ~800ka.

I would suggest that this demonstrates that the supposed bacterial sink does not, in fact, operate as the authors hypothesise.

Lionel

Yes, DT is a prolific and hugely tiresome troll with the usual penchant for playing the victim and whining when his irritating behaviour provokes a sharp response from others. Standard MO for most of them, really: behave like a git then whine when you are treated like a git.

@ Jeff Harvey

Thanks for the *Antarctic* sea ice extent link - I hadn't realised that Antarctic sea ice extent had dropped off like that over the last couple of months.

All I ever hear is contrarians banging on about how much it has grown - without troubling to consider what might be driving that growth.

All I ever hear is contrarians banging on about how much it has grown...

Ah yes BBD, the Morgan Gwirth or Thwirg or Wright or Sara Wright (and maybe other socks - he had a blog IIRC [1]) argument. I had a running encounter with this goon on Climate Progress awhile ago, although I no longer see comment threads appearing there. Is this just me? I have some exchanges preserved on my Linux box.

The address of his blog, http://hyzercreek.com/hoax.htm , seems to have caused issues with a FB golf page.

Greenland glacier calves a larger lump

I would be interested in an explanation from our visiting turkeys for this event which does not involve a warming globe.

Accelerating ice mass loss from the GrIS and the WAIS? Just natural variability powered by unicorn flatulence.

Since this is an open thread, but one which several people read, there are a few things I feel I have to say.

Victor Venema has a point. See also Lionel upthread.

Yes, this is the silly season, but FFS.

In a film, long ago, someone looking into a mirror said some stuff.

Quote #2 might make a fine epitaph.

What to make of this one?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/19/china-carbon-idUSL3N1042Z4201…

Stu 2

Make nothing of it. None of the national estimates of emission are particularly reliable.

Look instead at the actual atmospheric sampling data. They *are* accurate and they tell you what you need to know about global CO2 emissions.

Keeling Curve.

Stu 2, I'm curious.

How many times can you make mistakes and misinterpretations, and have the same pointed out to you, and still barrel on as if you have made neither?

Does a little bell not ring somewhere between neuron 1 and neuron 1-and-a-bit?

BBD, #33, your and his complaint are nothing more than complaints "You're doing free speech wrong!".

And, as such, with all due respect, you can blow your opinion out your arse.

I thought you'd say that :-)

I knew you'd say that.

;-P

What to make of this one?

That you're a stupid, ignorant, intellectually dishonest sack of shit ... nothing new there.

Victor Venema has a point.

He sure does:

http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2014/04/debatable-scientific-q…

How many times can you make mistakes and misinterpretations, and have the same pointed out to you, and still barrel on as if you have made neither?

Do you have trouble calculating trend lines?

Does a little bell not ring somewhere between neuron 1 and neuron 1-and-a-bit?

You have a poor understanding of the denier mind:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sluggerotoole/153603564

It was rhetorical ianam... ;-)

Love the Larson though!

Oh OK.
You're not even remotely interested in engaging with the actual content of either of the links I posted?
Only interested in throwing insults?
I thought that Lomborg's point about creating better access to contraception was a fair point and the uncertainty about the world's largest emitter (published and presumably peer reviewed?) in a well respected journal was also a fair comment?
Instead you fellas launched personal attacks?
How does that work fellas?
Don't you think that Lomborg and/or peer reviewed papers merit discussion at a blog that claims it is a blog about science and the environment?
Just asking?

#44 of course Lomborg and his fossil fuel propaganda have no place here or in any blog being serious about science and/or environment.
Just answering.

"You’re not even remotely interested in engaging with the actual content of either of the links I posted?" - said StuBi. Well, #34 is there, for one. StuBi wouldn't be even remotely interested in any serious engagement with that content, doesn't mention this lack of interest at all but pretends #34 doesn't even remotely exist. Like that. Failed trolling, fail, fail.

Well, it appears stupid still doesn't understand that they've indicated VERY clearly that they have never any point to their comments and will NEVER clarify a statement nor answer any queries about the claims.

Stupid, the reason why nobody is taking your points at all seriously, even to debunk, is because it's pointless: you really have nothing to say.

I thought that Lomborg’s ... was a fair point.

If Stu2 thought that, it just reiterates that Stu2 is an idiot. And to show that I'm not only interested in throwing insults, I'll offer three reasons why any non-idiot should have rejected it out of hand:
1. Lomborg (as is his wont) commits the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. This is obvious to anyone reading even slightly critically.
2. Lomborg can't manage simple arithmetic without fucking up the results: his payoff figures are ludicrous, hilariously and obviously so, to anyone reading even slightly critically.
3. "Let's do the smart things first." - Lomborg commits another logical fallacy, the non sequitur. Once again, obvious to anyone reading even slightly critically.

Three obvious reasons in one short article for any non-idiot to dismiss it out of hand. And that is why nobody bothers to remark on Lomborg's latest bullshit. Stu2 failed to apply even the most cursory sanity check, just another example of why we realised a long time ago that, as Wow says, Stu2 has nothing to say.

uncertainty about the world’s largest emitter

Dealt with rapidly and correctly by BBD @ #34. I guess in the absence of a comeback, it was easier to just act like it didn't happen...

I marvel your ladyship takes delight in such a
barren rascal: I saw him put down the other day
with an ordinary fool that has no more brain
than a stone. Look you now, he's out of his guard
already; unless you laugh and minister occasion to
him, he is gagged.

He didn't think of answering BBD's question, though.

So what he says he thinks isn't all that reliable an indication of what thinking he did.

All stupid does is point to someone else and go "What about that, huh?" which is a waste of everyone's time and effort.

Stu 2

Oh OK.
You’re not even remotely interested in engaging with the actual content of either of the links I posted?
Only interested in throwing insults?

I responded to you immediately and in a civil tone. WTF?

Please see # 34.

Please see # 34

For that to happen he/she/it would need some vision - too much to expect from they of wilful ignorance.

Ahem, hello? Stu 2?

Anyone there?

Stu2 gone to ATTP to learn from DT maybe!

I note that latter is still in full flood - incredible. He is another who has been looking at this for nowt more than a dog-watch (I keep expecting ATTP to curtail DT's activities ;-) ) and gets uppity when his ignorance is pointed out.

Lionel A

(I keep expecting ATTP to curtail DT’s activities ?

Perhaps soft moderation is the lesser of two weevils.

BBD.
I perhaps should have said "with the exception of BBD's comment @ #34"
This however
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-b…
is not a specific record of China's CO2 emissions which is what the link was about.

Id like to ask you mob a query i cant
get my head around.
I understand many glaciers are flowing faster, which aint good.
This is because ( i think!) theres less ice at the face holding
it back. They are sort of in retreat at the same time as
having more mass pushing forward faster!
Its this retreat/forward faster thing that i dont get.
Hope someone can explain whos not a shit for brains
denier. Thanks. li d

All that means is that a claim of an advancing glacier isn't proof that the glacier is getting bigger therefore it's getting colder.

It means that a few examples of glacier advance doesn't prove anything.

And those who study them all make conclusions AFTER they worked out why that specific glacier is doing what is measured, and that will be in either a referred paper or in the paper itself.

Ok. thanks wow.
I stuffed up by putting in ' more mass '
To clarify. I get that most glaciers are loosing
mass. Especially the ones flowing faster than normal.
What im not getting is a sort of dichotomy of
less ice at the face whilst all the more ice is flowing
faster to that very face.
Certainly each glacier is unique. And circumstances
may vary.
Im just having trouble picturing a face declining
whilst being added to at a greater rate.
It obviously happens, just cant picture it.
Sorry wow if there was a mis undetstanding when
I said more mass.

Stu 2

is not a specific record of China’s CO2 emissions which is what the link was about.

The point I thought I had made was that estimates of national emissions are a work in progress whereas atmospheric sampling provides a very accurate measurement of the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

It doesn't matter whether China is emitting a bit more or a bit less that estimated. What matters - all that matters - is that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is still rising rapidly.

li d

Glaciers are fed by precipitation in the form of snow. If you hold the amount of snowfall roughly constant over decades but warm the snout of the glacier so that it melts and flow rate increases, the glacier will start to get smaller. It loses more mass than it gains from snowfall. Over time, it will retreat, and eventually it may disappear altogether.

"whilst all the more ice is flowing
faster to that very face."

Warmer air = more water = more snow when it precipitates high up.

li id

Another factor in glacier advance is that warming reduces viscosity and hence allows the front to flow faster, this is why a glacier can appear to deflate like a balloon. Remember like glass [1] ice is a fluid.

To see this in action I suggest James Balog's 'Chasing Ice' found via that link along with much else.

[1] and even rock hence the deflation as the Tibetan plateaux spreads.

Li d.

It's simple really. There are two parameters: the rate of glacier flow Gf, and the rate of melting at the front, Fm.

The flow Gf is enhanced by one or more of lubrication, additional precipitation, loss of lower-end damming, etc.

The front melting Fm is affected by local temperature, and thus by global warming.

If Fm > Gf, then retreat occurs. Note, it's entirely possible that for both to have increased compared to pre-industrial conditions, in manners entirely consistent with the effects of heating of the atmosphere, but for Fm to have increased more than Gf.

Thanks everyone for replying.
A real understanding eludes me but im slowly getting there.
I think there might be issues of language in science
being different to how laymen understand it.
Retreat means something different to me than a glaciologist
perhaps?
Anyhow, Thankyou .

BBD @ # 58?
If we don't know how and where it's coming from specifically and if supposedly the world's largest emitter is not emitting as much as previously thought.......????????
I disagree with your contention that it doesn't matter where it may or may not be coming from.
How does one manage the rapid rise if that bit is not known?

"How does one manage the rapid rise if that bit is not known?"
- By starting at the sources and closing them down, that is: keep coal and methane in the ground and use oil for anything but oxidation.
E.g. a boycot on Australian coal like Iranian oil was boycotted for a long time.

"Over time, it will retreat, and eventually it may disappear altogether."

With a phase of 'dead ice' in between (just a patch of ice, not flowing at all anymore).
Seen the whole process with a number of Norwegian glaciers up to entire disappearance.
Dead ice is the state the Zugspitze glacier in Germany is in - for a couple of summers they tried to protect it using some sort of shields, but it's over now and this summer was merciless on it. A landmark.

cRR, it makes one wonder if even the destruction of complete glaciers as a result of human-caused global warming will be sufficient to make people stop and reappraise our trajectory.

For mine, I doubt that it will.

Stu 2

If we don’t know how and where it’s coming from specifically and if supposedly the world’s largest emitter is not emitting as much as previously thought…….????????

This just shows that other countries are emitting MORE than we thought.

The Keeling Curve speaks for itself. The trend (not the seasonal, interannual variation) is all anthropogenic. So what if a bit less is coming from China and a bit more from somewhere else. The problem remains the same, as does the solution - global emissions reduction.

Bernard #66, it will not at all. Even the demise of part of the Fertile Crescent did not stop people (there, or anywhere) to appraise the trajectory we're on. People, then, are reduced to hour to hour survival at the mercy of disillusion, nothing to lose warfare and the same psychopaths that, like Bashir al-Assad, deny deny deny what is going on.

This planet's society will crash, unpredictably suddenly totally, and the reason for it will be taboo forever as it is in and about Syria today.

I am VERY pessimistic about this.
Signed Cassandra, soon renamed Nemesis, add smiley.

cRR, I share your assessment of the climate trajectory but I don't call it pessimism, I refer to it as realism... Pessimism implies taking the worst of a range of options, but a societal crash is pretty much the middle of the bell curve for what is coming with business as usual.

