December 2016 Open Thread

More evidence that we are approaching critical tipping points in terms of massive amounts of carbon stored in the soil being released into the atmosphere in this new Nature piece co-authored by a team at Yale and the Netherlands Institute of Ecology, by my friend and colleague Tom Crowther:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html

http://news.yale.edu/2016/11/30/losses-soil-carbon-under-global-warming…

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38146248

Yes people, the situation is profoundly serious. One look at the current situation with the Cryosphere and its clear that we are entering a period of severe consequences. As an aside, Tom Crowther, the lead author of the Nature, piece, and I am both writing a separate paper together on Arctic ice extent and Polar Bear demographics as part of a broader study on advocacy. I have also assembled some of the world's leading scientists in various aspects of the field as co-authors on this manuscript and look forward to submission of the paper soon.

I am still waiting for the small brainless assemblage of AGW deniers on Deltoid to write and submit their epic study on climate. But wait - none of these people are actual scientists?!?! That doesn't stop them writing all sorts of piffle up here in which they appear to suggest they know more than 97% of the climate science community.

Jeffie dear, you constantly inventing your own reality, in this case about what 97% of the climate scientists believe, is as always like watching a car crash. Fascinating yet scary and awful.

Don't forget to add your "first hand spider" as a proxy in your new groundbreaking advocacy piece. ;-)

And like I have told you so many times before; I don't deny AGW. :-)

Olaus, you scientifically illiterate fool, you don't deny AGW, you downplay it. Which is just as bad. And on what academic pillar of wisdom do you downplay it? None. Nada. Nix. You have no relevant qualifications. My guess is that you work in a factory or a bank. Cerainly nowhere near a university or research institute. Moreover, the 97% is based on Cook et al. (2013), but there have been 5 other studies censusing climate scientists in which the percentages supporting AGW theory are between 91% and 97% (mean of 94%).

As for my new advocacy piece, there's a good chance that I will get an op-ed in a paper like the New York Times. Ouch! That must hurt you, eh? You forget that I am a leading scientist and well known around the world. And my co-authors are veru well known scientists as well. When is a nothing like you going to write their first scientific article?

Lastly, are you even vaguely able of coming up with your own original insults or or you so dumb that you are only capable of copying other idiots like Betula? Come on Mr. Meatball. Step up to the plate for once and show us all how clever you are.

Yes Jeff, The NT is a good outlet for your advocacy piece. Why shouldn't it? And it doesn't hurt at all if you get it published, but it confirms my view that the body of climate science has been infested by politics and ideology, and why viruses like you are able to distort it.

Viruses like me? HA! HA! HA!

You are such a fucking idiot. No, climate science is a healthy field with almost unanimous agreement among researchers as to the reality of AGW, its seriousness, and that urgent measures are needed to mitigate it. Its vile scum that you support, deniers from greenwashing think tanks and lobbying groups affiliated with the fossil fuel lobby, who are the viruses. You seem to actually think that the science is on your side. This is how totally and utterly twisted you and other deniers are. Its amazing that I stand alongside pretty well the entire scientific community in asserting my views, as a senior and leading scientist.

While I am it, read the following interview with my colleague and friend Tom Crowther published today in the Independent. Yes, Tom is a young and highly talented scientist. Read it and then re-read it and re-re-re read it. Let the message sink in. Loud and clear. AGW is a profound threat to humanity.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/donald-trump-climate-change-p…

Hey Hardley, I read your linked article.

Much like you, it says nothing.....and confirms it.

Still more perspectives of the rapid increase in warming. I am having fun crushing Olaus, so why not continue. These figures reveal in clarity (1) that the rise in temperatures is linear or above linear since the 1980s and is very steep; (2) that there is no hiatus. It was a mathematical construct used by deniers as part of their attempts to greenwash the data. I have said this before but it's well worth repeating: the deniers are consistently moving the goalposts. In the 1990s AGW was a myth, then around 200-2005 it was natural then around 2007 there was a supposedly imminent mini-ice age, or at least cooling, then in 2013 there was a hiatus, and now its either asserted that there is data tampering or else the GMT is leveling off. Against this background are the views of pretty well the entire scientific community: AGW is very real, the warming is ongoing, and it represents a serious threat. Here's Tom Crowther speaking in the Independent: "Our study shows that this major feedback has already certainly started, and it will have a significant impact on the climate in the coming decades. This information will be critical as we strive to understand how the climate is going to change in the future. And it will also be critical if we are to generate meaningful strategies to fight against it.”

https://www.google.nl/search?q=2016+warmest+year&biw=1670&bih=790&sourc…

https://www.google.nl/search?q=2016+warmest+year&biw=1670&bih=790&sourc…

OK Betula, oh great God of wisdom and tree pruner, what Dunning-Kruger infused expertise has endowed you with the wisdom to dismiss a major study in Nature? Inhaling too many bark fumes from your sawdust?

Get lost, asshole.

Hardley, it's easy to dismiss an article that, in summary, says absolutely nothing.
It's like dismissing you...

Just had a great laught with Tom, lead author of the Nature paper, when I told him that a tree pruner dismissed the signifciance of his article. He was literally on the floor.

Speaking of Olaus claiming that climate science is infested with politics and ideology, that is certainly true. The far ene of the poltiical right has been going on about a UN-mandated global socialist conspiracy for years. Its hi,arious, but this is what they do when they are clutching at straws. Bart Verheggen told me that one of the prominent denier bloggers, Jeff Id, told him that AGW is a socialist or communist plot to create a world, government. So yes, Olaud, loonies that you like sure have political agendas. More here:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator/is-climate-…

Again, our resident tree pruner, who has never been near a science lecture in his life, and who has never done any research, summarily dismisses a major study without a shred of evidence. Again, my anology above using the planet's shape is appropriate. I present stacks of papers and evidence supporting the theory that the planet is largely spherical, and Betula, without any supporting evidence simply says, 'No its not' in response. This is how deniers debate.

Next we will be told by Betula that the moon is made out of green cheese because, well heck, Betula likes green cheese. No evidence needed. He says it and its so. Presented with a pile of refuting evidence, he will reply, 'sorry, but its made out of green cheese'.

Blogs are wonderful vehilcles for tree pruners and other assorted laymen to parade their ignorance but who try and camouflage it in some mysterious self-taught expertise. They are anonymous, they can say what they like and then flee the scene. They can dismiss the thousands of peer-reviewed studies and scientific consensus with the simple refrain of, "I disagree and you're wrong". This is their standard behaviour here and on other blogs. On Hotwhopper deniers are a bit bolder but no less stupid and vacuous.

The scientific debate is over. AGW is real and we are in the phase that urgent measures are needed to deal with it. Simpletons like Betula and Olaus can stay in their self-imposed ignorance all they like, but one thing they cannot change is the opinion of the scientific community by-and-large.

Let's see...

1. The brilliant scientist's (after all these years) "haven't taken into account a major source of carbon in the environment"....that which is in the soil.
Sort of like forgetting the affect of the oceans...

2. These same scientists are sure that "Global warming is beyond the point of no return"....and DT's "stance" will take it to a more catastrophic point of no return...because it's a "stance".

This is what happens when scientists blend their ideology with vague conclusions to paint a futuristic picture they determined to fact.

3. The scientists conclude that as the climate warms, the soil organisms become more active...

So soil organisms are to benefit from warming, which of course, is worse than if they didn't benefit....

4. And this gem...."This information will be critical as we strive to understand how the climate is going to change in the future"

So they admit they aren't sure how the climate is going to change in the future...

5. "These effects of climate change will certainly be felt disproportionately by poorer people"

So they are attempting to understand the change, which changes as they begin to understand the things they didn't take into account..... but they are "certain" that what they don't understand will affect people based on wealth distribution.

Again....ideology mixed with vagueness.

6. "There’s a nice analogy; if you step in front of an oncoming bus, no doctor in the world can tell you how damaging the impact is going to be."

But we've already stepped in front of the bus...we've reached "the point of no return". Of course, if you stepped in front of an oncoming solar powered bus, then you would have nothing to worry about...
I love scientific analogies.

Scientific conclusion reached from this article:

We need to redistribute wealth to the poor nations in order to prevent damage from a point of no return that may possibly possibly become a worse point of no return based on things we forgot to consider, a "stance" that hasn't materialized yet, a strive to understand how climate will change and a story about a bus.

Thanks for the laughs Hardley.

Betula is up to it again. Let me see where it begin debunking his kindergarten-level analysis of the Independent interview; note he won't go close to the Nature study because its well above his pea-sized brain. It is fun annihilating the bullshit people like Betula spew out. Its just a shame that I cannot do this in front of a large audience. Watching him laughed out of the venue would make my year.

I will dismantle his arguments one by one, not hard since I am a million times more qualified than him.

1. The scientists conclude that as the climate warms, the soil organisms become more active…

Betula's interpretation: "So soil organisms are to benefit from warming, which of course, is worse than if they didn’t benefit…."

Who says that increased activity is beneficial for them or especially for communities and for abiotic processes? Is it beneficial for bacteria? Soil invertebrates? What about the physiological costs of increased activity? What about increased respiration in the soil? Changes in phenological patterns? Asymmetrical temporal interactions? Increased mortality as turnover speeds up? Consequent effects on atmospheric gases? This statement alone reveals Betula does not understasnd BASIC soil ecology. But he thinks he does. Therein lies the rub.

2. "This information will be critical as we strive to understand how the climate is going to change in the future”

Betula: "So they admit they aren’t sure how the climate is going to change in the future…"

We know that its warming well outside of the range of natural forcings. The uncertainty lies in how much and to what extent these kinds of feedbacks will accelerate the rate of warming. If, as the paper shows, we are close to tipping points in which carbon stored belowground is suddenly and rapidly rleased into the atmosphere as a result of melting, then there will be unanticipated nasty surprises. This is what characterizes global change scenarios. Ecosystems are complex adaptive systems. The scientific community is working hard to unravel this complexity. This does not mean that we don't know what will happen. We know that it is warming due to human activities. How much the warming will be reinforced by these positive feedbacks is unclear. But we are approaching tipping points. More easy debunking of our mentally challenged pruner. Note how he, like other deniers, plays the uncertainty gambit: that is, if we don't know everything then we must know nothing. These clots do it all the time. I have spent the past 20 years responding to their bullshit. The uncertainty gambit is one of tgheir most desperate tactics.

3. "These effects of climate change will certainly be felt disproportionately by poorer people”

Betula: "So they are attempting to understand the change, which changes as they begin to understand the things they didn’t take into account….. but they are “certain” that what they don’t understand will affect people based on wealth distribution".

Naturally, since poor nations do not possess the technologies necessary to stave off the effects of AGW. This one is a no-brainer.

4. “There’s a nice analogy; if you step in front of an oncoming bus, no doctor in the world can tell you how damaging the impact is going to be. But we’ve already stepped in front of the bus…we’ve reached “the point of no return. Of course, if you stepped in front of an oncoming solar powered bus, then you would have nothing to worry about"

Betula : "I love scientific analogies".

The anology is entirely appropriate. Even if there was only a 10% cance that scientists were correct in assuming serious consequences of the failure to address AGW on both the natural and material economies, it would be prudent to act. But the vast majority of the scientific community consider the negative consequences of inaction on AGW as being much greater than 10%. Yet idiots like birch bark pruner man think its worth throwing the dice and hoping that we roll a certain number. He does this on the basis of possessing not even a basic understanding of what he is talking about. His first comment that I easily debunked, about the alleged benefits of increased biological activity of soil biota in a warming world, is a case in point. He thinks its a good thing, simply because in his uneducated worldview increased biological activity = good and less biological activity (or dormancy) = bad. In this one statement alone he completely ignores a vast amount of knowledge on the relationship between the soil and the atmosphere and on vital processes such as soil respiration. I am being kind when I simply say that he is way, way out of his depth. I am sure that Betula is so confident of his expertise in virtually everything that he also writes into medical blogs discussing the latest cancer treatments or techniques for brain surgery. He is Dunning-Kruger in textbook fashion.

The most hilarious thing is that he thinks he can go toe-to-toe with me on ecophysiology. I have a PhD in related fields but this doesn't stop this idiot from thinking he knows what he is talking about. As I said, his comments on biological activity in the soil alone shows how stupid he is.

Whew! That was fun.

Poor Hardley - Responds to my statement with more questions and no answers, other than to reaffirm his love for himself.

Like I said, it's easy to dismiss something that says nothing.

As I said, Betula, you confirm the statements of great scholars: "Ignorance begets confidence more often than knowledge" (Charles Darwin); "A greater threat than ignorance is the illusion of knowledge" (Stephen Gawking). You don't have a clue what you are talking about. You have never studied ecology or environmental science, and certainly you know nothing about biotic properties of soil ecosystems. Yet you feel supremely confident in dismissing a major paper in the world's leading journal by a huge team of researchers based primarily at Yale University. This important paper has received intense media attention across the globe, and along comes a tree pruner with no relevant expertise and voilà! It's trashed.

You are pathetic. Of course, I wasn't expecting you to discuss the effects of warming on the metabolism and on the biological activity of protists, bacteria, fungi, nematodes, other micro and macro invertebrates as well as in abiotic properties as of course I was well aware of your scientific illiteracy years ago. I expected you to try, and fail, to dismiss the significance of this study based on your pre determined views of the world. As predicted, you wrote a lot of gobbledegook and then hammered your chest like the Silverback gorilla that you think you are. Again, what a pathetic specimen you are Betula.

And finally, as I said before, you use the old denier meme of suggesting that if we don't know everything then we don't know anything at all. On this basis you then dismiss an entire field of scientific enquiry in order to argue that AGW is an unproven hoax. You are like one of the three monkeys that 'hears no evil'. I am sure you truly believe the bullshit that you write up here. Yet as soon as the discussion goes beyond a millimetre deep in terms of scientific content you resort to the smear and dismiss canard.

You are a pile of contradictions Betula. You banged on for months about the death of this blog but then you come back again to feebly try - and fail of course - to dismiss a profoundly important new study. At the same time you think that you can take on scientists trained in relevant fields, including me, and win.

Not in a million years.

Hardley - "And finally, as I said before, you use the old denier meme of suggesting that if we don’t know everything then we don’t know anything at all"

Just because you think something, it doesn't mean I said it.....much like you think the ideological driven article you linked gives you insight to a catastrophic-only future....which it doesn't.

Class dismissed.

How can a schmuck like you dismiss anyone with your complete lack of education in relevant fields? Your inability to understand basic ecology is the problem, combined with your massive overestimation of your knowledge. Your comment about the benefits of increased biological activity in the soil were straight out of the know nothing handbook. But you are good at that since you have no expertise whatsoever.

Give it a break Betula. You are way out of your league in these debates. It tires me being forced to lower myself to this level.

Hardley, there is a reason you're talking to an empty classroom....it's you.

Hmmm. Empty classroom? You mean the 75 students I lectured to in Lethbriade last week or the 23 students in my course? Or how about the 100 plus in my annual Wageningen university lecture?

Actually, you idiot, its you who is speaking to an empty classroom. Unless I include your family, a few friends and the people who work for you and have to listen to your kindergarten level rants.

You really are a loser.

Ideological Ramblings 101 doesn't count....it's a required course in all progressive asylums..

If ideological ramblings don't count then how come you are in the asylum? The asylum with a big sign over it 'Trumpton Towers'.

Well said, Lionel. Betula needs a faith healer or a hypnotist to cure of him of then Dunning-Kruger syndrome, of which he is severely infected. Despite the fact that he is an uneducated buffoon in relevant fields, he thinks he knows more than the 30 authors of the Nature paper and of the soil ecologists at Yale University. Hence a cursory dismissal of their Nature paper here. Why such intellectual luminaries are stuck pruning trees for a living is anyone's guess, given their massively bloated egos. Heck, Betula should be President of the Ecological Society of America, A fellow of the American Geophysicists Union and the AAAS, a multiple Nobel prize winner and have at least 300 papers to his name. Yet he's... pruning trees. There really is no justice in this world.

Hey Hardley.
I was just looking at the average weather at Algonguin Park over the past 12 years (the weather station went into operation in 2004)......of course, this is something a genius ideological driven professor such as yourself, would refer to as "climate".
http://www.algonquinpark.on.ca/visit/general_park_info/algonquin-park-w…

Good news, so far it looks like the spiders are hanging in there!

Stop the presses, global warming has stopped, Hawaii gets snow!.

Well that is what we are going to hear from the 'usual supsects' er long.

And the sun has left us in the dark now here in UK at 1800 04/12/16, clearly the sun has vanished so that is why it has snowed in Hawaii as temperatures plummet.

What the 'no warmings since nnnn brigade', don't wish to tell you about..

Look up Extreme Ice Survey and get a copy of 'Chasing Ice', watching Balog in action fighting horrendous pain from the slow disintegration of both knee joint make you realise what jerks the Moncktons, MacIntyres, Currys, Roses, Moranos, Ridleys, Peisers, Bastardis, Bolts, Bookers, Delingpoles, Idsos, Legates, Ebells, Lamar Smiths, Tom Harrises, Will Happers, Michaels, Lomborgs, Novas, Montfords, Sons and the whole host of armchair deniers are.

As well as the usual suspects here.

Hey Betula,
Still wallowing in your smug self-professed superiority based on absolutely no qualifications? And what the f*** does a 12 year data set in a tiny part of the biosphere have to do with anything? Oh yeah, I forgot, You are uneducated. I must keep driving that home. You have no relevant qualifications in any area of science. Hence why you continually conflate stochastic and deterministic processes, and have no clue about the relevance of spatial and temporal scales. Oh and your recent discussion of soil ecosystems was beyond abominable.

You are amusing though, in that you think you are clever. You really do. Its a form of insanity.

For your pea-sided brain Betula, here is a lesson. Perhaps this is even too much for you... given you are starting grade one in terms of science.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/temporal-spatial-scales-of-climate-chan…

"Jeffie dear, you constantly inventing your own reality, in this case about what 97% of the climate scientists believe"

So what is "reality", lappers, and how do you know it's that???

Or do you have nothing?

It's the "have nothing" thing, isn't it.

"1. The brilliant scientist’s (after all these years) “haven’t taken into account a major source of carbon in the environment”….that which is in the soil."

Nope, they include that. But the dirt's carbon content has how much effect on the climate, betty? Or don't you know, only how to yap at your betters?

(note the lack of the contraction there: it's not better's, just like it's not scientist's)

"2. These same scientists are sure that “Global warming is beyond the point of no return”"

Yup, so what? Do you have any proof they're wrong? Or is it more yapping?

"So soil organisms are to benefit from warming, which of course, is worse than if they didn’t benefit…."

So botulisum, being an organism, is a benefit to your body??? Or are you blind to half of reality?

"So they admit they aren’t sure how the climate is going to change in the future…"

Yup. And if they didn't say that, you'd be whining about how they can't know the future absolutely. Just empty whining.

"So they are attempting to understand the change"

Ah, so learning is your problem. Anyone trying to learn is somehow a bad person, to be ignored and their claims reversed.

Why?

"But we’ve already stepped in front of the bus…we’ve reached “the point of no return”."

Yup. Means there's no way back in the foreseeable future. But we can stop making it worse and slow down the change. Or is adapting to our actions' consequences something you loathe?

"Scientific conclusion reached from this article:

We need to redistribute wealth to the poor nations in order to prevent dama..."

Where? No quote marks indicating this. And indeed nothing you claim is wrong with it, even if it were the case.

Hmmm.

Despite all this belittling of Jeff, nowhere does StuPid get on their case for their ruining of any chance of someone accepting the frothing mania of the AGW deniers' claims.

Funny that.

Hardley - "And what the f*** does a 12 year data set in a tiny part of the biosphere have to do with anything?"

It has to do with the funny fact that 12 years of "weather" in Algonquin is apparently insignificant, yet, when you spot a spider in Algonquin (while your partner gets frostbite).... a few seconds suddenly becomes "witnessing climate change first hand".

It has to do with the way you reach a conclusion first, and then form an answer to fit your ideology...

It has to do with the fact that you are a proven fraud and need to hide behind an ego hoping people won't notice...

It has to do with proving how easy it is to dismiss a fraud...

Wow - "But the dirt’s carbon content has how much effect on the climate, betty? Or don’t you know"

We are talking about the future climate so the answer is no, I don't know, and neither do they.
At least we can agree with the scientists on this point.

Wow - "So botulisum, being an organism, is a benefit to your body???"

I get it...it's only the organisms deemed detrimental that are predicted to become more active due to warming.
That's Wow's science for you.... makes sense.

Wow - "But we can stop making it worse and slow down the change."

Strange, you admit ("Yup") that they don't know how climate is going to change, but you are sure we can stop making what they don't know worse...

Wow - ( in regard to redistributing wealth to poorer nations that apparently will be disproportionately affected) - "Where? No quote marks indicating this"

It stands that if they are more affected because they are poor, they would be less affected if they were wealthy.
Obviously, you have never been mistaken for a genius...

Sigh. I didn't spot a spider. I saw many thousands of invertebrates including Collemboles active a full month ahead if their normal activities. Where do I begin dismantling your simplistic drivel? It's easier speaking to a class of BSc students because they at least have a basic grounding in science. Your education, Betula, is stuck in primary school. I always am forced to lower myself to the lowest common denominator with you.

There is abundant evidence across the northern hemisphere that winters are becoming milder, with less days of sub zero temperatures and frosts. These patterns are being revealed at local and global scales over decades. It is clear that over the past century Algonquin Park is experiencing warmer winters. Appreciably. This does not mean that over shorter time frames - like your 12 year example - that significant trends will be elucidated. But there is NO doubt whatsoever that since the 1980s it has been warning and warming rapidly. The winter of 2012 was embedded in this period, and if one goes back even only 50 years then such warm winters were non existent. Invertebrates are ectotherms and respond to temperature. That many thousands of invertebrates that would normally be dormant or in diapause were active in mid winter in a location normally in a deep freeze is alarming. I only saw these along a transect, meaning that there must have been a stupendously larger number active throughout the region. Whatever the fuck you think, and I know that isn't a great deal, it was not normal. It was exceptional. There is a large and growing literature base on the effects of warming on species activity, phenology and trophic interactions. You just choose not to read it and probably wouldn't understand it if you did, owing to your willfull ignorance.

The worst thing about you Betula is a combination of your closed mindedness, exacerbated by your lack of relevant education and political biases. It's a dangerous cocktail, with a large dose of Dunning-Kruger infused confidence thrown in. You can't reach up to my little toe in any if these scientific discussions but you are like a bad rash that won't go away. You belittle science that you know nothing about and you are so utterly intellectually incompetent that you don't realise it.

And once again, Betula plays the "If we don't know everything then we don't know anything" canard in response to Wow. I totally exposed him on this, called him out on it, and yet voilà! He comes back with it.

This exposes the limitations of blog debates. Betula's bullshit is repeatedly demolished yet he comes back over and over with the same points. Scientists don't know exactly in minute detail how the future climate will pan out, but we know with high confidence that increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will drive temperature increases. And we are talking about scenarios that may have profoundly serious repercussions for mankind. Of course it's prudent to act, even if the chances of a calamity were only 10%.

Betula is such a rank idiot.

Off to work now after the latest demolition of Betula. And there he was, saying this blog is dead over and over. One can add hypocrisy to his other undesirable traits. Don't forget stupid, of course.

Here are the kinds of vile scum that deniers like Betula, Olaus et al. worship. Willis Escehbach. I am sure that they won't claim he has an ego, because they worship at the temple of WUWT, itself full of egotistical blowhards. Eschenbach, with nary a relevant qualifcation to his name, has an ego the size of a redwood tree. Another piece of destritus that worships himself is James Delingpole, who set the ball roling with an article in the fascist rag Breitbart.

Miriam at Hotwhopper puts Eschenbach's despicable nature into perspective. But Eschenback is not alone. Denier ranks are full of shit like him.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/12/lying-willis-eschenbach-defames-and…

"We are talking about the future climate so the answer is no, I don’t know,"

Then how can you claim it is important when you don't know what it means?

"and neither do they."

How do you know that? You just said you don't know!

And ditto for the rest of your idiotic response, betty.

For all your fake humility of "I don't know", you make a shitload of absolute knowledge claims. You must stop claiming things as if you know them when you don't know anything.

Hardley - "I saw many thousands of invertebrates including Collemboles active a full month ahead if their normal activities"

* Witnessed over the course of a few days...which apparently is witnessing "climate change first hand".

Hardley - "Appreciably. This does not mean that over shorter time frames – like your 12 year example – that significant trends will be elucidated"

* Now lectures that a 12 year example (that shows no warming) is basically insignificant (hypocrisy noted).

Here students, you have an example of a professor who's ideology results in his becoming blind to the difference between weather and climate.
You will note that when confronted on this, his usual recourse is to hide behind an ego and lecture about his qualifications...
This is why, in science, one shouldn't start with a conclusion based on an ideology and then work backwards to make the story fit.
Being a rabid Ideologue, a hypocrite and a narcissist are not the traits we look for in a scientist....you will just end up coming across as fundamentally deluded.

Thank you.

Class dismissed.

