January 2107 Open thread

Happy new year!

More like this

Happy New Year! Seattle's fireworks at the space needle had some technical difficulties (and the pyrotechnicians had to light them by hand...yeah I wrote that just to use the word "pyrotechnician"), but were still beautiful as ever: Welcome 2008! 2008 is the international year of the potato, the…
Hank Says Happy New Year!
Gleðilegt Ár! Happy New Year!
Happy New Year! It's been a great two years (almost) here at Scienceblogs. But since most readers don't comment, I don't really know who many of you are. Who are you, where are you, what do you do, and what plans/hopes do you have for the upcoming year?

Hope you mean 2017 Tim?
Happy New Year.

We're living in the future!

By Wesley Dodson (not verified) on 03 Jan 2017 #permalink

http://www.bitternsinrice.com.au/
Yes Wesley.
:-)
Obviously a typo but still amusing.
Perhaps we could pretend it's 100 years from now and we're all discussing the successes or failures of the many projects like this one above?
You know - actually using our ability to collect huge amounts of information via 'evil' technology to actually make a difference to the well being and safety of creatures and critters.
:-)
Many of the commenters on this blog appear to be still stuck in the 'gloom, doom & disaster' paradigms of last century.
They're really really good at identifying trends and etc but really really bad at discussing specific solutions and management principles.
There is a delightful Australian poem called 'Said Hanrahan'
that I often think about when engaging on this blog.
:-)
The key line is:
'We'll all be rooned, said Hanrahan, before the year is out"

"... really really bad at discussing specific solutions and management principles."

That's because you still live in the past, even if you add a century.
There's no discussion, see. It's easy. Quit burning fossil fuels. That's all.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 04 Jan 2017 #permalink

No, we've had that discussion.

What else is there left to do?

When StuPid and the like rage on about how the left is doing nothing but making tribes and we're all moving to the right because of how mean jeff has been, listen to this guy being interviewed by TYT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MniRPwmwqk

He's not fooled, he's not moved to the right, and he KNOWS how bad coal is and how real AGW is. And he doesn't vote for Trump because he believes any of the shit he speaks, but that they're left without any other chance, other than this fuck-all chance of trump's claim being, for once, genuine.

Re: Wow link at #6 -

So the host says "this is what happened in this election that the elite in Washington New York the media the Democratic Party didn't get nic"....that is, a self proclaimed uneducated white hick.

And now the host thinks an uneducated white hick from the south should run the Democrat party.

And somehow this is Donald Trumps fault, (or the Russians fault) and all of a sudden Wow loves uneducated white hicks from the South...

Hardley. are you getting any of this?

And Wow has the nerve to ask for an explanation of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4

Interesting clip WoW.
I'm not sure what your point is though?
In general, this clip is essentially pointing out the same thing as Mundine's article and some of the others I linked at an earlier thread.
Ironically, it's also essentially articulating one of Lomborg's key messages.

http://www.nyunggablack.com/its-common-sense
Just to help you out Wow,
Here is Mundine's article again.
I've copied the intro and the conclusion for you.

Donald Trump’s victory demonstrates that the media and commentariat are disconnected from ordinary voters.  Almost without exception, they failed to anticipate the Presidential Election outcome. And they had little influence on it. Their message that Trump was unfit for President largely ignored.
 
Australia’s political media and commentariat are also out of touch. Listening to them you’d think Australians are preoccupied with gay marriage, offshore detention, carbon emissions and identity politics. Actually, most are preoccupied with their families, their homes, their jobs, the monthly bills and their kids’ education and job prospects. They care about the economy and national debt. They want to live in a safe society, where Australia’s way of life is valued and respected.
 
There’s a growing disconnect between views expressed by the media and commentariat and those of many Australians, with common sense frequently dismissed as extreme, ill-informed, even bigoted.

& the conclusions:
Trump, Brexit and One Nation’s resurgence deliver two key lessons.
 
Firstly, politicians who speak directly to voters about what voters care about can prevail, regardless of the media and commentariat. Smart politicians speak through the media, not to them.
 
Secondly, if centrists are unwilling or afraid to embrace common sense views, voters will start turning to extremists and populists who do, whatever other offensive, fringe or wacky opinions they are peddling.
 
I believe the first centrist politician who embraces common sense with plain speaking delivery, ignoring the noise of the political class and dealing honestly and firmly with issues most Australians care about, will dominate the ballot box.

& of course Lomborg's key messages are remarkably and ironically similar.
So thanks again WoW for demonstrating exactly what I was trying to point out in an earlier thread and even finding a link to back it up.

So good for you for linking the above video clip WoW.

Stu, for once on #9 I agree with you - mostly. But the story goes a lot further than media disconnect. The media rarely talk about climate change in the context of what should be done about it. That;s because of owner-advertiser pressure. So while the media may discuss the significance of a major study like Crowther's recent Nature paper, they will rarely if ever say that we need to cut carbon emissions because this will anger the energy corporations, travel companies etc. that advertise in the corporate media.

With respect to Trump, he was able to reach ordinary Americans, especially in the US heartlands, who had lost their jobs through deindustrialization and outsourcing. This outsourcing is a symptom of neoliberal capitalism and deregulation, but instead of blaming the real culprit Trump lashed out at China, immigrants, refugees and migrants for the malaise. Scapegoating always works well when things are going in the wrong direction, and Trump mastered the art. The media supported Clinton because she was seen as a reliable pair of hands for the banks and the military and prison industrial complexes whereas Trump was seen as a loose wheel'; the corporate sector knew that Clinton would do their bidding but they had no idea what Trump would do. The US media is pro-establishment to the core and thus went with the reliable corporate candidate over the unknown quantity.

Trump's appointments to senior cabinet positions, however, reveals that he isn't any kind of threat to the ruling corporate elites. He's going to gut the Treasury and push massive further deregulation of the US economy to ensure that corporate profits go through the roof, but that little of this will filter down to benefit the general population. Corporate CEOs in the UK make more money in the first 2.5 days of the year than the general workforces in their companies make in an entire year. In the US its no different. Wealth is being concentrated more and more, along with power. By swinging towards right wing populists, people around the developed world are ensuring that corporate power becomes entrenched and unchallenged.

As for Lomborg, his message ignores political reality, but cater to the ruling elites and the myth of our basic benevolence. You talke about the public not trusting the media, yet it is the same media who use Lomborg as their pin up boy. Lomborg makes fallacious arguments about ways to alleviate poverty in the south, without acknowledging that the maintenance of poverty in the resource rich south is a deliberate policy of the developed north. In his comical Copenhagen Consensus meetings he discusses how we could help the poor if only 75 billion dollars were available, when our governments are spending many times that amount on military ordinance that is being used to kill industrial numbers of people.

Lomborg is a hack, and a bad one at that. He has used his books as platforms not to search for solutions, but to promote himself. The fact is that scientists don't take him seriously, but the political right and corporate media do, hence why he is heavily promoted. Moreover, his message camouflages the real political agendas that are rarely discussed in the mainstream.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 05 Jan 2017 #permalink

Jeff.
It's interesting that after reams and reams and reams of personal abuse your most recent comments are saying my heart is in the right place and you sort of agree with me?
Mundine's article and the other pieces I linked are not just highlighting the media's disconnect.
The point is , despite your assertions otherwise, the 'elite' being mentioned are not just the 'corporate elite'.
People are equally if not more disenchanted with big bureaucracy and big government and big academia.
Also despite your assertions otherwise, we do live in countries whose governance systems are based on democratic principles and 'the commentariat' as Mundine calls them have been given a serious wake up call via the ballot box.
WoW's link above is saying the same thing.
And ironically, even though that's not how 'the commentariat' talk about him, so does Lomborg.
As WoW also says above, it's not because people don't think AGW is real.
It's not because people don't respect science.
It's not because people don't know that there is a dark side to humanity.
Your arguments about military budgets and obscene CEO wages are also well known, including by Lomborg.
What is amusing to me however is that someone who is as well travelled as you claim you are is failing to understand that the bulk of humanity would view you as extremely privileged and wealthy and would swap places with you in a heartbeat.
People in underprivileged countries are primarily victims of highly corrupt governance systems.
The only systems that do have some degree of checks and balances are the ones you claim to despise.
They're not utopian but they're the best ones we have to work with and improve.
There is no evidence anywhere that overthrowing everything and reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator creates good outcomes for humanity or the environment.
So Jeff.
I think your heart is in the right place, I'll give you that, but your touted socio-economic and political ideas are, IMHO, impractical.

It's amazing that StuPid only sees personal abuse, it's all he's seeing.

And all by people he doesn't agree with and wants to make follow his commands.

Because StuPid is a psychopath.

WoW.
I did listen and did comment on that clip.
I even congratulated you for posting it.
Where's your comment on the actual points made in Mundine's article?
So far you've just claimed he's an arrogant arsehole.

"I did listen and did comment on that clip."

Then why post #9?

WoW ,
Because of its similarities.
Where's your comment on Mundine's article?
So far you have just claimed he's an arrogant aresehole.

"Because of its similarities."

Which ones in particular?

"So far you have just claimed he’s an arrogant aresehole."

Because of the content of his article.

Which content in particular WoW?
:-)

Which similarities, StuPid?

& for particulars see comment #11 where I even mention you WoW :-)

"for particulars see comment #11"

There's a lot of text there, all I want to know is what the similarities were that Mundine's bullshit was supposed to mirror.

For example, the similarity can't be this "reconstruction" of Mundine's work:

"not just highlighting the media’s disconnect."

Because that would have to be TYT being disconnected, but from what?

WoW.
So far all you've done is claimed that Mundine is an arrogant aresehole.
Jeff saw the similarities.
I see them too.
Perhaps you need to take your blinkers off?

So far all you've done is avoid saying what similarities existed that made you think of reposting Mindie's bullshit.

This would be because when you claimed the reason for posting that bollocks was the similarities to the youtube link I provided, you were lying.

"Jeff saw the similarities."

Where?

"I see them too."

Where?

You're making this all up.

WoW.
Let me help you.
The video clip, Mundine's article, Jeff's comments and mine are all recognising that various 'elites' be they corporate, govt, bureaucratic, academic, media & etc have lost touch with what the electorate really care about.
Mundine and the 'white trash' guy and the host of the video clip also take that further and point out that it's driving voters to vote for extremists and populists like Trump even though they don't agree with some of what they advocate.
You were also correct that it's not because they don't believe in AGW or don't care about the environment.
Hope that helps WoW?

"Let me help you."

Go ahead, but what you wrote wasn't what similarities made you decide to repost Mundie's bollocks.

Please address that or admit that you didn't care, you just wanted to repost the words of that streak of piss again.

"...Mundine’s article..."

If the article merely said what you posted in that comment, then there was no reason to post Mundie again.

If Mundie's blogroll blather contained something different, then you are lying, again,by omission.

Moreover, "What do you think of Mundie's post" becomes irrelevant, since there's absolutely no need for what you said in 26 to have come from Mundie, since the TYT video already contained what you posted there.

"It’s going here again."

You're going insane again? Yeah, we didn't need you to inform us of that.

So, you lied about the reason for posting Mundie's bullcrap, and now you're evading even making sense in your posts.

"Where’s your comment on Mundine’s article?"

Here:

He demonstrates an atrocious inability to see things outside his epistemic bubble of anti-liberal ideologies and loathing of government when it interferes with capitalism doing what it needs to make money. He ignores every counterexample and leaps straight to conclusions he wanted to make all along.

And where reality fails to supply him with even a shred of evidence, and not even he thinks he can get away with just blank assertion, makes stuff up to fit.

WoW.
Did you actually read about Mundine?
I have posted info a couple of times.
Look him up.
Nyunggai Warren Stephen Mundine AO
Report back when you find where it says he lives in an epistemic bubble of anti liberal ideologies and loathing of government when it interferes with capitalism.

"Did you actually read about Mundine?"

Yes.

"I have posted info a couple of times."

I know.

"Look him up."

Do you mean lock him up? Sure he deserves it, but I have no jurisdiction. If you mean look him up, why should I bother? Is what's written about him more interesting and relevant than the stuff he writes? I can believe it, but that's still damned faint praise.

"Nyunggai Warren Stephen Mundine AO"

Arooga! Byunga byunga. Woobble rumble Boo boo!

"Report back when you find where it says he lives in an epistemic bubble of anti liberal ideologies and loathing of government when it interferes with capitalism."

Uh, just above. Here on scienceblogs.

So Wow makes a claim, and then uses his claim to show that his claim is correct....

I hate to burst your bubble Wow, but it's just more proof you're a retard...

Oh dear, batshit, I was asked to find where my claim was said. The retard was StuPid for asking me where that was said.

It is, even to you, really obvious.

Imagine how obvious it is to the non-braindamaged section of humanity?