The majority ARE getting pissed off with the inaction and the bollocks of the denial and delay industry. They're not loud, and they're not connected, and a million of them is currently ignored with impunity because only establishment friendly figures have ever managed to get into the picture.

This is beginning to change.

Because people are pissed off at the inaction and transparent reasons for it.

#69 Bernard, I agree: it is realism.
I'd love to say it that way. In fact, I might use this henceforth: 'I am VERY realistic about this [see post #68]'. It is retorically unassailable really.

#70, well, Wow, I'm VERY realistic wrt majorities. Usually they could as well not exist at all. They cry & holler (often against exactly the wrong targets e.g. blame the muslims for bankers' frauds etc) while in fact perpetuating the system.

Next president will be Jeb Bush.
After three months in office, barring some vast inside job and ensuing war somewhere, his popularity will have fallen to 25% or less. You know, majority pissed off with the bollocks and denial and inaction and wars far away. Well those that holler and cry the usual 'wir haben es nicht gewusst' kick 'em where you can. Some sense into them, or forget it: just use 'm for own amusement. And keep that president, and keep that Abbott, until formal end of term. Let 'm suck it.

Sorry. The only change I see is to plutocracy and Robocop world.
Thanks to that majority.

The 'good guys' at Masters' turned on me again yesterday because I had the bloody courage to confront some climate revisionism. I did it non-personal, businesslike, and got abused personally by some guys for that.
The abuse remains on blog.
Me, got banned for what THEY did, none of THEM got banned of course; motivation given: "... the discussion became a personal dispute."
Fucking Alice in Wonderland. BTDT 1000 times - even the good blogs protect the trolls!

"Usually they could as well not exist at all. They cry & holler (often against exactly the wrong targets e.g. blame the muslims for bankers’ frauds etc) while in fact perpetuating the system."

Nope, you're equating noise with numbers. And making stuff up there too, I note: where do you read people saying its muslims at fault for banking fraud? Given usury is a sin in Islam (as it is in Christianity: go read the book!), it's unlikely. Indeed there are special banks FOR muslims that do not enter into usury so as not to breech Islamic law.

What DOES happen is that people are being ignored because they have no power to effect change or bring about problems for those IN power. Elections would do it, but the impoverished choices there mean that you usually have tweedledum and tweedledee to choose between. So it HAS been low voter turnout and disengagement with politics.

It is usually shortly thereafter that you get a revolution: when nothing is happening and it's only getting worse, eventually, the only power people have is to overthrow the power structure.

This time it looks like "bit players", especially single-issue parties (cf The Pirate Party) that are playing in, but Trump and Sanders are both examples of how someone who ISN'T playing the game is getting severe traction, in Trump's case, despite having fuck all to say on the actual result of his winning the election. IMO he knows he will lose, but by being the Rep president candidate, he'll pump the shit out of his name as opposed to being a "successful" businessman (an option he's never actually managed to achieve).

But you can see with Bernie what the problem is with changing within the system: every MSM outlet paints him as extremist, non-viable, and give him bugger all airtime, because he won't do as the power structure in place wants. And, unlike trump, he doesn't fuck up, he has actual sane policy ideas and a clear plan of what he will do, so there's nothing to vilify so he can't be painted as a moron or monster, so their only option is to pretend he doesn't even exist.

You are underestimating the changes.

The political overton window has swung massively to the right, but actual public opinion hasn't. And so power doesn't believe it can change or will change.

SOMETHING will change. Or it will build up even more and then it will be revolution for some countries. And if other countries don't recognise this, they too will have the same fate.

"Me, got banned for what THEY did, none of THEM got banned of course; motivation given: “… the discussion became a personal dispute.”"

Yup, Voltaire has been only ever voiced in abstract. Only offensive speech that you "cannot" agree with will be defended with Voltaire. Offensive (or not) speech you DON'T agree with will be shut down by a dogpiling of anklebiters hating that you won't conform (and defend their vitriol with Voltair: only offensive speech disagreed with that supports their desires will be defended to).

OWS showed it was entirely broken: all those people demonstrating as is supposed to be at the very heart of why "Amurica Is So Great" was WRONG because it *inconvenienced some people*, not necessarily the ones complaining about it!

"I may not agree with what you say, but I may quote Voltaire to defend your right to say it. But as soon as it inconveniences someone I have fellow feeling for, that shit is right out the window, you lawbreaker!!!!!!"

" And making stuff up there too, I note: where do you read people saying its muslims at fault for banking fraud?"

It's kind of a saying and it ain't been made up either. When something went wrong, blame the Jews. Substitute muslims nowadays, same thing.
Example. Holland, month ago. Police killed a man of Antilles heritage in exact copy of the 'I can't breathe' incident in The Hague. Rioting in a neighbourhood ensued. Said the mayor of The Hague: 'It must be the heat and the Ramadan'. See? Blame the muslims. Good thing was the riots that night were by far the worst and next day authorities finally got the fucking message.
But the reflex of authorities and plebs alike exists: blame the muslims.

"You are underestimating the changes."
You may ask me for some back-up to my statement. Like Holland, where percentage renewable energy is less than half of EU average which grows every year - in Holland it fell for the second year running. Because our cabinet minister works for Shell. In Ireland, which has a new cabinet, renewables initiatives are being destroyed wholesale as we speak. Because their minister of Energy & Climate is Shell. In Spain, solar panel possession and use are actually punished. Guess why.
Abbott, Harper. Next US president.

CO2 emissions are going up every year, and still going up faster. You are overestimating EFFECT while looking at public opinion - which, I give you that and I am certainly very happy about it - is changing. Unfortunately it is not relevant.

"SOMETHING will change. Or it will build up even more and then it will be revolution for some countries. And if other countries don’t recognise this, they too will have the same fate."
Bloody hell, something will BREAK. Like Syria. Sao Paulo is next. And guess what. Where THAT happens, climate change is no issue anymore, even if it drove that crash in the first place.

For the rest, damn if don't agree with you.
I sometimes can't believe Sanders is actually a politician. One thing for sure though: he will never become president. Much too sane he is.

#74 that is one fine example, the Occupy demise.

"It’s kind of a saying and it ain’t been made up either"

It's a kind of saying means what? You said it? It's something you IMAGINE someone may have said? Surely that means it HAS been made up.

“You are underestimating the changes.”
You may ask me for some back-up to my statement. Like Holland, where percentage renewable energy is less than half of EU average which grows every year

Yes, so you are underestimating the change by only looking at Holland, who you know explicitly are low ranking in change. That's how you underestimate.

Hell, it's how deniers "know" AGW is a fraud, by only concentrating on the money that is going to environmental issues and those profiting from change.

Rioting in a neighbourhood ensued. Said the mayor of The Hague: ‘It must be the heat and the Ramadan’. See? Blame the muslims.

The quote doesn't appear to exist ANYWHERE on the internet.

What I DO get are links like this:

Guidance for Ramadan fasting during heat wave | Central - ITV News
www.itv.com/.../guidance-for-ramadan-fasting-during-heat-wave/

30 Jun 2015 ... Guidance for Ramadan fasting during heat wave ... Any old person who finds it difficult to fast should avoid fasting - one of the clear signs to ...

"Yes, so you are underestimating the change by only looking at Holland, who you know explicitly are low ranking in change. That’s how you underestimate."

That was an example, among some others. Holland is especially interesting because imo the country will end by the end of this century (WAIS).
But I treat this problem as a global problem and globally the problem is getting superexponentially worse and nothing else. Holland, among the other countries I named and then some are working very hard to keep this deteriotation up, notwithstanding these countries' public opinion.

The Hague incident: http://nos.nl/artikel/2044147-video-arrestatie-arubaan-den-haag-opgedok… .
Mayor of The Hague's quote, http://www.occupydenhaag.org/2015/07/volgens-van-aartsen-rellen-schuld-… .
So during the Ramadan the country of Morocco is one seething mass of riots that country being very hot you know.

I doubt whether that was news in Ferguson, Missouri or anyfuckingwhere else. To be sure it wasn't news anyway. It how so it goes.

"It’s a kind of saying means what? " - it means it is a one liner formulation describing an observation of a certain standard social process. And it is fucking real.
Presently extreme right muslim deportation party PVV ('Partij voor de Vrijheid' go figure) ranks #1 in the polls.
Kabinet high ranking party members (VVD, rightwing 'liberal') tweet 'deport' and 'gates' and 'camps' for muslims and it's become normal. Et cetera.
But France is far worse presently, I'll give you that. They just gave a muddlehead boy all the fucking honor and praise he could never have hoped to receive by rendering the Légion d'Honneur completely meaningless. Yes those guys on the train deserve _a_ medal and a lot of praise, but it's paranoid to pretend they saved the damned country or something.

"That was an example, among some others"

Try one of those, then.

Because this one really seems to be trying to make excuses for rioting, rather than "blaming muslims". Confirmation bias?

"“It’s a kind of saying means what? ” – it means it is a one liner formulation describing an observation of a certain standard social process."

So made up. Like I said.

"Try one of those, then." - you may have missed my #75. Try Abbott or Harper. Try the govt of India (oops, there's ANOTHER I didn't mention there).

Dear Wow, ever heard of the Shoa? Ever looked at society, the people themselves, the retorics belonging to that? Or do you think the Shoa is 'made up'?

"you may have missed my #75. Try Abbott or Harper."

Right. And Trump. Oh, and anchors on Fox News. And the royalty of Saudi Arabia.

Of course, this has fuck all to do with "The majority ARE getting pissed off with the inaction and the bollocks of the denial and delay industry. They’re not loud, and they’re not connected" which maybe you should have read.

So think again or fuck off.

Holland this year record coal burning, CO2 emissions up 4.1% compared to last year: http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/08/27/energiecentrales-verstookten-nog-no…

"They’re not loud, and they’re not connected” which maybe you should have read."

I read that with praise and it said exactly what I said. Majority in the electorate on this subject has no meaning or influence. The majority are getting pissed off at the inaction of the politicians they chose and will choose again so will you now please remove the tripe out of my face!
You know as well as I do that CO2 increase this year will bust all records AGAIN. And yes, see the tiny example representing the globe of Holland in #83.

#86, correction: the tiny example representing the globe, of Holland in _#85_.

"I read that with praise and it said exactly what I said."

Then why the fuck did you whine about abbot and harper?

It is no more acceptable for you to go galloping off answering the question you would LIKE to answer than when Stupid, Gary Glitter or Lappers does it.

Roy Spencer confirms his position on the dark side of the anthropogenic climate change issue with his support for Peabody Energy.

The criminally reprehensible (crimes against humanity), S. Fred Singer continues to double down with his particular effusion of insane utterances.

And Aunt Judy continues with what she does best muddying the waters of discussion with her own peculiar brand of self appointed 'honest brokering'.

CRR K: Het Goede Doel hit the nail on the head with Brood en Spelen, "Een neger, jood of homofiel Die je de schuld kan geven..." And that was probably over 20 years ago.

"Then why the fuck did you whine about abbot and harper?"

Because the same public that is fed up with the bollocks, continues to elect for the bollocks. And THEN whines (see e.g. the pop polls for Abbott). And then elects te same kind of thugs again. And then whines again.
Now I whine about the plebs. Both Harper and Abbott need to finish their terms, let 'm suck it out totally. Idiots.

The people you talk about, your majority, are worse than 'not loud and not connected'. They are de facto instrumental in the robustness of the system. They whine, this dissipates their pissed-offness (which is exactly what plutocrats count on), and elect same old, same old. While blaming the muslims.

#90 hah! I fear that Wow will not be able to find that one... Doesn't appear ANYWHERE on the internet.. The Good Target, maybe? :)
Whatever. I hope Wow is right but I think he ain't.