Hardley - "And there he was, saying this blog is dead over and over"

Yes Hardley, when you realize you are just lecturing to yourself, you will realize this blog died long ago...
Of course, that will never happen because the reality is you are your own audience at Deltoid. You need to hear yourself to convince yourself that you're not the putz that we all know you are...

#38 & #39

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzZ

Wow - "How do you know that?"

Because they said so...

"Study co-author Bo Elberling, head of the Danish Center for Permafrost (CENPERM), a basic research centre at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, urges caution before reading too much into the new data."
“This release of CO2 from near-surface soils is more significant than previously thought. But we still don’t know if warming will increase the net contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere,” says Elberling"
"We still don’t know how much plants will take up in response, which is particularly important in relation to an increasing root biomass in the Arctic which represents a knowledge gap when speaking about Arctic greening,” he says"
http://sciencenordic.com/arctic-soils-ticking-climate-time-bomb

Note to Hardley - It looks like they are referring to the possible effects of a carbon fertilization...you know, carbon fertilization, that part of the equation that you have always discounted. Interesting...

Let's take a walk through the past....June 3013.

Hardley - "He just cannot get this ‘ferilization effect is good’ nonsense out of his simple little noggin. So he cites any source he can which essentially says no such thing but instead talks about increased plant biomass as if that is the be-all and end-all of the topic.”

Me - "I see you put ‘ferilization effect is good’ in quotes. Where does that come from? Are you saying I said that, because it is a blatant lie. One of your many, which by the way I can back up. Now be a good retard and back it up…something none of you on this site seem to be capable of."

Me again - "The fact is, once again Hardley, you don’t know how it fits into the equation…it’s unknown…..not good, not bad…unknown.You’re ideology, as well as BDuds, is blinding you from seeing otherwise."

And now, here we have your scientist friends basically saying the same thing I've been saying for years...further proving what a putz you are....and have always been.

Class dismissed.

# 40 - Further proof of a dead blog.

"Wow – “How do you know that?”

Because they said so…"

But you just said they didn't know anything? If they didn't know anything, you can't take what they said as proof. Unless you know what they said was right but they don't know what they said was right.

Is that your contention?

“This release of CO2 from near-surface soils is more significant than previously thought. But we still don’t know if warming will increase the net contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere,” says Elberling”

So it could be that it isn't changing the situation.

Moreover, it's still not going to prove AGW is wrong. Because increasing or decreasing the soil contribution doesn't remove our emissions.

Betula, classes can on,yu be dismissed by educators or teachers... not uneducated idiots. Your fertilization efect is based on biomass, which ignores qualitative changes as mediated by alterations in primary and secondary plant metabolism. Increased uptake of C02 changes C:N ratios in plant tissues, which is problematical since C is not a limiting nutrient for plant metabolism. N and P are, and increased C will shunt these important metabolites from plant tissues. the effects will mean changes in stoichiometry, and non-linear effects in plant-consumer communities. Plants with N based toxins will become more susceptible to antagonists, whereas plants with C based toxins will become more unpalatable. On top of that plants respond differently to elevated C02, generating competitive asymmetries. Ultimately increased atmsopheric C02 will reduce diversity across the board. Simpler communities will be less resilient to other threats, and less stable.

Betula, you aren't in the same league as me in any of these fields. You are simply a dope who vastly overestimates his knowledge. Its you who has delusions of grandeur on this basis alone. I will repeat, for the millionth time. You don't understand the basics of plant stoichiometry and its effects on plant and animal communities. Your ideas are childishly simple linear extrapolations. I cringe when I read your posts, they are that bad. Yet you lack the cognitive ability to grasp how stupid you really are. You complai about my arrogance, when its simple the politics of envy. I have every right to be confident because I am educated in ecology. You aren't, not even remotely. Your fertilization-effect posts are as deep as a puddle. But I knew you were a simpleton when you once stated that North American ecosystems were in good health on the basis of the restocking and establishment of Wild Turkeys in eastern North American and the abundance of white-tailed deer. I knew right then and there that I was dealing with a layman.

You fail on every count. You are dismisseed. Come back when you have made even a bsic cursory attempt to go through the primary literature, instead of gleaning bits and pieces from climate change denying blogs. None of the scientists who talk about the fertilization effect say that its the wonderful gift to primary producers that you make it out to be. That's your take and that of equally challenged people as well as blogs and think tanks pushing neoliberal agendas.

And finally, Betula, I suggest that you spend more time focusing on your family and your pruning business. You appear to have an unhealthy fixation about me, scouring every source you can to find things that i have written. Even if I knew who you were, i couldn't give a rat's ass about you because you are a nobody. I wish though that you would stick to the vacuous denier blogs on which you glean your world views. If this blog is as dead as you say it is then why do you keep coming back? Do you enjoy ritual self humiliation?

Here's a choice:

(A) This discussion of the causes and potential consequences of climate change from a joint National Academy of Science (USA) and Royal Society (UK) review, authored by a range of leading scientists:

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-c…

Or (B) the musings of a tree pruner who thinks that if we don't know everything about the science then we should do nothing at all. This person sees measures to mitigate C02 concentrations as some UN-mandated left wing conspiracy. He has no relevant scientific expertise but impugns the conclusions of more than 95% of the scientific community.

I'll take (A). The real funny point is that Betula thinks he is modest and that I am the arrogant narcissist. Think about it... isn't it somewhat arrogant and narcissistic to think that your views on climate are more accurate than the bulk of the scientific community? Especially if you have no qualifications at all?

Of course it is. Its just that Betula hates scientists because they disagree with people like him.

#40 further proof of dead brain cells of the one who wrote that. Not realising that his lines of argument are decadently boring.

Hence the zzzzzzzzzzzzzzZ.

Nothing to do with this blog per se, but then BirchBark has not the cognitive ability to recognise that.

Wow - "But you just said they didn’t know anything?"

Now all you have to do is note where I used the word "anything" to prove that you're not the lying sack you are.

Wow - "So it could be that it isn’t changing the situation"

Maybe, maybe not. Thanks for agreeing...

Hardley - "Your fertilization efect is based on biomass"

It's not my fertilization effect.

Hardley - "But I knew you were a simpleton when you once stated that North American ecosystems were in good health on the basis of the restocking and establishment of Wild Turkeys in eastern North American and the abundance of white-tailed deer"

Then what you "knew" was based on something that was never said, which is typical for you...

Hardley - "You fail on every count"

If repeating the words of your scientist friends is considered failing, then you are hanging out with failures...

Hardley - "You appear to have an unhealthy fixation about me, scouring every source you can to find things that i have written"

Unhealthy for you...yes. It's tough when the words you use are used against you...

"Wow – “But you just said they didn’t know anything?”

Now all you have to do is note where I used the word “anything” "

Only after you go and show where they said something that supports your claim, betty. You wouldn't want to go demanding from others what you refuse to manage yourself, right?

But, OK, so NOW you're saying that they definitely DO know some things. So when you claim that the climatologists got one thing wrong, you need to tell us what the result of that is, not just go "Well, they're wrong, right, so we can ignore the problem, yeah?". Because apparently you know that they DO know some things. Which may be far more important to the conclusion than what you claim they don't know.

And if you're going to back-ass your way out with "I don't know", then you are going to have to stop making claims about the result of what they have wrong, because YOU. DO. NOT. KNOW.

Got it yet, dribble-breath?

Just to be EXTREMELY clear for you, betty, here you claim:

“1. The brilliant scientist’s (after all these years) “haven’t taken into account a major source of carbon in the environment”….that which is in the soil.”

but have STILL not actually said that this means anything has to change with what we need to do.

ALL YOU HAVE DONE is now claim you don't know what the result of this is, but if you don't know, why the hell was it important enough for you to include in a great long content-free whinge that your refusal to accept AGW as being real is somehow in any way shape or form a rational logical response to reality.

Wow - "So when you claim that the climatologists got one thing wrong,"

Now all you have to do is note where I said they got one thing wrong to prove that you’re not the lying sack you are

"Unhealthy for you…yes. It’s tough when the words you use are used against you…"

Except you haven't been able to use them, all you've been able to do is go "I don't know" when asked what your "replies" have meant.

This isn't tough for Jeff, except in the case where he's trying to work out what your ranting means IF IT WERE SAID BY A SANE HUMAN BEING.

If he takes the position it's done by some maniacal lunatic who hasn't a goddamned clue, then it's really easy for him.

"Wow – “So when you claim that the climatologists got one thing wrong,”

Now all you have to do is note where I said they got one thing wrong"

Then what? Come on, lay your wager on the table, I don't want you just pretending you pinkie promised something you'll work out in the future. When I do that, what will YOU do?

Or are you the lying sack of crap here?

And chicken to boot.

Hey, betty, how dumb are you when the post you make a demand comes right after the one I do what you demanded?

Was there going to be anything about how YOU are the lying sack of crap, making believe that you didn't do what you know you did?

Wow - "Then what?"

What, you can't read or you can't comprehend what you read? Which is it?

"Wow – “Then what?”

What, you can’t read or you can’t comprehend what you read? Which is it?"

Neither betty.

Then what will you do next, if your petulant demands aren't met?

Or do you not understand colloquial English? Is it not your first language, or is it you were homeschooled, so you don't have much in the way of language skills?

Or is it you've been called out in a lie of omission yet again, a pretense that somehow you're being maligned, when all that's happened is that your blathering is being remembered when you'd rather it was forgotten?

Wow - "Hey, betty, how dumb are you when the post you make a demand comes right after the one I do what you demanded?"

There was an overlap in comments....and you still didn't state where I said they got one thing wrong.....I said “haven’t taken into account", which they didn't.
So you're still a lying sack and now you it appears you can't seem to admit they didn't take the effect of organisms on C in the soil into account.

You're twice the moron.

And still waiting for you to prove you're not a moronic lying sack by noting where I said " they didn’t know anything"

Wow - "Then what will you do next, if your petulant demands aren’t met?"

You've done it to yourself. When you can't back up what you claim someone said, you are a lying sack...but I've already known that for years....only now the two other people on this blog know it....and you're one of them.

"and you still didn’t state where I said they got one thing wrong"

Oh yes I did.

So this is "Then what?"? You'll continue to pretend reality didn't happen.

And you wonder why we ignore your silly demand.

Meh, OK, so nobody here has said that they got anything wrong. Why, then are you whining about how it's not settled????

Wow - "And you wonder why we ignore your silly demand"

I never wondered. You ignore the demand to back up what you say because you can't back it up. Nothing to wonder about....

Wow - "OK, so nobody here has said that they got anything wrong"

At least you admit it.

Wow - "Why, then are you whining about how it’s not settled"

We are still talking about Hardley's link at #5, which is where this all started, correct?
It's not settled....the scientists say so themselves. If you think I'm whining, then you believe the scientists are whining...

"You ignore the demand to back up what you say because you can’t back it up."

I did back it up.

But, lets just give you that one you ridiculous clown.

If YOU are saying that you haven't said they even something wrong, then what is your complaint. So it very very much doesn't matter if I say for the third time where you claim they had something wrong. Either you're correct in that you've never said they had something wrong, in which case you had no complaint, or you are not correct, you have a complaint, but you don't know whether it's valid or to what extent, and you are additionally lying about ever having said it.

There really is no winning situation for you here.

A rather marvelous example of precisely how dumb your ass is.

Bravo!

"It’s not settled….the scientists say so themselves"

But that would be you saying they had something wrong! If they didn't have anything wrong, then it IS settled! And you have said categorically you never said they had something wrong, so it's settled.

And not even the scientists say it isn't settled. Not even deniers can manage to say that!

"Wow – “OK, so nobody here has said that they got anything wrong”

At least you admit it."

Language skills aren't something you have, are they, betty?

"Meh, OK, so nobody here has said that they got anything wrong. Why, then are you whining about how it’s not settled????"

So you're saying we both agree it's settled. Well done.

Poor Wow, you even manage to confuse yourself...what "complaint" are you talking about?
So far you have managed to incorporate the words "wrong", "anything" and now "complaint" into a conversation that appears to exist only in your head...

Hardley @ #5 - "While I am it, read the following interview with my colleague and friend Tom Crowther published today in the Independent. Yes, Tom is a young and highly talented scientist. Read it and then re-read it and re-re-re read it. Let the message sink in. Loud and clear. AGW is a profound threat to humanity."

Well, I read it and then I looked further....and the message from the author is this:

"Study co-author Bo Elberling, head of the Danish Center for Permafrost (CENPERM), a basic research centre at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, urges caution before reading too much into the new data.”
"We still don’t know how much plants will take up in response, which is particularly important in relation to an increasing root biomass in the Arctic which represents a knowledge gap when speaking about Arctic greening,” he says”

So the author is urging caution before reading too much into it, while Hardley is telling us to "Read it and then re-read it and re-re-re read it"

If you believe this translates into a "complaint" or "the climatologists got one thing wrong" or someone said "they didn’t know anything"......then I suggest you take your mental illness and discuss it with the author....or with your fellow mental patient Hardley.

"Poor Wow, you even manage to confuse yourself…what “complaint” are you talking about?"

So you're not even willing to admit you've posted anything.

Welp, fair enough. See how well that does for you, dear.

Study co-author Bo Elberling, head of the Danish Center for Permafrost...

That did not come from the article linked at #5 now did it.

If you take the source of that the message is clear — we are going to be in deep do do before long. Now why did you not cite your source? So it is time you extracted yourself from that pile of your own making.

Wow - "So you’re not even willing to admit you’ve posted anything"

So now you add twit to your resume.

Try reading the entire comment at #68 twit...

Lionel - "That did not come from the article linked at #5 now did it."

Another useless twit..

Apparently you didn't notice I said...."Well, I read it and then I looked further"

You also didn't notice that you jumped into the middle of a conversation that previously included the same quotes with references...see #41.

"Try reading the entire comment at #68 twit…"

Says The QuoteMiner(tm).

Loving the hypocrisy, dear!

Better: you even completely 180% missed the lampshading of that precise problem.

"Lionel – “That did not come from the article linked at #5 now did it.”

Another useless twit.. "

Even if granted for no reason as being valid an attribution, it does not counter or refute the point.

Irrelevant attack merely highlights your problem, betty.

I can understand why the words of the co-author of the paper would upset you...
May I suggest that if either of you twits have a problem with his words, then you take it up with him.

You're welcome.

No, you only understand a scenario that you made up in your own mind, betty.

The assertion you understand your own imagination is hardly anything to be proud of.

Wow - "you only understand a scenario that you made up in your own mind, betty"

The scenario in my mind involves the actual words of the co-author of the paper, and don't include the words "the climatologists got one thing wrong" and don't include anyone saying “they didn’t know anything"

Those words are proven to come from your imagination Wow, because you can't provide a link to prove otherwise.

It must suck being you.

@23 Betula: "Professor" Hardley is a joke. Nowadays professorships of blokes like Hardley is no real professorship, it's close to an unempoyed social case, no budget, no authority, only very few students (maybe 3 or 4 a year): just ridiculous to boast these creatures who like to pose as pseudo rockstars with electroguitars.

You can easi judge how irrelevant these guys are by assessing the level of their education when examined how they would describe the significance of the paper of Milne (1928), “The effect of collisions on monochromatic radiative equilibrium” in ridiculising the insanities of the greenhouse hallucinations of these communist tribes. They can't, just showing their idiocy and irrelevance.

Kim, you are always good for a belly laugh. It must be immensely painful for you, an uneducated anonymous nobody in all likelihood stuck in some menial job to see the scientists like me and my colleagues achieving success that has eluded you. Please tell us all here what profoundly important professional achievements that you have made. My guess it will rank up with Betula's successful tree pruning business or less. My views simply reflect those of the vast majority of scientists across a range of disciplines. Therefore, by association, brainless boffins like you and Betula are taking on pretty much the entire scientific community. In this regard your arrogance and hubris are staggering and exemplify both deep rooted examples of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome and confirmation bias. I always find it amusing when total know nothings like you wade into complex fields beyond your competence and further humiliate yourselves. To give credit where credit is due, at least Betula, although he is categorically wrong and well outside of his competence, attempts to discuss (well, dismiss) the scientific evidence for AGW, you merely come in here like a rabid dog slobbering and slathering with insults usually aimed at me. You have never once brought up any actual science. Now we all know why that is: because you are utterly incompetent. So instead all we get are hit and run smears generally written in sub standard English suggesting that you barely made it out of high school.

You also appear to have an unhealthy fixation on me like Betula. It is obvious that you gave scoured the internet trying to find information that you can use to attack me, but every time you fall flat on your face. Your latest failed smear is to suggest thI only have 3 or 4 students. Sorry to rain on your parade, but I lecture to hundreds of them, and as we write I am supervising 6 Master's students in Amsterdam, 2 more in Wageningen, plus several PhD students, in addition to my own research. Please inform me as to your current academic contributions. I will answer that for you: NIL. That was easy.

Now go away unless you can scrape up some basic scientific argument that I will of course easily debunk.

I notice from Betula's losing exchanges above that he us trying to downplay the findings of the Crowther et al. paper by quote mining one of the authors. He ignores the comments by my colleague, the LEAD author Tom, because they are difficult to effectively mine, so he has desperately searched the internet for any ways to dismiss the significance of the study. Presto! One of the co-authors urges caution, as all good scientists do, and our ignorant tree pruner jumps all over that. Next thing he will do is say that Nature should never have published the article, because all of the carbon stored below ground may never become transferred to the atmosphere no matter how warm it gets. But as I have said several times on here, and it's completely ignored by our Dunning-Kruger acolyte, he is using the "IF WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING, THEN WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING" canard. By doing this he dismisses AGW and any potentially deleterious.

The Danish author of course would be appalled and disgusted to see his comments abused and distorted in this way, but deniers live by quote mining and deliberately twisting the comments of scientists to suit their own agendas. They do this both offensively (Betula does it all the time) as well as defensively, for instance the distortion of Schneider's double ethical bind quote. What is categorically obvious is that most climate change deniers are a vile group of lying manipulators. Hardly a single one of them has an ounce of integrity. They are complete hypocrites as well. Look at how scientists are smeared relentlessly by people like Betula who can hardly add two and two together. When the discussion goes beyond simple linear extrapolations into more complex directions, they are stranded. Betula's fertilisation effect discussion is a case in point. Scientists working with plants know that the assembly and functioning of communities and ecosystems goes well beyond biomass which is purely a quantitative measure. Betula has no grounding in stoichiometry and like all deniers once the discussion goes beyond his simple understanding it is dismissed with put downs and smears. I need go no further in this area as Betula has been comprehensively debunked on it. If he wants to have a go at stoichiometry and metabolism, I am all ears. But I will cringe when I read his sandbox level dirge.

Finally, one of the deniers most used smears is to belittle his/her opponents research or observations. So over the years on Deltoid I have been described as someone who studies maggots, fleas, flies, just like leading ecologist Paul Ehrlich was called 'butterfly boy' by hus detractors. Betula's desperate attempts to dismiss my arguments ultimately led him to search the internet for whatever he could find and eventually he scraped up an interview with me on our own web site in which I said that I saw a huge number of invertebrates during a winter expedition across Algonquin Park in the winter of 2012. This includes spiders, caddisflies, midges and collemboles.

To continue, Betula grasped this interview as his beating stick, despite the fact that it is ridiculous for ectotherms to be active during a period of time when the region should be in a deep freeze and these species in diapause or dormancy. It was very unusual, and along with thousands of other studies evidence for seasonal shifts in the life cycles and activities of species in a warming world. In the Netherlands there has been a pronounced shift towards earlier springs and attendant changes in the activities of species and species-interactions. Annual plants that typically grew in mud summer are now germinating and growing in spring. Insects from southern Europe are appearing in the north and are overwintering there now. Some of these have left behind their co evolved enemies, such as parasites and pathogens, enabling them to build up huge populations as outbreaking pests (e.g. The oak processionary caterpillar). And still others are going through population bottlenecks because of rapid asynchronous life cycles with their foodplants, precipitating population collapses that are working their way up the food chain. This has been proven in winter moth-oak-Pied Flycatcher interactions.

Betula's response will be to smear the research with put downs like,"Look! A caterpillar!", or, "Look, up in the sky! A Flycatcher"! or some other witless remark. Forget the fact that warming is having huge impacts on ecological communities across the biosphere, all supported by volumes of empirical evidence. Deniers hate empirical evidence. So they are left with nothing but vacuous smears and witless remarks. It would be amusing to see them engage in face to face debates with scientists and to use this strategy. Of course they would be laughed then jeered off the platform. But in blogs as anonymous entities they can say whatever they like.

My colleagues wonder why I degrade myself and waste my time responding idiots with illusions of intellectual superiority like Betula. It's a good question. The very fact that Betula and others like him think that they are clever and well informed is bad enough. The only reasons I believe that they are willing to expose their ignorance is because (1) they really believe that they know what they are taking about, and (2) even when they are ritually debunked they are able to remain anonymous. If course I am wiping the floor with them. But they are so convinced of their expertise that they are oblivious to any arguments.

Yes. Dunning-Kruger describes them to a tee.

Nothing to worry about. All normal. Why worry that ice cover at both poles it is at historically low levels at the same time? Its all natural. Heck, that's how the ignoranti on here are going to spin it.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10210914739203164&set=a.2684154…

Muppet @#72

Apparently you didn’t notice I said….”Well, I read it and then I looked further”

Of course I did, why do you think I wrote:

That did not come from the article linked at #5 now did it.

If you take the source of that the message is clear —

Those with even average comprehension would have parsed that correctly and realised I had also looked further, found where that out of context quote of yours came from. Why else would I have complained about your lack of citing your sources? That trait being one of deniers in general, and you are denying that the effects of human caused warming are going to be dire.

Once again we see the classic ducking and diving from your worthlessness.

Lionel - "Why else would I have complained about your lack of citing your sources?"

The source (singular) was already cited at #41...so I'm still not sure why you are complaining. Must be you didn't like the quote itself...
Maybe you should, as Hardley says.....“Read it and then re-read it and re-re-re read it".....with caution of course.

Hardley to Kim - "You also appear to have an unhealthy fixation on me"

Yet, nobody talks more about you than you do. It's your true expertise...

"I notice from Betula’s losing exchanges above that he us trying to downplay the findings of the Crowther et al. paper by quote mining one of the authors"

And also in a vague attempt to avoid admitting *ANY* mistake (why are they so paranoid about admitting error), painting themselves into a corner where their statements are self contradictory? And now attempting vainly to "SQUIRREL!!!!" their way past the uncomfortable truth of their incompetence.

I guess Stupid's next comment here will be berating kim at the very least for their problems that make them throw insults around rather than go on to "real issues".

Right...?

Right...?

Hardley - “IF WE DON’T KNOW EVERYTHING, THEN WE DON’T KNOW ANYTHING”

You see this Wow? This is not the first time Hardley has posted these words...
This is probably where you got the idea that I said they didn't know anything! Remember?

@53 Wow – “But you just said they didn’t know anything?”

So Hardley keeps repeating a phrase, and you honestly believe it came from me...
So maybe you aren't a lying twit, maybe you're just delusional twit like Hardley...

There's a poem in there somewhere....I'll work on it. I think I'll call it Two Twits Tweeting....

Wow - “I notice from Betula’s losing exchanges above that he us trying to downplay the findings of the Crowther et al. paper by quote mining one of the authors"

No, I already downplayed Hardley's #5 link at #12.

The quote from one of the authors was downplaying Hardley's comment …..“Read it and then re-read it and re-re-re read it”

Again....with "caution"

#85

More wibble from the dribbler that is bircher.

In his #68 mentioned Jeff's #5 and nothing else.

Now I don't read through all this idiots drivel having better things to do right now so the fact that he may have cited some Nordic blurb in another post is beside the point, he should have cited it as he quoted from it. That is the way things should work. Of course twerps like bircher don't think of things like this having got their education from something like Trump University.

Sorry sub' #84 for #85 in the above.

HArdley - Betula’s response will be to smear the research with put downs like,”Look! A caterpillar!”, or, “Look, up in the sky! A Flycatcher”! or some other witless remark.

No Hardley, I tend to use the words of the scientists themselves, you know like...."Look, a spider!"

Lionel - "In his #68 mentioned Jeff’s #5 and nothing else"

Strange how Hardley at #8. #10, #11 and #13 knew I was talking about his link at #5, yet Lionel couldn't figure it out.

Maybe Hardley knew because at #6 (which comes right after #5) I said..."Hey Hardley, I read your linked article"

If this is so difficult for twits like Wow and Lionel, imagine how difficult science must be....

"Hardley – “IF WE DON’T KNOW EVERYTHING, THEN WE DON’T KNOW ANYTHING”

You see this Wow?"

Yes. So what? My eyes working proves what?

Rushing around in hysteric circles squawking like a headless chicken with lit dynamite up its butt is amusing for all of us, but hardly helpful to your case, if, indeed, one exists.

So you never said there was a problem, but you still complain, and to hide what you haven't said and "disprove" claims of what you said, you point to something JEFF said, not you, and ask if I read it?

You either are lying or you are in agreement with the IPCC and complaining for no reason.

There are no other options available to you, betty.

"Strange how Hardley at #8. #10, #11 and #13 knew I was talking about his link at #5, yet Lionel couldn’t figure it out."

Then if you were talking about #5, why did you, without comment, quote from something not identified in that post?