We've already established that comprehension isn't your forte....you're wasting your time bragging about it.

No, you "think" we've established it. Though this is the first time you've thought that.

You can't even read

“Report back when you find where it says he lives in an epistemic bubble of anti liberal ideologies and loathing of government when it interferes with capitalism.”

and work out who said it.

Hey, StuPid! Betty here needs you to tell them what you asked for.

They're having problems.

There's no typo WoW.
I most definitely wrote LOOK him up.
Tim however has committed an amusing typo on this particular page.
And yes, very good, you wrote the sentence about Mundine.
So did you find evidence that he lives in an epistemic bubble of anti liberal ideologies and loathing of government when it interferes with capitalism when you looked him up?

No typo where? The first one to mention a typo is you, StuPid.

Yes. You said look him up.

And why is Tim (whoever) being amusing (by what means) relevant?

And, yes, very good, you accept that I answered your question.

Yes, I did find that evidence. I never looked him up,though. You asked for my opinion of what he wrote, and I gave it. THEN you demand I look him up. If his writing was so worthless that I must look elsewhere for its meaning,then it was a waste of time reading it, wasn't it.

WoW.
You offered a personal opinion of Mundine the person with no evidence.
His message is quite similar to the TYT clip.
But it's OK.
You just continue tying yourself up in semantic knots if that's what you want to do.
As tempting as you're trying to make it, it's a thoroughly pointless exercise to focus on semantics, but Betula is happy to play that game with you.
If you can find your way to look up Mundine, you may perhaps understand why his conclusions are similar to the TYT clip.

Oh!
I forgot to answer your other question.
Tim (as in Tim Lambert) has typed 2107, in bold, instead of 2017.
It was amusing & perhaps vaguely relevant because of your comment re lock him up instead of look him up.

Good afternoon.
May i ask a query about chart reading please.
The chart on this rather old ( 8 months or so )
page

https://www.google.com.au/amp/grist.org/climate-energy/theres-a-99-chan…

looks at anomalies in several years by month compared
to a baseline.
Whats confusing to me is the huge step between
Dec 2015 and Jan 2016.
Dec2014 and Jan 2015 seem big too.
Surely December should be reasonably close to January
at any year chosen so the um, data wiggle? isnt so jumpy.
Its not jumpy THROUGH the year.
I could understand a small step up in one month but
this is huge. I think im reading it wrong somehow.
If someone whos not a denierscum could answer id
appreciate it.
Cheers.
Li D
Australia

Notice how the quacky deniers on here always use the word 'we' when they really mean themselves? GSW once wrote on Deltoid that 'We have established that Polar Bears are doing well' when he meant that he himself believes it. The vast majorituy of researchers working with the bears have very different opinions. Now Betula uses the same dumb trick, saying 'we have established that comprehension'.... when attacking Wow. What hge means is that he has established it.

You gott admit, these idiots sure have hubris. They truly think that they are exceedingly clever.

They aren't.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 06 Jan 2017 #permalink

Jeff????
Don't you think that perhaps WoW should also be pulled into line?????

"Whats confusing to me is the huge step between
Dec 2015 and Jan 2016."

ENSO. There was a huge difference (though admittedly not in Dec) then.

But there's been two years with late ice in the North Pole, so we could be seeing a tipping point in Arctic polar ice.

"Notice how the quacky deniers on here always use the word ‘we’ when they really mean themselves?"

It's a simple way to pretend that they're not alone, and that you have to argue against "others" who aren't there, so if you prove THEM wrong, that's merely because "they" aren't here.

It also pretends that there's some sort of consensus for their idea.

"Tim (as in Tim Lambert) has typed 2107, in bold, instead of 2017."

Why was that necessary to post in your response to me? And so much later than the "offense"?

Oh, I know, it was a "LOOK! SQUIRREL!!" moment for you. Sorry to have metaphorically pantsed you in public dear.

Wow - "It’s what we adults do when we make a claim"

Wow's simple way of pretending he's not alone, and that the argument is with others who aren't there...

It also pretends that there is some sort of consensus of retarded adults...

Wow to Stu - "Why was that necessary to post in your response to me?"

Because you didn't understand it....as usual.

What else is there left to do? asked Wow, whom I'd like to remind of a song by Metallica (the title 'Sad but True' being but a commentary to that).

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 06 Jan 2017 #permalink

Not a lot. Really all they have left is annoy the hell out of those who were right all along,to make us as miserable to be right as they feel to be losing the fight.

Scorched earth. Nothing more than scorched earth. Petty little pissants.

Wow, you're miserable because it's your life.

Sad but true.

The resident super returd Hardley finally got something right;

"With respect to Trump, he was able to reach ordinary Americans, especially in the US heartlands, who had lost their jobs through deindustrialization and outsourcing."

But got it left anyway. True enough was Trump able to reach ordninary Americans facing this development. But what most made them turn to Trump was that they finally had enough of the Hardley types that for many years, not least through MSM, been depicting ordinary American republicans as inbred and uneducated haters.

That is not a good concept, but has been standard liberal lingo for long. In the end such a politic climate created "space" for a guy like Trump. In other word is Trump also an efftect of "Jeffies" and their abonible self gratifying hate projections.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 06 Jan 2017 #permalink

Olaus - "they finally had enough of the Hardley types that for many years, not least through MSM, been depicting ordinary American republicans as inbred and uneducated haters"

True. And now, here on Deltoid, they post a video of a self proclaimed hick and wish he were head of the Democrat party...
Suddenly, they will paint themselves as the champion for the downtrodden, uneducated, American white male middle class hick from the south....because climate change will hit them the hardest.

Classic.

Bark for your bikkit, lappers! Good boy, lappers. Bark away!

WoW @ # 48.
I answered @ # 42.
It was amusing and perhaps vaguely relevant because of your comment re lock him up instead of look him up.
Why are you focusing on that rather than answering the question about Mundine @ # 39?

@#58.
It's more of the same.
People focusing on arguing that even though they're not right, they're still not wrong.
The comments at that page were interesting.

Sorry...@#57 not #58.

Oh dear, yet more of the same "more of the same, thanks" bollocks.

Doesn't work, dear. Try something else.

But I wasn't calling it a typo. I was pointing out how much of a non sequitur your ask was.

http://literarydevices.net/non-sequitur/
:-)
Very funny WoW @#62.
That cracked me up.
A quick re-read of comments reveals the master of continually using non sequitur as a tool at this blog.
That's definitely nearly as funny as A&C.

WoW.
You are the gift that keeps on giving.
Outstanding work.
:-)
Your link @#57 was interesting, including the comments.
What should be done for coastal communities and environments to help manage the impacts of SLR?
We could all keep arguing about the actual amount and the degree of anthropogenic influence but how does that actually help?

And you're back again to the nonsequitur and the "Same old thing, thank you" bollocks.

What part of "not working" was beyond your comprehension, dear?

You are the moron who won't stop being stupid. The energiser bunny of the stupid.

"We could all keep arguing about the actual amount and the degree of anthropogenic influence but how does that actually help?"

It will stop people getting in the way of doing anything by denying there's any need to do something, moron.

Wow - "But I wasn’t calling it a typo"

And yet, even though it was spelled correctly you still couldn't get it right.

Poor Wow - "You don’t even have reading skills"

WoW?
I'm not sure what you are saying @#67?
It looks like you think the circular arguments about the extent of SLR that result in more circular arguments about everyone being 'not wrong' will actually result in something being done?
I don't think that's working well at all.
It's actually encouraging more people to 'get in the way' IMHO.
My question to you was really about what is that 'something' that needs to be done to protect coastal communities and environments from the impacts of SLR?

And what evidence makes that conclusion, StuPid?

That you insist on circular arguments and repeating the same old crap is somehow my, or anyone else's fault than your own?

Tell you what, stop whining about how much is anthropogenic, because doing something about what we're doing is irrelevant to whether you have to do anything about it, since that's already been decided: we must do something.

So, instead of complaining about not doing something, you'll start doing something, yes?

Instead of arguing bout how much is anthropogenic, you'll be doing something, yes?

Instead of arguing with realists like Jeff, Lionel and myself, you'll start arguing with the deniers who want to argue rather than accept something needs to be done, yes?

What's the 'something' that 'needs to be done' that will assist coastal communities and environments WoW?

We won't be allowed to do anything with deniers denying that anything needs to be done, StuPid.

And by the way, in what way is arguing and berating Jeff or Lionel the something that needs to be done that will assist coastal communities and environments?

WoW.
I agree that something needs to be done for those coastal communities and environments.
Coastal landscapes are eroding.
What is that 'something' ?

You wont be able to do anything while deniers are going around pretending that there's no such thing as AGW or that it doesn't happen badly enough to do anything about it.

And one of the things it isn't is badmouthing Jeff or Lionel or environmental groups. That won't help those communities at all.

Let's try this WoW.
Betula,
WoW keeps saying that people like you and me who belong to a group he calls 'deniers' are preventing something being done about coastal erosion.
He isn't clear about what that ' something that needs to be done' is but he's convinced it's this tribe he calls deniers that are stopping that 'something'.
So I thought I might try asking you instead?
What do you think should be done for coastal communities and environments that are vulnerable to any impacts from SLR ?
I'm aware of some excellent engineering solutions to hold back coastal erosion. Most of Australia's population lives on the coastal fringe, so as a country, we're not too bad at managing issues like these.
But I'm sure there are other 'somethings' that could be done.
What do you think ?

It doesn't matter what it is, because deniers deny there's anything to be done, dumbass.

And what it isn't is berating Jeff et al. Helps those communities not at all.

Hell, it's not even posting here. If you want to help those communities, stop posting to deltoid and go out and do whatever it is you think you must be doing.

"I’m aware of some excellent engineering solutions to hold back coastal erosion."

So you'll build 10m ASL high walls around Australia, with another several meters height to stop storm surges overtopping them?

No? Then how will the 10m sea level rise be prevented from affecting the lives of those coastal communities when it happens?

WoW.
One of the latest scientific reports on SLR for Australia is McInnes et al 2015.
I can't figure out how to link it but you can Google it.
It's perfectly legit , peer reviewed etc and uses IPCC data.
You can also go to Google scholar and look up papers on coastal zone erosion management.
For Australia they are predicting mm of SLR not m.
Where did you get your 10m figure from?

There's a distinct lack of betty telling you that they're OK with your penny-ante temporary fix, StuPid. Just sayin'.

"One of the latest scientific reports on SLR for Australia is McInnes et al 2015."

If you don't stop making AGW worse, SLR will only get higher. Your "help" isn't any help unless we do something about AGW and ignore the reason for it.

"But what most made them turn to Trump was that they finally had enough of the Hardley types that for many years, not least through MSM, been depicting ordinary American republicans as inbred and uneducated haters".

You mean the MSM that supported Republican Bush in his invasion of Iraq? Including the NYT and Washington Post and its illusory liberal bias? The NYT and Judith Miller simply challeled 'intelligence' leaked from Cheney and the Pentagon to the NYT as if it was fact withouy any critical evaluation at all. And they published it. Indeed, many Republicans loathe Trump. They just happen to loathe Clinton even more, given that she is as beholden to the corporate lobby and the banks as most of the core Republicans.

You also mean the MSM that is either owned by or depends on corporate advertising and which supports the established order to the core? The media owned by Disney, Rupert Murdoch, General Electric, Viacom and other multinationals? You think its liberal? My God you are dumb.

Olaus, I know that you are as thick as a plank, but even being a intellectually bereft as you are this latest vacuous remark from you takes the cake. And Betula goes along with it, revelaing more of his cognitive limitations.

You guys couldn't debate your way out of an outhouse. Well done for this latest empty remark.

If you think that the

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Jan 2017 #permalink

Look like Olaus and his army of "inbred ordinary Republican Americans" are in for a shock:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/01/donald-trump-will…

I especially like this part:

"His choice for treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin, was especially difficult to swallow. It is a horribly dangerous choice for poor people everywhere, including the rural, white and working class like me and my neighbors. It will hurt many of those whose support for Trump has been among the most stringent and vocal.

According to the many Trump supporters I know, Trump won their loyalty because of his so-called outsider status and promise to not only take on, but dismantle, a corrupt, ineffectual political establishment.

One of Trump’s most apparent and effective ways of playing up anti-establishment credentials was calling out and criticising Hillary Clinton’s ties with Wall Street bigwigs like Goldman Sachs. Despite being a billionaire himself, Trump’s lack of political experience helped enable his populist appeal. He claimed to want to save the middle class – in part by changing current tax laws that allow billionaires to pay lower taxes on their enormous paychecks. Trump singled out hedge fund managers in particular as “getting away with murder” because of the current tax laws.