“Then why the fuck did you whine about abbot and harper?”

Because the same public that is fed up with the bollocks, continues to elect for the bollocks.

FFS you idiot, did you read this bit or just not bother:

Elections would do it, but the impoverished choices there mean that you usually have tweedledum and tweedledee to choose between. So it HAS been low voter turnout and disengagement with politics.

Your entire fucking whinge is based on not bothering to read or acknowledge a fucking thing said unless it can be comformed to your preconcieved rant.

EXACTLY like Gary Gitter, Lappers, Stupid et al.

Oh, and before any more bollocks on "that's exactly what I said!", Read the bit AFTER that quote too you ignoramus.

#93, I read that and it proves my point.

You see, if electoral choices are 'impoverished' then in democratic countries (I mean e.g. Holland, US, AUS etc) people can start a new political party.
As you well know, this happens sometimes but only marginally and almost always the electorate will overwhelmingly keep voting for same old same old.
It is the electorate that keeps the system intact.
It is the electorate that creates 'tweedledee and tweedledum' to choose between.
So, my dear, fuck the electorate, clamour that it gets exactly what it wants, and please kick them for whining when they get what they vote for and not the guy who observes this inconvenient fact.

"So it HAS been low voter turnout and disengagement with politics."

That is voters' doing.
Either you point to voters' responsibility, or you deny such responsibility completely. Do you understand what the latter situation means?

How the fuck did I know you were going to say that, hmm?

And despite having wrote that I knew it and that you needed to read what I fucking wrote, you didn't actually read it and did it anyway, didn't you you retard.

No, it DOES NOT prove what you wrote, you frigging maniac.

But fuck it, yes, it IS ENTIRELY YOUR FAULT WE'VE DONE FUCK ALL FOR THIRTY YEARS.

I HOPE YOU'RE ASHAMED YOU MANIAC.

"How the fuck did I know you were going to say that, hmm?" - constancy of reality and whatever the fuck you are or pretend to be, Wow, you're a realist.

"I HOPE YOU’RE ASHAMED YOU MANIAC."
Of course not. Just slightly disillusioned in a humanity that knows better and whines but never shows some learning.

"it IS ENTIRELY YOUR FAULT WE’VE DONE FUCK ALL FOR THIRTY YEARS."
I'll bet your carbon footprint is several times mine.
And. Who did you vote for? Dems or Reps, tweedledee or tweedledum?

Help us kick some sense into the electorate. Presently you're helping send them to Trump or Bush.

"Just slightly disillusioned in a humanity that knows better and whines but never shows some learning."

IOW: YOU.

YOU are one of those people who voted in Abott and Harper. That is what you have said you believe here.

YOU.

YOU are the problem.

YOU are not doing anything about it.

YOU are making it worse by blaming muslims for riots.

Presently you’re helping send them to Trump or Bush.

By insisting that they are the problem, even when they DON'T vote for morons out for themselves and their wealthy pals.

Which is why you are the problem. Hell, EVEN YOU say YOU are the problem. You voted, right? Therefore IT IS YOUR FAULT that Abbot and Harper were voted in.

Oh, and I bet my carbon footprint is less than half what yours is.

NOAA says we are all gonna drown, very soon, and very accellerated too:

" The graphs can provide an overarching indication of the differing rates of regional vertical land motion, given that the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year"

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/globalregional.htm

:-)

Oh, Lappers, still making things up when Tony whistles, eh?

Olaus

It's gone up to about 3.2mm / yr since 1993.

As ice sheet dynamics become increasingly important of drivers of SLR over coming decades, expect a non-linear response to temperature change. Expect at the very least about 1m by the end of the century and another 2 - 3m by the end of the next century with another 3m to follow if the Wilkes subglacial basin is as unstable as it appears to be.

As usual, Watts is just wrong and you have been mislead again.

Fellas, I got it, NOAA is on the payroll. Big Oil or Tobacco? :-)

Olaus

Fellas, I got it, NOAA is on the payroll. Big Oil or Tobacco?

Clearly they need to pay 'em more. NOAA gets a trend of ~2.9mm /yr from 1993.

You are being conned, Olaus.

Just look at the silliness of claiming that NOAA finds SLR below the rate NOAA finds SLR. It's embarrassing. Did they think you wouldn't check?

Just in case Olaus is curious as to why NOAA is a bit lower than other estimates...

We've had AVISO and NOAA, so let's try another specialist research group at University of Colorado.

So central estimates are:

NOAA: 2.9 mm/yr

AVISO: 3.3 mm/yr

CU: 3.3 mm/yr

So why is NOAA the outlier? NOAA explains that:

The estimates of sea level rise do not include glacial isostatic adjustment effects on the geoid, which are modeled to be +0.2 to +0.5 mm/year when globally averaged.

They didn't include that pesky glacial rebound! Factor that in, and NOAA would be right up with AVISO and CU.

Because AVISO and CU *did* include glacial isostatic adjustment in their estimates.

Mystery solved.

Darn, conned by the NOAA! ;-)

The rise is as steady as it was before, before they Went "satellite". :-) New tecnonlogy, same water. ;-)

"NOAA says we are all gonna drown, very soon, and very accellerated too"

No need to worry about that, Olaus, as AGW and other anthropogenic stresses across the biosphere will have vanquished our ecological life support systems long before that. As the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005 showed, humans are seriously degrading more than 60% of critical ecosystem services. Without these services we are unable to survive. Period.

Given that 2015 is pretty well demolishing every meme you have brought here in the past (e.g. the hiatus, Arctic and Antarctic ice extents are stable, glacial retreat is exaggerated etc) it hardly surprises me when you post in about sea level rises and projections. You really have not got much more to say, do you?

My friend Jeff keeps on inventing his own reality, that is creating false dickotomies/memes. No one denies AGW and there has not been any accelrating global warming for 15-18 years.

And the SLR is also at a steady pace, and have been so since Das Kapital was written.

Lappers, you're too dumb to have friends.

And it's projection from you again.

And the SLR is also at a steady pace, and have been so since Das Kapital was written.

So Oily, when was Das Kapital written?

Having checked that out you now need to do the studying to discover what SL has been doing in the interim, the pace has been far from steady as you would well know if you had bothered to follow the Jerry Mitrovica and Scott A Mandia links presented to you repeatedly over the last several years.

Now WRT Jeff's message at #7 here is suggested reading for you so that you can get a handle on the many issues of ecological disruption:

“Climate Change and Biodiversity”
by Thomas E. Lovejoy and Lee Hannah

“Saving a Million Species: Extinction Risk from Climate Change”
by Lee Hannah Ph.D. (editor), Thomas Lovejoy

“The Unnatural History of the Sea”
by Callum Roberts

“The Ocean of Life: The Fate of Man and the Sea”
by Callum Roberts

“Stung!: On Jellyfish Blooms and the Future of the Ocean”
by Lisa-ann Gershwin and Sylvia Earle

“Driven To Extinction”
by Richard Pearson

Now there are lots of sources cited within those so do extend your reading thus.

Now stop being a prat and get on with it and stop wasting our time with your vacuous posts.

Lionel, that would require

a) effort
b) a belief by lappers that he could possibly be mistaken

Neither wanted nor possible for the moron. Ignorance is bliss, and Lappers wants the right to pursue happiness by remaining ignorant.

Of course the little fuckwit won't stop blabbing rubbish either, but he doesn't mind and hasn't got one.

Olaus

The rise is as steady as it was before, before they Went “satellite”.

And:

And the SLR is also at a steady pace, and have been so since Das Kapital was written.

No, it isn't. The rate of SLR is accelerating.

See eg. Hay et al. (2015) which estimates the rate from 1900 - 1990 as ~1.2mm / yr rising to >3mm /yr for the period 1990 - 2010.

I repeat: you have been conned.

Proof that deniers want to ruin our economy:

https://ir.citi.com/hsq32Jl1m4aIzicMqH8sBkPnbsqfnwy4Jgb1J2kIPYWIw5eM8yD…

Olaus, my non-friend, the reality is this: AGW has never stopped. If we plot the data back over the past 30 years,. then there has been a linear increase in temperature. If, as plonkers like you and other deniers like to do, we select a certain year, say 2009, and plot the temperature, then the rise is even steeper. This year will be so far warmer than any previous year in recorded history that it beggars belief. You've also switched from using the term 'hiatus' to 'non-accelerating'. Don't you realize how easy it is to read your simple mind?

Jeff, my friend, good of you to acknowledge that the accelerating global warming has been lobal for 15-18 years.

Wasn't that hard, was it?

Lappers, is it you're misinformed, ill informed or just flat out lying?

Or are you just responding to the whistle of your masters?

You've been conned, Olaus

Wow, now when dear Jeffie has admitted that there hasn't been any accelerating global warming in 15-18 years, why don't you follow suit?

Embrace the hiatus.

What hiatus? There isn't one, dearie.

So I guess the question is still open.
1) Nuts
2) Stupid
3) Obeying orders.

Olaus Petri, you've already been pinged for misrepresenting the rate of global warming. It's telling that you ignore - or are incapable of learning - the facts.

There has been no change in the rate of warming since the beginning of the 1970s. That rate of warming is 1.7 ± 0.3 °C per century:

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/nasa-and-noaa/

Because that rate has been effectively constant since the 70s, there has effectively been no "acceleration" in the rate of warming for ~45 years. So why limit yourself to 18 years?

I'll tell you why - because you know that it would be untrue to simply say that there's been no warming at all in the last 18 years. The trouble is, with the current rate of warming ticking along at 1.7 ± 0.3 °C per century there would need to be no acceleration of that rate for the biosphere to be profoundly screwed up by the end of the century. And with that biosphere FUBAR would go the capacity for global human social resilience.

Read the above carefully, beause there is a test...

"Embrace the [non] hiatus"...

Says Olaus, two thirds of the way through a year where temperatures are 0.10 C so far higher than any in recorded history, following on from the warmest year. By the end of the year even the most die-hard deniers will have abandoned this outdated meme; they will shift towards the 'adaptation' canard in ever increasing numbers, still insisting that business-as-usual is the way to go.

Read Chris Hedges latest essay on Truthdig and the its clear what must be done.

“Embrace the [non] hiatus”…

Says Olaus, two thirds of the way through a year where temperatures are 0.10 C so far higher than any in recorded history, following on from the warmest year. By the end of the year even the most die-hard deniers will have abandoned this outdated meme; they will shift towards the ‘adaptation’ canard in ever increasing numbers, still insisting that business-as-usual is the way to go.

Read Chris Hedges latest essay on Truthdig and the its clear what must be done.

LOLWUT? Olaus just jumped the tracks from "non-accelerating sea level rise" to "non-accelerating temperature rise" and you just let him?

If Olaus bumped into you in the street, he'd have your wallet and watch and be on his way to a fence before you'd finished checking your shopping. If you want to let him call the tune, don't let me stop you, but he'll still be leading the dance when the Greenland Ice Sheet falls into the North Atlantic...

Oh, that's old hat, Frank. The deniers have dropped "hiatus" and gone for "Not accelerating" and have been called out on it by Jeff. Deniers didn't blink.

The fact that nobody has claimed the temperature would be noticeably accelerating merely means that his swap from sea level to temperatures means that his whine is irrelevant since it complains about a claim only deniers have made up.

Deniers can go prove their own claims wrong all they like, no worries.

In pickpocket analogies, Lappers has just stolen his own wallet and then handed it in to the police for holding until the owner comes and reports its loss, while never noticing it was his own pocket it came from.

He can throw away his wallet all he likes. I'm not fussed.