Ooh! Ooh! I know, you didn't say anything, amirite?

Betula is like a broken record. Lost in all of his vacuous bile are these facts accepted by the scientific community:

1. The planet is warming rapidly.
2. It is warming primarily as a result of the human combustion of fossil fuels.
3. The rate if warming far exceeds, in terms of rate, natural forcings
4. Failure to prevent the planet exceeding a 2degrees C rise over the coming decades will have severe implications for both the material and natural economies.

This is where the scientific discussion is NOW. I am not an outlier but my views are embedded among the views of the vast majority of my peers. The public debate, which includes the illiterati like Betula, is stuck in causation. The scientific debate has moved well beyond that. It is warming and humans are the primary cause. End of fucking story.

Betty appears to believe that science is unsure whether there's such a thing as electricity. Or gravity. Or the existence of the planet Earth.

Remember, Betty hasn't said what science was not settled, and those things are science, therefore Betty has said they're not settled.

It's a wonder as to what Betty thinks they're sitting on given matter is science and unsettled....

If this is so difficult for twits like Wow and Lionel,

I explained that dumbo. I was replying having read your #68 as it stood on its own, having not trawled through your drivel, or Jeff''s responses to your drivel also for reasons explained.

But no, you carry on behaving like a jelly that cannot be nailed to the wall.

It is clearly pointless arguing further with one so evidently bereft of decency and honesty.

Wow, thanks for the support. I have been dealing with - and debunking - climate change deniers and anti-environmentalists like Betula for years, so its become something of an old habit. It isn't that difficult for me, either, since most of them are scientifically illiterate like Betula and Kim. I am still waiting for a scientist to support them but that never happens. Instead, we have armchair pundits who as I have said suffer mightily from then Dunning-Kruger effect.

Two points. First, Betula is so dumb that he doesn't understand my description of his tactics. Like other deniers, I have said that he tries to argue that without 100% unequivocal proof of AGW then its not happening. The fact that her quote mines scientists like the Danish one who says that there are plenty of uncertainties is a case in point. Of course there are fucking uncertainties. We are talking about complex adaptive systems. But the same scientist would strongly argue that climate change remains a very serious threat. Betula will ignore that and stick with the uncertainty meme. Its not very clever, but he thinks it is. But then again, he does it because he has no scientific grounding and has never been near a science lab or lecture theatre in his life.

I debated a Canadian denier/anti environmentalist 14 years ago on the topic of acid rain. In this case the guy, who was also about as intellectually non well equipped as the tree pruner, downplayed acid rain and the allegedly negative effects it has on freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems. He used exactly the same tactics as Betula. He concentrated on the uncertainties and used these to suggest that we didn't know enough to conclude that acid rain was harmful or even existed.I countered with the general scientific view plus a huge amount of empirical studies but he would have none of it. He actually write to an expert in the field in South Carolina and then quote mined- like Betula does - from the exchange. The expert said that the evidence suggests that acid rain has done immense harm to eastern forests and to many lakes, but that the extent was unclear. The guy then sent this to me suggesting there was no problem. I then wrote to the scientist, who was surprised and angry to see his message taken out of context. He then told me that debating these people - both the Canadian guy and Betula are prime examples of the same phenomenon - was, in his own words, like 'Trying to win a passing match with a skunk'. He went on to say that we KNOW that acid precipitation in the 1980s and 1990s was 1500 times higher in the Appalachians than low level ambient, and that indications are that it was indeed harmful to forests and their root systems. But he went on to say that to fully understand every subtle effect caused by acid rain would require billions of dollars - never to be funded. He concluded by telling me that without this evidence the detractors will say that acid rain is therefore not a threat because we don't have 100% proof. This is exactly what Betake does.He's about as original as a sore throat.

Lastly, and I find this the most hilarious thing of all, he and other diners on here continually accuse me of being 'arrogant, full of myself, a massive egotist' etc. The true is the opposite. I am a qualified scientist - I have worked for almost 30 years to get where I am today - and my views CONCUR WITH >95% OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY (emphasis mine). I am therefore not out on a limb at all in arguing that AGW is very real and poses a serious threat, but you wouldn't guess that reading the comments of Betula, Olaus, Kim and others. They write as if science AND scientists are on their side and as if I am the outlier. They ignore the fact that every major scientific organisation on Earth and every National Academy concurs on the reality of AGW and the urgent need to address it. In this way, it is them - uneducated armchair know nothings - who are the ones who are fun, of their own illusory superiority. They think they know more than the people trained in climate and environmental science. It is the epitome of arrogance.

I

This one is for Betula. I would be part of the 97%.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

The Guardian wrote a piece on this as well:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2…

Bottom line: Betula is with the lonely guy on the left, I am with Bill Nye and 97% of the scientific community on the right. This debate as John Oliver says should not even be happening. The science is in. We should now be discussing mitigation and adaptation strategies, not the extent of the human fingerprint. That is confirmed. Seeing this, its clear who look like arrogant self-righteous egotists. Petula, Kim and other laymen.

Rather than jump on board Wow's continuous loop of dumb, I think I will revisit one of Hardley's performances...they never get old:

Hardley - “Read it and then re-read it and re-re-re read it”

Meanwhile, it seems the Co-author of the paper - "urges caution before reading too much into the new data.”

“We still don’t know how much plants will take up in response, which is particularly important in relation to an increasing root biomass in the Arctic which represents a knowledge gap when speaking about Arctic greening,” he says

Comedy gold.

Note to the dumb - Link already provided, find it on your own.

Since Hardley likes to get his accurate and reliable information from the influential John Oliver (a "comedian"), he will like this one...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlHo-F1z_aw

"Rather than jump on board Wow’s continuous loop of dumb"

Ah, so unable to rebut the claim, you make another one up, and yet again it's a "slam your opponent with your issue and pretend like hell".

Pretty damn pitiful.

Science isn't settled? What science isn't settled? Does that change what is needed to be done?

Content free posts from deniers is all you poor schmucks can do, and you're too desperate and boxed in to do that well.

"Meanwhile, it seems the Co-author of the paper – “urges caution before reading too much into the new data.”"

Didn't stop you, did it. Even though you don't know what it means to the reality of AGW and our necessary actions to avoid or at least mitigate it.

Pretty sure you should be doing this yourself before making any petulant cries against others, dearie.

"Comedy gold."

In what way? All you are doing here is claiming it's comedy gold, but neither how you determine this, what it would mean if it WERE to be comedy, nor how you yourself are making a laughing stock of denial in your pathetic attempts to do something to shore up your ego and pretend you are sane.

Re:3: so what? What is this supposed to do for anything?

Another StuPid content free post from a denier. Not unexpected.

Wow - "Science isn’t settled? What science isn’t settled?

That would be a question for whatever source it came from.

Here's an example if you're looking for something to start with:

Study co-author Bo Elberling, head of the Danish Center for Permafrost (CENPERM), a basic research centre at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, urges caution before reading too much into the new data.”

“We still don’t know how much plants will take up in response, which is particularly important in relation to an increasing root biomass in the Arctic which represents a knowledge gap when speaking about Arctic greening,” he says"

"Wow – “Science isn’t settled? What science isn’t settled?

That would be a question for whatever source it came from."

So again in a vain attempt to do bugger all, you have now turned your whinging to "I don't have a clue what's going on".

Well done, chimp!

#64 page 1:
"Betula
December 6, 2016

It’s not settled"

So what's not settled then, betty? Your tummy upset? Your gambling debts? Intelligent life in your household?

No Batty, I get my relibale information on the scientific consensus not from John Oliver but from a range of studies as well as from the peer-reviewed literature:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_c…

Indeed, you nitwit, this is where John Oliver got his information from. Its more reliable than yours, because you either pull it from your butt or else from denier blogs you frequent. In my career I have not yet met a scientist who denies the reality and seriousness of AGW. And Batty, i meet a helluva lot more of them than you do. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if you had never met a single one. I have met thousands. They'd all think you were an idiot. And they would be right.

You are desperately clinging to your misquoting of the co-author of the Nature paper - note you steer clear of the seniro author, the person who WROTE the paper (Tom Crowther). As I said, all the danish scientist is saying is that there are uncertainties. You translate that into 'no problems then'. I am so fucking pissed off at you than I am going to copy-paste your comments here and send them to him. I am sure sure that he will be appalled at your attempt to twist his caution intor downplaying the significance of the study and its implications. He might actually learn something as well - that dishonest liars will always take scientific quotes out of context to diminish the results of a study.

Your arguments are being crushed one by one here. Go away, lick your wounds, then prune a few trees.

Hardley - "You are desperately clinging to your misquoting of the co-author of the Nature paper"

Now all you have to do is explain how it was misquoted.

Hardley - You translate that into ‘no problems then’.

Actually, that translation occurred in your head. Now, if only you could copy and paste your imagination.

A neat exposition of economics by Barton Paul Levenson at Real Climate, economics that were workable but and are now not fit for purpose.

Other important points in other posts on that thread particularly mike on carbon sinks at #20.

at #23 at the above linked Real Climate thread mike has something along these lines:

Warning: this may scare some folks.

Crowther study printed in Nature title:

Quantifying global soil carbon losses in response
to warming

quote: (deep breath for the easily scared) “Despite the considerable uncertainty in our estimates, the direction of the global soil carbon response is consistent across all scenarios. This provides strong empirical support for the idea that rising temperatures will stimulate the net loss of soil carbon to the atmosphere, driving a positive land carbon–climate feedback that could accelerate climate change.”

Barker is clearly scared enough to deny it all, his simplistic mental model of the world cannot cope.

Wow - It’s not settled”...."So what’s not settled then, betty?"

Apparently someone said "it's not settled" because you keep bringing it up...

But since you are fixated:

Uncertainties, "knowledge gaps" (see #6), the reaction of everything on earth in relation to the future actions and responses of everything on earth, the carbon footprint of developing the undeveloped nations, "how much plants will take up in response" to increased CO2, (see #6) and on and on...

If this were rocket science, you would have blown up long ago...

"Wow – It’s not settled”….”So what’s not settled then, betty?”

Apparently someone said “it’s not settled” "

Yes, said it. post 64. What in post 64 was not settled.

"because you keep bringing it up…"

No, that isn't what isn't settled.

When you say something, it means nothing. But you keep saying it.

Insanity.

"Uncertainties, “knowledge gaps” (see #6), "

No, it's settled that there are uncertainties. Unless you posit that we might have no uncertainties now.

" the reaction of everything on earth in relation to the future actions"

So things that AREN'T "the reaction of everything on earth to the future actions" is settled? Well, AGW isn't the reaction of everything on earth to the future actions, it's the effect of average temperatures to CO2 produced by human industry. Not the same thing.
"the carbon footprint of developing the undeveloped nations"

So climate sensitivity, which isn't to do with the carbon footprint of the developing nations, is settled.

" “how much plants will take up in response” to increased CO2, "

Human production of CO2 has nothing to do with plant take-up rates of CO2, so that's settled too.

"and on and on…"

No, unless you SAY what that "on and on" is, we haven't heard what is not settled, except that you don't know what it is that is settled.

So AGW, climate sensitivity and our carbon output are all settled.

How does any of those things you claim are unsettled change the fact of AGW or that we need to stop dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere?

Me - "Apparently someone said “it’s not settled”

Wow - "Yes, said it. post 64. What in post 64 was not settled"

Actually, you asked why I'm.... "whining about how it’s not settled" in #63.

I always thought 63 came before 64, but this is Deltoid...

Is the science behind climate change settled? The answer is it that it is settled more than enough for us to know that inaction to rein in C02 emissions could have serious and long-lasting consequences for mankind. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree. More than 95% of us. There are very, very few scientists who argue the other way. The fact that every major scientific body on the planet agrees, along with every National Academy, makes it a slam dunk. That Betula thinks it isn't settled says more about him than about the science. What pearls of wisdom does a tree pruner have that eludes the scientific community?

"Actually, you asked why I’m…. “whining about how it’s not settled” in #63. "

And you said it wasn't settled in #64.

You said it. WHAT wasn't settled?

"I always thought 63 came before 64, but this is Deltoid…"

It does.

63 is earlier than 64.

However, I thought if someone typed some claim, it didn't matter when it happened, it still actually happened.

But then again, you are a moron....

"Is the science behind climate change settled? "

Betty agrees it's settled. It's thinks like "What will we do in the future" that it thinks (for no apparent reason, but hey) is not settled.

Of course, the point of that is completely opaque to Betty, since she'll have to go and ask her supervisor what she's supposed to say about it.

And her supervisor isn't any more clued in that Betty et al are.

"What pearls of wisdom does a tree pruner have that eludes the scientific community?"

Since pears are secretions around an irritating little grit, we could posit a different meaning for this.

But remember, betty doesn't know what it means. Any of it. Neither what's not settled, what is settled, nor what it means for the bits that aren't settled.

#16 is twisted gibberish and very unsettling.

Apparently everything regarding future climate is settled, regardless of uncertainties and knowledge gaps. I say we end all scientific research immediately, it is no longer needed...

"Apparently everything regarding future climate is settled"

Only one saying that is you, dear. Do you understand the English language at all?

"regardless of uncertainties"

Except the error bars show the uncertainties. So it's settled.

" and knowledge gaps. "

What knowledge gaps?

"I say we end all scientific research immediately, it is no longer needed…"

So you accept the IPCC conclusions and you'll stop whining about doing what needs to be done, right?

Wow - "What knowledge gaps?"

Again, as an example, read #6.
Are you really this dumb?

Wow - So you accept the IPCC conclusions and you’ll stop whining about doing what needs to be done, right?

The IPCC has concluded that climate change is settled so we no longer need to research climate change? When did this happen?

"Wow – “What knowledge gaps?”

Again, as an example, read #6."

Where you pass on information that we should not read too much into the paper. Which is what you're doing! We have ALL asked you what the hell it meant, but you keep blathering on about a load of bollocks.

So, WITHOUT READING TOO MUCH INTO IT, what does that knowledge gap mean to the science of AGW????

If it doesn't change it in any meaningful sense, then NOTHING.

"The IPCC has concluded that climate change is settled"

So you accept it is settled.

Wow - "However, I thought if someone typed some claim, it didn’t matter when it happened, it still actually happened."

Sure it matters, since you brought it up as though I claimed it. I then showed that the co-author of the paper confirmed what you brought up...

You're welcome.

"Sure it matters"

No it doesn't.

" since you brought it up as though I claimed it."

You did.

Wow @63 - "Why, then are you whining about how it’s not settled????"
Again, 63 comes before 64. Math is hard...

"Again, 63 comes before 64. Math is hard"

Maybe for you it is, but like I said before, I know 63 is before 64.

However, you still said it wasn't settled. Post 64. Remember?

Wow - "So you accept it is settled"

When they state we no longer support the need for climate change research, all further research funding should be redirected to help finance the development of the undeveloped nations.....yes.

Wow - "Maybe for you it is, but like I said before, I know 63 is before 64"

Then you admit you lied at 63.

"Wow – “So you accept it is settled”

When they state we no longer... blah blah blah"

Care to answer the question, betty, rather than rush around saying nothing?

"Wow – “Maybe for you it is, but like I said before, I know 63 is before 64”

Then you admit you lied at 63."

No, I didn't lie at #63.

Wow – “Care to answer the question”

Care to accept the answer.

Wow – “No, I didn’t lie at #63”

That’s another lie.

Worth a repost –

Hardley – “Read it and then re-read it and re-re-re read it”

“Study co-author Bo Elberling, head of the Danish Center for Permafrost (CENPERM), a basic research centre at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, urges caution before reading too much into the new data.”

“We still don’t know how much plants will take up in response, which is particularly important in relation to an increasing root biomass in the Arctic which represents a knowledge gap when speaking about Arctic greening,” he says”

"Wow – “Care to answer the question”

Care to accept the answer."

No, I require answers when I ask for answers.

"Wow – “No, I didn’t lie at #63”

That’s another lie."

No it isn't.

"Worth a repost – "

Why? As far as I can tell, it was not worth a repost.

Wow - No, I require answers when I ask for answers

You got my answer, you're on your own now.

Wow - "No it isn’t"

That's another lie. Keep digging...

Wow - "Why? As far as I can tell, it was not worth a repost"

Then may I suggest you “Read it and then re-read it and re-re-re read it"

"You got my answer, you’re on your own now."

So your answer is you can;t answer.

"Wow – “No it isn’t”

That’s another lie. Keep digging…"

Uh, what? No, it's not another lie, there needs to be one lie for it to be "another", AND it has to be a lie itself.

And what do you mean "keep digging"? Are you trying to get me to keep digging into your bullshit to find out if there is, actually a pony in there somewhere?

"Then may I suggest you “Read it and then re-read it and re-re-re read it”"

But it still doesn't make any sense to post it again. You DO know what the definition of insanity is, don't you? Just because YOU think you get a different result from trying the same thing again and again doesn't mean it works on the sane.

Try reading it for yourself:

“Study co-author Bo Elberling, head of the Danish Center for Permafrost (CENPERM), a basic research centre at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, urges caution before reading too much into the new data.”

“We still don’t know how much plants will take up in response, which is particularly important in relation to an increasing root biomass in the Arctic which represents a knowledge gap when speaking about Arctic greening,”

This has no effect on whether AGW is an urgent matter to deal with. Since you assert no point to it, I am free to insert one for you. So that is the one that you would need to address to make AGW a non-issue.

I wrote to Bo Elberling, who betula is misquoting, and he kindly responded. Here is some of what he said. Once again, burying Betula is easy.

"Jeff, I agree that it is frustrating being misinterpreted by climate sceptics. My view is that anthropogenic carbon emissions are really the key issue and problem".

Get that birch bark? Carbon emissions are in his opinion the key issue because they are a direct measure of atmospheric C02 concentrations. Then he says this, which is partially in contrast with the views of the lead and senior authors (Crowther and Bradford) who wroter the paper. "I am far less certain how the Arctic as a region will provide positive and negative feedbacks and what the net effect will be on a short and longer time scales. I have been working in the Arctic for 25 years and learned that talking about the net effects in the Arctic are far more complicated than presenting part of the C budget. I have discussed that with you Tom prior to the Nature paper submission and I am therefore all pleased with Table 1 “List of the major remaining gaps in our understanding of the land C–climate feedback”.

So Elbeling thinks that anthropogenic climate change is very real, is a serious problem, and thinks that carbon emissions are the major problem, with less certainty about the net effects of warming on negative and positive feedbacks on Arctic carbon stores in thge soil.

But to reiterate, HE THINKS THAT CARBON EMISSIONS ARE A SERIOUS PROBLEM. Read that Batty? Get that through your simple head? And his email to me was very deferential, as he knows who i am and that I have a very good reputation in science. Which I do - my h-factor puts me in the top 5%. But I digress.

You are welcome to write to Elberling yourself so that he can put you in your place. I am sure that even for a know nothing like yourself he will respond. But the major point is that he is one of 30 or so authors on a paper written exclusively by Tom Crowther and Mark Bradford. You are so desperate to dismiss the findings of the Nature paper that you searched high and low across the internet for anyone or anything that would undermine it. Elberling is super cautious in his interpretation and that is his prerogative. He is cerainly not cautious in arguing that C02 emissions are a major problem. He is therefore, like me, one of the 97% of scientists who see AGW as very real and very serious.

Forget class dismissed. I give you and epic fail. F-. Now go away and prune some trees.

Great stuff Jeff. Once again the denial tactic of, because we don't know everything (how the hell could we and this is why scientists work at it) thus there are uncertainties is shown for the vacuous position it is.

It is like somebody stood between the lines of a railway track with an express approaching at an unknown velocity and thinking that because he/she knows not that latter it is safe to stand rooted to the spot. Bloody silly stance.

What Elberling has clarified further is the message we took away from the reportage on that research but of course the denial brain is not wired to appreciate the nuances, it sees in black and white sometimes flipping between like a Necker cube.

Wow - "This has no effect on whether AGW is an urgent matter to deal with"

Right.
Yet Hardley linked it so we could “Read it and then re-read it and re-re-re read it””....as though it does.

Glad to see you catching on Wow..... now if only we could get you to stop lying.

Hardley - "I wrote to Bo Elberling, who betula is misquoting"

Hardley - "But to reiterate, HE THINKS THAT CARBON EMISSIONS ARE A SERIOUS PROBLEM. Read that Batty?"

What does that have to do with what was quoted, and how it was "misquoted"?

You have spiders in your head...

Lionel - "It is like somebody stood between the lines of a railway track with an express approaching at an unknown velocity and thinking that because he/she knows not that latter it is safe to stand rooted to the spot. Bloody silly stance."

What is like that? Quoting a scientist?

Hardley - "his email to me was very deferential, as he knows who i am and that I have a very good reputation in science. Which I do – my h-factor puts me in the top 5%. But I digress"

No you don't...it was the whole point of your post. The post has nothing to do with anything I've posted, so as usual, it can only be about you....

Hardley - "You are welcome to write to Elberling yourself so that he can put you in your place"

I can see it now:

Me - "Dear Mr. Elberling, can you tell me if the following is a misquote...

“Study co-author Bo Elberling, head of the Danish Center for Permafrost (CENPERM), a basic research centre at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, urges caution before reading too much into the new data.”

“We still don’t know how much plants will take up in response, which is particularly important in relation to an increasing root biomass in the Arctic which represents a knowledge gap when speaking about Arctic greening,” he says”

Elberling - "No"

Me - "So you're not going to sue Catherine Jex for writing it or "ScienceNordic" for publishing it?

Elberling - "No"

Me - "Ok, thanks for putting me in my place"

birch barker:

What is like that? Quoting a scientist?

you have just reaffirmed my point:

...of course the denial brain is not wired to appreciate the nuances...

Strewth these wooden-tops are so simple, your village needs you back barker.

Wow – “This has no effect on whether AGW is an urgent matter to deal with”

Right.
Yet Hardley linked it so we could “Read it and then re-read it and re-re-re read it””….as though it does.

Right. So it was nothing about me having to read it, nothing about how it supported your claims, and when I still didn't see it having any relevance to your claims, you agree.

Why did you take 8 posts to get there??? You could just have READ IT AGAIN YOURSELF.

"as though it does."

Jeff DOESN'T tell you to read it again as though it was relevant to the actions we need to take, he was doing the OPPOSITE, that it made no difference to the settled science claim.

I can see it now:

Me – “Dear Mr. Elberling, can you tell me if the following is a misquote…

How about asking him if you've misrepresented him instead? You know, the actual claim against you, you frigging pudding-head.

No you don’t…it was the whole point of your post. The post has nothing to do with anything I’ve posted,

How do you know? The only times we've managed to get you to state what the meaning of your posts have ended with you claiming they're about someone else's post, nothing to do with being your point.

You demanded in a post we re-read something, but all that was was you repeating what Jeff wrote. Something Jeff wrote cannot be nothing to do with what Jeff wrote.

So yet another ridiculous disclaimer of any purpose to you being here, betty.

And the continuous loop of Wowdumb goes round and round...

Wow - "You demanded in a post we re-read something, but all that was was you repeating what Jeff wrote"

Hardley wrote the quote from Elberling? Wow, this is turning into a conspiracy...

And the continuous loop of Wowdumb goes round and round...

Me - "The post has nothing to do with anything I’ve posted"

Wow - "How do you know?"

Because I posted it...

And the continuous loop of Wowdumb goes round and round…

Wow - "How about asking him if you’ve misrepresented him instead?"

Actually, Hardley says he told Elberling I "misquoted" him, which is a lie, and Elberling, without having anything to go on but Hardley's lie, supposedly used the word "misinterpreted", not "misrepresented" as you say. But then again, there are so many lies flying around between you and Hardley, who knows what to believe...

Anyway, I can see it now:

Me - "Mr. Elberling, Hardley lied about how I misquoted you, but Wow looks at it differently.....does that act of posting a quote from you published in ScienceNordic qualify as misrepresenting what you said?"

Elberling - "Well, no"

Me - "Ok, thanks"

"And the continuous loop of Wowdumb goes round and round…"

Lie.

"Wow – “How do you know?”

Because I posted it…"

But it was what Jeff posted, so it's not YOU posting it.

Wow – “How about asking him if you’ve misrepresented him instead?”

"Actually, Hardley says he told Elberling I “misquoted” him "

which is a lie indeed..

Here is some of what he said. Once again, burying Betula is easy.

“Jeff, I agree that it is frustrating being misinterpreted by climate sceptics. My view is that anthropogenic carbon emissions are really the key issue and problem”.

ANYTHING you are quoting to support your claim is being misquoted if even the author is insisting you are wrong in your conclusion.

"Anyway, I can see it now:

Me – “Mr. Elberling, Hardley lied about how I misquoted you"

Yeah, you're doing the same BS again.

Hardley @ #9 - "You are desperately clinging to your misquoting of the co-author of the Nature paper"

Hardley @ #40 -"I wrote to Bo Elberling, who betula is misquoting, and he kindly responded"

Elberling (supposedly) - "I agree that it is frustrating being misinterpreted by climate sceptics"

Wow @50 - "How about asking him if you’ve misrepresented him instead"

Yet nowhere does anyone attempt to show where or how Elberlings quote is "misquoted", "misinterpreted" or "misrepresented".

And the continuous loop of Wowdumb goes round and round...