And yet Mnuchin, the man Trump has tapped to lead the Treasury, is a former Goldman Sachs banker, Hollywood film financier and hedge fund founder and manager who profited so greatly from the global financial crisis of 2008 that he was called “the foreclosure king”. Mnuchin has been widely criticized for profiting from increasing the number of foreclosures, particularly those involving reverse mortgages that are typically held by the elderly. The bank he chaired has also been accused of banking practices that discriminate against people of color.

And yet Mnuchin, the man Trump has tapped to lead the Treasury, is a former Goldman Sachs banker, Hollywood film financier and hedge fund founder and manager who profited so greatly from the global financial crisis of 2008 that he was called “the foreclosure king”. Mnuchin has been widely criticized for profiting from increasing the number of foreclosures, particularly those involving reverse mortgages that are typically held by the elderly. The bank he chaired has also been accused of banking practices that discriminate against people of color".

Well there you have it. The big anti-establishment candidate handpicks people for major government jobs straight from the corporate and banking establishment.

Looks like these ordinary Americans are as dumb as Olaus. When Trump and Co. gut the Treasury and priotitize the interests of the wealthy elites, as is already clear that they are going to do, then I loo forward to the response from the brainless meatball.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Jan 2017 #permalink

Wow - "We won’t be allowed to do anything with deniers denying that anything needs to be done"

Looks like Wow believes the deniers are the majority in the world....the consensus, with all the control.

Why are you telling me this now? Think of all the time I could have saved..

With your above statement, in combination with all the time the Deltodians implied that a consensus translates to fact, and then insisting scientists would never use the word catastrophe or catastrophic, it has become quite clear you deserve to be labeled a denier...

Well, it looks like Deltoid has destroyed itself.

What now?

Stu - "What do you think should be done for coastal communities and environments that are vulnerable to any impacts from SLR ?"

Well, as we have learned from Wow, it is people being labeled deniers that are actually causing the predicted future problem, and the only ones preventing the predicted future from being fixed....because they are apparently the majority (the consensus) and therefore in control.

Perhaps If we stop using the word "denier", the predicted problem would fix itself...

Of course another solution would be to use our imaginations and pretend that on local levels, something is actually being done:

http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/370-16/onenyc-mayor-de-bla…

http://www.nj.gov/dep/landuse/lu_bfm.html

Sorry, just kidding....I learned on Deltoid that "local" doesn't count for anything...

I think the more appropriate question to ask would be whether or not AGW is predicted to accelerate into catastrophic AGW, which would accelerate SLR, thus requiring urgent action...

Since we know the professional scientific community doesn't use the words "catastrophe" or "catastrophic", the answer to this would have to be no....

Now, since the above statement will result in me being labeled a "denier", that means I am in the majority (Wow made me aware of that), which means I am part of a consensus, which implies my above statement is a fact.

I hope this helps.

I especially like this part @86 -

"Here in the Appalachian mountains that I love, the bucolic scenery is offset by stark markers of rural poverty. Dilapidated barns, abandoned farm- and outhouses, and mobile homes. Areas in nearby small towns and communities reveal more than a few empty, bank-owned homes. This isn’t all that surprising, considering that the area I live is one of the poorest in the state of Virginia. Yet despite their relative ubiquity, I’m gobsmacked by the juxtaposition of the name Trump, synonymous with exorbitant wealth, in front of a rusting mobile home every time I see one"

I wonder if Brook Bolen realizes what she sees didn't happen overnight? I wonder if she realizes who has been the president the last 8 years? I wonder if she realizes Trump hasn't taken over the Presidency yet? I wonder why Brook (a Democrat) doesn't take issue with the Democrat Governor of Virginia? I wonder if she wants a person with no monetary experience, perhaps someone who has failed when it comes to money, in charge of the U.S. Treasury?

But more importantly, I wonder why the great intellect Hardley is incapable of wondering about such things...

"Sorry, just kidding….I learned on Deltoid that “local” doesn’t count for anything…"

Not if it's global. Doing just one local area doesn't stop the global problem.

Funny how you learned stuff, even acknowledge it, but still eject that learning at the earliest opportunity.

"I think the more appropriate question to ask would be whether or not AGW is predicted to accelerate into catastrophic AGW, which would accelerate SLR, thus requiring urgent action…"

Didn't you claim it used to be warmer in the past, and sea levels higher, and no polar ice caps?

What makes it impossible to do so now?

And in all that, still betty isn't giving the answer the softball StuPid passed them requested.

StuPid, all you're going to be given by your fellow deniers is that we must stop calling them deniers, and then wait to see if this stops CO2 being a greenhouse gas, or becomes a magic shield against warming.

Your "idea" to help a local place for a limited time, poor though it was, is not being promoted by betty or any other denier. Either you're going to have to pay for that yourself, or you're not going to get it done at all.

No Jeffie dear, I ment the likes of you, ergo exactely what I wrote. You hate and smear based only on your own prejudices and massive need to feel above others.

You are probably the most intolerant and hating human being I have ever come across.

And where did you get from that I was pro Trump? I'm not, but I know this is too difficult for you to grasp, haunted as you are by your invented reality of good and evil, but explaining why Trump won isn't synonomous with supporting him.

And since when became the Guardian capable of analysing American politics right of the left? Its better than you, but that doesn't say a lot. ?

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 07 Jan 2017 #permalink

Who's a good boy, then, lappers. Bark at the man, bark bark!

Wow - "Didn’t you claim it used to be warmer in the past, and sea levels higher, and no polar ice caps?"

Nope.

"What makes it impossible to do so now?"

Ask the scientists who don't use the word catastrophe...

Wow - "Bark at the man, bark bark!"

Bow Wow! Bow Wow!

How's that?

Wow - "Your “idea” to help a local place for a limited time.

Stu, just think, all the localities in the world that are working on coastal solutions are doing so because of your idea.

Congratulations, even Wow can see you have made a difference...

Ah, so you're going for "I never looked at anything".

So an uninformed opinion is worthless.

Wow - "Ah, so you’re going for “I never looked at anything”.

This would be so much easier if you were coherent.

Yes Betula.
I realise WoW can't see it, but there is indeed plenty of evidence of local studies and projects that are making a difference.
If he actually bothered to look at some of the suggested info he would also discover they have been costed and people are paying for them.
I'm still wondering where WoW got his 10 m figure from?
It's also ironic that he posted the link about SLR yet he's not interested in looking at practical management of coastal erosion.
It's a common theme here.
I've often been told that It's a waste of time working on local and regional scales.
Ironically, a lot of the 'evidence' that is supplied are in fact local and regional studies.
Jeff in particular appears to have a complete abhorrence of local and regional land and water management projects.
And I would still like to know where WoW got that 10m SLR figure from?
As I explained @#83, the predictions from studies are in mm not m.

So, there's no need to stop it getting worse because you two morons want to treat the symptoms, not the cause...

Right...

And batshit betty and StuPid think that one of the symptoms that needs addressing is being called "deniers".

Tell you what, posting to deltoid isn't building your levees. Go out and do it.

Wow - "Tell you what, posting to deltoid isn’t building your levees. Go out and do it"

Levees in coastal towns are constantly being worked on by locals...
I think the best thing for you would be to unplug your computer so you can get rid of the guilt that is obviously tormenting you...
Good luck with that.

WoW.
That's yet another theme that permeates this blog.
It's not a case of one or the other.
The same applies in your medical analogy.
In medicine both are treated and for equally good reasons.
I'm still wondering where you sourced that 10M figure for Australia's SLR that would require a 10M + wall all around Australia?
And I don't live on the coast WoW, but I'm fully aware of what is being done and what can be done.
I work on other issues related to NRM that are not connected to the specific issue of coastal erosion but are nonetheless also very important.
And yes Betula, there is quite a bit of work being done in this space all around the world by locals.
It's not just levees, there are plenty of other projects and measures being implemented to protect coastal communities and environments from coastal erosion and if WoW did unplug himself from his computer and took his blinkers off he might be able to see it too.

"That’s yet another theme that permeates this blog.
It’s not a case of one or the other."

That's your fault, stupid.

You gave "erosion protection" but never anything else.

It;s also your fault in that you keep posting here JAQing off with "How is that helping the reindeer?" "How is that helping the Indonesians?" "How is that helping the pine martin?".

If you are so desperate to help them that anything that isn't "helping X" shouldn't be done, then you need to stop doing it.

YOU, because YOU are the one here JAQing off and asking people "How is that helpingX ?". YOU think that.

Of course, it may be you're not thinking that.

But in that case, your claims "How is it helping X?" is blather you don't care about.

So either way, you negate your own rhetoric.

The same also applies to vetinary science and animal husbandry and agricultural science and virus outbreaks and etc WoW.
And can you please let me know where you sourced that 10m of SLR for Australia from?

Jeff @#85 & @#86 previous page.
How sad.
You'be reverted back into arguing that 'ordinary' people are just dumb and just being led around by the media.
That's not what I'd call a democratic attitude.
Further, Trump won the vote from rural and regional America.
That demographic are far from dumb.
They're extraordinarily tough and resilient.
I think you need to get out and about some more?
You're also back into employing revisionism.
The media (whoever they're beholden to) overwhelmingly predicted that Trump could not possibly win.
The media in the UK also overwhelmingly predicted incorrectly re Brexit.

I found this amusing little description of misanthropy a while back.
;-)

"If you are a somewhat intelligent and rational person, you will eventually come to the realization that humanity is fucked up and they all deserve to be wiped from the face of the Earth for their stupidity."

Sound familiar????

Buy does she have Hardley pegged...

"Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc"

http://www.michiganstandard.com/47243/georgia-tech-climatologist-judith…

Let's take a closer look at this:

Hardley from Dec. thread -
“The paper is very important in its implications for climate change. Otherwise it would not have made it into Nature, which rejects 93% of manuscripts”

My response from Dec. thread -
"So if a manuscript implies a different predicted future climate scenario, is it automatically rejected? Is that why 93% are rejected?"

Now Judith Curry's statement (again) -
“Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc”

Looks like I have you pegged like she has you pegged and you know it Hardley....time to fall back on the dunning-kruger / you are great defense. It may give you temporary relief Hardley, but it will always bother you that I know what you're really all about...

An interesting article Betula.
I understand JC's dilemma.
Especially her concern about the up and coming scientists related to her field.
Environmental politics (aka 'environmentalism') and therefore, very unfortunately, many of the 'environmental sciences' have got themselves into a bit of an untenable position especially via public and private funding.
Instead of working cooperatively with other depts in academia and in govt they instead focus on competing for funding and political attention.
Passionate young people who do in fact really care about what they do get caught up in it all the negative rhetoric.

Here's Betula at it again.

Papers with important implications make it into Nature. That's what Hardley said, with the particular case - papers with implications for climate change - applying to the particular paper. Now, after various people making failed attempts to show that the paper really didn't have important implications, Betula is back with his slur and with Judith Curry's.

But Hardley said, and reality supports, only a requirement that papers have important implications. There's never been a requirement that the important implications tend to a particular outcome.

When Betula hints at 'different' prediction being 'automatically rejected' he is based on nothing. When Curry asserts 'directions approved by a politicized academic establishment' she, too, is based on nothing.

Betula has nothing pegged, Curry has nothing pegged ... and Hardley knows it. So do lurkers like me, however rarely we comment.

By Christopher H (not verified) on 07 Jan 2017 #permalink

Thanks Chris H. I know that there are lurkers here and that the overwhelming majority don't support Betula's kindergarten level understanding of science or scientific publishing. He makes things up on the spot. I will ignore Stu's response because it is not worthy of one. .

Curry is full of shit and most scientists know it. She hasn't done much of anything worthy over the past 10 years in terms of her output and she is now reduced to making slurs suggesting that scientific papers must have pre-determined pro-AGW views to be published.

PROVE IT. The fact is that most scientists agree over the causes of GW, and that this is supported by the vast majority of empirical evidence. JC and her army of idiotic followers like Betula are probably upset that more Flat Earth papers are not published in the major scientific journals as well. The reason is because there no evidence that the world is flat and about 0.0001% of scientists (or less) believe it. Nature probably receives a manuscript with data countering AGW theory once every 5-10 years and its rejected either after peer-review or before because the science in it is poor.

Its so easy for JC and her worshippers to make a claim of bias without a shred of proof. As Christopher said, neither Betula or JC has anything pegged and they both fucking well know, it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Jan 2017 #permalink

As an addendum, Curry is soon being pout out to pasture it appears. She is leaving her current post, which will give her fan base a chance to swoon even more over her vacuous musings. She testified a couple of years ago before a senate hearing on climate change in which she banged on about the hiatus that never was (she's looking even more daft since the last three years are the warmest in recorded history, 2016 by far). She has hardly produced any papers the past few years and is left on the outside sniping away at the mainstream with unsubstantiated and unproven shit like the comment Betula copy-pasted.