Just for Olaus:

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=joe+romm+temperatures+2015&view=det…

No hiatus in sight. Its a figment of your imagination. The warming continues. What's your next fictional story?

Then try this one:

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=joe+romm+temperatures+2015&view=det…

Pretty scary stuff. Warming has never abated.

The final nail in Olaus' metaphorical coffin:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-…

Read the headline. 2015 will be the warmest year on record 'by a mile'. So where is your hiatus Ollie? Clearly this line of defence is well past its sell-by-date, so Ollie and his acolytes will have to come up with another. Any guess what flimsy fatuous argument they will grasp at next?

And to further nail Oily Prat to the wall, even though such a method applied to a jelly is fraught with problems were it not for Oily supplying the nails, there is an excellent article just up on Real Climate spotlighting Lomborg's utterances on climate issues for what they are vacuous, unqualified frauds. The article includes a description of Lomborg's ridiculous claims about SLR. Given what's at stake for humanity and the many unfortunate species who co-inhabit Earth with us Lomborg's assistance with delaying meaningful mitigation is criminal, make no bones about it.

Supplying the nails AND the wall. And a hammer too.

He's not the sharpest tool in the shed, but that's all you need to hammer nails in.

A couple of 'Oh Shit!' things, well one is definitely that and the other could well be so.

One is Warming-Fueled Brain Eating Amoeba Claims Another Victim, don't worry about this one too much Oily - you don't qualify.

The other is something a little more esoteric Climate Change Plus Irreversible Evolution Will Force Key Ocean Bacteria into Overdrive, the big kicker with this one is what it portends for other species that could play similar tricks.

"YOU are making it worse by blaming muslims for riots.", #198.

Well, Wow, so you think I am the mayor of The Hague. Please show some respect! Or do you want a riot?

"Oh, and I bet my carbon footprint is less than half what yours is."

Then you live in a tent without electricity. Or, of course, you are Al Gore.

"You voted, right? " - Really, Wow, you assume too much.

“YOU are making it worse by blaming muslims for riots.”, #198.

Well, Wow, so you think I am the mayor of The Hague.

Oh, so NOW you want accuracy and not "people".

Well, why didn't you start that way FIRST you frigging moron? Or is it only OK for you to swathe a huge brush across EVERYONE (else) but not anyone else who would include YOU in that "EVERYONE(else)"?

Sorry, numbnuts, you don't get to decide that.

“Oh, and I bet my carbon footprint is less than half what yours is.”

Then you live in a tent without electricity.

What? Is that what YOU do?“

You voted, right? ” – Really, Wow, you assume too much.

So you didn't vote. And that let Harper and Abbot in and will let Trump in.

#33, really, Wow, you assume too much.

"What? Is that what YOU do?“"
What? WHAT?? Is that what you think I do?? How the fuck did you arrive at that conclusion??

" And that let Harper and Abbot in and will let Trump in." - Thanks to the plebs that let them in, see.
Something else, can you explain to me how my voting behaviour in the Netherlands as a Dutchman could have let in some guys in Canada, Australia and the US? And how come we got two terms of Obama first - because of my voting behaviour now, or what?

"Sorry, numbnuts, you don’t get to decide that." - of course not. Like I don't get to decide that carbon dioxide is a GHG. It just is.

"“What? Is that what YOU do?“”
What? WHAT?? Is that what you think I do??"

I've told you what you do. It isn't that I merely think you do, you've written it down. This is called "Eh Vee Dense". It's a big thing with the science people.

So far you've blamed people. You're people too. Yet you're not to blame. But they are.

Just because you want to blame everyone else because it means the fact you're a lazy asshole who doesn't bother to put an effort in is THEIR fault.

Doesn't work like that retard.

If you mean "Do you think I live in a tent", then how else can the ONLY way I can be using much less energy than you be if I live in a tent?

If you think I use many times what you do, what do YOU think *I* am doing?

Or is this yet again something you will demand of others that you will not consider doing yourself? You know, just like Stupid here.

" It isn’t that I merely think you do, you’ve written it down. "

No, dear Wow. I merely stated that you must be living in a tent (or be Al Gore), to be sooo certain your carbon bootprint is half mine.
From this you conclude that I must be living in a tent. That would be called a logical fallacy.
You assume too much. Ask questions if you don't know something about someone and would like to know. Or enjoy the constant embarassments.

No, I'm not Al Gore, either.

Try to evade my tiny traps, please. I'm not after you. Really, I'm not. I want climate revisionists in those, not you.

"I merely stated that you must be living in a tent (or be Al Gore), to be sooo certain your carbon bootprint is half mine."

Then you must be living on a hillside with no plants, water, sunlight or food to be soooo certain that your carbon footprint is many times less than mine.

#38, no.

To be soooo certain (over 97% or so, that is) derives from statistics.
If you never made use of the internet, I'd be somewhat less certain. But not much.

I tried to call you 'Al Gore'. Very well, he flies around thus has a fairly large carbon footprint only from that (he pays emission rights of course), but his home e.g. is carbon footprint nil. His energy use is certainly not, though. But it's all solar panels and a warm water source in the ground he uses.
If your footprint is smaller than mine, this is the likeliest way you realized it.
Me, I just use very little energy. Not for the footprint, though. But I prefer a cool home and rarely put on a heater, I like zero or only one small light at night time, I don't drive and live a couple minutes walk from office et cetera.
Still my footprint is likely to be not much lower than that of the average Chinese. A matter of food, indeed.

No use to compete about footprints. My motivation for having such a small one never had anything to do with climate or environment anyway. It just so happens I like a way of living that results in not so much pollution.

"To be soooo certain (over 97% or so, that is) derives from statistics."

97? Why? The only one bringing that number up is you.

And you're just as certain that your footprint is many times lower. Which is a GREATER REDUCTION than half. If half requires a tent, what does many times less require?

You still cannot say, though.

What's the problem? Lost the plot? Caught in a huge whopper of a lie and cannot think of a way out (you're sure as hell not going to back down or change your stance. No, bull straight ahead, just like Trump, and even double down on the stupid. No wonder you want to see him win...).

"If your footprint is smaller than mine, this is the likeliest way you realized it."

Nope. I use very little energy, rarely if ever put the fire on, don't have AC, don't use a clothes drier, don't drive but walk or cycle.

And therefore you must be a photosynthesising lifeform to have multiple times less of a carbon footprint than I do.

"No use to compete about footprints."

Uh, YOU were the one willy waving over it. With idiotic rhetoric like "many times".

YOU tried to compete. Not me, asshat.

I come from a country that uses about half on average, so even based on the same relative lifestyle i would be using half your use.

YOUR claim of "many times" was pulled straight from that fat anus on your shoulders.

Blame the muslims.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/migration-crisis-hungary-p…

#42, "YOU tried to compete." - really? Did you feel challenged, then? Place a bet :)

"... so even based on the same relative lifestyle i would be using half your use."
Thanks. I just won the bet.

I might actually hope for Trump to win. He'd make the US completely defenseless against climate changes nukes like my Sandy 2.0 .
But in reality, I like the poll numbers at the Dems, with Sanders racing up.

"Blame the muslims."

Yup, like I said, you're blaming muslims.

"#42, “YOU tried to compete.” – really? Did you feel challenged, then? Place a bet"

Make your mind up, shithead.

ages ago: "I bet your footprint is multiple times mine!!!!"
more recently: "for you to be so certain, you must be living in a tent!!!"
then: "No point in competition."
and: "I'm not doing it for a competition"
and now: "Hey, I want a competition on it!!!!"

Go ahead, what is your carbon footprint.

"http://www.theguard...."

Uh, what blame is being ascribed to muslims? As far as the text is concerned, they're only being blamed of being muslim and not christian.

This IS a thing that they are guilty of.

Just like Bill Gates is guilty of being really really wealthy.

Or Carli Fiorina is guilty of being a female and not male.

Both of those people will agree with the claim that they are, respectively, wealthy not poor, or female not male.

They are guilty of having a religion.

And the christians are guilty of having a religion.

The muslims are not being blamed for being christian. Or suicide bombings. Or causing AGW. Or staying in their country of origin.

All charges: guilty.

Indeed it would much much more accurate to claim he's blaming europeans.

Have you changed your mind AGAIN about carbon footprint measuring?

#47 ever heard of the Shoa? Muslims are today's Jews. Better leave that slippery path, Wow, while you are in my sights. I consider your #45 not written, thanks for removing that.

What about #46?

"#47 ever heard of the Shoa?"

No. Ever heard of Shiaa? (no matter what the answer, the question was pointless, just like yours is)

" Muslims are today’s Jews. "

No, Muslims are today's Muslims. Ask them yourself.

"Better leave that slippery path"

What? Of knowing and acknowledging that the Muslim faith exists?!?!?!?

Hey, you can't say Muslims are the new Jews, that's both racist AND a slippery slope!

AND you can't say "slope", that's racist and derogatory!

AND you can't say "new", it's AGEIST!

And you can't say "you can't say" because that's OPPRESSION!!!!

"I consider your #45 not written"

Do you hallucinate often?

"while you are in my sights"

THAT'S A DEATH THREAT!!!!

You better stop before the FBI come knocking at your door or a SWAT team bust down with guns drawn to take down an armed murderer!

Cooooiiieeeee!

Are you looking for a bullet or aiming at your feet and wondering why they look so familiar and who the bugger is who keeps making your feet sore while you shoot down all those wrong people?

If your energy use lifestyles are similar one of you could be a multiple times emitter of the other of one is a meateater and the other a vegan

Or one has a larger house. Or one have a family. Or one require AC. Or one eat local produce and the other internationally sourced produce. Given farming requires 1 calorie of oil for 1 calorie of food (near enough), one could be eating much less than the other.

But to cc here, the only way to use half of someone's carbon footprint is to live in a tent.

What has confused me ever since the little idiot brought it up was WHAT THE HELL DID HE BRING IT UP FOR???? And why "multiple times" the footprint???

Which only got even less sane as the ancklebiter then piously intoned "I did not do this for the carbon footprint reduction, though".

And then it got weirder.

What does it all have to do with muslims and rightwingnut PMs and all that jazz?

I've felt less confusion working out the plot of a manga film...

Oh, on the meat eating.

Vegetarian ruminants are a great way of turning land that can't produce human viable food or is not farmable into something that humans CAN eat.

Africa have goats not because they like to waste 90% of the calories, but because the goat turns an acre of impossible to water or farm scrub with bugger all plants growing on it, never mind human foodstock into milk and meat.

And you don't even have to plough the goats and transport them to your central food production area. You can walk them there.

It doesn't have to be impoverished Africa either.

The welsh hillsides are too steep to farm with a tractor and too poor and thin a soil to till and produce. Raising sheep turns farmland that can not be used for feeding humans (or housing them) can be turned into wool, milk (well, technically) and meat.

Pigs can turn scrap food waste into bacon.

Chickens can do the same in a smaller scale, but don't produce bacon.

Goats can be exploited similarly, though for vegetarian options only, not good to feed meat to a goat, though they'll eat it.

It used to be common in urban areas, you kept chickens or, if flush, goats at your home to remove scraps. Pig farmers would buy scraps and feed their pigs on the swill because it was cheap, being otherwise worthless.

Yeah WOW, heard it all before. Are you eating such meat?
And I think that you've forgotten that some hill farming areas require sheep to be given supplementary fodder in winter.

In the real world, most meat is produced in industrial farms with low conversion ratios of crop calories to meat calories. Even the very best is only 60% efficient whilst the norm is generally much lower.

"Yeah WOW, heard it all before. "

So have I.