Wow - "ANYTHING you are quoting to support your claim is being misquoted"

Actually, ScienceNordic's claim is that Elberling is urging us not to read too much into what Hardley suggests we read "then re-read it and re-re-re read" because..."We still don’t know how much plants will take up in response, which is particularly important in relation to an increasing root biomass in the Arctic which represents a knowledge gap when speaking about Arctic greening,”

So what you are actually saying is that the quote used to support the claim of the person who is being quoted is a misquote...

The continuous loop of Wowdumb...

"Hardley @ #9 – “You are desperately clinging to your misquoting of the co-author of the Nature paper”"

Yup. Your problem?

"Wow – “ANYTHING you are quoting to support your claim is being misquoted”

Actually, ScienceNordic’s claim is that Elberling is urging us not to read too much into what Hardley suggests we read "

Actually, that was MY claim, yet you are not doing that, you're reading a huge problem in AGW in it.

Wow - "Yup. Your problem?"

Actually it's your problem. You agree there is a "misquote" but can't back it up....as usual.

Wow - "Actually, that was MY claim"

It was ScienceNordic's claim.. But never let your lies get in the way of your good lies.

ScienceNordic - "Study co-author Bo Elberling, head of the Danish Center for Permafrost (CENPERM), a basic research centre at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, urges caution before reading too much into the new data.”

Wow - "you’re reading a huge problem in AGW in it"

You're reading your imagination.

Hehe...Betula wipes the floor with the climate scare spider and his invented reality. Poor Elberling who had to endure the rants from Hardley. He must pray for a Hardley hiatus.

It's really easy to deal with your posts. They contain nothing but insisting you're too dumb to know what is going on.

Nobody is surprised by this fact, just that you agree with it too.

Nobody can see you asking, though.

Funny that.

Oleas - "Poor Elberling who had to endure the rants from Hardley"

Good point Oleas. Can you imagine that conversation....

Hardley - Hi Bo, it's me Jeff. I'm on this blog with 3 or 4 other people and some guy posted an actual quote from you in ScienceNordic. Anyway, I don't know how to handle it, could you please help me?

Elberling - What does the quote have to do with?

Hardley - "Anthropogenic carbon emissions"

Elberling - " I didn't say anything about anthropogenic carbon emissions in the ScienceNordic article..."

Hardley - "Could you say something to me right now?"

Elberling - "Ok Jeff, my view is that anthropogenic carbon emissions are really a problem”.

Hardley - "Great! I'll tell him you said that.....that will put him in his place! Thanks Bo!"

Yeah, still no content.

You can economise on the words.

"Betula wipes the floor with the climate scare spider and his invented reality".

-says one uneducated Dunning-Kruger acolyte to another. No hint of what my invented reality is. But then again Olaus isn't the brightest bulb on the tree.

So the bobbsey twins chime up. Now they are whining about me bothering poor old Bo Eberling. This is the depths to which fucking idiots like Betula and Olaus stoop. They get their arguments reportedly debunked, don't like it, so out some the smears accompanied by chest thumping claims of victory. I wonder why they think the view of a co-author who did not write any of the paper and who only provided data is more important than that of the lead and senior authors (Crowther and Bradford). Ok you two ignoramus geniuses: please explain why. I wait with baited breath. No need. I will do it for you. Eberling was very cautious in his interpretation of the data. Crowther was more forthright. You both want confirmation of your anti-AGW views, so you dispense with Crowther and go with Eberling. Problem is that Crowther is the lead author. You lose.

Moreover, Eberling was delighted to hear from me. Wants to have a three way discussion with Tom Crowther and formulate ways to communicate these kinds of findings to a lay audience more effectively (me means unbiased, intelligent people, not you two uneducated clots). And I merely asked him if he thought that AGW was a problem or not. I did tell him I was responding to a layman AGW denier, and that this person - meaning Mr. Prune - is twisting his words to downplay AGW. Eberling was pretty pissed off at that, hence why he wants Tom and me to sit together and discuss this.

As for being misrepresented, here is where I throttle you.

Eberling thinks that AGW is a serious problem. You have tried to use his quote to suggest that it isn't. Strike one.

Eberling says C02 emissions are a direct threat. You would never cite that, because it doesn't fit in with your denier views Strike two.

Crowther, the lead author, says that AGW is a serious threat as well and that continued warming threatens to release carbon stored in the soil into the atmosphere. So why doesn't Betula acknowledge this? I have already answered it. Strike three.

Betula goes down swinging - again.

Betula goes down swinging – again.

Or hit by that train that's a coming 'cause he wants to wait to see how fast it is going.

See #41 and #44

I have a great idea: come on Betula. You think that you are such a luminary in science. Go ahead and write to Bo Eberling yourself. Tell him that you appreciate his views on a paper in which he is co-author. Tell him that you are delighted that he thinks that there is no threat whatsoever that carbon stored in the soil will become airborne, and therefore that AGW is not a problem.

I am sure that you will impress him with your incredibly deep grasp of climate and environmental science, and that your deep wisdom will convince him that not only is carbon stored in the soil not a problem, but that there threat of AGW is overblown. I have posted him email below. Come on Mr. Tree Pruner. Let's see what he says to an intellectual heavyweight like you.

be@ign.ku.dk

Hint: he is going to think that you are an idiot. Be warned.

Olaus, while I am at it why don't you write as well? You are in Sweden, next store to Denmark. Your deep, working knowledge of soil ecology coupled with your impressive CV and publication list will also impress Bo Eberling, I am sure of that. I am convinced that he would be delighted to hear from a fellow Scandinavian who thinks that AGW is no threat.

Hardley - "is twisting his words to downplay AGW"

How?

Hardley - "Eberling thinks that AGW is a serious problem. You have tried to use his quote to suggest that it isn’t. Strike one"

Where?

You need to throw the ball to get a strike...

Hardley - "Eberling says C02 emissions are a direct threat. You would never cite that, because it doesn’t fit in with your denier views Strike two"

It wasn't cited because it wasn't mentioned in the article.

Balk.

Hardley - Crowther, the lead author, says that AGW is a serious threat as well and that continued warming threatens to release carbon stored in the soil into the atmosphere.

And his co-author, who provided the data, urges caution and not to read too much into it....what does that have to do with me?

Looks like a torn rotator cuff, no more pitching for you...

Hardley, I'm sure Bo Elberling appreciates you posting his email on a blog and encouraging people to ask him if he said what he said. And if you believe he would think I'm an idiot for heeding his advice about not reading too much into it, then he must really think your an idiot for encouraging people (you think he would deem idiots) to contact him.

I actually feel sorry for Bo Elberling.... he has to deal with you whereas I don't.

Lionel - "Or hit by that train that’s a coming ’cause he wants to wait to see how fast it is going"

Lionel, you do realize that there isn't a real train coming....don't you?

"Hardley – “is twisting his words to downplay AGW”

How?"

By claiming this:

Uncertainties, “knowledge gaps” (see #6), the reaction of everything on earth in relation to the future actions and responses of everything on earth, the carbon footprint of developing the undeveloped nations, “how much plants will take up in response” to increased CO2, (see #6) and on and on

But you don't care, do you, betty, you're just trying to avoid saying anything.

Oddly then trying to insist you are saying something when we put something to say in your mouth.

"to ask him if he said what he said"

Where did Jeff ask you to do that?

So, summing up, Betty (if you take time to dig through the shitpile of words) says:

1) everything regarding future climate is settled.
2) there are knowledge gaps and uncertainties.

But that's all he's said.

Bo Ebelberg says some things that are so important that Betty feels the absolute need to keep banging on about it, but doesn't actually have anything to say on the subject. And has nothing to say on the subject except that it was said.

Quite why, then, he felt the need to keep repeating it so often is really REALLY well hidden.

As to these knowledge gaps and uncertainties, as said before, he's claimed its all known about in the future, and that he has no stance or knowledge of what the knowledge gaps mean.

Hardley – “Eberling says C02 emissions are a direct threat. You would never cite that, because it doesn’t fit in with your denier views Strike two”

It wasn’t cited because it wasn’t mentioned in the article.

So CO2 emissions were not mentioned, ergo he never mentions them, except...

Hardley – Crowther, the lead author, says that AGW is a serious threat as well and that continued warming threatens to release carbon stored in the soil into the atmosphere.

Hmmm. So CO2 emissions are mentioned...

And to add to the stupid:

And his co-author, who provided the data, urges caution and not to read too much into it

Yet somehow he read into this that we had knowledge gaps, as if this were significant, and now disavows any attempt to pretend significance

Lionel, you do realize that there isn’t a real train coming….don’t you?

Look up the word 'analogy' woodentop.

Pfft. Betty doesn't understand language.

Batshit Betty on the December thread. Lets see how deep the derp goes with this idiot.

#6:
Hey Hardley, I read your linked article.

Much like you, it says nothing…..and confirms it.

#9:
Hardley, it’s easy to dismiss an article that, in summary, says absolutely nothing.
It’s like dismissing you…

#14:
Like I said, it’s easy to dismiss something that says nothing.

But in post #12 Batshit Betty types this as the content of the link described as "says nothing":

1. The brilliant scientist’s (after all these years) “haven’t taken into account a major source of carbon in the environment”
2. These same scientists are sure that “Global warming is beyond the point of no return”
3. The scientists conclude that as the climate warms, the soil organisms become more active…
4. And this gem….”This information will be critical as we strive to understand how the climate is going to change in the future”
5. “These effects of climate change will certainly be felt disproportionately by poorer people”
6. “There’s a nice analogy; if you step in front of an oncoming bus, no doctor in the world can tell you how damaging the impact is going to be.”

Seems to be saying something!

Batshit Betty on the paper that had six fairly important points but "says nothing" is summed up by the moronic mutthead as:

Post 12Scientific conclusion reached from this article:

We need to redistribute wealth to the poor nations in order to prevent damage from a point of no return that may possibly possibly become a worse point of no return based on things we forgot to consider, a “stance” that hasn’t materialized yet, a strive to understand how climate will change and a story about a bus.

Which isn't in the paper at all but defends it much later on with:

Post 38:It stands that if they are more affected because they are poor, they would be less affected if they were wealthy.</i?

Of course, anyone else doing that is HEINOUSLY WRONG according to old Batshit Betty Bonkers:

Post16 Just because you think something, it doesn’t mean I said it

Remember, in the world of the Completely Batshit like Betty here, hypocrisy is not when Betty does it.

Batshit Betty really loves to make up the internal knowledge of others:

Post 16: much like you think the ideological driven article you linked gives you insight to a catastrophic-only future….which it doesn’t.

But HATES it when anyone DARES to it to the Bonkers psychopath Betty:

Post16 Just because you think something, it doesn’t mean I said it…..

Mind you, the batshit doesn't stop there!

#18:
Hardley, there is a reason you’re talking to an empty classroom….it’s you

#39:
Yes Hardley, when you realize you are just lecturing to yourself, you will realize this blog died long ago…

Of course, this made up reality isn't bad, since Ideological imaginings are just fine. Oh...

#20:
Ideological Ramblings 101 doesn’t count….it’s a required course in all progressive asylums..

Note, for the extra irony: "progressive".

Of course, Batshit Betty knows about uncertainties:

#41
Me again – “The fact is, once again Hardley, you don’t know how it fits into the equation…it’s unknown…..not good, not bad…unknown.You’re ideology, as well as BDuds, is blinding you from seeing otherwise.”

And now, here we have your scientist friends basically saying the same thing I’ve been saying for years

#38:
Strange, you admit (“Yup”) that they don’t know how climate is going to change but you are sure we can stop making what they don’t know worse…

---

But doesn't know what it means for itself:

#31:
It has to do with the funny fact that 12 years of “weather” in Algonquin is apparently insignificant

Because, uncertainties mean you can TOTALLY cut just one station out and get an accurate figure for the planet and the current trends from that one datapoint, as long as it's 12 years long.

And again more batshit:

#32:
I get it…it’s only the organisms deemed detrimental that are predicted to become more active due to warming.

But the only one saying this is Batty. However, as we have seen many times on this page, making shit up and putting it in the mouth of Batshit Betty is REALLY BAD.

Because Betty wants that for her own use.

Batshit Betty BS continues:

BB, post 38:
Wow – “But we can stop making it worse and slow down the change.”

Strange, you admit (“Yup”) that they don’t know how climate is going to change but you are sure we can stop making what they don’t know worse…

Lets have a look at what I said:

Me, post #29: “So they admit they aren’t sure how the climate is going to change in the future…”

Yup.

So, when Batshit Betty sees a "Yup" to "they aren't sure", ol' Batshit here then attacks based on the "they aren't sure" being synonymous with "they don’t know".

Lets See What was said by Jeff:

And once again, Betula plays the “If we don’t know everything then we don’t know anything” canard

But what does Batshit Betty do?

Post 88:

Hardley – “IF WE DON’T KNOW EVERYTHING, THEN WE DON’T KNOW ANYTHING”

You see this Wow? This is not the first time Hardley has posted these words…
This is probably where you got the idea that I said they didn’t know anything! Remember?

Yup, that's right, Betty forgot that they already concluded "they don't know" as being the same as "they aren't sure", and gets REAL bent out of shape, and PRETENDS never to have gotten them confused.

Whenever you see Batshit going librarian-poo over some impercunious accusation, just remember this one.

Betty confuses "they aren't sure" with "they don't know"
Jeff points out Betty is playing the "If we don't know everything, we don't know anything" canard, an accurate description of the error just played.
Betty then keeps pointing back to Jeff and Jeff alone, as the "source" of the claim that Betty confuses "not sure" with "knows nothing".

Wow @73

Hardley – “is twisting his words to downplay AGW”

How?”

By claiming this:

"Uncertainties, “knowledge gaps” (see #6), the reaction of everything on earth in relation to the future actions and responses of everything on earth, the carbon footprint of developing the undeveloped nations, “how much plants will take up in response” to increased CO2, (see #6) and on and on"

That was in response to your bringing up..."what is unsettled?

Where in there did I state anything about AGW?

Sorry, the above was Wow @ 76...

@86: what?

Batshit betty at 86-87:

Batshit Betty really loves to make up the internal knowledge of others:

Post 16: much like you think the ideological driven article you linked gives you insight to a catastrophic-only future….which it doesn’t.

But HATES it when anyone DARES to it to the Bonkers psychopath Betty:

Post16 Just because you think something, it doesn’t mean I said it…..

Wow @77 -

“to ask him if he said what he said”

"Where did Jeff ask you to do that?"

Since I posted what he said, and that appears to be a problem for you and Hardley, what else would I ask?

@90

what?

“to ask him if he said what he said”

“Where did Jeff ask you to do that?”

Since I posted what he said..

Posting what he said isn't where Jeff asked you to ask Bo if he said what he said.

"what else would I ask?"

What he meant.

You, rather than this:

We need to redistribute wealth to the poor nations in order to prevent damage from a point of no return that may possibly possibly become a worse point of no return based on things we forgot to consider, a “stance” that hasn’t materialized yet, a strive to understand how climate will change and a story about a bus.

he said something. Ask him what he meant, since this is DEFINITELY not what he said.

Wow @78 -

"So, summing up, Betty (if you take time to dig through the shitpile of words) says:"

"1) everything regarding future climate is settled.
2) there are knowledge gaps and uncertainties"

1) Where did I say that?
2) Words of the scientists.

Batshit Betty:"1) Where did I say that?"

@79:
Batshit Betty on the December thread. Lets see how deep the derp goes with this idiot.
...
But in post #12 Batshit Betty types this as the content of the link described as “says nothing”:

Read it. read it again. then re-read it and re-read it some more until you understand it. Then read it a few more times to see if you got it this time.

"2) Words of the scientists."

What words of the scientists?

Batshit Betty:

"“1) everything regarding future climate is settled."

1) Where did I say that?"

December 8, 2016

everything regarding future climate is settled

More Wow @78 -

"Quite why, then, he felt the need to keep repeating it so often is really REALLY well hidden"

Only to you, because you are on the continuous loop of Wowdumb...

With Hardley however, it struck a nerve because he realizes the irony of his suggestion to read, re-read and re-re-re read an article he posted about the paper, yet a co-author of the actual paper urges not to read too much into it

It's classic Hardley riding along the Deltoid wheel of Wowdumb...

@Batshit Betty

“Quite why, then, he felt the need to keep repeating it so often is really REALLY well hidden"
...
Only to you

No, to everyone. Including yourself.

Recall who said this?

Just because you think something, it doesn’t mean I said it…..

World of Batshit with the "special" guest Betty here is going to run for DECADES.

So Betty, how does it feel to complain about this "Wowdumb" when I didn't even get to post 42 on the first page and managed to show six incredibly dumb claims from you?

remember what Batshit Betty does:

Post 88:

Hardley – “IF WE DON’T KNOW EVERYTHING, THEN WE DON’T KNOW ANYTHING”

You see this Wow? This is not the first time Hardley has posted these words…
This is probably where you got the idea that I said they didn’t know anything! Remember?

Yup, that’s right, Betty forgot that they already concluded “they don’t know” as being the same as “they aren’t sure”, and gets REAL bent out of shape, and PRETENDS never to have gotten them confused.

Whenever you see Batshit going librarian-poo over some impercunious accusation, just remember this one.

Betty confuses “they aren’t sure” with “they don’t know”
Jeff points out Betty is playing the “If we don’t know everything, we don’t know anything” canard, an accurate description of the error just played.
Betty then keeps pointing back to Jeff and Jeff alone, as the “source” of the claim that Betty confuses “not sure” with “knows nothing”.

And just remember how Batshit Betty here "works", in case you forget.

#6:
Hey Hardley, I read your linked article.

Much like you, it says nothing…..and confirms it.

#9:
Hardley, it’s easy to dismiss an article that, in summary, says absolutely nothing.
It’s like dismissing you…

#14:
Like I said, it’s easy to dismiss something that says nothing.

But in post #12 Batshit Betty types this as the content of the link described as “says nothing”:

1. The brilliant scientist’s (after all these years) “haven’t taken into account a major source of carbon in the environment”
2. These same scientists are sure that “Global warming is beyond the point of no return”
3. The scientists conclude that as the climate warms, the soil organisms become more active…
4. And this gem….”This information will be critical as we strive to understand how the climate is going to change in the future”
5. “These effects of climate change will certainly be felt disproportionately by poorer people”
6. “There’s a nice analogy; if you step in front of an oncoming bus, no doctor in the world can tell you how damaging the impact is going to be.”

Seems to be saying something!

Read it again, this REALLY deserves it!

Wow claiming I said everything regarding climate is settled, yet we have this..

Wow @63 – “Why, then are you whining about how it’s not settled????”

And then @14 the things I brought up that aren't settled.....

Wow claiming I said everything regarding climate is settled,

Yup. Even gave you where. Couldn't find it?

Wow @63 – “Why, then are you whining about how it’s not settled????”

To which you replied that you never said it wasn't settled.

I'd give you where you said that, but you don't seem to know where you leave your posts.

And then @14 the things I brought up that aren’t settled

So when you claimed you HADN'T said it wasn't settled, you were lying.

Wow @ #4 - All true, the "article" Hardley linked said nothing.

Your need to selectively edit what I wrote proves it.

Thanks.

Wow -" So when you claimed you HADN’T said it wasn’t settled, you were lying"

Nope. 63 comes before 64 liar.

More Batshit Betty@ page 1:

Post #88:

Wow – “you only understand a scenario that you made up in your own mind, betty”

The scenario in my mind involves the actual words of the co-author of the paper

Yet what were the words? Post 12 people!

We need to redistribute wealth to the poor nations in order to prevent damage from a point of no return that may possibly possibly become a worse point of no return based on things we forgot to consider, a “stance” that hasn’t materialized yet, a strive to understand how climate will change and a story about a bus.

But maybe these WERE the words!

Oooh, post 38:

It stands that if they are more affected because they are poor, they would be less affected if they were wealthy.

Apparently not.

So they were not from his imagination, but they were the words of the scientist, but they aren't the words of the scientist, and were instead something he interpreted (using his imagination).

Nope. 63 comes before 64 liar.

Where did I claim that 63 doesn't come before 64?

Are you lying again, Batshit?

Wow @ #4 – All true, the “article” Hardley linked said nothing.

Your need to selectively edit what I wrote proves it.

Then how did you manage to get 6 points, AND the words of the scientists????

Did you imagine those words?

cf: Post 88, page 1:
Wow – “you only understand a scenario that you made up in your own mind, betty”

The scenario in my mind involves the actual words of the co-author of the paper

And then @14 the things I brought up that aren’t settled

Page 2: post 32

Wow – “Maybe for you it is, but like I said before, I know 63 is before 64”

Then you admit you lied at 63.

Now is 14 before or after 63....?

"Your need to selectively edit what I wrote proves it."

So you admit that editing what was said "proves" the paper says nothing???

A tautology: removing the content makes a paper say nothing by definition.

What selective editing was done? How does it change your post? And how does it "prove" whatever it is you're now claiming it proves? (note:please let everyone know what you're trying to prove when you claim it;s proven, because you've made so many non-claims and refusals that you've made claims, that we can't tell when you're making a claim or just repeating someone else)

Wow @3 -

"Wow claiming I said everything regarding climate is settled"

"Yup. Even gave you where. Couldn’t find it?"

Sure, and I was talking about you....again you had to selectively edit to hide your lie...

#22 - "Apparently everything regarding future climate is settled, regardless of uncertainties and knowledge gaps"

Let’s see…

What you posted:

1. The brilliant scientist’s (after all these years) “haven’t taken into account a major source of carbon in the environment”
2. These same scientists are sure that “Global warming is beyond the point of no return”
3. The scientists conclude that as the climate warms, the soil organisms become more active…
4. And this gem….”This information will be critical as we strive to understand how the climate is going to change in the future”
5. “These effects of climate change will certainly be felt disproportionately by poorer people”
6. “There’s a nice analogy; if you step in front of an oncoming bus, no doctor in the world can tell you how damaging the impact is going to be

What I wrote:

1. The brilliant scientist’s (after all these years) “haven’t taken into account a major source of carbon in the environment”….that which is in the soil.
Sort of like forgetting the affect of the oceans…

2. These same scientists are sure that “Global warming is beyond the point of no return”….and DT’s “stance” will take it to a more catastrophic point of no return…because it’s a “stance”.

This is what happens when scientists blend their ideology with vague conclusions to paint a futuristic picture they determined to fact.

3. The scientists conclude that as the climate warms, the soil organisms become more active…

So soil organisms are to benefit from warming, which of course, is worse than if they didn’t benefit….

4. And this gem….”This information will be critical as we strive to understand how the climate is going to change in the future”

So they admit they aren’t sure how the climate is going to change in the future…

5. “These effects of climate change will certainly be felt disproportionately by poorer people”

So they are attempting to understand the change, which changes as they begin to understand the things they didn’t take into account….. but they are “certain” that what they don’t understand will affect people based on wealth distribution.

Again….ideology mixed with vagueness.

6. “There’s a nice analogy; if you step in front of an oncoming bus, no doctor in the world can tell you how damaging the impact is going to be.”

But we’ve already stepped in front of the bus…we’ve reached “the point of no return”. Of course, if you stepped in front of an oncoming solar powered bus, then you would have nothing to worry about…
I love scientific analogies.

If you think by "says nothing", I mean there are no words. then you are a full blow retard, which you are.

“Yup. Even gave you where. Couldn’t find it?”

Sure, and I was talking about you

See, you're trying the same thing again.

Page 1Post 88:

Hardley – “IF WE DON’T KNOW EVERYTHING, THEN WE DON’T KNOW ANYTHING”

You see this Wow? This is not the first time Hardley has posted these words…
This is probably where you got the idea that I said they didn’t know anything! Remember?

Yup, that’s right, Betty forgot that they already concluded “they don’t know” as being the same as “they aren’t sure”, and gets REAL bent out of shape, and PRETENDS never to have gotten them confused.

Whenever you see Batshit going librarian-poo over some impercunious accusation, just remember this one.

Betty confuses “they aren’t sure” with “they don’t know”
Jeff points out Betty is playing the “If we don’t know everything, we don’t know anything” canard, an accurate description of the error just played.
Betty then keeps pointing back to Jeff and Jeff alone, as the “source” of the claim that Betty confuses “not sure” with “knows nothing”.

again you had to selectively edit to hide your lie…

Yet somehow you can't show the "unedited" version that shows "my lie".

That would be because unedited it doesn't do anything of the sort.

Now is 14 before or after 63….?

Considering 63 was on page 1 and 14 was on page 2, anyone with a brain would say page 1 (#63) comes before page 2 (#14)

You really are retarded!

Let’s see…

What you posted:

blah blah blah

Yup. I took out your commentary, nothing removed about what you noticed in the paper.

And those six things are not "nothing". Otherwise you would have been unable to write them.

If you think by “says nothing”, I mean there are no words. then you are a full blow retard

Ah so because you are a retard who could only be reasonable intuited to mean "take out all the words and it says nothing", this is me being a retard?!?!?!

But if you think that, then you are a full blown retard.

And one unable to type coherently. English. It has a grammar and language. You failed at both.

Now is 14 before or after 63….?

Considering 63 was on page 1 and 14 was on page 2,

14 was on page 1.