Betula seems to think he is scoring points here. As Christopher said, he couldn't put a puck in an open net. He's biased, ignores and/or doesn't understand the prevailing scientific evidence and thus sides with the academic fringe in promulgating conspiracy theories. What a quack.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Jan 2017 #permalink

Curry resigns - or was booted out. She morphed from a sceptic to a full blown denier, and wallowed in the adoration of her minions on her blog as well as keeping company with vile people like Marc Morano and others. Its possible to count climate scientists who are AGW deniers on one hand. Curry is a dinosaur. As I said, hardly published anything over the past 10 years and spent clearly too much time on her blog.

99% of climate scientists won't miss her. Now she can run her company and hobnob with her right wing shills in government to her hearts content.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Jan 2017 #permalink

P2 #9
" They’re extraordinarily tough and resilient."
Hahahahahahahaha
Id put pretty much any kid from
Niger or Cambodia, urban or rural,
up against a rural Trump voter in the
toughness and resilient stakes.
The idjits would probably cry if mains power stopped for 72 hours.

P1 #46
Thanks for reply.
Im not totally convinced by your answer but
you could well be right.
The chart i linked to looks so odd.

LiD, look at the link I gave on the last page.

Voting for Trump isn't the same thing as a "Trump Voter", in the same way as a feminist isn't the "Feminist" (who is the one who laughs at the idea of men being exterminated, etc), or a Muslim isn't a "Muslim" (the one who beheads people on webcam).

I point this out because there's a need to make sure that we use the terms perjoratively for those whose actions deserve perjoration, and not those who did an act that, even though really dumb, was not entirely without reason.

Trump Voter is the one who REALLY thinks that trump is going to make "America Great Again", REALLY thinks that Hilary should be in jail.

A number of Trump voters (note the lowercase V) would have PREFERRED to vote for Bernie Sanders, but was denied the chance by the pick of Hilary. And remember, the MSM was obsessed over demonising "the left" and threw only softballs at the right for years, skewing the voting public's perception into "Well, they're each as bad as each other".

Don't forget too, the polls put Hilary about 5% ahead of where she eventually ended up when the error bar in the polls were 3%. Remember too that most people voted Hilary. And remember that the difference between H and T was about 80,000 votes, if they occurred in the right states.

Trump Voters' actions define their just demonisation. They're a (possibly) small subsection of those who voted Trump. And the media helped make them both look just as bad, and many votes went to Trump on a toss of a coin.

If you voted for Trump and are beginning to regret it, you're not a Trump Voter.

If you voted for Trump but are worried, yet hoping it all works out, because the Senate is more powerful than the President, you're not a Trump Voter.

If you're still gagging for a mexican paid wall around the USA, you're a Trump Voter.

PS Apparently Mexico are going to be contracting out to Trump to build that wall, paid at the end. And Trump has shown how to manage the finances in THAT situation. Scrape up the $10Bn, guys. It's a comin' out o' your pocket!

Chris - "So do lurkers like me"

I'll take Judith Curry over a Deltoid lurker thank you....

Hardley - "Thanks Chris H."

Lappers, Bow Wow! Bow Wow!

Hardley - "Nature probably receives a manuscript with data countering AGW theory once every 5-10 years"

Right. Because there's no funding.
Thanks for using your brain for once...

Hardley - "As Christopher said, he couldn’t put a puck in an open net"

Only he never said that. And as a scientist, you should ask questions without assuming an answer....how big is the net?, how far away is the shot?, how rough is the ice?...and on.

Remember, you're the scientist and I have to teach you these things.

Hardley - "99% of climate scientists won’t miss her"

She's one of the 99%...so you're saying she will miss herself?

Genius.

Wow - "would have PREFERRED to vote for Bernie Sanders, but was denied the chance by the pick of Hilary"

Because the system was rigged against him numbnuts:

"further evidence the DNC broke its own charter violations by favoring Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee, long before any votes were cast"

"More votes were cast for Clinton, but they were cast at the behest of a Democratic Party that downplayed her shortfalls to the extent that Sanders not only had to run against Clinton but also against the entire Democratic Establishment"

http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-und…

Wow - "Remember too that most people voted Hilary"

What does that have to do with anything? Learn how and why the system works idiot...

Wow - "If you voted for Trump and are beginning to regret it"

Then you're a moron, because he hasn't even been sworn in yet.

Wow - "Scrape up the $10Bn, guys. It’s a comin’ out o’ your pocket"

All of a sudden you are concerned what comes out of the pocket of greedy U.S. citizens that have plundered the resources of undeveloped nation?

How magnanimous of you!

WoW.
So essentially you're arguing that voters (small v ) decided on the lesser of 2 evils?
Could you please let me know where you sourced your 10M of SLR for Australia?
Jeff.
Great demonstration of 'revisionism' re your comments about JC.
If you actually read what she said rather than reconstructing it, it's actually that sort of behaviour that was one of the reasons she has made her decision.
Li D
I agree that kids in Cambodia and Nigeria would be tough and resilient.
Apart for the fact that kids in those countries don't vote in America, it still doesn't change the fact that Jeff has reverted to calling ' ordinary' people dumb.

& Li D.
Ironically, in rural and regional areas in America, there are areas where people are off the grid.
Many others have learned to just put up with frequent power outages.
How about the enormous sooking that went on in SA when the power went down recently?
From which demographic/s did that sooking mostly come from?
Most of the regional/ rural areas just got in with it because they cop it quite often anyway.
But of course, no one in countries like the US or AUS like it when they have no power.

http://www.cfanclimate.net/
JC writes that she is going to focus on this type of work.
I'm sure those farmers in Bulgaria would be very interested in the Agricultural section and the research into improving local and regional seasonal forecasting.

Stu,
The bright side is, Hardley will be happy to know that the Netherlands agricultural forecast looks good...

"Various effects of climate change can already be observed in the Netherlands. Some of these effects are positive, such as increases in agricultural productivity"

"Climate change and its subsequent impacts are expected to continue in the future. Because of its geographical location, these changes may present opportunities for the Netherlands, particularly in the areas of agriculture and tourism"

"At the current rate, climate change impact appear manageable for the Netherlands, because most of the effects are expected to be limited – thus allowing time to adapt."

http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/the-effects-of-climate-change-in-the-…

Congratulations Hardley, looks like your lectures in the Netherlands have resulted in creating some positive climate change scenarios on a regional level....you see, you have made a difference!

Very interesting Betula.
Willem Ligvoet, Jelle Van Minnen & Ron Franken all work for the environmental assessment agency and/or the Dept of Water Ag and Food.
Good to see that level of cooperation occurring in the Netherlands.
Much better way to go IMHO.
JC wants to work cooperatively with others like that as well.

Unfortunately for Holland, the country depends almost exclusively on externalities and on the condition of ecosystems elsewhere in the world. The country imports the vast majority of its capital from elsewhere, as most ecosystems in this country have been significantly altered.

So, unlike Stu2, who would find anything interesting, the report you cited Betula means bugger all. The winds carry no passports. The Dutch economy would collapse in no time at all if these externalities were impeded or damaged in a warming world.

As an addendum, the government here is far to the right (VVD). The Environment Minister here thinks that fenced-in fields with cattle grazing is a 'natural landscape'. Given that his county is vastly overpopulated, and that natural ecosystems have long been eliminated, that is hardly surprising. If the rest of the world consisted of similar 'natural landscapes', then Homo sapiens along wqith much of nature would already be extinct.

This reflects the absolute level of ignorance amongst the political class who have never been near a science lecture in their lives. They are lawyers, bankers etc. but not scientists.

My God you guys are stupid. Why I bother with his sandbox level discourse with you idiots is a mystery.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Jan 2017 #permalink

"“Nature probably receives a manuscript with data countering AGW theory once every 5-10 years”

Right. Because there’s no funding".
PROVE IT YOU IDIOT.

The reason is that the data don't support the arguments of deniers. That's why you can count the prominent researchers who deny AGW on one hand. Research funds test hypotheses. These are either accepted or rejected. Betula seems to think that grants fund pro-AGW research. With not a scintilla of evidence to support it. He makes it up on the spot because it fits in with his world view.

Betula, every post you make makes you look more of an idiot. Keep going.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Jan 2017 #permalink

99% of climate scientists won't miss JC Betula. Are you that stupid? The 99% are those who think she's a shill. She's a fucking hypocrite, that is for sure. She rails on against the politicization of science and yet she's delighted to be invited by Ted Cruz to testify with another asshole, Mark Steyn, who has never studied climate science in his life, at a Congressional hearing. She's happy to be interviewed in an appalling film, Climate Hustle, by Marc Morano, an avowed far right Republican who has worked for Rush Limbaugh, amongst others.

JC is the pin-ip girl for debiers because she says what they want to believe. But since she hardly has done any worthwhile science in tghe past several years, I am sure that now she can appease her fan base, people like Betula, who are as dumb as planks but who believe in UN-mediated left wing conspiracies to push the AGW line. Betula, Olaus and others who push this bullshit have absolutely no basic education in relevant fields, but they support a tiny minority of deniers and shills, many who are on the corporate payroll. By doing so they deride the views of the vast majority of climate scientists.

Why would semi-literate clowns do this? BECAUSE THEIR VIEWS ARE POLITICALLY DRIVEN. Why the fuck don't they just come out and say it? Its obvious.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Jan 2017 #permalink

Betula to Chris: "I’ll take Judith Curry over a Deltoid lurker thank you"

Chris would respond:""And I'' take the views of >95% of the climate science community and every major National Academy and scientific organization on Earth over the views of one lonely outsider, thank you".

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Jan 2017 #permalink

Hardley channeling Chris - "And I” take the views of >95% of the climate science community"

Again, Curry's view is the same as that of the >95% you are referring to..

So you agree with Curry and not Chris...only since you are putting words in Chris's mouth you are suggesting you disagree with Chris and not Curry.

Remember, you're the scientist.

I just reflectred on that Dutch government link that Beula copy-pasted. It's so profoundly simple and yet Betula cannot see why. Neither can Stu2. The word 'externalities' is clearly alien to them. Birds of a feather...

I wonder if the Nepalese government has produced a similar document saying how it will easily adapt to climate change. Most glaciers in the Himalayas are disappearing at a terrifying rate, but heck, they can adapt once their major source of freshwater is gone. Or let's look at India, which depends on water from the Himalayas for multiple purposes. I am sure they will also adapt once their rivers begin to go dry.

Or how about many of the smalll Pacific Islands being slowly inundated by rising sea levels? Heck, they will adapt to I expect by rapidly evolving traits like Kevin Costner in 'Waterworld'.

And what about collapsing ecosystems and fraying food webs and an increase in extinction rates and the loss of vital ecological services like water purification, pollination, nutrient cycling etc. as a result of warming and other anthropogenic stresses? These of course were totally ignored by the Dutch study, which instead focussed on abiotic effects. Rising sea levels, heat waves and heavier individual rainfall events linked with flooding and other threats.

I need say no more. The deniers on Deltoid don't understand basic environmental science. They are too wrapped up in their adoration of free markets and for-profit capitalism and their wonderful plutocratic systems while abhoring the role of the government in the economy to acknowledge externalities. Few countries on Earth are more dependent on happenings outside of their own country than the Netherlands. Yet Betula and Stu think that we here live in an isolated bubble.

As I said, kindergarten level discourse. I told a colleague about it at lunch and they laughed both with me and at me. They asked me why I waste my time on ignorant people whose understanding of the world is so utterly simple. It was a very good question. Perhaps I do it for the many lurkers who may read this blog but don't bother to write in. For sure, I don't do it to learn about science. Betula wouldn't understand basic science if it hit him in the face.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Jan 2017 #permalink

"Again, Curry’s view is the same as that of the >95% you are referring to"

Bullshit. Curry downplays the A in GW. She claims there is a hiatus. She is an AGW denier. She puts up know-nothing shills like Susan Crockford on her blog. Et al. ad nauseum.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Jan 2017 #permalink

Hardley - "wonder if the Nepalese government has produced a similar document"

Since we are talking about the Netherlands, why would the Netherlands Environmental Agency produce a document about Nepal?

Hardley - "They asked me why I waste my time on ignorant people whose understanding of the world is so utterly simple."

Ahh...the imaginary "they". Wow explains it best...

"It’s a simple way to pretend that they’re not alone, and that you have to argue against “others” who aren’t there, so if you prove THEM wrong, that’s merely because “they” aren’t here"

Some of Hardley's gaffes -

"I witnessed climate change first hand"

"read, re read and re-re read" an article about a paper the co-author says don't read too much into...

Hardley - "Or how about many of the smalll Pacific Islands being slowly inundated by rising sea levels"

What is the current rate of sea level rise around the pacific islands and what percent of that number is a direct result of man made causes?

What actions can be taken to affect what percent of that rise over what period of time?

If the current rate were, say, 2mm a year, and assuming that rate were to continue, how many years would it take to "inundate" an island, say 6 feet above sea level?