"Are you eating such meat?"

As opposed to halal or "long pork"? Yes. Do you eat?

"I think that you’ve forgotten that some hill farming areas require sheep to be given supplementary fodder in winter."

Yeah, or you can kill then and eat the meat over winter. Humans need feeding over winter too. I guess that's a bugger for you.

"In the real world"

In the real word, we do have Africa and Welsh hillsides (and Scottish hillsides, moors, et al).

Quite what you want to claim with that would appear to be the insinuation that such things don't exist in the real world, only in a theoretical world.

This is not the case.

In the real world, nearly as many calories are thrown away or wasted in a vegetarian diet as are consumed usefully by humans.

In the real world, we have farming.

"Even the very best is only 60% efficient whilst the norm is generally much lower."

See the waste statistics. Not including the biomass that is not edible (stalks and husks fed to ruminants).

Eat much of the wheat stalk, tubybloke?

You also can't grow food plants in the ocean. Very hard to get wheat to grow there. Or potatoes. Even rice doesn't work.

What you CAN do is catch fish and eat them.

Much less disasterous than driving your tractor down the beach followed by the tiller.

What you CAN do is catch fish and eat them.

But, as I think you realise Wow there are caveats there but just in case here is 'little list' (in the best Peter Lilley tradition) of reading matter:

“The Unnatural History of the Sea”
by Callum Roberts

“The Ocean of Life: The Fate of Man and the Sea”
by Callum Roberts

“Stung!: On Jellyfish Blooms and the Future of the Ocean”
by Lisa-ann Gershwin and Sylvia Earle

"But, as I think you realise Wow there are caveats there but just in case here is ‘little list’ "

The caveat means that fish are vegetables????

No, I don't think that's right.

Maybe it means we CAN grow potatoes in the ocean?

No, I don't think that's right.

So it looks like "eating meat" isn't a reason for a bigger carbon footprint, nor is it an excessive strain on a limited biosystem availability.

Indeed, removing all meat from the diet would REDUCE the land available to farming, therefore increase the land needed to feed people to replace the lost calories. And remove fish, so that protein would need sourcing from yet more land.

Also, a query: which is less of a strain on the natural resources: eating a grass fed cow steak from France or a bag of almonds from California?

Grass is also less carbon intensive than, say, corn farming, so though the cow takes 10 calories of grass and turns them into 1 calorie of food, then as long as the grass takes less than 0.1 calorie of oil to produce 1 calorie of cow food, because corn takes 1 calorie of oil to produce 1 calorie of human food, the net carbon footprint of beef is lower than that of corn.

#54 yeah right, in Holland. You threaten as easily as any climate revisionist.

"No, Muslims are today’s Muslims. Ask them yourself." - not relevant. It's how they are viewed by the usual dose of racists. They are viewed like Jews used to be viewed until, say, 1945 (or yes, later, still). The retorics are identical, up to and including those of 'The Protocols of Zion'.
How would you know? Have you ever been interested in questions like 'how come Shoa', 'how come genocide' et cetera and followed some up on those questions? (no)

"Indeed it would much much more accurate to claim he’s blaming europeans." - Almost there, Wow. Blaming Europeans for blaming the Jews. Oops, the Muslims.

"I’ve felt less confusion working out the plot of a manga film…" - yes, you need a little bit of level in order to get some oversight.
Tunnel vision would, obviously, lead to a fractured view and an inability to relate different aspects of same to same.

"#54 yeah right, in Holland. You threaten as easily as any climate revisionist. "

Sense. This makes none.

"“No, Muslims are today’s Muslims. Ask them yourself.” – not relevant. "

Ah, so you're the only one who can tell them what they REALLY think they are.

Do you tell transgendered people what sex they REALLY are too?

Muslims are today's muslims. This is a fact.

"It’s how they are viewed by the usual dose of racists."

They are viewed by them as MUSLIMS. Just like racists see black people as black people.

"They are viewed like Jews used to be viewed until, say, 1945 "

Where they're were always Jews, and just like Muslims are always Muslim. You seem to forget that people look for differences from themselves, not for similarities between OTHER DIFFERENT groups.

"How would you know?"

How would you? Are you a racist, therefore know what they think of Muslims?

"“Indeed it would much much more accurate to claim he’s blaming europeans.” – Almost there, Wow. Blaming Europeans for blaming the Jews. Oops, the Muslims. "

So you're complaining about the prime minister because he's complaining about racism?!?!?!?

That would mean you think racists are being unfairly demonised.

Or your comment there was as fractured as your brain.

There was nothing in there where he blames muslims FOR ANYTHING. Yet you see "Blame muslims!".

Persecution complex much?

This, Wow, is the second time I find you in a complete Dunning-Kruger rage when confronted with some subject matter you know zilch about.

If you have questions, pose them. Don't DK me. It is not helping you.

#69, blame the muslims, today's Jews.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-crisis-why-hunga…

" find you in a complete Dunning-Kruger rage"

It's always projection.

Actually, this could be simple poisoning the well: you don't have to respond to the facts because you can discard them as BEING facts merely by the alchemy of calling it rage.

"#69, blame the muslims, today’s Jews."

So muslims don't deserve capitalisation, but Jews do?

And, no they're still today's Muslims.

As to the link, there is no quote there where he's blaming Muslims. Or indeed blaming anyone. He's alarmist in his characteristion of the influx of immigrants as a horde, but this is just standard political histrionics. Much like calling this his "anti-Muslim script".

Indeed the only quotes, which aren't necessarily quotes, but are at least intended to be read as such, so we will take them as genuinely quotes of the bloke are, in total:

“are threatening Europe’s Christian culture”

And that is all.

Indeed in the body of the piece, the entire lecture is charaterised as ANTI IMMIGRANT, *NOT* anti Muslim. The only place where anti-Muslim appears is in the URL and headline.

Again, persecution complex much?

And if you want to see REAL anti-immigration policies that are hurting Muslim refugees, look at some of the Gulf States.

Kuwait will allow NONE in except on restricted and specific work Visas. Others have ZERO immigrants from the Syrian crisis.

These, however, are Muslim theocracies,so I guess pointing this out is anti-Muslim, right?

"These, however, are Muslim theocracies..." - Indeed, also US vassal states. This is a crazy world. The real beheader's state is of course not IS, but Saudi. Saudi buys immunity with oil. When we blame the muslims, of course we remain very silent about Saudi. They are Good muslims.

Jordan just cut off food supply for refugees. I was indeed wondering why that vassal state didn't blame the muslims yet.
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/09/06/3699124/food-aid-was-cut-to-r…

Crazy world. It's even too hard to talk sane about it all. There is no logic in anything there.

O and find some statements of that Hungarian PM yourself, please, I'm a wee bit tired now.

"“These, however, are Muslim theocracies…” – Indeed, also US vassal states. "

Such as Iran?????

Tell me, how does the USA (who IS letting refugees in from Syria. Not many, true, but there are better places closer to them than the USA) is making the soverign gulf state refuse fellow muslims into their country?

Are you claiming that they are so weak willed that they can't? That they are so beholden to the USA that they will refuse? And keep all this secret? Yet they won't change their laws on blasphemy, beheadings, Sharia, persecution of Christians, and so on and so forth, which the USA would definitely want to happen?

And WHY, in this batshit insane conspiracy theory does the USA want them to refuse immigrants?!?!?!

"food-aid-was-cut-to-refugees-in-jordan-the-impact-could-be-deadly"

This is supposed to prove what?

Oh, and Lebanon has plenty of Syrian refugees. A quarter of their population are now refugees from there.

Turkey is a larger country but has even more. And THEY are just as much a puppet state of the USA as any of the Gulf states you say are being told to refuse refugees for some unknown reason.

And you know what? Those rich Gulf states could chip in more. They can easily make up any shortfall. Indeed "Jihad" *accurately* means this struggle to aid fellow Muslims (and in many readings *anyone in poverty*) that is the lifelong commitment, as binding and necessary as the praying five times a day to Mecca. It's one of the five pillars of Islam, to aid the needy.

Actually, to throw my hat into this fray, Wow, I don't think the US gives a shit about the fate of people in ther UAE, any more than it gives a shit about the fate of people elsewhere in the Middle East (excepting Israel of course, but that is purely strategic). Its not that they want countries in the UAE to persecute civilians, but if they are viable client states and do as they are told then this is fine as far as the Empire of Chaos is concerned. Persecution is acceptable, as it was for Saddam when he followed orders. But as soon as the tyrants they support get uppity and slip the leash, then they have to go. American planners also knew full well that invading Iraq would increase, not decrease, the threat of terrorism in the world, but essentially they weighed up this against the economic benefits of controlling a country swimming in oil. The planners did not want to see this risk increase, but they knew it was a cost of the invasion and occupation, and essentially they didn't care.

The fact is that US elites and their proxies loathe democracy. That's because it puts power into the hands of the poor - and, as James Madison famously said, the US should be run by 'a better set of men' meaning the rich. All of this crap about democracy promotion in the Middle East is a charade, a farce. The US seeks to undermine nationalistic regimes and if that means supporting extremist groups, so be it. Its a long and sordid part of their history. And many countries in Europe simply follow suit.

"Actually, to throw my hat into this fray, Wow, I don’t think the US gives a shit about the fate of people in ther UAE"

I don't think so either.

But that ALSO includes not giving such a shit about them that they are pressuring them successfully to refuse Syrian refugees. That would require not only the USA care about this enough to make it a sticking point, but UAE to care so much about obeying whatever shit the USA gives for it that they will quietly and meekly do so.

Yet still give money to relief efforts.

cc's posts here just scream confirmation bias and persecution complex.

"Oh, and Lebanon has plenty of Syrian refugees. A quarter of their population are now refugees from there."

Stop telling me stuff I totally know Wow. I follow this shit, you just came looking.
You get this remark simply because you omitted to mention that Lebanon happens NOT to be a US vassal state. Do you see a pattern, maybe, now?

"Stop telling me stuff I totally know Wow. "

Really? You think that the USA has a stranglehold on the area, and is forcing states to refuse refuge AND you know it's a load of crap?!?!?!

"You get this remark simply because you omitted to mention that Lebanon happens NOT to be a US vassal state."

And you know this because they hep Muslims in the area, like the USA does...

That's some huge conspiracy theory ideation you have going on there.

Lebanon, ever heard of Hezbollah, Wow. No, it's not a question. You didn't.

The USA helps muslims by bombing them, occupying their countries, keeping up the only military theocracy in the world that would be Israel? Look again.

O and how about climate change. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1
Interesteringly those countries in the region that take in refugees have only tiny oil reserves. Unlike the US vassal states. So those countries take in climate refugees while being not much of a CC problem. Interesting isn't it.

Egypt, a US vassal state, has a bit over 130.000 refugees - compare with Lebanon.

Exercise. Test the western media wrt refugees in Iran.

Hezbollah? Yes, I have heard of them Have you?

Have you heard of Mecca? How about Hamas?

Have you heard that HAARP produces tests on the atmosphere to control your brainwaves and control you? That would explain your posts. Trying to make conspiracy nuts look mad in order that their conspiracies aren't taken seriously.

You know, crank conspiracies like "Gulf states are being told not to let Syrian refugees in by the USA, who does accept refugees themselves".

You still haven't made any mention of WHY this happens.

"O and how about climate change. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1"

O, what about it? Is this why the gulf states are persecuting fellow Muslims at the behest of the USA and everyone is blaming Muslims by not actually blaming them, but getting a newspaper headline that says "anti-Muslim" in it?

#83 "You still haven’t made any mention of WHY this happens."

Aha. So, I did mention that. Along those lines of 'the Jews of this age', remember?