Betula
December 2, 2016

Let’s see…

1. The brilliant scientist’s (after all these years) “haven’t taken into account a major source of carbon in the environment”….that which is in the soil.
....

So, is page 2 on page 1 as well? Or is your mistake here "proof" I'm a full blown retard?

Wow @3 –

“Wow claiming I said everything regarding climate is settled”

“Yup. Even gave you where. Couldn’t find it?”

Sure, and I was talking about you

Except you never said you were talking about me.

Where in that post did you say you were talking about me when you said the science was settled?

Or do you want me to put words in that I think ought to be there? But, then again, if anyone does, you don't like it, do you?

Post16, Page 1: Batshit Betty "Just because you think something, it doesn’t mean I said it"

So I can;t think you were talking to me, because that doesn't mean you said it. And if anyone does that, you call them liars!

Wow, you can selectively edit comments all night long to satisfy your imagination....but since this blog only consists of the two of us, and I know what you are doing and how you are lying, you just end up looking like a full blown retard to 100% of your audience.

Wow, you can selectively edit comments all night long

So can you. But editing them doesn't make the meaning change. If this were so, then synopsis wouldn't work in literature.

I know what you are doing

Yes, showing what you've said. I've edited out bits that don't change the meaning, however.

I think EVERYONE knows what I'm doing. It's VERY common in discussion to cut out the unnecessary to keep things readable.

Though I completely understand how you fare better when posts, and even threads, cannot be read easily.

and how you are lying

I'm not. You said you knew what I was doing, but now you're saying you were wrong when you said:

you can selectively edit comments all night long

Where does it say "lying" in "edit comments"?

Batshit Betty, this is your fault, you know. If you didn't keep posting what other people said then post things you said, then refer back to what you posted about what someone else said, making the thread over-complicated, I wouldn't HAVE to edit out the cruft.

If you didn't demand that nobody intuit what you mean if you don't put it in explicitly, we wouldn't have to ask you to put in all the words you need to say to get what you're talking about in a post, making it overlong and impossible for you to defend your meaning when what you said didn't say what you meant.

Wow - "Except you never said you were talking about me"

Yet, you managed to edit out the words "Apparenly" and "regardless of uncertainties and knowledge gaps”

The same uncertainties and knowledge gaps that I said were unsettled (in response to your bringing it up at 63) and that you claimed were "settled"

But I really don't have to explain this to you, your selective editing proves you already know it.... unless you are truly retarded, which you are.

You're a waste of time. And when I tire of you, as I always do, and which I'm doing, you will be stuck in your padded Deltoid cell with no one to talk to but Hardley.

A very sad situation.

but since this blog only consists of the two of us

Apart from Lappers, StuPid, Jeff, Lionel, you mean?

And you whine about ME leaving stuff out?!?! At least when I leave stuff out, it doesn't change the meaning of the claim.

Wow – “Except you never said you were talking about me”

Yet, you managed to edit out the words “Apparenly

Yes, you were saying that it appears to you that the science is settled.

There is no change from

"It appears that the science is settled"
to
"The science is settled"

they both mean the same thing!

The same uncertainties and knowledge gaps that I said were unsettled

But you insisted that you hadn't said the science was not settled.

Worth a repost – Because you read so much into it...

Hardley – “Read it and then re-read it and re-re-re read it”

“Study co-author Bo Elberling, head of the Danish Center for Permafrost (CENPERM), a basic research centre at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, urges caution before reading too much into the new data.”

“We still don’t know how much plants will take up in response, which is particularly important in relation to an increasing root biomass in the Arctic which represents a knowledge gap when speaking about Arctic greening,” he says”

your selective editing proves you already know it

No, I'm NOT ALLOWED to know that, all you allow others do know is the precise words you used in black and white, no more.

Remember post 16, page 1? Batshit Betty: “Just because you think something, it doesn’t mean I said it”

I'm NOT ALLOWED to add words you didn't say just because I think those words were "meant" to be there!

Worth a repost – Because you read so much into it…

Where did anyone other than yourself read too much into that?

Remember what you said page 1, post 16 applies to you as well as anyone else.

Hardley – “Read it and then re-read it and re-re-re read it”

Did you, Batshit Betty?

What did you conclude?

Having told you, Batshit Betty, the following:

#18 Wow
December 9, 2016

Let’s see…

What you posted:

blah blah blah

Yup. I took out your commentary, nothing removed about what you noticed in the paper.

And those six things are not “nothing”. Otherwise you would have been unable to write them

You haven't come up with anything that indicates the editing changed the meaning.

So therefore you could find no change in the meaning and the edit that caused it.

It's not like you can claim you didn't have time to post it.

Wow - "But you insisted that you hadn’t said the science was not settled"

Correct, I never said "the science was not settled"

A flash of sanity on you part.

Wow - "And those six things are not “nothing”. Otherwise you would have been unable to write them"

The word "nothing" is nothing, yet I am able to write it.

Correct, I never said “the science was not settled”

But you just said you did!

Post #2, this page!

Why do you lie with so little care? You at least used to wait until there was half a hundred posts between your claim and your insistence you never made that claim!

The word “nothing” is nothing, yet I am able to write it.

But the words you wrote weren't "Nothing". If you thing you wrote

Nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing.

For six points, you must be a full blown retard that thinks they're a full blown retard! And that's BATSHIT CRAZY!

Lets do it again,Batshit Betty thinks this:
1. The brilliant scientist’s (after all these years) “haven’t taken into account a major source of carbon in the environment”
2. These same scientists are sure that “Global warming is beyond the point of no return”
3. The scientists conclude that as the climate warms, the soil organisms become more active…
4. And this gem….”This information will be critical as we strive to understand how the climate is going to change in the future”
5. “These effects of climate change will certainly be felt disproportionately by poorer people”
6. “There’s a nice analogy; if you step in front of an oncoming bus, no doctor in the world can tell you how damaging the impact is going to be.

Is just the word "Nothing"!

A flash of sanity on you part.

So when I ignore you and everyone else saying you said the science isn't settled, that's "a flash of sanity"????

That's batshit, betty.

Wow - "But you just said you did"

Nope - I said there are uncertainties and knowledge gaps that are unsettled....I get these word from scientists, they appear in many of the papers, in fact Elberling used the phrase "knowledge gap"

Why aren't you arguing with Elberling? Certainly you must think he claimed “the science was not settled".

Why do you think that?

Wow - "Lets do it again"

Only let's do it right:

1. The brilliant scientist’s (after all these years) “haven’t taken into account a major source of carbon in the environment”….that which is in the soil.
Sort of like forgetting the affect of the oceans…

2. These same scientists are sure that “Global warming is beyond the point of no return”….and DT’s “stance” will take it to a more catastrophic point of no return…because it’s a “stance”.

This is what happens when scientists blend their ideology with vague conclusions to paint a futuristic picture they determined to fact.

3. The scientists conclude that as the climate warms, the soil organisms become more active…

So soil organisms are to benefit from warming, which of course, is worse than if they didn’t benefit….

4. And this gem….”This information will be critical as we strive to understand how the climate is going to change in the future”

So they admit they aren’t sure how the climate is going to change in the future…

5. “These effects of climate change will certainly be felt disproportionately by poorer people”

So they are attempting to understand the change, which changes as they begin to understand the things they didn’t take into account….. but they are “certain” that what they don’t understand will affect people based on wealth distribution.

Again….ideology mixed with vagueness.

6. “There’s a nice analogy; if you step in front of an oncoming bus, no doctor in the world can tell you how damaging the impact is going to be.”

But we’ve already stepped in front of the bus…we’ve reached “the point of no return”. Of course, if you stepped in front of an oncoming solar powered bus, then you would have nothing to worry about…
I love scientific analogies.

If you think by “says nothing”, I mean there are no words. then you are a full blow retard, which you are.

Wow – “But you just said you did”

Nope – I said there are uncertainties and knowledge gaps that are unsettled

And these knowledge gaps and uncertainties are in nothing? Well, if the gaps and uncertainties are in nothing, then they don't exist: Nothing has uncertainty and we have knowledge gaps in nothing!

Wow – “Lets do it again”

Only let’s do it right:

I did.

The bits you added can't make it MORE nothing!

A shedload of words plus another shedload of words is NOT the word "Nothing".

How batshit are you, betty?

Wow - Nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing

Wow is going all Jack Torrance. It's just a matter of time...

Wow - "And these knowledge gaps and uncertainties are in nothing?"

"We still don’t know how much plants will take up in response, which is particularly important in relation to an increasing root biomass in the Arctic which represents a knowledge gap when speaking about Arctic greening,” he says”

What do you have against Elberling?

I get these word from scientists, they appear in many of the papers

So you read those words, but you don't think that means the science isn't settled, and have never thought the science wasn't settled (because those words appeared in many of the papers?).

But you don't want anything done about what the science says?

And you want people to know what doesn't change the science conclusions?

You DO realise that your silly attempts to pretend that your Batshit Crazy is not batshit only makes you more batshit crazy.

What do you have against Elberling?

Nothing.

Strange question....

Wow - "A shedload of words plus another shedload of words is NOT the word “Nothing"

Yet with that, you just proved they have the same meaning.

Wow – Nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing

Except you edited out words that DO change the meaning.

But even if you just take that, it does not follow that your claim "Wow is going all Jack Torrance. It’s just a matter of time…" is true.

After all, you said "Wow - Nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing"

Which appears to be a nihilist chant from you, with some surprise at your beginning.

Wow – “A shedload of words plus another shedload of words is NOT the word “Nothing”

Yet with that, you just proved they have the same meaning.

How?

Yet with that, you just proved they have the same meaning.

I didn't. Remember, page 1, post 16: Batshit Betty: “Just because you think something, it doesn’t mean I said it”

Two problems there, Batshit Betty.

a) you have to show how that proof arises
b) you have to show I meant it

Not a good day for you, is it you cray-cray biatch!

Not forgetting that you claimed post 14 was on page 2 and post 63 on page 1, when they were both on page 1, and haven't managed to get around to admitting it yet...

Wow - "Nothing"

But Elberling used the phrase "knowledge gap". You must think he's bat crazy...

What do you think he means by knowledge gap and how does it affect any conclusion he may have on the subject he is referring to?

BTW, betty, one reason why Jeff and Lionel are silent is to give you less clutter to hide behind.

The reason why Lappers, Kim and StuPid are silent is because they're unable to follow reality, and your posts are to cray-cray for them to follow.

Wow – “Nothing”

But Elberling used the phrase “knowledge gap”.

Yeah. So what? Just because you think something doesn't mean I said it.

You must think he’s bat crazy…

No, Batshit Betty, YOU'RE the batshit crazy one.

Haven't you picked up on that yet?

What do you think he means by knowledge gap

I asked first, Batshit Betty.

Naughty naughty! We all know, you included, why you want me to answer first: because you won't ever answer.

how does it affect any conclusion he may have on the subject he is referring to?

Nuh uh uh, Batshit Betty! You first!

Wow - "Not forgetting that you claimed post 14 was on page 2 and post 63 on page 1, when they were both on page 1, and haven’t managed to get around to admitting it yet…"

Wow #13 this page - "And then @14 the things I brought up that aren’t settled" "Page 2: post 32"

Looks like not only did you forget you posted that #14 is on pg 2 (which it is), but you have proven that you don't realize how insane you are in the process.

'course not following it won't stop lappers or kim from making vague and generic cheers of approbation for Batshit Betty here. After all, saying "Good on your demolishing those people who don't agree with us, Betty!", since that doesn't require any knowledge of what was said, least of all what was said by Batshit Betty here.

Wow #13 this page – “And then @14 the things I brought up that aren’t settled” “Page 2: post 32”

Yeeerrrrssss.

Tell me, do these two numbers look the same to you?

14
32

?

Looks like not only did you forget you posted that #14 is on pg 2

Nope, 14 is on page 1.

I even linked it back to the entire start of the post, including the date. See my post #20, this page:

December 10, 2016

Now is 14 before or after 63….?

Considering 63 was on page 1 and 14 was on page 2,

14 was on page 1.

Betula
December 2, 2016

Let’s see…

1. The brilliant scientist’s (after all these years) “haven’t taken into account a major source of carbon in the environment”….that which is in the soil.

Heck page 2, post 1 is from Jeff Harvey and is dated December 7, 2016.

Now is 2 before or after 7, Batshit Betty?

Don't forget, BB, YOU were the one going on about the hard maths!

Is 2 less than 1?
Is 14 less than 63?
Is 7 less than 2?

You have currently been unable to answer these "hard maths" questions.

Whereas YOU could only put one "hard maths" query to me:

Is 64 less than 63?

Even by YOUR batshit reasoning, you're losing 3 to 1.

Wow!
Wow, you're out doing yourself here.

Was I? Goodness, I would never have guessed.

I am being sarcastic.

I guess you haven't manged to work up anything more significant, hmm?

There's nothing significant to comment about on this thread Wow.
Particularly, but not only, your comments.
It's amusing to watch however.
You're really going for it.

Another empty post. One that even admits it's empty. StuPid thinks posting that is somehow worthwhile. Even though they keep fake whining about how we need to do something substantive....

Deniers. You just can't make that crazy shit up, you have to let reality display it and goggle at the stupid.

As always the limits of modern psychiatry become evident when Hardley and Wow fight with their imginary enemies. It's heartbreaking to watch and all you want is to hug them and whisper in their ears "that everyting is fine and that mother still loves you".

Beg, lappers, beg for that doggietreat!

Good boy!

Hey, Batshit Betty, apparently you don't exist! LOL! Maybe lappers has you blocked so they don't have to put up with reading your posts. It's not like lappers cares what you write or that it is in any way driving what he says.

There is our Swedish meatball again, copying Betula's insults word for word. My gosh this guy is unoriginal.

Note how Betula and Olaus haven't explained why they think that Tom Crowther, seniorauthor of the Nature paper, and who was interviewed in media all over the world, is wrong, and instead focus on an other embedded in there middle of the paper who just said that there were uncertainties in drawing conclusions about the data.

Here is what Crowther said:

"It’s fair to say we have passed the point of no return on global warming and we can’t reverse the effects, but certainly we can dampen them,” said the biodiversity expert. Climate change may be considerably more rapid than we thought it was.”

The we have the words of Professor Ivan Janssens: "This study is very important, because the response of soil carbon stocks to the ongoing warming, is one of the largest sources of uncertainty in our climate models.”

Then I bring in Betula. What is his professional background in soil ecology, climate or environmental science? None. Has he ever done any research in related fields, or indeed any field of science? NO. So what does he doe here? He cherry picks. He belittles the views of the lead author and, after a frantic search on the internet, digs ups an article in a Danish paper which quotes one off their own, Bo Eberling, who was 19th in the list of 47 authors on the paper. Eberling did not contribute to the writing, because that was done by Crowther and Mark Bradford.

On what empirical basis does Betula dismiss Crowther's comments? None. This is because he does not understsnr the science. If Betula was (1) one of the co-authors, or (2) and leading authority in relevant fields, then his comments on a blog would carry some weight. But he is neither of those two things. He is a layman who is exhibiting confirmation bias. His bias is drawn from his political views in which he sees measure to deal with AGW as a threat to the system he worships.

I gave home Dr. Eberling's email address so that he can write and thank Eberling for saying in the interview that the paper on which he is a co-author is worthless crap because of the uncertainties. Of course Eberling won't say that. And Betula knows it. He also doesn't want to see Eber,ing admit that AGW is a serious threat and that we need to deal with it. Norte how Betula has strayed away from that because it he knows that it undermines his little hobby-horse.

If this was a face-to-face debate between Betula and me he would be laughed into oblivion. But as its on a blog, and he is anonymous, he can set the framework for the discussion any way that he wishes. This is why blogs are a waste of time. Also if we were debating I would bury him with science. I would bering Tom along to watch the carnage. But again, there is no arbiter and thus anyone can say what they like.

And Olaus claims Betula is 'wiping the floor' with me. Hilarious. In a pig's eye. This isn't a debate. If it was as I said Betula would have been sent packing pages ago.

And again, when did we expect to hear his response from Eberling? There won't be one. Petula won't write because he knows he will be humiliated. He knows it.

And Hardley re-enterns with his usual long rants, mothfrothing, and sexually chared self obsession.

But why does the spider specialist put so many hours in battling demons of his fantasy? Because he can't handle reality. Betula put him in his place with a simple quotation and Jeffy immediately goes into fetus mode and starts imagining things while Betula can pop the popcorn and enjoy the freak show.

Woof woof, lappers!

Jeff.
The environment and/or the climate doesn't care about any debate.
Neither do they care about your qualifications or anyone else's for that matter (including mine of course).
You seem to fail to recognise that 'the debate' is not actually about 'the science'.
You're also not recognising that most well educated people agree that human activity impacts the environment.
It always has.
Most educated people respect science and what is has done for humanity.
What people are questioning is examples of your 'the only way' mantra which is not even based on your cliamed field of expertise.
We all know that you're well educated in your field.
Good for you, but that's not even slightly relevant to 'the debate'.
You have no scientific evidence that your 'the only way' will achieve worthwhile TBL outcomes as 'the debate' is about global socio economic policies.
Labelling everyone and assigning them 'tribes' like 'deniers' or 'lukewarmers' or 'left wing' or 'neoliberalist' & etc & etc and then arguing that if they don't agree with your 'the only way' there's something amiss with their intellectual capacities is bordering on nonsense.
The climate and the environment is highly complex and variable.
The inputs that cause change and adaption are also highly complex and variable.
One grand socio economic endeavour is not a silver bullet or magic way to make the climate and environment behave itself.

And just to make Wow feel better, here is links to the definition (and some synonyms & antonyms) of the behaviour that I'm observing.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hubris
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hubris

"The environment and/or the climate doesn’t care about any debate."

Then fuck off, if you think the environment doesn't care. Why waste everyone else's time here?

Oh, and please cut out the passiveaggressive whinefest. Nobody buys it. Cheers.

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

Defining characteristics of pathological lying include:

The stories told are usually dazzling or fantastical, but never breach the limits of plausibility, which is key to the pathological liar's tactic. The tales are not a manifestation of delusion or some broader type of psychosis; upon confrontation, the teller can admit them to be untrue, even if unwillingly.
The fabricative tendency is chronic; it is not provoked by the immediate situation or social pressure so much as it is an innate trait of the personality. There is some element of dyscontrol present.
A definitely internal, not an external, motive for the behavior can be discerned clinically: e.g., long-lasting extortion or habitual spousal battery might cause a person to lie repeatedly, without the lying being a pathological symptom.[2]
The stories told tend toward presenting the liar favorably. The liar "decorates their own person"[3] by telling stories that present them as the hero or the victim. For example, the person might be presented as being fantastically brave, as knowing or being related to many famous people, or as having great power, position, or wealth.

Hardley, you only thing you know to do is: appeal to authority.

In my judgement you don't deserve your salary and as your boss I would fire you on the spot because of incompetence, inefficency, insubordination and vast insufficiency in your job (e.g. the many hours of time you betray your employers when wasting your paid work time with writing useless hate rants on the internet).

Why do you consistently and purposefully evade questions on the hiatus in your cv??

And for you deniers going on about the 1970's cooling or the meme that models aren't matching reality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation
In psychiatry, confabulation (verb: confabulate) is a disturbance of memory, defined as the production of fabricated, distorted or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world

---

Though whether it's right to attribute no real desire to deceive is highly suspicious.

"Hardley, you only thing you know to do is: appeal to authority."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

In order to be fallacious, the argument must appeal to the authority because of their qualification in an irrelevant field and should be irrelevant to the argument at hand

---

Dumbass kim.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2013/01/six-fallacies-called-incorre…

Incorrectly Calling Logical Fallacies

Regular readers will know that critical thinking involves knowing logical fallacies – recognizing them in other people’s arguments, and not using them in your own. But falsely calling fallacies is just as bad. Arguably worse, since using a fallacious argument just means you haven’t justified your argument - your argument could still be right for other reasons. Falsely calling a fallacy means you are saying something is wrong when it isn’t.

"Labelling everyone and assigning them ‘tribes’ like ‘deniers’ or ‘lukewarmers’ "

Deniers (and lukewarmers) have a very valid definition, complaining about this is like complaining about calling some furniture "chairs" and others "tables".

"or ‘left wing’ or ‘neoliberalist’ "

FFS, only you've gone and done that. Just there.

Meanwhile, whilst you're pointing fingers (I thought you said this was "our" problem, not yours?), nobody cares what you're blathering on about because we universally accord it the status of complete self-serving bollocks that it is.

You ARE NEVER going to change what we do here, because we recognise how shallow and fake your argument is.

You've lost it. Nobody is listening.

But you won't do that, will you.

Narcissistic Traits

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

"evade questions on the hiatus"

There was no hiatus. Another confabulation error from you, kuim.

This is the cv of Hardley:

Date of birth: 28-12-57

Place of birth: Toronto, Canada

BSc: (Zoology), Liverpool University, 1991

PhD: (Nutritional Ecology of a host-parasitoid interaction), Liverpool University 1995

1995-1995: Post doctoral research fellow (Keele University, UK)

1995-1997: Royal Society post doctoral research fellow (Wageningen University, The Netherlands)

1997-1999: Post doctoral research (University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA)

1999-1999: Associate Editor, Nature, London

2000-present: Senior Scientist, Netherlands Institute of Ecology

2013-present Visiting Professor, Vrije University, Amsterdam

Can you see the hiatus?

Good one Wow.
I need to thank you again for your demonstration.
I appreciate the help.
:-)

Kim. as I have said, you and Betula have an alarming obsession about me. Please seek medical help immediately.

As for appealing to authority, what kind of a jackass are you?!?!? Since you have absolutely no expertise in any scientific disciplines, what gives you the acumen to be able to separate good science from bad science? The tooth fairy? A mysterious agent that has infused you with the Dunning-Kruger effect? Please enlighten us all here. My guess is that you are one of those crackpots who is into conspiracy theories. You, Betula and Olaus are three of a kind. Grade A dipsticks.

I tend to defer to the opinions of over 95% of the scientific community. This includes every major scientific organisation and National Academy. You can stick with shills for all that I fucking care.

Olaus, Betula couldn't put a kindergarten child into his place. A relevant question is, what is his point in quoting Bo Eberling? What is the end game? That Eberling thinks that the data should be interpreted with caution? So what? All scientists say that. Does that mean that the Nature paper, on which Eberling gladly accepted an authorship, is wrong? That the conclusions are meaningless? That there is nothing to be concerned about, given the uncertainties?

And why doesn't Betula quote the lead author? Why is he being selective? Could it be because Crowther is far more concerned about the implications? Given that Betula and you know diddly squat about soil ecology and climate science, what gives you the authority to dismiss the serious implications of this study? Your own educations?

I don't expect a rational answer. I never get one. You are giving deniers a worse name than it already has. Quite a feat.

Stu, why don't you go away. I see no attempt on your part to respond to the idiotic musings of Betula, Kim and Olaus. This proves what I said about you before. Closet denier.

It's Sunday morning so let's have some fun with the deeply intellectual wannabes on Deltoid.

Kim talks about my career hiatus (Yawn, how childish, but this is what they do, so I'll bite). First, tell us all here what you do for a living Kim. If its the truth, you probably won't say anything, so i expect one of two things: (1) No response; (2) a blatant lie, profoundly exaggerating your qualifications. But I will go with (1) because you are too embarrassed to tell us all here what you do.

As for my professional hiatus, please tell me more. I have co-authored 16 papers this year, the most in my career in a single year, will get over 600 citations and my h-factor passed the 40 mark. No hiatus there.

Olaus thinks I am an expert on spiders. If only! They are a fascinating group of arthropods, and I have used lycosids as predators in studying chemical mimicry (of ants) and defense in cryptine ichneumonids. But that's it. I tend to focus on the Hymenopotera.

Onto Betula, the grand wizard of the deniers here and who is clearly worshipped by Olaus and Kim. They endlessly mimic him wit their smears, but hopefully not chemically. Betula's strategy, if one can call it that, is to search the internet for quotes to dismiss the significance of the potential consequences of climate change. In doing so he is super selective; thus he will ignore 50 scientists who say that AGW is a real threat and, bingo!, quotes No.51. And he often even distorts what No. 51 says.

His aim in quoting Bo Eberling was to downplay the implications of a Nature study that has been covered in the mainstream media around the world. Here are some of the headlines generated:

"Loss of soil carbon due to climate change will be "huge"

"Losses of soil carbon under global warming might equal U.S. emissions"

"Scientists have long feared this ‘feedback’ to the climate system. Now they say it’s happening"

"Earth warming to climate tipping point, warns study"

"Arctic soils: a ticking climate time bomb" (the study that quotes Bo Eberling)

"Climate change escalating so fast it is 'beyond point of no return"

"A Catastrophic Amount of Carbon Could Leak From the Soil By 2050"

"Warming soil to emit as much carbon as U.S. by 2050"

"A bunch of carbon dioxide that's been trapped in the soil is starting to escape — and it’s bad news for the planet"

"Warming soil to release US-worth of carbon by mid-century"

"As Global Warming Gets Worse, Can The Soil Release As Much Carbon As The Entire US?"