Are there any islands in the pacific that have increased in land mass recently? If so, what percent of that increase is due to man made causes?

Thanks for being the scientist.

Hardley - "She claims there is a hiatus"...."She is an AGW denier"

yet, the IPCC talked about a "hiatus"...

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

Hardley conclusion - The IPCC is made up of "deniers"

Remember, you are the scientist.

"Betula to Chris: “I’ll take Judith Curry over a Deltoid lurker thank you”"

Problem is that Chris, as a deltoid lurker, knows much more about climate science than Judith does.

Which is most of the reason why she's out.

The other part is almost entirely so she can cash in on denier fanbases.

"Bullshit. Curry downplays the A in GW. "

And over plays EVER "uncertainty", even if she has to make some up, but, and this is where she shows her lack of expertise, only one way: the uncertainties are ONLY evidence we need to wait, not that we need to hurry up.

"and yet she’s delighted to be invited by Ted Cruz to testify "

She got paid for that. Follow the money.

And adulation from deniers that she was denied from people who use their brains.

"Why would semi-literate clowns do this? BECAUSE THEIR VIEWS ARE POLITICALLY DRIVEN. Why the fuck don’t they just come out and say it?"

For the same reason fish don't say it's wet outside today.

Shorter Wow - "Non talking fish are politically motivated deniers!"

Good stuff.

http://www.pbl.nl/en/aboutpbl/employees/jelle-van-minnen
Jeff @# 32.
Here is info on one of the authors.
He's definitely not a banker, lawyer etc, he definitely has been near a science lecture..
However I do agree that far too many of the 'political class' have little to no clue about how the real world operates.
I found your comment about cattle in fields a little odd.
Are you claiming that there's something wrong with grazing cattle in the Netherlands?
WoW @#48
Is there something wrong with being paid for your work?
Aren't you and Jeff paid for whatever it is you do?
And please.
Can you let me, plus all the lurkers that you and Jeff are so concerned about, where you sourced that 10M of SLR for Australia from?
If any of these Lurkers are from Australia, they need to be informed don't they?

&@#37
I am aware of the word and the definition of ' externalities'.
Unfortunately, as per usual, the focus is almost entirely on:
a) How to tax the positive ones &
b) How to charge for the negative ones.
WoW has a point when he claims 'follow the money' and his capitilisation of the claim about POLITICAL VIEWS.
The concept of 'externalities' has been hijacked by politics of all colours and flavours to create 'revenue'.
Depending on which team you barrack for only dictates a mindset about how that revenue gets distributed (aka wasted) by all those clueless 'elites' be they political, academic, media, bankers, lawyers & etc.
It also encourages that totally unproductive rivalry in govt and academic departments as they compete for funding and attention that JC alluded to.
It's a pity, because the basic theory about impacts is essentially scientifically and economically valid.

I should've put a third focus.
c) assign all perceived risk & all perceived blame associated with 'negative externalities' onto 'ordinary' people....definitely not into the management....regardless of which management class it is.

A reminder of what has really been happening in social-politics and how we will see more of such in the months to come:

The more despotic a regime becomes, the more it creates a climate of fear that transforms into terror. At the same time, it invests tremendous energy and resources in censorship and propaganda to maintain the fiction of the just and free state.

More here.

Oppression allows suppression, suppression of truth especially that truth which threatens the revenue stream and by extension power of the regime.

The manipulation of people's thoughts are clearly visible throughout the threads here, more evidence will drop in here in ....one...two...three...

Some of Hardley’s gaffes –

“I witnessed climate change first hand”

So writes the pissant distorting Jeff's message, again.

Betula's gaff - linking to a dead video (at #42 in case he cannot remember). There have been many more gaffs from this lug-worm.

Lionel - "So writes the pissant distorting Jeff’s message, again"

Here's what you call "distorting"...

Hardley - “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand"

Hardley - "In my work as an ecologist I work on shifting zones, and here I could see it in real.”

Hardley - "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”

So it appears Lionel is distorting the meaning of "distorting"".....Deltoid at it's finest.

Betula’s gaffe – linking to a dead video (at #42 in case he cannot remember).

It was active when I posted it dipshit....so now you're "distorting" the definition of a "gaffe"..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqroK4qg-7A

No @r$hoh!£, it is you distorting things once again. Jeff certainly did see evidence for climate change from the movement in range of species, including arachnids. Selective quoting, which you repeat in your last, is a trick 'The Plimer' used and he was a piece of work too.

That's it, no more on this!

Given that Betula belongs in a padded cell, I honestly feel that the best thing we can do here is let this loon rant away at the screen on Deltoid. He clearly doesn't have much better to do. Does this guy really even have a job? Seems like the first thing he does in the morning is log into Deltoid.

In his cell we'll give him a pin up of his poster girl, Judith Curry, along with a list of her many gaffes. And there are lots of them. The hiatus that never was; defending a report (the Wegman report) she admitted later that she had never read; arguing that there is too much politics in climate science while being happy to appear before Congress and spew out nonsense when invited by a clown like Ted Cruz or appear in an abominable fim by Rush Limbaugh's news hound Marc Morano; and numerous other mistakes corrected by Schmidt, Annan and others. She hasn't published much in the past few years, either.

In his several years of spewing vitriol on Deltoid I recall Betula only on 2 occasions actually delving into actual science: once with his deer/wild turkey/coyote comment, which alerted me right away as to the level of his understanding of population and conservation ecology (meaning non existent), and once to try and correlate conditions in greenhouses (high C02) with compleax adaptive systems (he didn't explicitly say complex adaptive systems because he's much too thick to understand that concept).

That's it. Aside from that Betula has played the amateur psychologist, spending most of his efforts trying - and failing - to make a big point out of comments his critics are making. He's got a couple of fans on here and they must stoke his ego. Given that I might as well be debating science with an amoeba, I think that it's time to leave him to inhaling wood chips from the trees he is pruning.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Jan 2017 #permalink

"So writes the pissant distorting Jeff’s message, again."

As far as "betty" knows, they weren't. After all, betty denies reality and inserts what they WANT to be true in its place.

Because, well, betty is batshit crazy.

"Given that Betula belongs in a padded cell"

The inmates complained about having such a batshit loon in their midst, making them look bad.

It was active when I posted it dipshit….so now you’re “distorting” the definition of a “gaffe”..

There is no proof it was, so who is the dipshit now? There we are again, a lack of appreciation of reality.

And Crazy Curry backing out because of the crazy that she helped manufacture. Seriously, what we are looking at here is a mediocre researcher who happened, for whatever reason, to back the wrong side of the truth and try to muddy the waters. Curry is very adept, if that is the correct word, at producing meandering bafflegab. Now that mediocre scientist is miffed by how other scientists treat her, by ignoring largely, many of whom risk their lives and limbs in the field, boots on the ground, whilst she criticised them from the safety of an armchair or lectern. She has made her bed, her standard of academic behaviour continues with an ever decreasing spiral of decline reflective of that of Arctic sea ice, that latter revealed by the efforts of boots on the ground.

Of course Fox loves to give these people like Curry a platform because Fox likes 'Twisted Truths'.

Carlson recently demonstrated his partisanship over the 98% consensus and probably lack of understanding of the true meaning of that - that latter being a common factor with such media BS artists.

Lionel - "Jeff certainly did see evidence for climate change from the movement in range of species, including arachnids"

Only now he admits it "may" have been weather - my how the ̶s̶t̶o̶r̶i̶e̶s̶ climate at Deltoid keeps changing...

Hardley - "Alternatively, I don’t mind stationg that it may be due to a warm winter and not AGW at all"

Classic.

Lionel - "That’s it, no more on this!"

Sounds familiar - Sort of like..."the debate is over"

Where have I heard that before?

Hardley - "Does this guy really even have a job?"

Slow time of year...a lot of snow and very cold...guys don't like working outside when it's 12 degrees. They may get frostbite while witnessing spiders...

Stu at least attempts to make some points. And usually fails.

As I said, the Dutch report ignores externalities. In other words, if climate change decimates natural ecosystems and does irreversible damage to a suite of vital ecosystem services across the biosphere, then Holland is as fucked as everywhere else. The Dutch report focuses exclusively on abiotic stresses such as rising seal levels. Nowhere is there anything on fraying food webs, collapsing ecosystems, and the damage inflicted on vital services that permit humans to exist and to persist. Thus the report is ultimately a load of rubbish. Adaptation presumes that humans are largely exempt from the effects of climate change and other anthropogenic assaults on natural ecosystems. We aren't. If temperatures rise above the 2-3 C threshold iglobally n the coming decades then we won't be able to adapt as the natural systems that we depend upon will damaged to such an extent that no amount of technology will be able to replace them.

I was telling a colleague this morning who studies the effects of climate change on species interactions (e.g. phenology and the disruption of resource-consumer interactions by phenological asynchronies created by warming) about Stu's comment that local managers are best equipped to deal with harmful demographic effects caused by warming on biodiversity, focussing on the reindeer studies.

My colleague's jaw literally hit the floor. We recognize that the damage inflicted on biodiversity is not limited to species but affects entire food webs, communities and ecosystems.To mitigate the effects of warming must therefore take a holistioc approach that scales up to entire ecosystems. What do local managers know about this are? Virtually nothing. They are not trained in population ecology or resource-consumer interactions and to suggest that widespread ecological effects of climate change can be successfully dealt with by 'managers' is utter tripe. How can managers deal with global declines in amphibian populations? In large declines of many migratory songbirds caused by changes in food supply wrought by climate change and effects down the food chain? Nobody in land management here has a clue why once common birds like the Wryneck and Red backed shrike have virtually disappeared from the Netherlands, and why once common species like Tree Saparrows, Skylarks, Song Thrushes, Corn Buntings, and many others are in population freefall. Local managers have done little to deal with a veritable collapse in the abundance of key pollinators. The reason is because the problems are not limited to simple cause-and-effect scenarios but are connected with an array ofenvironmental changes caused by man. By now we know that local fixes will ot rescue many species that are disappearing because of unraveling food webs caused by rapid warming. The solutions require global actions in mitigating C02 emissions and switching to renewables and clean enery as fast as we can. If we continue to procrastinate at the global level, then there will be many nasty surprises in store.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Jan 2017 #permalink

Betula, don't you mean that by 'slow time of the year' you are refering to your stupidity? And in that contenxt the entire year is slow for you. As I have said, you couldn't debate science if it was placed in front of you. Every time you say something remotely 'science-y' its utterly hilarious.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Jan 2017 #permalink

"Betula, don’t you mean that by ‘slow time of the year’"

Because it;s hotting up so much that even deniers can't bring themselves to look at it.

And there's not much more to do to prove AGW is a real thing, denier wishes otherwise.

What do local managers know about this?

As you so rightly write - 'nothing'. This brought to mind the simplistic thinking of a hunter, in a documentary I saw a part of recently, when teaching his young teen daughter to hunt caribou - 'always go for a bull as one bull can inseminate many cows thus bulls are always spare'. I guess this is somebody totally unfamiliar with the rules of natural selection and who probably had a sketchy education WRT evolution (after all that is only a theory - right!).

Of course humans have skirted strict natural selection with their own species.

From Lionel's link @ 55 -
"Rebels will be persecuted, imprisoned or forced to become hunted outcasts, much as Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are now. A public example will be made of anyone who defies the state. The punishment of those singled out for attack will be used to send a warning to all who are inclined to dissent."

And then Lionel @63 states this -

"Of course Fox loves to give these people like Curry a platform because Fox likes ‘Twisted Truths’"

Yet Fox, on many occasions, has given Julian Assange a "platform"...

So in this case, which "truth" is being twisted?

The only ones calling for death of their opponents are the deniers.

Glenn Beck: “There arent enough knives” for “dishonored” climate ...
https://thinkprogress.org/glenn-beck-there-arent-enough-knives-for-dish...
11 Feb 2010 - Glenn Beck: “There arent enough knives” for “dishonored” climate ... Beck said “there's not enough knives on planet Earth for hara-kiri that ...

Wow - "That cooling that’s going to happen any day now sure is taking a looong time"

Well, since Wow suggests the U.S. represents the entire globe (I learned that on Deltoid), and since one spider in Algonquin obviously represents climate (I learned that on Detoid too), I guess there is now harm in posting this:

http://strangesounds.org/2016/12/us-record-cold-48-states-below-freezin…

The good news is, at least we know that Europe doesn't represent the entire globe...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2017_European_cold_wave

Wow - "The only ones calling for death of their opponents are the deniers."

Meanwhile, in Wow Wow land...

"GW deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed."

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/death-threats-anyone-austrian-prof-glo…

Hey Wow, would you like to see a play?

http://joannenova.com.au/2016/04/kill-the-deniers-govt-funded-fantasy-p…

And anyone remember this classic from Deltoids own BBD...