"Hezbollah? Yes, I have heard of them Have you?
Have you heard of Mecca? How about Hamas?"

Hezbollah, Mecca, Hamas. One of 'm is the odd man out, the US vassal that takes in no refugees. Ha ha! Mecca.
Hamas is a political party (with a militia) within a ghetto containing 1.6 million people, most of whom are actually refugees. They would take in more, but the Wag the US Dog state, the only military theocracy in the world, won't have it. See how it fits in the pattern, again?

Blame the muslims. So with the refugees entering Europe a full division of IS is coming along to build the Eurabian Caliphate (along those lines of the Protocols of Zion, as the muslims are the Jews of these times). What did you learn at school today? That's what we learn at school today.

“Gulf states are being told not to let Syrian refugees in by the USA, who does accept refugees themselves”.

Please, Wow. Check first. Talk then.
http://www.newsweek.com/why-us-not-doing-more-help-syrian-refugees-3695…

Oh, and the answer to that question in the article is: because muslims and all muslims are terrorists, just like the Jews used to be before they got cleansed out of Europe.
No, I didn't say that.
You did.

"#83 “You still haven’t made any mention of WHY this happens.”

Aha. So, I did mention that. Along those lines of ‘the Jews of this age’, remember? "

But that is what you're claiming happens, not the why.

Do you know what "why" means?

"Hezbollah, Mecca, Hamas. One of ‘m is the odd man out."

One of them you don't know? Which one?

"Please, Wow. Check first. Talk then.
http://www.newsweek.com/why-us-not-doing-more-help-syrian-refugees-3695…"

More? So they ARE doing something? And how does this explain why UAE is doing nothing? It doesn't. Plain and simple.

"Oh, and the answer to that question in the article is: because muslims and all muslims are terrorists"

Ah, so you ADMIT that reading that link won't tell me WHY it is happening. Why then should I read it to not find out why it's happening?

Oh, and Muslims are no more terrorists than the Irish are. Or Americans are. Or the British. Etc. They have people who commit terrorist acts. Are you claiming otherwise?

"just like the Jews used to be before they got cleansed out of Europe."

Uh,

a) They weren't cleansed out of Europe.
b) They aren't called terrorists in Europe. Never were. At least no more than Communists or Facists or Anarchists or Atheists or Russians or Americans or Mexicans or .... etc were.

Hell, UNIONS were as often declared being terrorists as Jews were at that time.

So, yeah, no evidence of your conspiracy. Then or now.

"No, I didn’t say that.
You did."

Nope. You did. Just then.

"But that is what you’re claiming happens, not the why."

Is there really a 'why' to e.g. a Shoa? To e.g. blaming the muslims for everything that goes wrong at home? Is there a 'why'? Suggest something!

And yes, between 1945 and about the turn of the century, the 'Jews' they were the communists. Why? You tell me! And no, it is not a conspiracy. It is actually something much worse and it resides much deeper. A name for is 'scapegoating'. Done by plebs, used by authorities. Then, 'why' could take you to no 'why' at all in the first group, and to money, oil, power, what have you to the second (no wonder you're confused, Wow).

Even the UAE does more than the USA. Unless, of course, you only read the Daily Fail. And 'more' means still nothing in absolute numbers compared to those non-oil states.

"The U.A.E. has given safe haven to thousands of Syrians, as well as Palestinians with Syrian documents, who have joined their families, and thousands more have arrived on visitor visas that can be renewed, the official said."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-03/u-a-e-says-aid-not-sh…

"Is there really a ‘why’ to e.g. a Shoa?"

Is there a "because" to a beam?

"To e.g. blaming the muslims for everything that goes wrong at home?"

There has to be a "blaming the muslims for everything that goes wrong at home" first.

Kind of required. You, so far, have shown none of that.

"And yes, between 1945 and about the turn of the century, the ‘Jews’ they were the communists"

No they weren't COMMUNISTS were the communists. They were in Spain (ever heard of their civil war?). They were in Italy, they were in the USA. They were all over the world.

And in Spain, for example, they were Spanish.

You're like Anita Sarkeesian insisting that whatever it is, it's a patriarchy.

You're like a imam insisting that whatever it is, it's The Great Satan.

You're like an internet blowhard insisting that whatever it is, it's Muslims are Jews.

"u-a-e-says-aid-not-shelter-is-way-to-help-syria-refugees"

So they don't need somewhere to live that has space, food, water and a somewhat reasonable lack of war going on to live?

PS Check Kuwait.

#91, Kuwait is a US, oil rich vassal. So I've guessed Kuwait does nothing if you didn't already tell me (to be sure, I knew al that before you were born couple of years ago).

"You, so far, have shown none of that." - said the blind man to One Eye the Eternal Pariah... Blind man did not see what is shown to him, it is just sad.

"They were all over the world." - wtf is next, Wow, the fascists were or are Jews, too?

"You’re like an internet blowhard insisting that whatever it is, it’s Muslims are Jews."
I don't insist any such thing. Never did. I'd go no further than people are people, really. Including their pathological scapegoat drives making muslims today's Jews. Not my doing, Wow. I'm just a reporter (and what do you do to reporters?).

#86, I see you are actually trying to deny the Shoa!
---
“just like the Jews used to be before they got cleansed out of Europe.”

Uh,

a) They weren’t cleansed out of Europe.
---

"Before the Nazi takeover of power in 1933, Europe had a vibrant and mature Jewish culture. By 1945, most European Jews—two out of every three—had been killed. Most of the surviving remnant of European Jewry decided to leave Europe. Hundreds of thousands established new lives in Israel, the United States, Canada, Australia, Great Britain, South America, and South Africa. "
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005687

Gone. 'Cleansed'.

"Oh, and Muslims are no more terrorists than the Irish are. Or Americans are. Or the British. Etc. They have people who commit terrorist acts. Are you claiming otherwise?"

No.
Interestingly, what you say there is taboo. Presently, all terrorists are muslims. Before that, they all were communistst. Next, they 're all Maori's - or did we already get rid of those?

"#91, Kuwait is a US, oil rich vassal. So I’ve guessed Kuwait does nothing if you didn’t already tell me"

Why would the USA demand Kuwait not allow Syrian refugees?

Same with all the other lameness you are posting.

You merely STATE your conspiracy theory and therefore it is, for you, true.

You have to prove your conspiracy theory exists.

“Before the Nazi takeover of power in 1933, Europe had a vibrant and mature Jewish culture. By 1945, most European Jews—two out of every three—had been killed"

Which would be Germany. Not Europe. And they did it NOT because they were terrorists. NOT because they were communists, but because their religion taught them they killed their god.

"Interestingly, what you say there is taboo. Presently, all terrorists are muslims. "

No they aren't.

" but because their religion taught them they killed their god."
That was the sort of belief that held somewhat until about 1850.
Thereafter, 'Jews were taking over the world'. Or 'sucking out the world as bankers'. Or 'ruling the financial system to plunge the world into war' (as Hitler actually said himself). Jews were 'evil. An unpredictable threat. Were extremists, setting out to destroy Germany.' Et fucking cetera. You know the talk - just listen to the islamophobes. It's the same thing always. People, and scapegoats. In Indonesia, the Chinese immigrants are 'the Jews' there.

For a history on the development of European, particularly German antisemitism, e.g. 'Hitler's willing executioners' by Goldhagen. Or the rest of my metre of books on that subject.

"“Before the Nazi takeover of power in 1933, Europe had a vibrant and mature Jewish culture. By 1945, most European Jews—two out of every three—had been killed”"

You replied: "Which would be Germany." Showing you know nothing of the subject and did not even care to read that short piece of the NY Holocaust Museum.

Europe.

Most Jewry sat in Eastern Europe, esp. Poland. This region suffered the highest scores (80 to 100.000 % in a certain Baltic state).

Holland: 75% (between 104,000 and 110,000 out of 140,000), report on this country e.g. Bob Moore, 'Victims & Survivors'.
Today, 2015, 32,000 Jews live in Holland.

Oops. Only 31,000 in Holland.

"” but because their religion taught them they killed their god.”
That was the sort of belief that held somewhat until about 1850."

Sigh.

Read Hitlers diatribes and the propaganda, moron.

"Read Hitlers diatribes and the propaganda, moron."

I did. Up to and including 'Mein Kampf'.
You did not.
Now I'm done with you. I don't care for abusive language at all. But you will not keep DK'ing me.
TOGTFO.

"I did. Up to and including ‘Mein Kampf’.
You did not."

I did.

You did not.

However, why am I surprised you don't know about it. Figured you for a neonazi with your calling jews terrorists.

Hehe, had a peep inte this thread, To hating and narrow minded delturds hating each other, what a surprise. :-)

What don't we call it a draw embracing that the man who created fascism was a leading but hating Italian communist?

Actually Olaus, I don't hate you; I mock you and ridicule you but at the same time realize that you are such an insignificant blip that I also question why I actually respond to you. Self inflicted torture perhaps? I say this because your scientific acumen wouldn't pass muster in an elementary school class. You may be qualified in some field - although you are terrified of telling us here what you actually do - but for sure science ain't it.

"I also question why I actually respond to you. Self inflicted torture perhaps?"

Maybe just a desire to see a shitbag doesn't get their own way.

No hate involved at all. Not for me. I may badmouth Wow and confront him (or her) with the kind of cryptograms he (or she) gives me to wonder about but I'll be damned if don't respect him (or her) very much even if I don't exactly understand why at times.

You, Olaus, are unlikely to be able to debate any of your cronies on anything. Dogmatist reality raping cult you're in.

#1, Wow - not at all. Same thing with climate revisionism when I state I hope for e.g. a Sandy 2.0 at 880 hPa. I don't do quotes around such statements because I expect (rather tongue in cheek of course) that they will be recognized as what climate revisionists actually wish for.

I read 'MK' up to about 20 pages from the end. Was too sick in tummy to continue to the end. Anything there I should read?

Try here you ignoramus.

http://carolynyeager.net/why-we-are-antisemites-text-adolf-hitlers-1920…

Hell, half the rhetoric is about how they are the evil industriaists who are destroying the "True Germany" that is the pastoral farmworker.

Of course, these people were being put out of a job by industrialisation, so they were an easy target.

Of course, the run up to the war meant that more and more industrialisation was necessary, up to the total mobilisation for industrial war production as the war had been going against them and wasn't going to turn again.

"No hate involved at all. Not for me. "

Yeah, right, and Fred Phelps had no hate for gays, he was just ready to do whatever was needed to save people from going to hell for being an abomination.

Funny how the blinded idealogue who doesn't know what the hell is going on but is CERTAIN that it's a great conspiracy is the last to know.

This refusal to acknowledge that you can be guilty of the same unthinking self-sealing conspiracy ideation that Lappers operates under MERELY BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE SAME SUBJECT is WHY you get the shit partisan politics that is caricatured by "You'd vote for a cabbage if it had a (D) before its name" (replace as necessary for political affiliation and country).

We have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what Lappers ISN'T batshit insane about. He's never demonstrated any capacity for reflection and thinking.

That, however, may be because Lappers is being paid for his opinion, or is merely trolling for giggles in an empty life, or just trolling to annoy people who he can't manage to make not be right, but so desperately wants to be wrong.

THINK AGAIN about your confirmation bias that insists that anything MUST be "blame muslims", even when it doesn't say anything like that.

If Spain were to have to evacuate, or Holland flooded (say WAIS fell in and the waters rose 2m in year), then their neighbours would be doing the same whining and bitching about WHITE invaders coming in and taking jobs and how they should go SOMEWHERE ELSE where there's room and jobs and the ability to support these now penniless refugees.