"Global study indicates warming will lead to soil carbon loss"

"Carbon dioxide released by soil could undermine climate efforts"

"Arctic soil is a ticking climate time bomb"

"A dreaded carbon time bomb lurks beneath your feet"

"Massive amounts of carbon dioxide could leak from the soil by mid century"

"New Study Warns Massive Release Of Soil Carbon Dioxide Will Be Like Adding Another Fully Industrialized Country To The Map"

etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

These are the lurid headlines generated by Tom's paper. Certainly eye-catching, and incredibly alarming. Thus far few if any rejoinders have emerged. Denier blogs are not touching this with a ten foot barge pole. They can't because virtually none of the people who run these blogs knows anything about climate science. They cherry pick from think tanks and blogs they like.

On this blog there are at the moment three AGW deniers, None of them has any scientific education. ~They perpetually attack me on the basis that I do, and also because I am evil in siding with 97% of the scientific community, They desperately try and isolate me, to give the impression that my views on climate change conflict with the scientific evidence (which they know nothing about, give once again that they possess on relevant qualifications) and also contrasts with the views of the scientific community. On Deltoid this is an example of Michael Mann's ' Serengeti Strategy'.

As the media headlines unambiguously show, the Crowther et al. study in Nature was widely covered in the media and the overriding theme was that the Arctic in particular is a ticking time bomb in terms of carbon stores in the soil being released into the atmosphere as it warms, especially if critical thresholds are exceeded (see Scheffer and colleagues for a relevant discussion on 'tipping points'.

The Nature study is profoundly important. End of story. Or is it? Not on Deltoid. A guy who owns a tree pruning company is angry. He thinks that the paper is crap, and he is going to tell the world why - except that he isn't. This is because he can't tell mycorrhizal fungi from elephant droppings. But that doesn't matter! He still thinks the paper is crap, because it does not conform with his confirmation bias. Therefore he searches the internet, finds an article which actually says thew implications of the paper are serious, but then quotes the 17th listed of 49 authors who says that we need to interpret the results with caution because it discusses an indirect measure of carbon (e.g. stored carbon rather than carbon directly being released into the atmosphere) and because some of the airborne carbon may be taken up by the roots. The tree pruner makes a Tarzan wail, pounds his chest like a Silverback gorilla, and then effectively dismisses the study. Nothing to worry about. The 17th author says that there are uncertainties in what will happen. So let's keep up AGW! Keep those emissions going! Stored soil carbon stocks may stay there forever, even as the Arctic continues to warm at a rapid rate! Nothing to worry about!

At this point the reader may ask why Nature, the world's leading journal, published an article that generated conclusions which leave a lot of uncertainties. Heck, in the view of the pruner, these aren't just uncertainties; in his view AGW is a left wing hoax anyway with 97% of scientists on board because they are left wing pinkos who want a UN-led world government. So the paper is crap.

When requested if he will write a stunning rebuttal to Nature, with meatball and crazy Kim as co-authors, he backs off. When asked if he will write to the allegedly dissenting co-author for clarification, he backs off. No need! I won on Deltoid! I proved the study is crap! And I have 2 other idiots who say they agree with me!

Is it any wonder that the denier ranks are in such trouble these days if it is populated by the likes of Betula, Kim and Olaus?

So Jeff @# 93.
Does that mean you're more interested in arguing and/or debating about youself than anything else????

"I need to thank you again for your demonstration.
I appreciate the help."

And again with the content free passive aggressive bullshit, Stupid.

Odd how your finger pointing and labeling isn't a demonstration of your "point". It's as if your "point" was merely about going "LOOK AT ME! DO WHAT I SAY!".

"Does that mean you’re more interested in arguing and/or debating about youself than anything else"

Does that mean that you are trying to derail the conversation with stupid accusations and have no desire whatsoever to get to a useful point?

@kuim: This is the cv of Hardley:

@StuPid (to Jeff): Does that mean you’re more interested in arguing and/or debating about youself than anything else

Closet denier? No, just a wanker pretending to not be denier so he can prop up the "arguments" of his pals and ensure that YOU don't demolish their silly ad homs and prevarications.

Not even a closet denier. A denier pretending they're not as camoflage.

Shit camo, but camo nonetheless.

Hardley, you only thing you know to do is: appeal to authority.

Kim you dumbass, Jeff is an authority, and that is why he posts here you clot Stu2pid, as for Ol Piss into wind he wouldn't know cirrus from alto-stratus. And Betula haven't you got any work to do, what an intellectually impoverished life you lead.

"And Betula haven’t you got any work to do"

This IS betty's job.

Doesn't pay well, hence the terrible output.

One last nail in the libtard coffin...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/louisiana-runoff-decide-nations-last-congres…

Serendipity is a wonderful thing looking up something else on the European (and British) robin I found this:

The avian magnetic compass of the robin has been extensively researched and uses Vision-Based Magnetoreception, in which the robin's ability to sense the magnetic field of the earth for navigation is affected by the light entering the bird's eye. The physical mechanism of the robin's magnetic sense is not fully understood, but may involve quantum entanglement of electron spins.

How even more wonderful is evolution if that last turns out to be true.

And there are the denialists only seeing in black and white — how primitive.

Betula #1 by pointing at that you just made my point at #2 Louisiana a state of retards. Besides, don't ever use the expression 'one last nail' again, every time it is used it reminds us how short the memory span the average denialist has, just as the use of 'libtard' betrays their extreme ideology based upon ignorance. Nasty, small minded jerks.

Ah,the whinge of the "strong" redneck retard.

And so soon after their bestie StuPid cried off about all that labeling and tribalism.

One has to worry where they're getting all these nails and coffins from, though.

http://www.dailyadvertiser.com.au/story/4348721/hanson-slacktivists-and…
Here is that symptom again.

Ah, anothr rightwingnutjob blogroll, Stupid? It's an example of how you rightwingers keep blasting empty hate at everyone who doesn't agree with you or wants to do things you think too "commie" or "hippie" to put up with happening in "your" country?

How come you didn't link here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2016/12/02/december-2016-open-thread/co…

?

Libtards?
Louisiana a State of retards?
Denialists only see in black and white?
Rednecks?

Rightwingers?
Commie?
Hippie?

Here is that symptom again.

Stupid mistakes the symptom for the disease which latter being bigoted ignorance as comes in the form of P Hanson.

Not to mention that the topic there is
a) opinion only. So Stupid here would accept as proof the earth is flat an opinion piece from, for example, The Enquirer, that says it is.
b) Labels people "progressive" and "slacktivist". Which was the "problem" that Stupid here claims we are an example of.

@Stupid: Libtards?

Yes, Stupid. Labelling and name calling. You know, those things you only complain about when those who are in the reality camp rather than in denial (where you are) use it, never even noticing it happened when deniers or yourself spout it.

Lionel.
It's clearly a symptom of the politics.
People in places like England (brexit) US (trump) and Australia (Hanson & S&F) are not ignorant.
Countries like those have some of the best education standards in the world, the best access to information in the world and also have a history of successfully embracing other cultures.

Wow.
Precisely.
Everyone is doing it.
It's not creating good results.

"It’s clearly a symptom of the politics."

But somehow the only ones you can bring yourself to blame are those who think the IPCC have generally gotten it right.

And you *still* want us to believe you're not a denier?!?!?

"Everyone is doing it."

INCLUDING YOU YOU FUCKWIT! But, again, only those who think that we are doing something to the climate and that we need to do more in the way of undoing that damage

Only the left, only the scientists, only the progressives will you berate for the fucking up. DEFINITELY NEVER yourself, you obnoxious little retard. A "theory" you only accept because it is so levelled.

No Wow.
Nothing sensible is happening because of the political argy bargy, the name calling & etc.
It's not because people are left or right or ignorant or etc.
In places like the UK, US & Australia that couldn't be further from the truth.
While people are caught up in this tosh there are still plenty of us out in the real world, including scientists, who are making a difference at local and regional scales.
They are not denying science, they're just ignoring and/or working around the politics.
They're not bigots or racists or 'anti environment' or any other label or tribe you care to assign them with.

Somebody said here Jeffy Hardley be authority. Bullshit, but okay, I am the emperor of China.

Attention warmists: all non-warmists here are inifinitely wiser and better educated than the mediocre CAGE believers with their low-level mud perspective of conspirational slogans to tear the world down.

We all have tremendous and true scientific background and you not. You have just hallucinated idiocies e.g. about ridiculous "ecosystem services": hilarious

The new US president will show you soon your new place in society.

Jeffie, when will you start to learn, that scientific findings are not defined by majority votes of 97% gut-feeling and left-eco-active idiots or irrelevant "National Scientific Bodies blah blah" (most of their members not being meteorologists of atmospheric physicists (nobody else like you Jeffie, for example, can be considered competent of course))

And please also stop your obsession with "Corporate blah blah", as those wonderful companies allow you to survive in your habitat and let you eat and drink what do not really deserve with your junk work: e.g. how many wasps fly per minute around the corner and other bullshit.

Kim, let me make this clear: you are a raving lunatic. If you went to a trained brain surgeon, got a diagnosis, and then went to verify it and found that 97% of trained brain surgeons agreed with the original diagnosis, what would you do? Well, you are such an ignoramus that you would probably prefer the opinion of a witch doctor. Me, I will stick with the surgeons.

Science is based on consensus you dipstick. Moreover, on that note, since when have you EVER discussed anything remotely scientific on here? That is simple: NEVER. All you do is come on here and pontificate about Trump, and the wonders of the political right wing, and other assorted waffle.

So tell us Kim: what the fuck do you do for a living, aside from act like an imbecile? You won't say, of course, because its EMBARRASSING. Just as it is with Olaus. At least Betula told us he runs a tree pruning company. You keep your mouth firmly shut when asked what it is that you do.

Once again, piss off.

Betula finally shows his hand with the libtard smear. He's just a right wing idiot Trump supporter who will be very disappointed that his hero is appointing corporate lobbyists to just about every major portfolio.

Why am I not suprised. My word these deniers are idiots.

People in places like England (brexit) US (trump) and Australia (Hanson & S&F) are not ignorant.

And black is white. Of course they are ignorant, ignorant about the truth, the corporate controlled media has ensured they are ignorant and their voting choices proved that in spades.

You have written some stupid things Stu2pid but that has to be a new low mark.

The new US president will show you soon your new place in society.

Aha! Threats! Only to be expected from such as you.

You do realise that he, as a puppet, will do the bidding of the corporations really in control. Russia being for all intents and purposes another one of those. What does the population of the future US administration (e.g. the Evil Ebel) and Russia's land grab in Ukraine and behaviour in Syria remind you of. The 1930's German expansionist and pogram policies. J R R Tolkien wrote a trilogy with echoes of what is going on now. In the west we have Isangard (Trump Tower) and to the east Mordar with Saron (Putin) in control.

The world is going to be in big trouble if orc's such as you and the Myron have input and control.

Kim whines: "all non-warmists here are inifinitely wiser and better educated than the mediocre CAGE believers with their low-level mud perspective of conspirational slogans to tear the world down. mWe all have tremendous and true scientific background and you not."

PROVE IT. My guess Kim is that, given the shallow intellectual level of your posts, you probably clean public lavatories for a living.

It's worse than we thought; Reindeer are shrinking due to Climate Change.

British Ecological Society (BES) 12/12/16
"Reindeer are shrinking: Will Santa need more to pull his sleigh?"

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161212084646.htm

OMG, just when I thought the idiot brigade was stuck on three, in pops Gormless. Make that four. Four and a half if you throw in Stu.

The way this article is written is for people with pea-sized brains like GSW...

Caribou aren't shrinking... the scientists doing the research have found a significant decline in body mass among calves and adults over time... the article GSW links is written by someone who thinks that rapid shifts in the demographics and fitness of a large ungulate is comical, hence the headline.... no wonder journalism is a rotting profession. Next thing they will pen a piece saying that the collapse in numbers of North American songbirds such as Towhees and Shrikes is comedy gold.

The phenomenon has been reported in other vertebrates and invertebrates as well, and clearly reflects changes in the quality of the environment. There may or may not be a link to climate change, but the connection is most certainly anthropogenic. Given the paucity of intelligence amongst AGW deniers, I expect all sorts of Dunning-Kruger infused wisdom now. None of the few deniers who write in here have any kind of relevant scientific education, but that certainly does not stop them acting as if they are bonafide experts.

https://frontiersinzoology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12983-01…
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23321111
http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(11)000…
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.18349.x/abs…

This is not an isolated phenomenon, but I suppose it is hilarious for the idiots out there who think that biodiversity loss and extinction is funny.

What a bunch of tossers.

'The new US president will show you soon your new place in society.'

The violent are becoming emboldened.

The "comical" headline is from the folks at BES press release.

"Reindeer are shrinking – will Santa need more to pull his sleigh?"
http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=170793&CultureCode=en

And the Author's use the word "shrinking" in their papr title.

"SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL: ARE REINDEER 'SHRINKING' BECAUSE OF CLIMATE WARMING? "

The guys at ScienceDaily are entirely blameless. Also you're very premature with your "biodiversity loss and extinction" , there are twice as many Reindeer as there were 20yrs ago according to the paper

There you are again jeff, wrong about everything and mouthing off nevertheless.
;).

GSW, to Jeffy's credit he does have a very red nose, Christmas coming and all.

Oh, I forgot, Santa got exctinct when the Arctic Sea Ice didn't melt away in 2012.

The witless wankery from the denialist brigade is painful to contemplate.

Here we have discussed just one species in trouble because of climate change:

...All of which could spell disaster for this iconic Christmas species, Albon warns: "The implications are that there may well be more smaller reindeer in the Arctic in the coming decades but possibly at risk of catastrophic die-offs because of increased ice on the ground."

Making a joke out of that is an indicator of the lack of empathy for other creatures and cluelessness in general of the denialist brigade that these developments will mean that a section of the world's population will have to look elsewhere to further supplement their diet. This is the more general prescription that we will be locking in if we continue with BAU or BFTU (you work it out) WRT fossil fuels.

Also you’re very premature with your “biodiversity loss and extinction” , there are twice as many Reindeer as there were 20yrs ago according to the paper...

There is a clear example of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially when combined with an inability to think analytically based upon prior wider knowledge.

So reindeer number have increased, thus making less food have to go further. What happens next oh gormless one? Hint it will come to humanity too if we continue to not pay attention.

Oh gormless one, it is you putting the 'comical' spin on the headline.

Hey, StuPid, explain Jeremy Corbyn to me, hmm? And while you're at it, why not Austria, hmmm?

Moron doesn't even get binary thinking. Just a shitload of zero.

Aye, Gitter, YOU are claiming it melted 2012.

And I know it's going to be a shock to you, but there's no Santa either. That's right: mummy and daddy lied to you.

Strange. According to deniers, NOTHING can change when the climate change.

And the climate never changes, because it's only weather.

Jeff @#17
" If you went to a trained brain surgeon, got a diagnosis, and then went to verify it and found that 97% of trained brain surgeons agreed with the original diagnosis, what would you do? "
Interesting.
As per usual, it perhaps needs to be pointed out that is not really what all this about.
It's possible to argue how that 97% consensus was arrived at and plenty of time has been spent on that.
But at the end of the day you don't need to be a 'brain surgeon' to agree that human activity impacts the environment and the climate.
It does.
Some of it's negative impacts, some of it's positive & etc.
But this is where your 'brain surgeon' analogy falls over.
There is no global 'brain surgeon' consensus about the management of this particular diagnosis.
To pretend otherwise is to misuse that 97% consensus figure just as poorly as everyone else does.

Jeffie, are you able to expain why it took you 34 years to get your BSc???? Normally intelligent pupils get that 10 years earlier. Why did it take so terribly long in your special case??? Was there a specific problem (e.g. detention, drug addiction, personal crisis, occupation as a chorus singer, job as truck driver, taxi driver, whatever: CONFESS)

Try to be honest and decent for once, and no more blather with idiotic content!!!

& @ # 23.
Same book different page.
Issues such as the ones highlighted about reindeer and caribou (or if you like, specific species of large ungulates) need targetted management techniques guided by clear measureable outcomes.
It's people on the ground and the 'hands on' experts who can do that work.
And contrary to your asertions and Wow's and Lionel's, those people do not flap around on one wing, they don't have universally sunburnt necks, they are far from ignorant about these matters and they care very much about their 'environment'.
Also contrary to your assertions otherwise, these people are not enamoured exclusively by 'big corporate' anything and are fully aware that some serious mistakes have been made and need to be fixed.
However, it does appear, during 2016, that it's these people who have punished what I guess you would call 'your side' of politics via the ballot box.
They can't see any sensible or measureable 'environmental' outcomes emerging from the 'grand challenge' idea of some type of benevolent global bureaucratic dictatorship.
And they're apparently also fed up with the empty, sneering, misanthropic, political rhetoric emanating from the self appointed 'environmental elite'.

They can’t see any sensible or measureable ‘environmental’ outcomes emerging from the ‘grand challenge’ idea of some type of benevolent global bureaucratic dictatorship.

Stop being such a tosser 2Stupid, most wouldn't give a flock of flying copulating monkeys about 'environmental' outcomes, even if they knew what they were.

Oh, look stupid's problems are because he thinks the illuminati are running the IPCC...

No Wow.
It's because the IPCC likely has little clue about animal husbandry, in this case the reindeer.
Lionel, overwhelmingly the 'push back' in 2016 has come from regional/rural communities.
Contrary to your assertions, they're not the environmentally ignorant & seemingly they're fed up with being told they are by those who are self appointed elitists.
I guess if we must apply labels their tribe is often called 'the urban environmental elite'.
These UEEs have successfully alienated the very people who were always best placed to implement practical, sensible, workable & sustainable land and water management.
It's neither rocket science nor brain surgery.
The idea that 'the environment' can ONLY be saved by the formation of a benevolent global bureaucratic dictatorship is not proving to reap any actual results.
Because people who live and work in the 'real environment' in countries like UK, US & AUS aren't stupid or ignorant they can see that it's an expensive, time wasting, divisive and failed socio-economic experiment.
And it has NOTHING to do with whatever wing you think they flap around with.
They're largely well balanced as a demographic and work with both wings.

"It’s because the IPCC likely has little clue about animal husbandry"

Strange.They take information and papers from all and any scientist that does.Your problem is that you don't like them, not that they don't know the science.

" in this case the reindeer."

DERP! You were against them loooooong before that report. And you're not saying anything other than there's something about reindeer.

Go on, be specific. It'll make a hilarious change.

"The idea that ‘the environment’ can ONLY be saved by the formation of a benevolent global bureaucratic dictatorship is"

A shibboleth of the moronic rightwingnutjobs and is no more real than the oogie-boogie man.

Kim - "Jeffie, are you able to expain why it took you 34 years to get your BSc???? "

It took him years before he realized just how much he had in common with hyperparasitoid larva....

Some specifics Wow?
OK.
Here are a few examples from AUS of those oogie-boogie man things :-)
It all sounds theoretically wonderful but it's not delivering results in practice even though it gets bucket loads of government funding.
It seems that voters are getting a bit sick of it all?
From Australia
http://www.governanceinstitute.edu.au/centres/deliberative-democracy-an…
http://greens.org.au/policies/global-governance
https://law.anu.edu.au/research/dgal
And a couple from wider afeild.
http://www.sustainableproduction.org/downloads/Current%20Status%20and%2…
http://summeruniversity.ceu.edu/precautionary-2015
But these are just a few of course.
As for the reindeer.
They were brought up by someone else.
The point is that the likely issue with the smaller size of the reindeer is probably local or regional and the best people to manage that issue, if indeed it needs managing, will be the local and regional people, not the IPCC.
I would expect that some solid experience and qualifications in animal husbandry and/or animal management and/or veterinary science would be definitely needed, wouldn't you?
IPCC taking in papers is not going to do much for the reindeer.

Kim, could you explain to us all why you have no formal education at all? No BS, not MS, no PhD? Could you also explain to us whay a complete fucking idiot like you thinks he is intelligent and witty and knows more about science than real scientists?

Betula, hyperparasitoid larva is plural... meaning larvae. But still glad you like reading about me. However, you, Kim and Olaus are clearly obsessed. I would be flattered if the three of you weren't such complete idiots. But idiots you are.

Stu, ecophysiological effects of AGW are a pandemic... they are not confined to caribou, but as I showed are found across a very wide range of animal taxa. And the last I heard, AGW is a global problem, not regional. The winds carry no passports. You seem to think that local authorities can deal with the ecological effects of a process which is occurring at global scales. Of course the IPCC cannot make solutions. IT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR THAT PURPOSE. The IPCC was set up to examine the empirical evidence for AGW, and to make possible suggestions for mitigation and adaptation. You are as thinck as two planks. If you understood even the basics about the topic you would cringe at your own words.

Moreover, the solution to these worrying ecophysiological effects is to do everything at the global level to arrest the rate of warming and ensure that it plateaus as soon as possible. What can 'local and regional people' do to alleviate a vast array problems associated with warming? How can local and regiopnal people ensure that food webs do not unravel, that trophic interaction webs retain their integrity, that the phenology of species interactions are not greatly altered and simplified?

You are such a simpleton.

More comedy musings from our intellectually challenged Aussie:

"But at the end of the day you don’t need to be a ‘brain surgeon’ to agree that human activity impacts the environment and the climate.
It does.
Some of it’s negative impacts, some of it’s positive & etc."

No you moron, the VAST majority of anthropogenic effects are NEGATIVE. PROFOUNDLY NEGATIVE. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, IPCC reports, Word Scientist's Warning to Humanity, and the empirical literature CONFIRM this. The recent Word Bank/WWF/IUCN report documented that humans have reduced the planet's genetic diversity by 58% since 1970; the recent issue of Science in which several articles concluded that human actions have pushed almost 60% of ecosystems to the brink of collapse... 90% of species at the terminal end of the food chain in marine ecosystems have been lost... et at. ad libitum.

And you, in your little ivory tower, say that "Some of it’s negative impacts, some of it’s positive & etc".

Bullshit. For every positive effect there are 100 negative ones. You may be more annoying than the other deniers on here, Stu. They are completely vacuous, uneducated idiots, and its fun watching them wallow in their own stupidity. But you actually think you are above the fray intellectually. You aren't. You have a little knowledge but at the same time your brain is full of vast black holes. That one statement - about some negative and some positive effects, along with your silly statement about local and regional people dealing with a vast array of the serious ecological consequences of AGW - puts you at the very back of the class. You really do not know what the hell you are talking about.

And there's GSW again, with his basic bottom degree in chemistry, mouthing off about fields in which he knows asbsolutely nothing. I have demolished this little canard befroe, but I will repeat it: numbers do not tell us anything about longer term demographic effects. There are more people in Sudan than in Hollamd, but I wouldn't say that's proof that the country is better off. In measuring per capita trends its important to look at demographic lags... and fitness.There's abundant evidence to show that many species are showing demographic shifts to older animals with recruitment down. Now I know these big words are over the deniers pin-sized heads on Deltoid, but that's their problem. And once again the empirical literaure is full of studies across a wide range of taxa showing species-specific effects of AGW as well as more worrying effects on species interactions.

And yes, the appalling headline of the ScienceDaily piece was aimed at people like GSW and the other deniers here who are still sucking their thumbs. Pure tabloid-level gibberish.

StuPid proclaims that there's nothing happening to combat AGW, yet:

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/16/12/13/0011218/fossil-fuel-divest…

More self-serving generalizations include " they’re not the environmentally ignorant ". Really? Explain how WTFUWT has thousands of posts proclaiming a stance that is just that?

Oh, and you lose the "you can't label groups", you don't get the chance to do that because you're busy dymolabelling everyone here on the left or supporting the IPCC reports and accepting the evidence of what's going on.

NOBODY IS BUYING IT.

And for Batshit "knowldege faps" Betty:

https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/12/13/0038245/rapid-rise-in-metha…

Seems like uncertainties can go either way: better or worse. Yet Batshit Betty is TOTALLY CERTAIN that they go to the "There's no problem".

And the obsession over knowledge gaps is why it's spelt for Batshit here as "knowledge faps".

/Batshit Betty also has a problem in that increased biotic activity in the soil also includes bacteria in the soil, which produce methane. And if there is a greening, then there's more material for the bacteria to break down into methane.

Methane is not nice and is a more effective GHG.

Methane is not nice and is a more effective GHG.

Indeed, and so much of it appears to be coming out of our denialist's fundaments. It is a good thing that they are such dim bulbs else they would have ignition and re-heat bangers, disappearing up their own.

Jeff, I've already explained; your "appalling headline ....Pure tabloid-level gibberish" refers to the headline in the British Ecological Society press release, it did not originate with ScienceDaily.