BBD - "If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it.”

Good times....good times.

Since we know the drought in California was caused by AGW (Hat tip Gov. Brown)...

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/This-is-the-Future-Gov-Brown-Says-…

and we know that AGW could bring bigger, wetter storms to California....

https://ww2.kqed.org/science/2016/02/09/california-is-likely-to-be-stor…

It would appear that AGW is actually the solution to AGW....

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/

Unless of course, the scientists are wrong...or right:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/abs/nature11575.html

It would appear that AGW is actually the solution to AGW….

You are either very ignorant, stupid or dishonest. No of course you aren't you are all three.

Drought and floods are two sides of the same coin, but only the dishonest would ignore that unless they are too stupid to overcome their ignorance of why this is. Think - where did Gov. Brown get his information for you have incorrectly Hat Tipped you simpleton.

You are one sorry damned pissant.

Perhaps our resident clown-shoe pissant can try to get his head round this:

Global warming made every state a red state in 2016

how the scale of the problem we are sleep walking towards (thanks to the pissants of the world) has been under valued is evident from this:

NOAA was right: we have been underestimating warming take note of the excellent replies to pissant 'Echo_Alpha_Zulu' in the comment threads and follow the links to other explanatory articles as they are flagged up.

It seems that the pissants of the GWPF cannot stop trying to deceive their target audience the gullible readers of such as The Spectator and the various forms of The Mail.

Lionel - "where did Gov. Brown get his information"

You mean this type of information....

1. "Global warming caused by human emissions has most likely intensified the drought in California by 15 to 20 percent"

2. "future dry spells in the state are almost certain to be worse:

3. "Even though the findings suggest that the drought is primarily a consequence of natural climate variability.

4." the scientists added that the likelihood of any drought becoming acute is rising"

5.“It would be a fairly bad drought no matter what"

6. "But it’s definitely made worse by global warming.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/science/climate-change-intensifies-c…

Lets summarize:

"most likely"..."almost certain"...."becoming".....translates to "definitely".......even though "It would be a fairly bad drought no matter what".....because "findings suggest that the drought is primarily a consequence of natural climate variability".

More good times at Deltoid....

At least AGW seems to be correcting the most likely definite problem that would be bad no matter what.....correct?

Lionel, from your link At 80 where you state : "A Reminder on deniers issuing threats"

"Whether or not any of these incidents constitute a “death threat” is, to me at least, beside the point"

So they don't know if they constitute death threats and then state it's "beside the point"

That's another one of your great links dumbass.....If it's beside the point, what is the point?

By the way, Wow stated - "The only ones calling for death of their opponents are the deniers"

I was happy to prove him wrong yet again.

"You are either very ignorant, stupid or dishonest. No of course you aren’t you are all three."

Oh, no. Completely batshit crazy.

That's our betty!

"On death threats, didn’t an avid denier come out with a noose at one meeting in Oz?"

Yeah, but the rightwingnutjobs are actually *terrified* of violence, whereas the left really aren't a pack of spineless cowards.

So death threads don't count when it comes from the RWNJ, because we aren't scared of them, but they DO count if the RWNJ "thinks" there's a death thread, because they hath pooped their pantaloons.

Poor Wow - must be tough having someone you believe is ignorant, stupid, dishonest and crazy prove you wrong......probably not too good for your self esteem.

Yough guy Wow - "So death threads don’t count when it comes from the RWNJ, because we aren’t scared of them, but they DO count if the RWNJ “thinks” there’s a death thread, because they hath pooped their pantaloons"

Meanwhile, from Lionel's link@80 -

“I and my Climate Change Institute staff were moved to more secure quarters around March/April 2010 because of concerns my staff had about the very open and accessible premises we had at that time."

"I understand there were several incidents at the ANU in early 2010. On two separate occasions, individuals had walked into institute premises demanding to see particular staff members. Both individuals were acting “aggressively” Professor Steffen said"

Bwahaha! Someone asks for them "aggressively", so they ran and hid in a more secure place!

Proved wrong yet again Wow - how's that self esteem working out for you?

Lionel – “where did Gov. Brown get his information”

You mean this type of information….

You failed again. Where did those sources get their information from? Answer, the sources that you signally fail to study yourself.

Same with the death threats against climate scientists, you have not read the literature pissant. What literature do I hear? If you don't know then once again get off your @r$e and do some research.

Sorry Lionel, I was quoting scientists. I do realize Deltoid is not the place for such things...

"If you don’t know then once again get off your @r$e and do some research."

Batshit betty is neither equipped nor allowed to do that, Lionel.

WoW?
Can you please let us all know where you sourced the 10M of SLR for Australia?

Wow - Batshit betty is neither equipped nor allowed to do that, Lionel.

Yet, proving you wrong time and time again is so easy....poor Wow.

Cheer up Bow Wow, your fellow lappers Hardley and Lionel will pretend they don't notice...

Stu - "WoW? -Can you please let us all know where you sourced the 10M of SLR for Australia?

The dipshit is neither equipped nor allowed to do that, Stu...

Jeff @ # 67.
I don't know who that Stu 2 you're arguing with is ?
You have completely conflated 2 seperate comments of mine on 2 completely different topics and then constructed a new Stu 2 (ie a classic straw man) to argue with.
I'm a little concerned about how you and your colleagues manage your time if you are using it to discuss a non argument when there are so many real environmental issues to discuss.
No offense, but if you lot were working in our team and persisted with pointless straw man arguments like that, you would not have a job for very long.
We are far more interested in achieving measurable, practical TBL outcomes than wasting time on pointless arguments that require red herrings to prove something that is irrelevant to anything other than even though you're 'not right' you're still 'not wrong'.
I'm no more interested in getting involved in a discussion like that, than I am in playing semantics with WoW.

"No offense, but if you lot were working in our team.."

..of sanitation optimisation officers

Betula.
You may be right, you may be wrong about WoW's reason for not supplying his source for that 10M of SLR for Australia.
The bottom line is he quoted it with no evidence so far.
WoW & Jeff claim they're informing 'lurkers' at this blog.
Any 'lurkers' from Australia would likely want to know which 'expert/s' are predicting a 10M SLR for Australia wouldn't you think?

WoW @#94.
Can you please let us all know the source of that 10M SLR?
I am only aware of expert reports and studies that are predicting SLR in mm for Australia not M.

Even Australian 'sanitation optimisation officers' would possibly be interested WoW?
They could be 'lurking' here perhaps?

I agree Wow... if you were working with a team of sanitation optimism officers, you wouldn't be working there very long....you're not qualified.

Lionel @ # 56
Along with everyone else here, you have posted links that don't work.
Do you draw the same conclusions about yourself?
Does that provide evidence that you, Lionel, are a 'lug-worm'?
And on that same somewhat relevant note I was going to refer Jeff @# 67 to my post @ # 10 and I noticed that I didn't copy/paste the whole quote @#10. I missed the last line.
So here it is again if full.
It's an amusing little definition of misanthropy that I found a while back,

Misanthropy
If you are a somewhat intelligent and rational person, you will eventually come to the realization that humanity is fucked up and they all deserve to be wiped from the face of the Earth for their stupidity.
This is called Misanthropy. I will be waiting for you when you join. "

Sound familiar?

Sorry Lionel, I was quoting scientists.

But you were not, you were citing the NYT which may not have been putting the statements of scientist correctly in context or in entirety we know how this can work after all. But then once again you show yourself as a pissant, in pissant purgatory.

No.
This time It's just way too tempting.
Jeff & WoW.
You spend inordinate amounts of space here arguing that I have no idea & guessing (incorrectly) what you think I do as further proof of Stu 2 's amazing stupidity and ignorance.
I could almost be flattered that you somehow think I'm important enough to discuss with your 'high level' colleagues and friends.
:-)
Of course, I'm not.
I'm, as always, spectacularly uninterested in ad homs and revisionist, reconstructed, irrlevant discussions.

"But you were not, you were citing the NYT "

To the local bottle washer, they ARE "scientists", lionel.

Hey, bottle washer, you can work out the sea level rise by simple maths. Volume of land ice divided by sea area gives depth.

Well over 10m.

Maths, though, may not be your thing. Ask someone who got through school.

StuPid, YOU spend inordinate amounts of space here arguing and making shit up.

Not one coastal village is saved. Find something that HELPS those people, StuPid. It's been your "number 1 concern" for weeks now, ever since the reindeer were thrown under the bus by you...

Lionel - "you were citing the NYT which may not have been putting the statements of scientist correctly in context or in entirety"

Well, it is a far left leaning paper so you may be right.....the word "definitely" was probably incorrect. No true scientist would say that...

I'm sure you must feel it would be the equivalent of posting something from Thinkprogress. rather than a peer reviewed paper....as if someone would do that. Right?

Wow - "Not one coastal village is saved. Find something that HELPS those people"

Wow is right Stu, unplug your toaster and then send some money to someone in an undeveloped nation so they can have a toaster.
Think long term man! Think globally! But for God's sake... think!

WoW.
Have you found your source for that AUS 10M SLR?
The 'lurkers', especially the Australian ones would probably like to know.

Betula.
As far as assisting coastal communities who are vulnerable to any impacts from SLR goes, I have already commented.
WoW, in that particular exchange talks about a 10M SLR for Australia.
If that's actually the case, I don't think unplugging my toaster will do much.
My advice would most certainly be to start relocating to higher ground if that 10M is correct.
We have some room out here where I live.
But I can't find any expert reports or studies or papers that predict anything like that.
:-)

Stu - "But I can’t find any expert reports or studies or papers that predict anything like that"

Did you try Thinkprogress? Wow probably got it there...

https://thinkprogress.org/
I have now.
I can't find it their either.
I don't think I'd find anything much at all about SLR in Australia there Betula.

And I know. Wrong their there they're :-)
First one should be there.

Stu - Hard to believe Wow didn't get it there, that's the learning center for progressives with special needs...

SuPid, you clearly aren't doing anything yourself about either the large ungulates or the endangered communities suffering from coastal erosion. Neither are made happen by you posting to this blog. It seems you only want ideas. But you've never given up one yourself.

So, what is your idea on how to go about stopping AGW?

"As far as assisting coastal communities who are vulnerable to any impacts from SLR goes, I have already commented"

So you said that they're fine when all the land ice is melted?

Stu - Try the Huffington Post, maybe that's where Wow got it...

Come on, StuPid. What will you do to stop AGW?

Batshit betty here plainly doesn't want to do it, so how about you?

Wow - So, what is your idea on how to go about stopping AGW?

I've got this one. As I said before, unplug your toaster so people in undeveloped nations can use theirs...
The idea here is equality and fairness....if you have used a toaster for so many years, now let someone else have a chance to use one. After all, we are evil greedy toaster users that hate polar bears..

So in summary, emit less C02 so that others may emit more.

"This principle was accepted by the climate convention, which agreed that the rich world had to reduce its emissions to make space for the poor to grow."

http://www.globalissues.org/article/231/climate-justice-and-equity#Itis…

Well, there you go.

Wow's link at !5 -
"If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, scientists estimate that sea level would rise about 6 meters (20 feet)"

However, what his link fails to say is:

"they calculate that if temperature rise is limited to just 2°C above pre-industrial climate, it will take 50,000 years to melt the entire ice sheet. On the other hand, if global temperature rises by 8°C compared to pre-industrial climate, under a scenario where greenhouse gas emissions just keep going up, the paper suggests it would take significantly less time – around 2000 years – for the ice sheet to fully melt"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-identify-melting-threshold-for-g…

Meanwhile, from Wow's link at 15....

"Most of Antarctica has yet to see dramatic warming. However, the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out into warmer waters north of Antarctica, has warmed 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1950. A large area of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also losing mass, probably because of warmer water deep in the ocean near the Antarctic coast. In East Antarctica, no clear trend has emerged, although some stations appear to be cooling slightly. Overall, scientists believe that Antarctica is starting to lose ice, but so far the process has not become as quick or as widespread as in Greenland."

But don't worry, development of the undeveloped nations will solve everything...

Come on, StuPid.

Betty's totally shitfaced here and talking out of his ass. What do YOU say we should do to stop AGW?

Again, Wow and his reading skills problem.... I say toast and he sees "toasted".

It's a miracle he can make it through the day...

unplug your toaster
...
they can have a toaster.
...
unplug your toaster
...
.if you have used a toaster
...
toaster users
...
I say toast and he sees “toasted”

LOL!

So, StuPid, what do YOU say we should to do stop AGW?

Wow, for the record, I do take note of your tactic of avoiding Stu's question and hoping it will go away by asking a different question...

Also note that I answered your question and I know you choose to ignore it in order to keep your distraction in place...

It must be drive you "crazy" that I constantly prove you wrong while also pointing out your obvious attempts at cover....