Hell, look at the bitching about Greece, despite the fact that it's 90% the fault of the EU that it;s a problem at all. The Greeks are caricatured as feckless wastrels mooching off the good people of the rest of the EU who havebent over backwards whilst they cotinued their entitlement lavish lifestyle that they could not afford, and that OUR problems is that they owe us the money WE NEED OURSELVES!!!!

They're not Muslim.

But boy do they get demonised and shitsprayed by politicians looking for something to get attention and votes.

"Yeah, right, and Fred Phelps had no hate for gays" - you can look in Phelps' head, but not in mine. Take it easy.

I can look in Freddies head as easily as yours.

Easier to look in yours since his no longer works to present more evidence of its workings.

No, you can't. Obviously I'll be the judge.

Obviously if you're deluded, you don't know what you think (read up the definition of deluded), so obviously you can't be the judge.

Well said, #12, that is what I meant. So I'm the judge of what's in my head.

The plunder of Greece benefited my country well... What a sorry process.

"If Spain were to have to evacuate, or Holland flooded (say WAIS fell in and the waters rose 2m in year), then their neighbours would be doing the same whining and bitching about WHITE invaders coming in and taking jobs and how they should go SOMEWHERE ELSE where there’s room and jobs and the ability to support these now penniless refugees."

Too true. What happens on the Bangladeshi-Indian border.

In this case, the development of muslims as 'the Jews of our age' arose, of course, before the refugee crisis. It partly caused the refugee crisis.

I saw the US might be prepared to take in 10,000 Syrian refugees next year. I hope the States can carry this burden. I mean, even the mighty empire of the Netherlands which presently takes in about that number per two months is creaking & squeaking under the weight.
(do I need to add some winks here?).

"Well said, #12, that is what I meant. So I’m the judge of what’s in my head. "

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.

Richard P. Feynman

But I find it rather ironic that you're now going "ONLY I/b> CAN JUDGE MY THOUGHTS!!!" when you've spend the past fortnight insisting that you know what someone is thinking (and it's always "I hate muslims, I blame them for EVERYTHING!") even though it's never once said.

Is this some sort of superpower you have?

Is it anything like Tony Watt's superpower of knowing how this AGW "scam" is being concocted despite NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that it's happening?

'cos I'm pretty damn sure that retard really DOES believe his bollocks.

Does that mean he's right? Is faith REALLY all that's required to make the universe as you describe it???

'cos I think that's cray-cray.

Time to shut this blog down, Tim. It served no useful purpose when it attracted comment from climate crazies pushing global warming baloney. Now it's just a sewer for hate filled sickos.

Thank you, Graham, for that heatfelt, if meaningless, comment.

Funny how you forget to mention the climate crazies are Lappers, Gitter, Duffski et al.

".. even though it’s never once said." - you have an actual, factual quote.

And Holland's virulently anti-muslim political party PVV is now by far the largest in the polls.

Today they've (that is, the internet) been blaming the muslims inspired by the new Hebdo cover that actually blames the European christians : D

"“.. even though it’s never once said.” – you have an actual, factual quote."

Yeah, right. A quote of what was never said.

Did you bother to engage brainstem?

The link you gave for "anti-muslim" contained the entire quotes of the PM that you and the link where whining about being anti muslim was this

“are threatening Europe’s Christian culture”

THAT IS ALL.

You have to love the temerity of climate change deniers. Graham is the latest in a line of deluded idiots. He writes,

"It served no useful purpose when it attracted comment from climate crazies pushing global warming baloney".

He says this in the later stages of the warmest year in recorded history; it follows the previous warmest year in recorded history (2014). And it ignores the fact that with almost no exceptions the climate science community argue that humans are the main culprit behind this warming.

The real crazies are the deniers pushing the there is no warming baloney. Seems like Graham fits well into that group.

Graham

It served no useful purpose when it attracted comment from climate crazies pushing global warming baloney.

Well that is just where you are wrong sunshine, many a vapid argument has been blown away like the water vapour of a cooling tower. Those coming here with second hand tales from the gutter press and the crass self contradictory nonsense of blogs of denial have been roundly sat on and exposed for the bigots they are.

As for the 'sewer for hate filled sickos', that is all in your mind and projection at that from such a hypocrite as you have shown yourself t be. If being called a hypocrite, or a bigot hurts then so be it for those accolades are note hate filled but come from how despised you and your ilk are, supporting despicable climate criminals.

One only has to see the latest twist and turn of the GOP in the US to appreciate how sick the minds of denial are. Make no mistake about it, if evil exists then these people and their financial supporters are pure evil. Do you really wish to align with such as they. If so on your head be it!

#18, "“are threatening Europe’s Christian culture”" - just like Jews 'used to do'. You may of course have noted that PM is also, of course, of course, an antisemite.

There was another 'blame the muslims' you got, Wow. Why did you choose to 'forget' that one? The Hague major, remember?

Today, then, 'blame the muslims' actually sounds like the refugee crisis is pretext for the IS invasion of Europe. No, I didn't say that. It is said and believed by those many, many Europeans who are of the sort that happily supported the Shoa back then. Of course, of course: it's always the same. You know, like the Chinese are the Jews of Indonesia and Singapore, the Hutu's are the Jews of Rwanda but only since Paul 'Child Soldier' Kagame changed that table around et fucking cetera.

Breaking 'blame the muslims' news from Texas.
Boy built clock .
Boy's name happened to be 'Ahmed'.
Boy reported to police, because Ahmed, that is 'muslim', so he built a bomb. With a fucking noisy bell, typical your bomb.
No, I didn't say he built a bomb. You did.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/northwest-dallas-county/h…

"#18, ““are threatening Europe’s Christian culture”” – just like Jews ‘used to do’."

So you're blaming Jews now.

Because that isn't a quote from the bloke you're insisting is everyone and hates Muslims for being Muslims.

"There was another ‘blame the muslims’ you got, Wow. Why did you choose to ‘forget’ that one? The Hague major, remember? "

I remember a complete lack of blaming Muslims for anything and a lot of criticizing WHITE, MAINLY CHRISTIAN politicians for letting immigrants flood in.

You know, like those Poles. Totally Muslim, right?

You only remember what you wanted to be there, you hate fuelled retard.

"Boy reported to police, because Ahmed, that is ‘muslim’, so he built a bomb. "

Black kid shot dead because he had a toy gun.

White guy shot dead when he had his hands up because he ran away from the police earlier and now was arrested.

Both totally because the police hate Muslims, right?

What is missing is proof or even decent evidence that Muslims are being blamed for being Muslim or a Holocaust is being made against them.

"What happens on the Bangladeshi-Indian border. "

Is proof that whining about immigrants that happen to be Muslim isn't proof that the whining is about the Muslims. Because anyone with a national identity will complain about others who have a different national identity. And in Muslim countries, that's the influx of the decadent godless west (IOW the USA). In the EU it's the east european countries newly introduced.

And in the USA, it's the spread of a power block that is just as religious as those complaining about it, but the "wrong" religion.

Hell, look at the drunk "satanist" who knocked over the ten commandments outside a state building. Or the annual "There's a War On Christmas" for Faux.

As far as Faux News christians go, there's a huge conspiracy to attack christians for being christians. That they can point to "evidence" of persecution doesn't mean they're right.

"Black kid shot dead because he had a toy gun.

White guy shot dead when he had his hands up because he ran away from the police earlier and now was arrested."

O yes, US police hate black people. So in the 19fifties there were states where officers began toting .50 guns with hollowpoint munitions and instructions to fire up the magazine because a nine didn't have the stopping power against blacks.

Find all examples, count per head of ethnicity/color and verify that the US police hates blacks.
Just like in Holland.
Which just set a girl of 15 in policie prison for indefinite time because she's a muslima from Somalia who may have, or may not have talked to another muslim.

" a Holocaust is being made against them." - the number this century, six million, likely realized, the deportees/refugees now standing at 20 million and counting. That's the IS invasion of Europe, of course (no, I didn't say that - you, the plebs says it - the same plebs that used to be so utterly scared of those evil Jews).

They even shoot Sikhs in the US, mistaking them for muslims : D
US is occupying a few countries and drone striking many others (causing 5 times the number of civilian victims in Yemen than al-Qaeda-Yemen did over the past year) - but what a coincidence: all happen to be muslim countries.

I'll give you another hint. It is redirected Shoa. It is the wag the dog (mad dog/Moshe Dayan) state that is telling the world to blame the muslims.

---
“What happens on the Bangladeshi-Indian border. ”

Is proof that whining about immigrants that happen to be Muslim isn’t proof that the whining is about the Muslims.
---
What happens there is happening re the other 20 million refugees of this planet. India is not shooting them at the border because they happen to be muslim, but because they are many. Climate refugees fleeing the Bangladeshi coast.
The Hungarian border is now closed. Refugees are now getting either tear gassed or arrested. New route is via Kroatia, historically not the best place for muslims btw. Expect border shootings on refugees coming year. Because muslims. Because all are IS. No, I didn't say that etc.

"O yes, US police hate black people."

Uhh, remember THIS in the bit you quoted:

White guy shot dead when he had his hands up because he ran away from the police earlier and now was arrested

?

You racist fuck.

Come on, creampie, what's your problem. Come clean.

You're not a Muslim, that's pretty damn certain.

Are you misapropriating a crusade to head so that you can be a justice warrior for Muslims around the world, in absence of any actual injustice against you to rail against?

Or are you just whining because you need some attention?

Or is it, like the closeted gay pastor, a screaming pantomime to drown out the problem you have discovered yourself and hope to hide from conscious acceptance?

Typical, isn't it.
How come it's such a surprise for you, Wow?
->
http://gawker.com/7-kids-not-named-mohamed-who-brought-homemade-clocks-…

"Come on, creampie, what’s your problem. Come clean.

You’re not a Muslim, that’s pretty damn certain."

See? You denote being a muslim as being a problem.
Don't worry, I can read between the lines a little bit. You didn't mean that. You just observed I'm not a muslim. Which you already knew - I know there's no God, remember?

Perhaps, just perhaps at some point in some distant future you will recognize me for what I am.
" Just a man. Harmonica: An ancient race".
Homo sapiens.

Yeah, it's typical.

What?

Who knows.

You haven't a clue what you're talking about or are supposed to be demonstrating.

Two words:

Charlie
Hebdo.

Also read up on the story rather than just google "anti muslim" or some shit and pick up the links. You'll find this was probably due to his dad being a thorn in the side of a moron pastor in the town.

Plus you want to look at this:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/09/16/Obama-invites-Texas-teen-to-W…

Muslims. Always picked on. It's not that they're "not us", it's entirely because they're muslim.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/08/indiana…

Oh. Maybe not. Maybe it's just those mean christians:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/05/19/the-guardian-sh…

Oh, maybe not.

And those Republicans. Grrr. They'll never change.

Always against climate science because of their "Republican Conservative" ideology.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/17/republican-congress-…

"Perhaps, just perhaps at some point in some distant future you will recognize me for what I am."

A retard on a crusade?

"You’re not a Muslim, that’s pretty damn certain.

See? You denote being a muslim as being a problem."

See? You just fabricate a scenario in your head out of thin air to "PROVE" you were right all along.

WHERE do I denote being Muslim (which you refuse to capitalise) being a problem?

I said you are clearly NOT a Muslim.

WHERE DOES THAT MEAN WHAT YOU SAY?

Like I said, I DO realise what you are. A retard.

This morning a boy ran into a toilet on a Thalys train in Rotterdam and locked himself in.
He must have a muslim appearance (you know, this skin colour etc). Therefore he must be a terrorist. So the station got closed down. A half batallion of police (and some) armed to the teeth (and some) occupied the zone. Army helicopters flying over the place.