If the BES comes up with headlines you disapprove of, "no wonder journalism is a rotting profession" as you put it, write to them; tell them how sciency you think are. I'm sure they'll laugh at that as much as we do ;)

Jeff @#45 & 46.
You have just done a magnificent job of demonstrating exactly what I was explaining.
The 'Ivory tower' comment was hilarious.
Hurling abuse at people like me is one of the major reasons why what you see as 'your side' of politics has taken a such a beating a cross the globe in 2016.
That behaviour has alienated the demographic that was always best placed to implement improvements in land and water management.
This demographic actually lives and works in real 'environments' which couldn't possibly be further away from ivory towers.
Some of them would know exactly how to help the Caribou because their expertise is in animal husbandry.
When local and regional issues are identified the solutions need to be local.
Waiting for a new global bureaucracy to reduce the global average temperature will not help the caribou.
This is where you and I profoundly disagree.
We both care about environmental issues, but I see no benefits accruing to environments anywhere from clunky , globally focused bureaucracies berating and harraguing rural and regional communities.
It's divisive, totally counterproductive, counter intuitive and more often than not it's actually creating more damage to the environment.
I actually think you're wasting your time and intelligence believing that a utopian type of benevolent global bureaucratic dictatorship could be created to magically solve all world environmental problems via climate control.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=dumfukistan+map&view=detailv2&&id=…
Not sure if this link will actually work but here is a rather graphic display of the prevailing 'elitist' attitiude via this map of post American presidential elections.
Instead of realising that their behaviour has alienated the very people who they claim to be helping and who are actually best placed to help them, they're instead blaming people for being dumb and ignorant and uneducated &etc.
If the link doesn't work I'll explain how to get to this map another way.

Garry Gitter: Jeff, I’ve already explained; your “appalling headline ….Pure tabloid-level gibberish” refers to the headline in the British Ecological Society press release,

Jeff: And yes, the appalling headline of the ScienceDaily piece was aimed at people like GSW and the other deniers here who are still sucking their thumbs. Pure tabloid-level gibberish.

British Ecological Society
www.britishecologicalsociety.org/

NOT https://www.sciencedaily.com

Weird. Just shows what reality looks like with denier goggles on.

So

"Not sure if this link will actually work but here is a rather graphic display of the prevailing ‘elitist’ attitiude via this map of post American presidential elections."

Sooo unlike republicans with their eight years of insisting that Obama wasn't the president....

Meanwhile, you go and show your elitist attitude. But totally oblivious.

"Waiting for a new global bureaucracy to reduce the global average temperature will not help the caribou"

Neither will listening to your incoherent ranting.

"You have just done a magnificent job of demonstrating exactly what I was explaining."

Nope, you have, dear.

"The ‘Ivory tower’ comment was hilarious."

You keep insisting that you know and work with lots and lots and LOTS of ecology scientists and other scientists.

If you're not an ivory tower liver, then you must be their janitor.

Wow @57- "Blah blah blah"

Wow @58- "Blah blah blah blah"

Wow @59 - "Blahblah.....blah"

In summary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4

Wow @60 - " BLAH BLAH blah...."

Wow @61 - "More Blah Blah"

Wow @62 - "Blah BlahBlah"

And it continues...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4

And what can we learn from Wow's next expected words of wisdom ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ivory%20tower
Wow.
There are lots and lots of ecologists and other scientists who actually work in the real world dealing with real people and practical concerns.
Didn't you know that?
Above is one definition of the term 'Ivory tower'.
That's why I found Jeff's comment hilarious.
From the way he describes himself here, I would suggest he may be the most likely ivory tower resident :-)

Reminder Jeff: You did not answer the question why you got your BSc in zoology as late as at age 34?

Reminder Jeff: You did not answer the question why you got your BSc in zoology as late as at age 34?

Writes the village idiot ignorant of how scientific careers can progress. Other degrees could come first including a PhD (DPhil), scientists may well chose to do follow up degrees in related or sub fields. One such with wide scope is oceanography. You would do well to look at a treatise on oceanography because it is no coincidence that many scientists working in the global warming and climate change area had a grounding in oceanography, David Archer being one such and you can find his lectures on line.

Here is a good starter in oceanography. The price there is a snip compared to what I paid in the UK for my earlier edition.

...I would suggest he may be the most likely ivory tower resident...

Well, what you suggest isn't worth a hill of beans.

And Betula is getting desperate resorting to pointless videos, again.

Why does Betty try that? If there were anything in those videos, Betty could explain why we should spend time watching, but just putting them out is exactly what a youtube clickwhore does.

Kuim, didn't we just hear a whinge about how this is all becoming about Jeff? You're why. But your fellow deniers don't care to upbraid you about that, only Jeff.

Hey, StuPid, why do you insist on proving your own theory, but insist on blaming everyone else?

Reminder Kim: what do you do for a living? What is your education? How many peer-reviewed scientific papers do you have?

Answer me and I will answer you. But of course you aren't going to say anything. For all we know you clean public toilets. Stop hiding behind an anonymous handle if you want to engage in this pathetic game.

Kim - "Reminder Jeff: You did not answer the question why you got your BSc in zoology as late as at age 34?"

Lionel - Let's talk about oceanography...

Priceless.

Stu, I hurl abuse at you because you deserve it. Your comment about 'human impacts, some negative, some positive' was utter gibberish. You clearly do not know a thing about global change and how we need global solutions to deal with burgeoning problems, many of which involve large scale abiotic changes on biotic processes. Please tell me how 'regional people' are going to repair complex food webs unraveling in the face of climate change. Please tell me how they are going to deal with collapsing ecosystems, particularly in light of the fact that we barely understand how these systems function. Come on dopey, tell me. I am all ears. You seem to think that caribou/reindeer exist in isolation from other environmental constraints. Let alone a myriad of exceedingly complex processes that determine how systems evolve, assemble and function. I must admit that you are unqiue in my experience, and perhaps suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect even worse than the deniers on here.

What your posts unambiguously show is that your knowledge of ecology - indeed of complex adaptive systems - is infantile. You clearly never studied any field related to spatial ecology or ecosystem functioning. You think somehow that 'local and regional people' can somehow repair complex systems under a combined human assault and that this will suffice. My colleagues burst into laughter at this one. As well they should. With everything you write it becomes ever more clear that your understanding of environmental science and ecology is piss poor.

What is clear is that you need a crash course in ecology. My undergraduate students know a lot more than you do about the field. I might as well be talking to a brick wall, given some of the tripe that you write. What is clear is that you don't know a whole lot.

Betula: "One last nail in the libtard coffin".

Pricless.

Lionel – Let’s talk about oceanography…

Priceless.

And once again (misrepresenting my message) you demonstrate what a vacuous numpty you are.

But the Stu2pid should take that advice and study that topic for then he will, maybe, stop writing utter shite!

Something that came across my screen today.

If, looking at that, you don't think were heading for trouble then you are even more witless than thought. Like the Judith and David Rose you would have spiralled even lower than thought possible.

Hardley- "My colleagues burst into laughter at this one"

I can see Hardley now....running to his colleagues with every Deltoid comment, not realizing he is the one they are laughing at...

Lionel - "And once again (misrepresenting my message)"

Nope. You even linked to a book about oceanography....in regards to a question about why Hardley got his BSc in zoology as late as at age 34.

Nope. You even linked to a book about oceanography….in regards to a question about why Hardley got his BSc in zoology as late as at age 34.

Context you dishonest muppet.

Betula et. al. of the muppet brigade. Try watching the latest BBC series Planet Earth II and start to appreciate the fragility of some ecosystems and poor survival chances for some species. There is more to the narrative than that to be sure but get out of your restricted world view.

"Context you dishonest muppet"

The context is, in response to a question about Hardley getting his BSc in zoology at age 34, you suggest Kim read up on oceanography.

If it sounds ridiculous, it's because it comes from you.

Meanwhile, we still don't know what took the genius so long, or why he's still living in his mom's basement after all these years...

"“Context you dishonest muppet”

The context is,"

destroying your case, so you misrepresent it.

And how are all those knowledge gaps going for you. Increased methane from soil biota making things worse is what you like?

Jeff @ # 72.
Outstanding demonstration again.
I wrote:
" Hurling abuse at people like me is one of the major reasons why what you see as ‘your side’ of politics has taken a such a beating a cross the globe in 2016.
That behaviour has alienated the demographic that was always best placed to implement improvements in land and water management."
And there's your comment @#72
Well done.
However, this particular question, hiding amongst the abuse is a ripper.
" Please tell me how they are going to deal with collapsing ecosystems, particularly in light of the fact that we barely understand how these systems function. "
I hope for your sake that you didn't think that one through?
And waiting around for the formation of global action on the global climate will not help those particular large ungulates.

Yeah, stupid, but you have problems with reality, so your claims are based on shaky ground to start. Not to mention Assertion Fallacy.

The context is, in response to a question about Hardley getting his BSc in zoology at age 34, you suggest Kim read up on oceanography.

Anybody with more than a half-arsed education would have appreciated that my point was that science is many faceted and study and qualifications in one field can lead on to more in others.

It just so happens that oceanography is a many faceted study with many potential offshoots for further study, that was kinda the point. But clearly trying to explain this to village idiots is a lost cause.

Now if you don't like those appellations then stop measuring up for the suits.

” Hurling abuse at people like me "

Has done nothing to change your stance on AGW. You were a denier then, you're still a denier now.

And, no, us hurting your special snowflake feelings isn't why Trump won the highest number of states (but lost the popular vote). They don't even know you exist.

However, this particular question, hiding amongst the abuse is a ripper.
” Please tell me how they are going to deal with collapsing ecosystems, particularly in light of the fact that we barely understand how these systems function. ”
I hope for your sake that you didn’t think that one through?

I don't know how to build a suspension bridge, but I can recognise one breaking up when it happens.

I hope for your sake you didn't think that one through.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/this-isnt-racist-islamophob…
Here it is again fellas.
I would recommend you be wary of 'playing the man' who wrote this.

Wow.
Precisely.
Well done.

Wow - "And how are all those knowledge gaps going for you"

That's a question for the scientists who are researching them....unless you believe they conducting research to discover what they already know...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4

Wow - "I don’t know how to build a suspension bridge, but I can recognise one breaking up when it happens"

So let's look at what Hardley's question must look like through the eyes Wow:

"Please tell me how they are going to deal with collapsing bridges, particularly in light of the fact that we barely understand how bridge systems function"

Now let's look at Wow's response again...

Wow - "I don’t know how to build a suspension bridge, but I can recognise one breaking up when it happens"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4

"That’s a question for the scientists who are researching them"

No, Batshit, that was a question for you. Note the use of "you" in my question.

But I guess "English" is one of your knowledge gaps, eh?

"So let’s look at what Hardley’s question must look like through the eyes Wow:"

You don't even know what it looks like through your eyes, Batshit Betty. Stop pretending your hallucinations are other people's problems.

Ugh, OK, so you didn't think it through, StuPid.

Well, no surprise there.

Again:

We know what Wow sees....

"Please tell me how they are going to deal with collapsing bridges, particularly in light of the fact that we barely understand how bridge systems function"

Because he tells us....:

“I don’t know how to build a suspension bridge, but I can recognise one breaking up when it happens

He's in a lonely place...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4

Ah, Batshit still, Betty.

So Wow?
Who would know how to build and/or fix that suspension bridge?
I don't think it will be the IPPC taking up papers.
Do you?

Stu, you brainless twerp, 'my side' has never held anything close to power in a world dominated by unregulated corporate power. You are so dumb as to think the increased support for right wing populist regimes is somehow linked with environmental extremists, which is so utterly ludicrous that it even puts much of your other bilge into the background.

I will say it again, because clearly you have reading comprehension problems. Increased support for right wing populists is out if fear generated by our supine mass media that the foundation of our allegedly ''civilized democracies' is threatened by refugees, migrants and radical Islamists. When the ruling elites see a threat to their power they readily embrace the 'fear' card, accompanied by large doses if scapegoating. This is what fascist regimes have traditionally done; populists like Trump, Farange, Le Pen and Wilders fit the bill perfectly. It has absolutely nothing to do with radical environmentalism. I have been ritually debunking Trump supporters on my Fb page and not a single one of them has referred to, let alone understands, anything about environmentalism. They spend most of their rants railing that Clinton is liberal socialist supported by Muslims. All complete bullshit, of course. Clinton is a neoconservative war hawk in the pockets of the banks and corporations. Some of her most ardent supporters were a cabal of neocons in the Bush administration: Kagan, Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Powell. When this little nugget is mentioned they all go off and lick their wounds. But nowhere is environmentalism mentioned. You are a dipstick in believing that crap.

As for education, I made the correct point that you do not understand basic ecology, especially the link between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. This is essential if we are to deal with the effects of AGW on species, species interactions, populations, communities and ecosystems. You are just uneducated. Not my problem. You write piffle about local people working to rectify demographic declines in mammals like reindeer without grasping the importance of food webs and interactions across trophic levels in determining how these species fare in nature. Here is a better example. Warming in late winter across much of the temperate world has led to the unravelling of food webs up the trophic chain. The winter moth - oak - Pied Flycatcher example us prescient. Winter months are lagging in their response to rapid warming as they only feed on very young shoots of their oak foot plants. Late winters in northern Europe are much warmer than they were only 30 years ago. We are seeing a collapse in winter moth populations as a result, which in turn is very negatively affecting both resident and migratory songbirds that depend on them for food during the breeding season. These kinds of effects are likely to be pandemic. How are your vaunted local managers going to deal with this? The solutions, of course, are related to arresting the rapid rate of warming, which is a global problem. You do not understand basic population ecology, and when caught out, as you are repeatedly here, you resort to vacuous comments about radical environmentalism etc. Let me put it another way. I am qualified to discuss these areas because I possess the relevant education. You aren't because you don't. I seriously doubt that you read any of the primary literature and thus in these discussions you effectively go by on your own basic knowledge. Betula, GSW and Olaus, both if whom also have no relevant training, do the same. Some of their comments are so utterly simple that I have to laugh at them. Then they get all uppity because, in true Dunning-Kruger fashion, they think that they are as knowledgeable as I am. Not even close. But this doesn't stop them, or you for that matter.

I am still waiting for Betula to explain how his email to Bo Eberling went. I am sure he wrote to Eberling for clarification of his views on the Crowther et al paper. So, Betula, when will you tell us all what he wrote to you?

"You are so dumb as to think the increased support for right wing populist regimes is somehow linked with environmental extremist"

It's what StuPid WANTS to believe. Remember, he's still a denier. Heart and soul.

I can see it now:

Batshit Betty: "Instead of mailing him, I'll *imagine* doing it, and make up his answer! SWEET!"

Hardley - "when will you tell us all what he wrote to you?"

He urges caution before reading too much into the new data....

"Study co-author Bo Elberling, head of the Danish Center for Permafrost (CENPERM), a basic research centre at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, urges caution before reading too much into the new data.”

“We still don’t know how much plants will take up in response, which is particularly important in relation to an increasing root biomass in the Arctic which represents a knowledge gap when speaking about Arctic greening,” he says”

Nice fellow. Unlike you, he seems stable...

Wow -: “Instead of mailing him, I’ll *imagine* doing it, and make up his answer!"

Says Wow, as he searches for an imaginary suspension bridge to cross....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4

"He urges caution before reading too much into the new data…."

Did you follow his advice? Or his train of thought?

“We still don’t know how much plants will take up in response, which is particularly important in relation to an increasing root biomass in the Arctic which represents a knowledge gap when speaking about Arctic greening,” he says”

You seem to be unable to get away from this. That's, what, 12 times to Jeff's 1. Are you SURE you're not debilitatingly autistic?

"Says Wow, as he searches for an imaginary suspension bridge to cross…."

Yup, you're imagining that bridge, Batshit. You ARE debilitatingly autistic!

Batshit Betty meeting with a fellow denier:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXExv8b658A

Wow - "You seem to be unable to get away from this.

I heard somewhere that these things are important to read, then re-read, the re-re-read again....

Wow - "Yup, you’re imagining that bridge"

Here's what I'm imagining now...

Wow - “I don’t know how to build a suspension bridge, but I can recognise one breaking up when it happens"

Bout you haven't written to Eberling let alone received a reply once again you look like a dishonest &r$e?ol£ with personality disorder issues. You will fit in well with those parodied in this.

Welp, Batshit Betty loves living in their imagination. So much nicer in cloud cuckoo land.

Batshit may be trying to troll me, but the problem is I'm not offended or anything other than confused, because I can't see why an intelligent human being might write that shit out, what they thought it was supposed to do.

It makes as little sense as shouting "Your mom!" when in an argument with someone in the schoolyard. Confusion is the only option. An internal "WTF?"

Thanks Betula for rebealing that you did not write to Eberling. I knew that you wouldn't because he would disagree with you and you wouldn't be able to copy-paste and spin his arguments to suit your pre-determined world views. You are in desperate need of anything to placate your confirmation bias. Eberling would no doubt disagree with you completely, and he would cringe that some idiot out there is actually trying to suggest that he is saying that a stduy in which he contributed data and got an authorship is worthless. Because that is what you are trying to do. You are scared, in other words. I challenge you to write to the authir and you run scared. Back to the interview in the paper. Coward. You once boasted about your military prowess here. Bullshit. You haven't got an ounce of courage. You are a wimp. And I wonder why you aren't pasting Crowther's comments up here. Why do the views of the 17th author somehow invalidate the views of the lead author, the guy who actually wrote the paper? I asked you but since you can't answer, i will answer for you. Because the lead author's views are not what you want to read. So you ignore them and go to the 17th author, who didn't even write the bloody thing. Now, Betula, if you were some esteemed expert in soil ecology i might think that you were onto something. But you aren't. You are a tree pruner with delusions of grandeur.

You are also a hypocrite. I remember you coming onto Deltoid a number of times to say its a dead blog. Yet when you are shown up again for the right wing idiot that you are you can't resist coming back over and over and over with more crap. The reason is because you think that you have to get the last word in. Over the past several weeks you have written in here dozens and dozens of times. Heck, its the first thing that you clearly do when you wake up in the morning. Log into Deltoid and write in more piffle.

If this blog is dead, then stay away from it. You've been shown up repeatedly as being a biased, bitter, right wing neophyte. Great. You've got your cult hero in power now so go and slavishly worship him.

Here's a graph that perfectly shows Betula's prowess.

https://i0.wp.com/digitalintelligencetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/…

Betula would be located at the far left side of the x axis in the 'experience none' area... and his confidence as a know-nothing is way up the y axis... Yes, he is a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect alright...

Actually the following photograph and accompanying caption applies to all of tjhe deniers on here plus Stu...

http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/files/2015/02/Screen-Shot-2015-02-…

"all of tjhe deniers on here plus Stu…"

But you repeat yourself.

Hey, if you just say to people to read and read that again, Batshit Betty will keep posting repeats of your message until the earth is desroyed!

Hardley - forward him this in full. Thanks.

Dear Bo Elberling,

Your good friend Hardley has taken the liberty to post your contact information and is encouraging people he feels you would deem "idiots" to bother you non stop...

Anyway, I'm writing this to let you know that I took your advice and didn't read too much into the data that Hardley suggested I read re-read and re-re read.

Now Hardley insists I ask you this question:

Was I wrong to take your advice, or were you wrong to give it?

Respectfully,

Betula.

Wow - "Batshit Betty loves living in their imagination"

I don't live in your faulty suspension bridge imagination Wow, you just imagine I do...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4

Hardley - "You are also a hypocrite. I remember you coming onto Deltoid a number of times to say its a dead blog"

Bringing flowers to a cemetery doesn't make one a hypocrite...

"Hardley – forward him this in full."

Uh, why you so terrified to get in touch yourself, Batshit?

PS, yes, we understand that you can't help obsessing over the same ritualistic repeats because of your autism.

Hardley - You having using Dunning - Kruger in the majority of your comments for years....

it's beyond obvious....projection as a defense mechanism.

"Bringing flowers to a cemetery doesn’t make one a hypocrite"

This isn't a cemetary. And you cannot bring flowers to an internet blog site. So you're not doing that. But why do you think that coming here scores of times and posting bollocks is the same as visiting a cemetary with flowers?

Does your florist love you because you spend all your cash buying two dozen bunches of flowers each month to put on graves of people you don;t know and don't like?

Further, Batshit: sorry, crazy people like you don't get to make claims and expect anyone to believe them.

No matter how crazy you are, belief doesn't make reality.

Wow - "No matter how crazy you are, belief doesn’t make reality"

And yet it's your belief that I'm crazy...interesting dilemma you have there.

Good luck with that.

Uh, evidence. Your writings, batshit.

Ask others. Hey, Jeff, is he batshit?

Jeff.
You have a PhD and you lecture at university.
As I've said before, good for you.
However, that does mean you're more highly qualified or knowledgeable about the implementation of socio economic policy or dealing with specific local and regional environmental issues.
From your comments here I would actually have to conclude that you're incredibly naive in those areas.
Quite clearly, the whole grand challenge of framing everything around 'globalism' and 'bureacratism' to 'save us from ourselves' is not achieving results.
It's also not achieving practical results for the Caribou or any other specific environmental issues.
It's also ironic that you're claiming that some sort of 'fear campaign' about refugees is what has caused such things as Brexit.
All sides of politics including 'environmentalism' have reduced themselves to 'gutter politics' and based their campaigns like the whole thing is a team sporting event and overstating all the negative aspects of 'the other' teams. The attitude is you're either for them or against them.
Perhaps if you read the Mundine OP I linked with both your wings attached it may help you to have a civil discussion.
I'm suitably impressed with the fact that you have a PhD and of course you should be proud of your achievements.
But using those inappropriately to try and intimidate and bully people via a misguided sense of political 'elitism' is not doing you any favours.
If you want to achieve real results in the real environment, sneering at, berating, harrassing and thus alienating rural and rural communities is not a good idea.

Wow - "Hey, Jeff, is he batshit?"

So the guy who visions the ecosystem as a suspension bridge is asking the guy who believes seeing a spider is the same as witnessing climate change first hand...whether or not I am crazy....mainly because I linked the words of a scientist who recommends not reading too much into what Hardley wants us to "read, re-read and re-re-read".

I love it.

Here, this sums it up a bit better...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4

Anybody who keeps linking the same nonsense video again and again in the same thread has to be nucking futs. Go get professional help the beetles have got to your brain.

There you go, Batshit Betty. A second opinion for you.

Get yourself into an asylum.

Wow - "Get yourself into an asylum"

Get yourself out of one...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4

More science to annihilate the deniers:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/noaa_issues_jaw-dropping_assessment…

http://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card

Expect the usual band of illiterates to scour denier blogs claiming its either a lie or that its nothing to worry about.

The science is in. Get over it.

Betula, I use Dunning-Kruger because it describes you to a tee.You have absolutely no relevant qualifications in anything remotely relevant and yet you write on here as if you have some home-schooled expertise that has eluded 97% of the scientific community, including especially people in climate science. If only armchair experts like you would share this mysterious gift that you possess with we mere mortals, because then we wouldn't need universities or research institutes any more. One can just sit at home and presto! Read a few blogs, do a cursory reading of a textbook and they can appoint themselves as sages of wisdom.

You aren't the only one. Denier blogs are full of self-annointed experts whose days jobs are about as far removed from science as it gets. They routinely impugn the motives and expertise of people with PhD's who have studied climate science for decades. The army of ignoranti masquerading and the intelligencia.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
Pfffft!!!!
Jeff,
With respect, you are misusing this one too.
Probably because your quals are not in psychology either?

I am most certainly NOT misusing this, Stu you clot. Indeed, Dunning was plannign on preparing a manuscript in whih he uses the DK effect to explain the behavior of climate change deniers like those on Deltoid and other blogs who have no expertise in any relevant fields and yet who dismiss or distort the views of experts. These people actually write as if they know more than experts like Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth, James Hanson, Ben Santer and others. I have enough expertise in my own field of endeavor to know that I defer to the opinions of people who have studied climate science for many years. I tend to believe their views over an army of scientific illiterati who instead think they are bonafide experts on the basis of reading a few blogs, a book, or by some divine intervention.

For what it matters, you are also an example of the D-K effect. Your opinion the other day on how to best deal with the demographic effects warming on reindeer is a case in point. There are a myriad of effects of AGW on biodiversity. These are very often manifested through effects on resource-consumer interactions. If these interactions are decoupled from optimality (an effect of phenology), or else there are qualitative or quantitative effects of the resource (the food source), then this can work its way up the food chain. Now in your vaunted (non) wisdom you didn't consider any of this. Your peurile comment about 'local management' and 'regional people' was so full of bullshit that it was coming out of your ears. You don't understand cause-and-effect relationships, the concept of scale, and other highly relevant criteria. You don't understand the fact that food webs are unraveling and systems are breaking down because of effects mediated on links that precipitate collapses. You don't understand that solutions require actions at a global scale to deal with AGW. Daniel Janzen - ever heard of him? No, I thought not - once said that the 'ultimate extinction is the extinction of species interactions'. Have you read the papers of ecologist Eric Post on caribou declines in Greenland and why they are occurring? No, I thought not. Indeed, how many studies on species declines and their underlying causes HAVE you ever read? My guess is between nil and a few.

But you think that you are informed. You vastly exaggerate your knowledge on environmental science, as is evident from your flippant remarks. I cringe when I read your comments because as someone a million times more qualified than you are I see the glaring knowledge gaps and holes and flaws in your arguments. You don't see them. But you think your are informed. Pure D-K.

Hardley - "would share this mysterious gift that you possess with we mere mortals"

Sure, I use the scientists own words. For example, a scientist sees a spider and claims he "witnessed climate change first hand". The same scientist who claims "deniers" don't understand time scales and the difference between climate and weather..
Or when one scientist asks us to "read, re- read and re-re read" something that the co-author says "don't read too much into"...

Or when I post the term "knowledge gap" as used by Elberling.... and the collective Deltoid head explodes.