How embarrassing for you.

"it must be drive you crazy"...

LOL!

"I answered your question"

StuPid pointed out the problem there: "I don’t think unplugging my toaster will do much."

But I asked StuPid.

You've never pretended to be anything oher than a denier troll. StuPid has pretended to be concentrating only on doing something constructive, but has not managed to come up with anything constructive himself on how to stop AGW.

So I still await StuPid's answer to the question: what would he suggest be done to stop AGW?

How about a toast?

Here's to ending the predicted future catastrophic climate scenarios resulting from predicted climate sensitivity derived from imperfect climate models by developing the undeveloped nations, paid for by the rich developed nations, in order that the rich will use less so that the poor can use more!

Now let's get toasted!

We already know ECS is well above 2.2C/doubling CO2.

By measurement, not model.

But, again, I ask StuPid: What do you suggest is done to stop AGW?

"How about a toast? Here’s to ending the predicted future catastrophic climate scenarios resulting from predicted climate sensitivity derived from imperfect climate models by developing the undeveloped nations, paid for by the rich developed nations, in order that the rich will use less so that the poor can use more! Now let’s get toasted!"

Total and utter bullshit from a moron who believes in UN orchestrasted left wing conspiracies that will take away his tree pruining business.This sort of garbage would be laughed out of any academic body. It is warmign as predicted. The warming is occurrign at rates exceeding past rates by many factors. Humans are the primary culprit. Continued warming risks undermining both the natural and material economies. The consensus position. The main recommendation os to take precautionary measures.

Betula is a nutcase who belongs in a padded cell with other right wing idiots peddling the same political nonsense.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Jan 2017 #permalink

Looking to see what Batshit betty was talking about with me not having answered StuPid's question (note: I have),and I saw this from the moron:

"Lionel @ # 56
Along with everyone else here, you have posted links that don’t work."

They all work for me. My links work too. As does batshit's and yours.

Your computer is fucked, StuPid, get it fixed.

Or you could be lying.

But, hey, whatevs. What should be done, do you think, to stop AGW?

"Total and utter bullshit from a moron who believes in UN orchestrasted left wing conspiracies that will take away his tree pruining business."

You missed that he thinks that this is all to make the undeveloped nations take our standard of living. Which wouldn't stop AGW either, being that it makes the same problem happen, just with different people doing it.

Didn't he blub about how getting off fossil fuels would hurt those poor people in the third world earlier?

Patently one or the other was a lie.

Still waiting for StuPid to give what he suggests we should do to stop AGW. Nothing so far, and he'd put SO MUCH effort into worrying about doing "something", and not "arguing".

Stu2,

You are the revisionist. You just don't see it. You think that global environmnental problems that are destroying terrestial and marine ecosystems and undermining their functioning can be dealt with locally.

They can't. As I said yesterday, every major natural ecosystem on Earth is in decline. The planet is losing thousands of genetically distinct populations every year.The reslience and resistance of vital ecosystems and their services is being eroded. The data are there is stacks in scientific journals. Laymen like Betula stick their finger to the wind, see a wild turkey and think everything is going well. The level of their scientific knowledge is pathetically embarrasing. I have cringed so much from some of the shit that they have written up here that I am developing a stoop. No wonder more scientists do not venture out into the public arena, They are greeted with retards like Betula and Kim who don't understand basic science and who conflate solutions with communism. You guys can stick together. If Betula, Kim and olaus are typical examples of 'Joe Public' then we are well and truly fucked.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Jan 2017 #permalink

"You missed that he thinks that this is all to make the undeveloped nations take our standard of living"

I know that Wow. It would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetically sad. No evidence ever provided, just innuendo and some pre-determined political views that see any form of government intervention in the economy as bad, and as some form of communism aimed at stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Strange view, considering that the US has long been plundering capital from nations in the south. Tons of evidence for that too, but Betula does not want to read it.

He can jump in the lake for all I care. Its just sad that society is filled with morons who believe the same kind of shit that he does.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Jan 2017 #permalink

Wow is clearly avoiding Stu's question and wants it to go away. His only option is to distract from it by asking an unrelated question while pretending the question posed to him never existed.
He's like a child with his hands over his eyes believing we don't see him...

We see you Wow....look, here you are:

Stu to Wow @83 pg 1 - "Where did you get your 10m figure from?"

Stu to Wow @100 pg 1 - "And I would still like to know where WoW got that 10m SLR figure from?"

Stu to Wow @4 pg2 - "I’m still wondering where you sourced that 10M figure for Australia’s SLR that would require a 10M + wall all around Australia?"

Stu to Wow @ 8 pg2 - "And can you please let me know where you sourced that 10m of SLR for Australia from?"

Stu to Wow @27 pg2 - "Could you please let me know where you sourced your 10M of SLR for Australia?"

Stu @51 pg2 - "Can you let me, plus all the lurkers that you and Jeff are so concerned about, where you sourced that 10M of SLR for Australia from?"

Stu to Wow @90 pg2 - "Can you please let us all know where you sourced the 10M of SLR for Australia?"

Stu to Wow @96 pg2 - "Can you please let us all know the source of that 10M SLR?"

Stu to Wow @6 pg3 - "Have you found your source for that AUS 10M SLR?"

Me @8 pg3 - "Did you try Thinkprogress? Wow probably got it there"

Me @14 pg3 - "Stu – Try the Huffington Post, maybe that’s where Wow got it"

Wow to Stu @14 pg 3 - "So, what is your idea on how to go about stopping AGW?"

Wow to Stu @16 pg3 - Come on, StuPid. What will you do to stop AGW?

Wow to Stu @19 pg3 - "What do YOU say we should do to stop AGW?"

Wow to Stu @21 pg 3 - "So, StuPid, what do YOU say we should to do stop AGW?"

Wow to Stu @23 pg3 - "So I still await StuPid’s answer to the question: what would he suggest be done to stop AGW?"

Wow to Stu @25 pg3 - "But, again, I ask StuPid: What do you suggest is done to stop AGW?"

Poor Wow, exposed again and again....you do make it easy.

"You think that global environmnental problems that are destroying terrestial and marine ecosystems and undermining their functioning can be dealt with locally."

We don't even have that he thinks there IS a global problem yet. He doesn't answer what he thinks could be done to stop AGW (the global environmental problem).

Unless he knows what the global problem is and stops it, he'll never run out of local problems to "fix".

Stu to Wow @83 pg 1 – “Where did you get your 10m figure from?”

Answered in #15. Done.

So, again, to StuPid, what do you say could be done to stop AGW?

Wow - "Which wouldn’t stop AGW either, being that it makes the same problem happen, just with different people doing it"

Thus the dilemma and the hypocrisy....boy you are a quick learner.

Wow - "Didn’t he blub about how getting off fossil fuels would hurt those poor people in the third world earlier?"

Nope. Make up something else...

So, you agree, making the third world produce as much CO2 as us won't stop AGW, therefore your "suggestion" won't stop AGW. I'm learning that you know your suggestion is unworkable. Well done for letting us know.

Now, lets wait until StuPid comes back and lets us know what HE considers doable to end AGW.

@35: "Nope".

Well, all you deniers sound alike. At least we can scrub that fakery off the list of what you will say to deflect.

Wow - "Still waiting for StuPid to give what he suggests we should do to stop AGW. Nothing so far"

Does this sound familiar...

"Where did you get your 10m figure from?”

Don't worry, I didn't notice.

So you'll be complaining that StuPid is avoiding answering, yes? Something like

"<Poor Stu2, exposed again and again….you do make it easy.".

And even after answering the question, yes?

But, hey, StuPid, what do you say about stopping AGW? Batshit is gonna go all Batman on your ass for avoiding answering.

Hardley - "No evidence ever provided"

Hardley - "the US has long been plundering capital from nations in the south. Tons of evidence for that too, but Betula does not want to read it."

By "too"...obviously you are implying there is evidence for it.

Thanks.

Wow - "Answered in #15. Done"

Wow's totally shitfaced here and talking out of his ass...

Wow – “Answered in #15. Done”

Correct.

So, StuPid, what do you consider to be done to stop AGW?

Wow - "So, you agree, making the third world produce as much CO2 as us won’t stop AGW, therefore your “suggestion” won’t stop AGW"

I never said "making the third world produce as much CO2 as us"....but since the plan (not my suggestion) is to reduce the amount the developed nations emit while increasing the amount undeveloped nations emit....what affect will this have on net C02 over what period of time?

Do you know?

Wow – “Answered in #15. Done”

Wow’s totally shitfaced here and talking out of his ass…

"I never said “making the third world produce as much CO2 as us”"

Ah, so you don't know what words mean.

Remember that, everyone, no matter what Batshit Betty says, it doesn't mean anything. Letting the third world do what we're doing that's producing need for fossil fuels and not doing it ourself so we don't produce it is NOT saying that the making third world produce as much CO2 as us.

So, now we have batshit admitting they're saying nothing, back to the main topic.

StuPid, what do you consider we can do to stop AGW?

Ah, betty, but you never said I hadn't answered it in post 15.

So "Answered in #15. Done”: Correct.

Now, StuPid, back to my question. What to do to stop AGW?

Wow - "So “Answered in #15."

"Wow’s totally shitfaced here and talking out of his ass…"

Sound familiar?

Wow - "Ah, so you don’t know what words mean"

I know by the words you just stated that you don't know how to read or comprehend.

Reducing CO2 emissions in developed nations while increasing CO2 emission in developed nations doesn't imply that the undeveloped nations will emit as much as developed nations and it also doesn't imply that they will emit less.

It states that undeveloped nations will use more than they are using now because of development...

You know, social justice, equality, fairness....

How much more CO2 will they emit in comparison to how much less developed nations emit is a question.

Supposedly it will reduce overall CO2 emissions and solve AGW.....that is the plan.

Do you know the answer?

Wow - "back to the main topic"

Right.

"Where did you get your 10m figure from?"

"Reducing CO2 emissions in developed nations while increasing CO2 emission in developed nations doesn’t imply that the undeveloped nations will emit as much as developed nations and it also doesn’t imply that they will emit less."

OK, so you're saying that your idea could work if it was more than just one toaster changing hands.

StuPid, what do you consider we can do to stop AGW?

Well, just have to wait to see if StuPid can read #15, eh?

Meanwhile...

StuPid, what do you say we could do to stop AGW?

So does that link say seas are limited to a rise of less than 10m?

No?

Then it's irrelevant, innit.

So, back to the main attraction: StuPid, what ideas do you have for stopping AGW?

"I could almost be flattered that you somehow think I’m important enough"

No, funny enough.

Important? No. A blowhard whose idiocies are so obvious to everyone BUT THE IDIOT HIMSEF that they're hilarious?

Hell yes.

If you posted more often, we could get a decent drinking game out of you! With a built-in measure of when to stop the game: when you start making sense, get to the hospital for a stomach pump.

I'm glad that you're able to find some reason to think you're important while you're holding a bog brush, even if it has to be with people you have spent months proclaiming how evil and bad we are.

But, hey, someone may need a laugh, so go on, tell us what you would consider something to do to stop AGW.

Wow is too dumb to realize that:

1. He did not answer Stu's question.

2. Stu doesn't hover over his computer like Wow does...

Wow keeps honking his horn at the empty parked car in front of him waiting for it to move. Meanwhile, he's wasting gas and contributing to AGW and the death of polar bears and caribou...

1) I did answer StuPid's question. Post 15. You're too stupid to read.

2) Stu hovered over it last page.

So, StuPid, what's your suggestion to stop AGW?

Just exactly how fast is sea level “predicted” to rise over what period of time?

Wow's non answer is his answer - he doesn't know.

So Instead, he puts on a show and pulls 10m out of his ass...

At least now we know where he got it.

Wow - "If you posted more often, we could get a decent drinking game out of you!"

Hey, Wow really is a lush..."totally shitfaced here and talking out of his ass…”

Wow - "tell us what you would consider something to do to stop AGW"

Besides unplugging your toaster and sending money to the poor undeveloped nations, perhaps you could go around the parked car in front of you or shut your car off until someone comes to move their car...

My nonanswer is because that was a nonquestion.

StuPid's nonanswer to my question is something you seem to be ignoring, along with StuPid.

StuPid, what do you suggest we do to stop AGW?

Stu to Wow @83 pg 1 – “Where did you get your 10m figure from?”

Answered in #15. Done. Answered that question. Waiting for StuPid.

So, again, to StuPid, what do you say could be done to stop AGW?

Wow - "Answered in #15"

Wow’s "totally shitfaced here and talking out of his ass…" Again.

Keep honking at parked cars Wow, but shut off the engine and take the keys out. Besides saving a polar bear, as shit faced as you are you want to avoid a DUI...

See #21.

But, hey, StuPid, don't listen to this maggot, answer the question or Batshit here will assume you are pulling ideas from your ass.