Finally they talked the poor young fellow out. Oops, the dangerous terrorist (sorry!!). Had to be transported to the hospital because hyperventilation attack (attack!! Terrorist!!). He managed to make a victim, too. Somehow he turned the police dogs loose and policeman actually got bitten!

The terror. Oh, the terror. If that boy 'd been white, nothing at all would've happend. He'd taken his pee & shit and that's it. But if you have this skin colour, you are muslim, therefore you are terrorist, therefore if you visit a train toiliet the whole fucking country will be mobilized to go get you.

"WHERE do I denote being Muslim (which you refuse to capitalise) being a problem?"

Everywhere. All over.
You see, it is what you blabber about me. I'm just turning your shitty retorics around on you. Didn't you see? Like you never saw disclaimers like 'no, I didn't say that'?

#36, you need to have the rest of that post read to you.

"This morning a boy ran into a toilet .."

Who cares?

September 18, 2015

"“WHERE do I denote being Muslim (which you refuse to capitalise) being a problem?”

Everywhere. All over."

So you're a retard, then.

"#36, you need to have the rest of that post read to you."

Nope. Not necessary.

And the panic in Antwerp. They found a suitcase on a train!!

"Who cares?" - the whole fucking country, police and army. You see, the boy had black hair, so he's a muslim, so he's a terrorist.
So the whole fucking country got disrupted rail services because a boy jumped into a train toilet. With the army flying heli's over the city because one boy with black hair is a whole fucking Daesh division force.

http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/09/18/live-thalys-en-rotterdam-centraal-o…

"Who cares?" - and you care. No wonder.

Looks like Rotterdam, 1940 again... Another incident, another panic. Envelope, white powder, found inside unemployment benefit institute UWV: http://www.retecool.com/brekend-blinde-paniek-overal-iedereen/ .

It's called an explosion, of course. The little cloud that hit the air on opening that envelope.

"And the panic in Antwerp."

The Antwerpians were all fine.

"“Who cares?” – and you care."

Making shit up again? No surprise.

"Looks like Rotterdam, 1940 again"

Nah. Not bombed. Quite a significant difference.

But you just don't care, do you. You see "it" *EVERYWHERE*, even if it isn't.

Of course counterexamples don't exist at all.

Because you just don't care.

There really is no difference between you and Stupid.

The envelope, that 'exploded', contained ashes from burnt paper... I wonder what kind of signal that was.

"Nah. Not bombed. Quite a significant difference." - I sayyyy.... I'd have seen. Cause I have the skyline of the city outside my window.

"You see “it” *EVERYWHERE*, even if it isn’t." - no, you do.

"Of course counterexamples don’t exist at all." - huh? Here comes the Good Jew, oops, the Good Muslim cause 'e 'appens to be your neighbour? That's a smart retoric move mate! Me come up with 'counterexamples' (to wot, for f's sake) that would prove your point I'm racist or so??

Counterexamples are white... http://anonhq.com/racial-prejudice-in-america-a-young-christian-invento…

"The envelope, that ‘exploded’,"

Nobody cares.

Any more than Stupid's "revelations" about how AGW is all a scam.

He sees AGW scam everywhere, you see anti-muslim crusades everywhere.

Same lunacy, different lunatic.

#47 - "Nobody cares." - peculiar projection. Come along, talk some in Rotterdam, where 'nobody cared'.

Should've been true, but you know, it ain't true because islamophobic paranoia.

Ever heard of Geert Wilders? Good friend of Pamela Geller, remember? He's the Dutch 'Blame the muslims' party leader. #1 in the polls now, at a distance. Said yesterday the people should revolt against the govt because it is letting the islam invasion in. Said 'dump the parliament'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders

O and here's that PM of Hungary talking about the Jewish, oops, muslim take-over of the world: http://diepresse.com/home/politik/aussenpolitik/4822692/Orban_Muslime-w… .

They fuck and procreate like rabbits, says he. Never mind immigrants birth rates drop to immigrant's new country levels or even slightly below within a generation - blame the muslims, they fuck like rabbits and will take over our beloved christian Europe, says this PM.

You know, Wow, nobody will do the 'Wir haben es nicht gewusst' on me. Not even you.

"#47 – “Nobody cares.” – peculiar projection."

Not really.

I know I don't. I know nobody else is buying in to this conspiracy theory you have.

Seems solid.

The muslim suit case in Antwerp has been blown up. Contained only clothes, of course. But the combination of maybe muslim and cotton is of course a bomb (never mind some heavily regulated HNO3).
It was blown up because authorities bought your (not mine) 'conspiracy theory'.

"I know nobody else is buying in to this conspiracy theory you have."
I agree. Trump and all those sheeping after them are nobodies. Still they do a lot of damage and have a lot of muslims killed (because they were muslims).
Past year drone strikes killed five times as many civilians in Yemen as al-Qaeda (which controls more than half of the country) did. Drone strikes are evidence of people buying in to your (not mine) 'conspiracy theory'.
Worlds primary producer of drones? The wag the dog state. Must be a coincidence again.

"The muslim suit case in Antwerp has been blown up."

Yeah, overblown. Like your entire screed here.

Can't wait to see how Olly, Rednoise, Batty, Gormless and other deniers try and downplay the lastest from the NOAA:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201508

Its pretty shocking. And totally blows away Olly's 'hiatus' screed.

Yeah, overblown. My point exactly.
So the Rotterdam disruption was about a Tunesian boy of 16 who locked himself up into the toilet trying to hitch a ride with no ticket.
Overblown. I said that. You didn't.

The Dutch 'blame the muslims' party added to its big lead in the polls. It is now larger than the two parties that make up the cabinet.

-. It is now larger than the two parties that make up the cabinet - combined.

"Yeah, overblown. My point exactly."

Glad we agree you're hysteric.

Digest this... http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/sep/22/school-questioned-musl… .

#54 - projection, again.

Why? is it going to be yet more complaining of how OTHER PEOPLE are a problem, but the only insistence on anti-muslim tirates is going to be in the damn title or editorial assertion, not the actual people being blamed?

How old are you, Wow? Might you happen to be a kid of the Red Scare & Cold War like me?
Back then, everyone of social-democrat political signature and to the left of that were 'the Jew', like the muslims are today.

You started off whining about how it was everyone who was the problem with AGW, then prattled on about how they hate muslims, pointing to two claims of anti-muslim sentiment where NONE OF THAT HAPPENED.

You then got REALLY aggressive because I wouldn't accept your ridiculous proposition that the muslims are the new jews.

And now you're eternally going on about how selected BS from idiots "proves" that the muslims are universally hated.

Yet REFUSE to accept selected BS that show that christians are universally hated, atheists universally hated, blacks universally hated or that Muslims universally hate everyone else.

Your standard of evidence for claims YOU want to proffer as evidenced is far far higher than for claims alternative to those.

Why?

Because you're a frigging nutcase, no different from Stupid or Gitter or Duffski.

And I treat your insane dribbling with the same lack of reading as I do with Stupid's idiotic postings.

"And I treat your insane dribbling with the same lack of reading"

I know. It follows that the capitals in your " pointing to two claims of anti-muslim sentiment where NONE OF THAT HAPPENED." are Dunning-Kruger 2.0.

"Yet REFUSE to accept selected BS that show that christians are universally hated"

Christians killed millions (like six) of muslims this century. Muslims didn't kill christians like that.
Christians, btw, killed millions (like six) of Jews last century. Not the other way round.

Are you aware christian countries are occupying a number of muslim countries, keeping them in perpetual war? Or do you actually think the muslims took over Germany and Switzerland and are drone striking New York State and another six European countries?

You revisionist moron?

"I know. It follows that the capitals in your ” pointing to two claims of anti-muslim sentiment where NONE OF THAT HAPPENED.” are Dunning-Kruger 2.0. "

You mean where what you claim happened never happened? Somehow that's DK???

The links provided were claimed to have someone go on an anti-muslim rant, when one of them complained about the european government for not having an immigration policy to cope with the influx of refugees (from wars or famine or other disaster). The other one also only said anti muslim in the link and headline WRITTEN BY THE REPORTER. Unless you're calling the reporter islamophobic.

NONE of which even bothers with why the climate is being fucked over and it's everyone's fault.

"“Yet REFUSE to accept selected BS that show that christians are universally hated”

Christians killed millions (like six) of muslims this century."

So you don't care about the christians killed by the millions over the past 12 centuries????

Oh, and did you mean "last century"? THIS century, it's been mostly muslims killing muslims or muslims killing christians.

And christians whining about how they're not allowed to do like they used to.

"The links provided were claimed to have someone go on an anti-muslim rant, when one of them complained about the european government for not having an immigration policy to cope with the influx of refugees"

You did not read. You did not what a critical reader would have done: sussed out the provided evidential links. You do not know what that The Hague major said, or that Hungarian PM. Then you accuse me, me!! of going by a reporter's story.

"it’s been mostly muslims killing muslims or muslims killing christians."
You will have cherry picked e.g. the news on the CAR, yesterday, muslims attacking christians there. Well done. Of course you don't read so you don't know what happened past two years with the almost a million muslim minority in that country. No, it ain't there anymore. And that wasn't in the news, so you didn't see it, so it didn't exist - according to you.

I guess you'll think the Vietnam war caused a couple million dead because Vietnamese killed Vietnamese :D

"why the climate is being fucked over and it’s everyone’s fault." - well it's not the Syrian's fault much, is it. It's mainly done by the west, some US vassal states in the Arab world. Not the Chinese, but can you understand why not the Chinese? You need to give two reasons why not the Chinese.

"You did not read."

Yes, I did.

It did not say what you claimed (or what the headline inferred).

"It did not say what you claimed (or what the headline inferred)."

Proves you didn't read. I can see that exactly as well as you can recognize climate revisionists.

The Dutch 'blame the muslim' party just made a virtually unseen jump upwards in the polls.

So here's how my country welcomes the refugees: http://www.metronieuws.nl/binnenland/2015/09/door-heel-het-land-worden-…

"“It did not say what you claimed (or what the headline inferred).”

Proves you didn’t read"

No it doesn't. It only proves I say it doesn't say what you claim.

Since it DOESN'T say what you claim, that proves I am right and you were lying.

Christians killing muslims. Picture clear.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/30/russia-launches-first-airs…

Dream on, Wow. How about a successor to Daesh with the thousandfold brutality as displayed by the Khmer Rouge covering half the globe? We're making it.

"Christians killing muslims. Picture clear."

Yeah, welcome to the last 600 years.

Muslims kill muslims, Christians kill christians, Christians kill Muslims, Muslims kill christians.

What is lacking here is any evidence this is a worldwide pogrom against Muslims.

Oh, and what is your insistence that Russia==Christians from?

Or is this "If they're killing Muslims, they must be Christians"?

Welcome to the plutocracy, Wow, which didn't really change as of the Crusades, which fooled so many guys like you, too.

It fooled you too.

True. Until a decade and a half ago.

No, you're still fooled.

Looks like the czar is not bombing IS at all. But factions who get US support.
If the czar helps the Alewites to something of a safe island state, it would at least prevent the potential genocide on this ethnicity.
While Daesh continues its correction of Sykes-Picot.
Could be a hopeful development.
Otoh, in war the worst expectation must be multiplied by a large number then quadrated to get a hint of reality.
So for now we're seeing escalation and added complexity.

All for the good of the arms industry aka the Industry of Perpetual War. Champagne at the Pentagon.

Oh, there sounded a squeek, there. Wot?