Your problem Hardley, is that your rabid advocacy comes first and your science is second. You go into every scientific inquiry already knowing the answer. You can't see what is in front of you for what it is....but what it is supposed to be or what you are sure it will become.

You use science to push your beliefs....in other words, your a pretty pathetic example of a scientist.

Continue to be proud Hardley, just pretend we don't notice...

And here comes Wow....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4

Betula (or Betuls, your new handle, which sounds a bit like Bullshit, which is more appropriate), let me burn down your latest meme.

Seeing tens of thousands of invertebrates first hand in the middle of winter in a borderline mixed/boreal habitat is observing climate change first hand. Seeing invertebrates expanding their ranges and now being found (and overwintering) thousands of kilometers north of where they were found only a couple of decades ago is observing climate change first hand. Seeing plants growing earlier and earlier in the season is observing climate change first hand. Seeing bivoltine insects now experience three and four generations a year, a shift that has occurred suddenly and recently, is observing climate change first hand. I could give many more examples, but these will suffice for now because, like my other arguments, they demolish Betula/Bullshita on the spot.

Also, the knowledge gap, as expressed by one scientist (Eberling), in no way means that climate change is not real and is not a serious problem that needs urgent action. You deliberately took Eberling's quote to mean that these gaps are so large that there is nothing to worry about and that we need do nothing more until more data are in. When I told this to Eberling he was shocked, but its because he is clearly naive to the extent that he doesn't truly appreciate that there are profoundly dishonest people in the world like Betula who will use their own words against them. It was obvious what you were doing Betula. As I have said, you are trying to suggest that as long we don't know everything, then we really don't know anything, or we don't know enought to take action. This is a truly egregious attempt to distort science.

I am light years ahead of you in terms of qualifications, knowledge and experience. If the shoe fits, then wear it. The fact that you search the internet to find quotes of scientists to downplay fields in which you know nothing is revealing. You are such a dolt that you really don't recognize that you have laid your cards on the table on here many times. When you made your 'libtard' smear, you were essentialluy saying that you don't give a shit about the science because your views are underwritten by your right wing political beliefs. Those on the political right hate science. They loathe it. They don't understand it, but in their pin-sized brains they see communist/socialist conspiracies everywhere they look, and they see scientists as part of some evil cabal that aims to take away their money and their freedom. This is your mind set Betula. You are forced to discuss science because its seen as the link. Given you are a complete know-nothing in science, and believe me it shows, then you are forced to ascribe agendas and titles to scientists in an effort to deligitmize them. The fact that >95% of us agree that AGW is proven and needs urgent action really eats at you. So you must do everything to (1) dimiss the argument that there is a consensus, (2) come up with alternative reasons why there is one in the first place (e.g. your libtard smears etc), and (3) desperately find scientists who talk about uncertainties, as if these uncertainties vindicate your position.

Its symptomatic that Olaus and Kim think you are 'wiping the floor with me'. Only idiots with a similar mind set think that. You don't even come close because I know darned well that you have to continually campoflage your non-existent scientific knowledge with feeble attempts to support points 1 to 3 above. When you are forced out from under your rock to discuss science, the holes appear. You know diddly shit.

When it comes to science, you head is firmly planted up your butt.

Correction Hardley: wrong Hardley "James Hanson"

The name is Hansen, idiot

Hardley, after you claimed you "witnessed climate change first hand" and I called you out on it.....you said:

Harvey, May 4th 2012…“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand”

Which means you lied.

And as far as your (not related to Algonquin) other examples....just because you notice a "change" in a pattern certainly doesn't mean that 1) All things remain static and have never changed before. 2) All changes lead to catastrophe. 3) You can stop what you predict by predicting you can stop it....even though, as you stated....."Please tell me how they are going to deal with collapsing ecosystems, particularly in light of the fact that we barely understand how these systems function".

Hardley - "You deliberately took Eberling’s quote to mean that these gaps are so large that there is nothing to worry about and that we need do nothing more until more data are in."

No, he (Elberling not "Eberling") used "knowledge gap" to explain why we shouldn't read too much into the data, everything else is in your head because you put advocacy first. That is why you insisted we read, re-read and re-re-read the article you posted.....because for you it's not about the data, it's about the message.

Hardley - "The fact that you search the internet to find quotes of scientists to downplay fields in which you know nothing is revealing"

I don't have to search far...you're right here.

Hardley - "in their pin-sized brains they see communist/socialist conspiracies everywhere they look, and they see scientists as part of some evil cabal that aims to take away their money and their freedom"

So you don't believe the rich developed nations should pay to develop the poor undeveloped nations as a way to stop the future catastrophes that will affect the poor nations the hardest? Especially given the fact that the rich greedy nations are to blame for the pending catastrophes and the fact that they have plundered the resources of the poor nations without just compensation? You're now saying you don't believe that, correct? Because that is what I've said is happening, and now you are saying something about a conspiracy theory...

Hardley - "The fact that >95% of us agree that AGW is proven and needs urgent action really eats at you"

I thought it was 97%? Anyway, my favorite confirmation of the 97% number is referenced on the NASA website...

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,"
"those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2"

76 scientists Hardley, representing the 97%.

And here are the questions:

1. When compared with pre-1800s
levels, do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Now Hardley, show me where the 97% (76 scientists) all agree about the pending future catastrophic scenarios.....and how increasing C02 output by developing the undeveloped nations will effect those scenarios.

Hardley - "desperately find scientists who talk about uncertainties"

That would be all scientists....including you. I'm certain of that.

Hardley - "I am light years ahead of you in terms of qualifications, knowledge and experience"

I'll admit, your experience and knowledge is more in line with that of an invertebrate than mine...and as long as you let your rabid advocacy control what you see and hear, it will always remain there....only you won't see or hear it.

And here come wandering Wow...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4

The name is Hansen, idiot

Shame all you have is his name but not his message.

All NASA astronautes who have walked on the moon rejected fiercely the delusion of CAGW, but Hardley, who knows nothing else as how many flies are around and that flies don't fly well when it's cold, this clown Hardley who is totally unknown to a relevanet public and is a true blank zero with left-eco silly blather only thinks his pin-sized brain knows more than the heroes who have walked on the moon. Laughter

Woodentop Betula tilts at Wow about suspension bridges demononstrating one again that he does not understand the use of analogy.

What an impoverished mind, one that can only repost a silly video what a wooden character of the densest type and oily with it - would make useful stern glands.

All NASA astronautes [sic] who have walked on the moon rejected fiercely the delusion of CAGW,...

And your source for that desperate stretch is.....?

Whatever:

“What’s really telling is that they couldn’t get people like Buzz Aldrin — or for that matter John Glenn — to sign this petition,” Mann said. “I think it speaks volumes that the most prominent astronauts were completely uninterested in having any part in this ploy, and I was proud of them for that.”

Stupid is as stupid does.

Jeff.
Waiting around for global action on global climate will not help those Caribou.
The IPCC taking up papers (as Wow said) will not help them either.
The cause and effect relationship that is under contention is not the 'science' nor is it about your education vs mine nor the DK syndrome nor your self proclaimed debating prowess & etc.

The only thing that will help those Caribou, is the development of the poor undeveloped nations financed by the developed nations. Trust me, once the rich nations pay their fair share, you will never hear another worry about Caribous....

Of course, no matter how much they pay, it will never be enough....so the future scenario for the Caribou will always be a catastrophic one...

The Caribou have officially entered Wow Purgatory...

How to make sense of a brain dump, cut most of the salad out (that is another analogy BTW):

The only thing that will help those Caribou... have officially entered Wow Purgatory…

How Betula's mind works, or doesn't.

Sorry Jeff
The link to the Mundine article is now behind a paywall and is now a 'premium article'.
You would have no particularly good reason to subscribe to an Australian newspaper & you therefore probably haven't read it.
When I first linked it, it was not behind a paywall.
Try here instead:
http://www.nyunggablack.com/its-common-sense
And as I mentioned earlier, I would recommend you think before you 'play the man' who wrote this article.
This is why:
http://www.nyunggablack.com/our-founder
His OP is clearly not driven by being a 'privileged white male' or 'right wing' or 'in the pay of big (whatever)' a 'lackey of the corporate media' or any other of your favourite labels.

On the other hand: It’s common sense, stupid!...

Being from indigenous population does not rule out the fact that one may need pinches of salt when reading anything from that source. Why?

Donald Trump’s victory demonstrates that the media and commentariat are disconnected from ordinary voters.

For as in the UK the media have been stirring elements off the population who take news articles, often no more than opinion pieces, at face value and do not fact check. The media, large parts of it, are only disconnected in the sense that they are more beholden to their corporate owners and advertisers than they are to really fair and balanced reporting. But of course you will never recognise that for you are amongst the brain washed media stooges.

Consider:

“In effect, Farage, Gove, Johnson, Fox and Davis, with their 60 or so supporters in the Tory party, are trying to stampede the UK out of the EU on the basis not just of the falsehoods and distortions of the Leave campaign and the 40 years of tabloid venom against the EU, but by continuing to lie about what the referendum really means, deliberately ignoring challenges over its advisory nature and the lack of effective mandate it offers, among other things ignoring the Remain vote entirely and the fact that nearly three-quarters of the British population did not vote to leave the EU.”

That comes from this well written article: How you can turn a lie into a truth (according to the sinister Brexit playbook). Five very unlike-able socio-pathic rogues pictured at the head.

It is no coincidence that Farage licked Trump's scalp. Birds of a feather, puppets both.

Now for Black Swans comprehend the import of that you woodentops.

Lionel.
What does black swans and ice have to do with Mundine's piece or the articles you linked?
You do realise that the media in the US & in the UK overwhelmingly predicted the opposite results don't you?
An academic postulating about 'system one' thinkers is actually another example of exactly what Mundine was writing about.

Stu - "Lionel. What does black swans and ice have to do with Mundine’s piece or the articles you linked?"

Absolutely nothing. But since it came from Lionel, let's just watch this and call it a day...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQhqikWnQCU

What does black swans and ice have to do with Mundine’s piece...

Nothing, not intended to you plonker coming back to the real world of how much we are FUBARing the planet.

And I note woodentop has resorted to more vacuity, that is all he has the empty skin that he is.

Sigh :-(
Lionel.
The 'real world' is just dithering around and arguiung about how scary or catastrophic it is or isn't or might be or might not be.
It's not helping the swans or the ice anymore than it's helping the large ungulates.
Maybe a good question is this:
Who or what are the main beneficiaries of this behaviour.
Us apparently 'dumbed down' people who are just 'system one' thinkers & etc & etc who do happen to have been educated but also live and work out in the real environment can tell you that the beneficiaries are definitely NOT the ice or the swans or the caribou & etc & etc.

Hardley, why did you get your BSc so late at age 34? That's not normal. What is wrong with you?

Kim, didn't you read that book on oceanography that Lionel linked @65 on pg 4?
There must be an entire chapter in that book explaining Hardley's early basement dwelling days...

The ‘real world’ is just dithering around...

No stupid, the real world is changing in deleterious fashion because of human activities. Have you not heard, 'Ice does not have an agenda, it melts'?

We have had awareness of this for decades and it is because of the activities of big corporations, their bought politicians and scientists that have delayed the taking of avoiding action because they have filled the heads of the general populations with nonsense non-science.

That you continue to argue in the fashion that you do is further evidence of the validity of that assessment.

And all the other two idiots can do is fart and burp from having a bout of the repeats.

Note that Stu2pid is too ignorant to realise what the reference to 'black swans' is, clearly not having bothered to follow links and read. Or if he did then the allusion flew over his head.

Will he parse that sensibly. I don't think he is capable, for his 'real environment' is clearly rather restricted in vision.

Lionel.
Well done.
Great demonstration.

Kim asks me about 'normal'. Oh the irony.

Two responses: first, its none of your fucking business.
Second: what is your profession Kim? What is your education? Did you study basket weaving? And do you clean public toilets?

Normal is one word that certainly does not describe Kim. He/she is a loony.

The Betula asks: "Kim, didn’t you read that book on oceanography that Lionel linked @65 on pg 4?"

How can Kim read when he/she is barely literate? Great company these deniers keep.

I see Betula, a right wing idiot, banging on about rich countries financing poor countries again. Yawn. The guy is a broken record. He effectively admits he doesn't care about science because in his view AGW is a left wing-UN-orchestrated conspiracy.

What a waste of sapce.

"All NASA astronautes [NONE OF WHOM HAVE ANY EXPERTISE IN CLIMATE OR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE] who have walked on the moon rejected fiercely the delusion of CAGW"

Emphasis mine. At the same time, the vast majority of climate scientists verify the reality of AGW - several surveys show between 91% and 97%.

So much for Kim's vaunted astronauts. Its nice to know that my views reflect pretty much the entire scientific community.

Is this the best that you can do Kim, oh mentally challenged one? Keep it coming. Its fun demolishing you.

Betula, your long rant is typical hot air.

Verheggen's study surveyed hundreds of climate scientists. You are the one adding 'C' to it. Its a denier meme. The vast majority of climate scientists believe that we should be doing everything we can to mitigate AGW. Read these and shove them up you butt:

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

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

You haven't got a leg to stand on and you know it. Like your blowhard brothers on Deltoid, you can huff and puff and pound your chests all you like but every major scientific organization on Earth verifies the reality of AGW and the need to do something about it.

Still more: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scienti…

The bottom line is this: what would YOU, a humble tree pruner, know about any kind of scientific opinions? You don't work at a university or a research institute and therefore you rarely if ever meet and speak with scientists. In other words you don't have a clue. As I said, what you do have is a number of pre-set beliefs based on your biased political ideology, which is right wing/libertarian/neoliberal. Measures to deal with AGW are seen as a threat to your political ideology so you are forced to enter into debates in fields of which you know absolutely nothing. To counter this knowledge gap you search through the internet for snippets here and pieces there you think will bolster your case.

What clowns like you, Kim and other deniers do on Deltoid and other blogs is to try - and miserably fail - to isolate my views as if they fall outside the mainstream and that yours are the rational ones. Look at Kim's stupid astronaut posting, then trying (and again, failing) to dismiss my credentials on the basis that astronauts must by definition know more about climate science than a population ecologist (some very well might, others probably not) and that I am therefore the outlier. Nice try but an epic fail, because there are those major bodies like NASA, NOAA, AAAS, AMS et al. whose views I place a lot higher than yours, Kim's, or even some old retired astronauts. AND THEY ALL AGREE THAT AGW IS VERY REAL, DOWN TO US, AND A SERIOUS THREAT IF LEFT UNCHECKED.

Game, set and match. Pack up, accept defeat and go lick your wounds with other idiots on WUWT, Climate Audit, or any number of other blogs run by simpletons with the same political views as you.

Jeff.
The bottom line is that your political stance is rapidly losing ground.
It's not about your perception of other's academic qualifications.
It's not about your academic qualifications.
Again- good for you for being well educated.
However your use of your impressive quals at this blog is not at all 'scientific' or 'democratic'.
Did you read Mundine's article?
He is actually commenting on 'the bottom line' IMHO.

He is actually commenting on ‘the bottom line’ IMHO.

Clearly, humble or not your opinion ain't worth diddly squat, seeing as you always argue from ignorance against those who clearly have a solid grounding in what is under discussion. That is the crux of the matter. It matters not how many ignorant people get upset by being labelled as such - the ice still melts and more rapidly.

Oh and also, having informed opinion on climate change and the likely human consequences is not a political stance. It is numpties like you who argue to make it look that way.

It IS a political stance for the likes of StuPid. Everything is political for Stupid. And always the fault of the left (which is everyone that does things StuPid doesn't like.)

Lionel @47, I was using black swan for exactly that reason for ages, but also recently, and without knowing that this was even a term, it just seems appropriate when you explode a claim like "Nobody does that!" with someone doing exactly that.

As usual, deniers are too dumb (well, why would they bother reading a link given to them? They never read the ones that they're told "debunks AGW", so why start with yours?) to work it out themselves.

Good job Lionel and Wow :-)
Thanks for helping me out via personal demos.
It's great.

And get some help for that disorder, StuPid.

You DO realise that only you accept this story of yours, right? We don't buy it. And even if it were true, you are only being idiotic and childish (and three-year-old childish at that) by continually repeating the tired old "thanks" that we ALL know aren't.

Lionel @# 63.
Correct.
Ice still melts.
Black swans are still migratory as well being commonly used as an analogy.
Large ungulates are still being affected by human activity.
None of them care even a little bit about your opinion of my opinion of whatever or whomesoever.
None of your postulating and huffing and puffing and intimidation and your 'us vs them' comments and your feeble attempts to look like you belong to some type of elite intelligensia consensus organisation- NONE OF IT- is making one bit of difference to the melting ice, the swans or the large ungulates & etc etc.

.

WoW @#68.
What do 'we ALL know that aren't"?
Who are 'we ALL'?
I am indeed truley thanking you - and I'm doing it again right now.
Thanks for demonstrating yet again what I was explaining.
You're a champ.

all
ɔːl/
predeterminer, determiner, & pronoun
determiner: all; pronoun: all

1.
used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.
"all the people I met"
synonyms:each of, each one of the, every one of the, every single one of the;

---

we
wiː/
pronoun
pronoun: we

1.
used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together.
"shall we have a drink?"
used to refer to the speaker together with other people regarded in the same category.
"nobody knows kids better than we teachers do"
people in general.
"we should eat as varied and well-balanced a diet as possible"
West Indian
us or our.
"thought you wasn't coming to look for we"

Hardley, you did not succeed to explain positively why you got your BSc so late at age 34, which is at least 10 years late compared to average intelligent pupils. Did you have to repeat courses, was it too difficult for you to advance normally, like average students??? I am pretty sure that all your opponents here were considerably better and faster students than you. Therefore your constant ego trips, silly rants and inconsistent non-scientifc argueing are symptoms of deep minority complexes of insufficiency and profound intellectual inferiority versus the estimated climate realists here.

Wow's need to look up words is just further proof he can't answer a question....

Wow.
I realise you're spoiling for a fight.
I'm not interested thanks all the same.
Neither am I slightly interested in what you think I think or don't think according to whatever tribe or team or label you have assignated.
But I do appreciate your excellent demonstration of exactly what I was explaining.

No, Stupud, I'm looking for something at least vaguely honest from you. I realise you're spoiled goods, because your political ideology requires that AGW be a scam and that anyone supporting the reality of climate must be made to shut up, but there's always the possibility you will find a sliver of honesty in your makeup.

And don't think you fooled anyone with your projection. Why else do you keep blathering on your fake "thank you"s if not to continue a fight you think you are having. Even in the face of being told you're not fooling anyone.

Same comment WoW.
Exactly.

Ah, same comment as itself, I take it. Or you are making the same comment (which is really just your fake thanks again).

Who knows, and who cares?

Kim, I will repeat this so you understand it: fuck off. You are in no position to question my academic background whether I got a BSc degree at 34 or 84. Either way I am about a billion times better educated than you.

Does that sink in? As for the rest, the non-scientific argument bullshit etc., please excuse me while I laugh out loud. You wouldn't know a scientific argument if it slapped you in the face.

Go back to cleaning toilets or whatever it is that you do.

"The bottom line is that your political stance is rapidly losing ground"

According to who Stu? YOU?!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. You clowns on here are so funny...

Wow - "anyone supporting the reality of climate"

Could you be more retarded?

For you, Batshit, of course.

Deh agwhug am real, an peepul like real fings but u hatz real fings.

Do you want it more retarded, or did you get it that time?

One last point here KIm: my 'opponests here' - including you - have nothing in the way of relevant education, and none have a PhD or are Professors.

Indeed, I think that I could find smarter opponents in a kindergarten class.

I'm going to have t-shirts made up - I'll call them Deltoid Tees:

"Support Climate Reality!"

"Climate Exists!"

"Believe In The Climate Concept!"

"I Have Witnessed Climate First Hand!"

"This Car Climbed The Climate!"

"I'm With Climate!"

"Climate Reality Is Really Real!"

"Eat A Climate!"

"Oppose Climate Opposition!"

"Climate Lives!"

"Look, A Climate!"

"Stuck In Wow Purgatory!"

"Wow Is A Full Blown Retard!"

The possibilities are endless...

Hardley - "One last point here KIm: my ‘opponests here’ – including you – have nothing in the way of relevant education, and none have a PhD or are Professors"

Josef Mengele earned a PhD in physical anthropology from the University of Munich.....remember, it's the PhD that matters...

Go ahead, Batshit Bety. Quite what the tshirts mean is anyone's guess. You don't know.

I mean, for example, do you believe that climate doesn't exist?!?!? If not, then that tshirt is meaningless of any controversy.

Gosh Betula, given the collective wisdom that you, Kim and Olaus exhibit on this blog, its a wonder the scientific community by-and-large has not by now swooned with admiration at the three of you...

Instead you are three vacuous, anonymous schmucks who nobody has ever heard of, even though your 'ideas' mimic the little coterie of equally mentally challenged right wing lunatics I sometimes encounter on social media...

Aaand with #84, Batshit goes full retard and

a) drops a godwin
b) indicates that ignorance and lack of education are the ONLY things to have. Which is lucky for batshit here because they failed kindergarden, having been held back for a decade....

Betula, with his latest intellectually bankrupt posting, is using the old Forrest Gump trick, suggesting that anyone with a PhD must be a Nazi war criminal... and that idiots like him who can barely walk and chew gum at the same time must by definition be good, honorable folk.

Can these idiots stoop any lower? Well of course they can! They trip over themselves with their idiotic comments, trying to outdo each other. I am sure Kim will come up to bat next with some profoundly innane banter.

Hardley - "its a wonder the scientific community by-and-large has not by now swooned with admiration at the three of you"

The scientific community isn't on this blog....you are.

Hardley - "Betula, with his latest intellectually bankrupt posting, is using the old Forrest Gump trick, suggesting that anyone with a PhD must be a Nazi war criminal"

Quite the opposite Hardley, it is you that believes anyone with a PhD is to be revered...

"The scientific community isn’t on this blog….you are."

And you.

But that doesn't disprove Jeff's statement regarding your idiotic rantings, Batshit. However, irrelevancies are all you have; now you're demonstrating how irrelevant you are.

"it is you that believes anyone with a PhD is to be revered"

Where?

Wow - "Where?"

It's a recurring subject throughout Hardley's comments, much like Dunning - Kruger. You obviously don't read his comments, and I don't really blame you.

If you are curious, you will have to review his comments yourself, since I'm not going to waste my time with you...

And If Hardley doesn't believe PhD's are to be revered, he can tell me himself...

"Wow – “Where?”

It’s a recurring subject throughout Hardley’s comments"

Should be easy to show, then.

" you will have to review his comments yourself"

Did. Your assertion is not in evidence. Making shit up again, batty betty?

"since I’m not going to waste my time with you…"

All you've done here is waste your time. Hell, you've wasted aeons of time just reposting the same old bollocks link to youtube.

Since your time is so worthless, even when it comes to you talking to me, your claim here is, as with the other one you've refused to support, false.

"And If Hardley doesn’t believe PhD’s are to be revered, he can tell me himself…"

Why? Since you've already made up what he said before, make up he told you that too.

Batshit Betty's "life":

“it is you that believes anyone with a PhD is to be revered”

becomes

"doesn’t believe PhD’s are to be revered,"

World of Batshit: Read Betty's posts.

There's Betula again, making things up. I never said a person with a PhD should be revered. BUT.... I take the opinions of people with the education and expertise in the relevant fields over tree pruners, toilet cleaners and the other denier rabble here.

The fact that Betula thinks he knows more about climate science than 95% of the climate science community shows who he really reveres. Himself. He thinks he knows more than they do. He also thinks that he knows more than the scientists at NASA, he NOAA, the AAAS and other esteemed scientific organizations.

Its actually amusing watching scientifically illiterate schmucks claim that they know more than scientists who possess years of research experience. Look at the comments of the people who write into WUWT and one can only wonder why these self-educated luminaries are stuck in menial jobs and aren't actually themselves Professors in universities and research institutes.

More on why Black Swans appeared in this thread.

And no it wasn't intended to add to the dialogue which had descended into a swamp, thanks Bet-Stu-Kim. but to bring the Open Thread back to germane events. Of course being the muppet he is Stu2pid once again tried to pull things back into the swamp by inane references to Black Swans - but that ain't going to happen.

Jeff @#79.
Sigh :-(
No.
According to the outcomes of recent referendums and elections in the UK, US and Aus.
Did you read Mundine's OP Jeff?
And WoW.
People care about 'the reality of climate' along with heaps of other issues, but, according to results in 2016, it does appear they don't care much for the touted global management solutions for all those issues.
Contrary to hubristic and sneering assertions otherwise it's not because the general population in places like the UK, US & AUS lack education or are unable to think for themselves.
And it definitely has nothing whatsoever at all to do with what you and Jeff think I meant about whatever or whoever or whoever or whatever you think I listen to or whatever ad nauseum.
None of it is doing anything at all to help those large ungulates or repair that suspension bridge or stop the ice melting or help the birds or help save us from ourselves & etc & etc.
Who or what are the beneficiaries of this behaviour?

Wow - "Should be easy to show, then"

Yes.

Wow - "All you’ve done here is waste your time'

With you - Yes.