Look Wow, the car in front of you is moving! Your honking worked!

Oh wait, that's just you rolling backwards...

"Wow – “Answered in #15”"

Yup.

“totally shitfaced here and talking out of his ass…”

Yup, you are.

"Keep honking at parked cars Wow,"

For proof of shitfacedness, see above.

But, hey, StuPid, Batshit betty is getting REALLY pissed off you're not giving an answer to the question still pending, hen ce the spamposting and shitfaced commentary from the lunatic.

What do you suggest we do to stop AGW?

Good morning from Australia WoW.
The continent that had already completed its winter season July -Aug 2016 and is now in the middle of its 2016/17 Summer season.
Your link @#15 is interesting, but it makes no reference to a 10M rise in SLR for Australia that would require a 10M + wall to be built around Australia.
It seems to me that you are actually claiming that, despite expert opinions to the contrary, you've decided on the 10M yourself by using your own school grade maths formula?
Expert opinion, including in papers taken up by the IPCC, does not appear to agree with your personal methodology?
As to your question.
The A in AGW stands for Anthropogenic. That's humans.
I work with other anthropods to help develop better land and water management practices as that is one area that us humans need to improve and where we can make a difference.
As far as humans managing coastal erosion goes, I did link some info for you a while back.
I have learned that we are much more successful if we leave 'the politics' out of it and actually focus on the actual tasks at hand.
As soon as 'the politics' get involved it suddenly becomes about who gets to spend tax payer money rather than anything else.
I hope that helps?

Phew! Batshit was going apeshit and trying to answer your question for you, but don't worry, I didn't let them put words in your mouth.

" but it makes no reference to a 10M rise in SLR for Australia"

Uh, which planet do you think you're on?

Ice sheets contain enormous quantities of frozen water. If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, scientists estimate that sea level would rise about 6 meters (20 feet). If the Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 60 meters (200 feet).

Australia is on the same planet as Greenland and Antartica!

"The A in AGW stands for Anthropogenic. That’s humans."

Yes. And the W stands for Warming. That's getting warmer, an increase in temperature.

The G stands for Global. It means the entire planet earth as a single whole object.

"I hope that helps?"

Well, no.

You haven't answered how you'll stop AGW.

Care to try to answer the question rather than just define what one word in an acronym is?

PS you DO know what an acronym is? Though technically it should be called an initialism, not being pronounced as a word.

So, please try again.

What do you suggest we do to stop AGW?

Come on, StuPid. Don't you know what causing AGW? Go here and read up:

http://ipcc.ch

Just read the Summary for Policy Makers to begin with. Then come back with what you think can be done to stop AGW.

"I work with other anthropods"

Anthropods?!?!?

Arthropods is a word that exists.

An arthropod is an invertebrate animal having an exoskeleton, a segmented body, and jointed appendages. Arthropods form the phylum Arthropoda, which includes the insects, arachnids, myriapods, and crustaceans.

But, hey, once you've found out what are the causes of AGW, come back with what you think we can do to stop AGW.

Wow.
That's an ifso butso speculation not a prediction.
It also points out in the same article that it's not all going to melt.
The 'experts' are predicting mm for Australia not M.
Part of the reason of couse being that it's not just about a simple school grade maths formula.
It's rather amusing that you and Jeff keep accusing others of 'downplaying' AGW yet you have just given a great example of 'uplaying' it.
Neither of those approaches are assisting.
My answer to your question has actually always been the same.
We need to focus on what we know does work and build on those principles and have the courage to recognise what doesn't work and stop doing those things.
Your wish for the creation of some type of benevolent global bureaucratic dictatorship that will have the global power to tackle a global climate is not working.
Focusing on specific issues and creating specific practical management solutions does work.
Most of the mistakes were made one step at a time. IMHO it's totally unrealistic to expect the solution is a magic global silver bullet.

"That’s an ifso butso speculation not a prediction."

No, it's a fact. Ice melts, remember. And there's enough in those two places to go well past 10m. You asked where I got my 10m from, it was well within what we'll have with AGW, even if we stop it later. If you think it impossible for the ice to melt, please give me the evidence for this prohibition.

"My answer to your question has actually always been the same."

Which one? Because

"We need to focus on what we know does work and build on those principles and have the courage to recognise what doesn’t work and stop doing those things."

Doesn't stop AGW.

What do you think we should do to stop AGW?

"Your wish for the creation of some type of benevolent global bureaucratic dictatorship that will have the global power to tackle a global climate is not working."

Where did you get this wish from?

Do you even know what is causing AGW, StuPid, or are you living up to your moniker?

& please forgive me for stating what us Aussies and the Poms often call 'the bleeding obvious'.
If the acronym (or if you like, initialization) stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming, then the GW bit in that particular acronym is referring to the bit that is caused by the A in that particular acronym. Duh!!!!
It's not that complicated.

"It’s not that complicated."

Apparently it is for you, since you felt the need to say so, therefore it must have been VERY hard for you to understand.

Either that or you don't know what the GW means.

So, now you've been informed of what AGW means, how do you propose we stop it?

WoW.
I guess to stop that A bit, the best way is to take out the A?
Every misanthrope on the planet would agree with that.
:-)

"I guess to stop that A bit, the best way is to take out the A?"

Is that your proposal, StuPid?

Wow - "Phew! Batshit was going apeshit and trying to answer your question for you"

Wow - "StuPid’s nonanswer to my question is something you seem to be ignoring"

So you claim i'm going apeshit over trying to answering it, and also claim i'm ignoring his not answering it, all while I was making the point that he wasn't here to answer it...

Another Deltoid classic.

Yours is a lonely world Wow...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4

Besides there being no mention of 10M in Wow's link, which is proof of a lie, let's take a closer look at just how retarded Wow is...

From my previos link -
"they calculate that if temperature rise is limited to just 2°C above pre-industrial climate, it will take 50,000 years to melt the entire ice sheet"...."On the other hand, if global temperature rises by 8°C compared to pre-industrial climate, under a scenario where greenhouse gas emissions just keep going up, the paper suggests it would take significantly less time – around 2000 years – for the ice sheet to fully melt”

From Wow's link -
"If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, scientists estimate that sea level would rise about 6 meters (20 feet)"

So "if" x, then in 2000 - 50,000 years, Wow's estimate is still 4 meters short.

Now lets include Antarctica:

From Wow's link - "If the Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 60 meters (200 feet)"

From my previos link -
"Most of Antarctica has yet to see dramatic warming".....In East Antarctica, no clear trend has emerged, although some stations appear to be cooling slightly. Overall, scientists believe that Antarctica is starting to lose ice, but so far the process has not become as quick or as widespread as in Greenland.”.

So, besides making up 10M out of whole cloth (if his link were his source he would have used their numbers).....it looks like "if" a lot of "ifs" happen, we have to wait anywhere from 2000 - 50,000 years to see if his made up number is even close...

So Wow, how soon do you think that made up "10M" wall should be built? Are we running out of time?

Once again, Poor Wow...

So lying Wow, since 10M isn't in your link, where did you get the 10M number from?

OK, a 66m wall, then, Batshit.

A 66M wall will be needed, plus the extra to stop overtopping in a storm surge.

I'm sorry to have made the cost and difficulty of building a wall around the entirety of Australia easier than it would have to be.

In future I shall ensure I don't give you or StuPid an easier time.

So, StuPid, will you be buiding an 80-100m high wall around the entirety of Australia to help these coastal communities from SLR?

(that question above was one pending, you have already tried to answer that by asking where 10m came from H/T to batshit betty in making sure we use a more reasonable 80m or so)

And we STILL have the question what do you propose we do to stop AGW?

No WoW.
I have already offered a solution based approach.
If you only want to focus on human CO2 emmissions and nothing else, then ironically the best way to stop that is to take out the humans.
Of course that's silly and facetious.
It was momentarily too tempting for me to play your game.
The best way of course is to move towards better ways to manage human CO2 emmissions .
We need to help humanity to work towards nuetralusing carbon footprints.
Here, we're probably neutral. My wife and I have personally planted over 200,000 native trees in our lifetime.
That's one way some of us can make a difference.
Another way is to help people to move towards sustainable land and water management practices based on sensible, practical scientific information.
Another way is to help upgrade the way we use fossil fuels so that the CO2 emmissions are reduced also based on sensible, practical scientific information.
Another is to improve the stability and affordability of renewable energy sources, particularly hydro as it is the one that provides the most so far.
I'm not sure about nuclear, but countries that have significantly reduced their CO2 emmissions like France, is due to their development of nuclear energy.
Of course those are just a few.
I don't think spending more and more and ever more public funding proving the A in AGW is what's causing AGW when it is indeed bleeding obvious is helping to stop it.
Hope that helps?

"I have already offered a solution based approach."

Kill all humans??

"If you only want to focus on human CO2 emmissions and nothing else,"

What else would there be for AGW? Methane and so forth? Yup, are you going to include them in your new suggestion?

"ironically the best way to stop that is to take out the humans."

So this is your proposal? Die? Get on with it, then, we don't have all day.

"My wife and I have personally planted over 200,000 native trees in our lifetime."

They only take out a couple of tons then are no longer offsetting your CO2 footprint. 18 tons a year for a household in Australia. More on average, but maybe you don't have kids. Or a wife...

Of course, we only have your word for it,and as soon as those trees are cut down (what are they for, by the way? Are they permanent new forest?), but lets PRESUME.

3-5tons is "taken out" by a really big permanent tree. We produce something over 30 billion tons each year, so we need 10 billion trees each year.

At about 600 trees per acre, that means 50 million acres per year. Plus what we're losing, another 30 million acres per year.

80 million acres each year.

"The best way of course is to move towards better ways to manage human CO2 emmissions ."

Uh, planting trees doesn't manage human CO2 emissions. Did I just do all that calculation for nothing?

"Another way is to help people to move towards sustainable land and water management practices based on sensible, practical scientific information."

And how does that stop AGW?

"Another is to improve the stability and affordability of renewable energy sources, particularly hydro as it is the one that provides the most so far."

Well, there's a shitload of solar and wind, but ask batshit here if they're up for it.

Problem with that, though, is we don't have the room to do that AND plant trees.

Shall we forget the "plant trees" idea as your solution? You clearly haven't done anything about checking whether it's even as feasible as building a great wall around Australia.

"I’m not sure about nuclear, but countries that have significantly reduced their CO2 emmissions like France, is due to their development of nuclear energy."

Well, problem is, nobody wants to build them without huge government money AND a guaranteed increased (and this is starting from above the average price of electricity) price for their production.

And there aren't many places you can build one that gets enough water to cool down AND isn't in danger of being flooded.

So, really, nukes aren't going to work any better than planting trees. 20 years ago? Maybe, but deniers were insisting that there was no need to do anything since there was no such thing as AGW.

"I don’t think spending more and more and ever more public funding proving the A in AGW is what’s causing AGW when it is indeed bleeding obvious is helping to stop it."

Ask Batshit Betty, Lappers, or Kim, if they accept what's causing AGW is humans and we should start with decarbonising our energy production.

Hell, see if you can get them to agree with you AGW is even happening.

Good luck with that!

"OK, a 66m wall, then, Batshit"

So you lied about the source for the 10m (because there wasn't one) and then found out your lie was wrong...

So, given there are a lot of "if's" that need to occer, how soon within the next 2000 - 50,000 years do you think the wall should be built before we need to worry about your made up number?

"“OK, a 66m wall, then, Batshit”

So you lied about the source "

Nope.

I admit I should have made it many times higher, than you for not letting StuPid get away with a substandard wall.

"So, given there are a lot of “if’s” that need to occer"

There's nothing in any of those ifs that mean ice doesn't melt, batshit.

So, what do you say to StuPid for his idea we decarbonise our infrastructure into renewable energy generation?

Do you even agree there IS AGW?

WoW
No room to do anything?
Which 'expert' says that?
Did Betula or I say that ice doesn't melt?
I can't find where anyone has said it doesn't melt.
I didn't discount solar or wind, we actually use both here.
I was pointing out that Hydro is so far the most successful as far as affordability and stability goes.
No matter what we do, it will have a price tag.
But it's still a better approach to focus on smart solutions rather than just continually rabbiting on about the A in AGW is it not?

"No room to do anything?
Which ‘expert’ says that?"

Where did anyone say "No room to do anything"? The only three places that is written is in your post and here. Which *non-expert* says it? YOU?

"Did Betula or I say that ice doesn’t melt?"

If that is to be taken as the case, then your demands to know where the 10m came from is an admission you don't know how much ice is on land, and batshit's demands to know when are totally irrelevant.

"I was pointing out that Hydro is so far the most successful as far as affordability and stability goes."

Why? Did I appear to think it wasn't cheap or successful?

"No matter what we do, it will have a price tag."

And did I say it was free?

"But it’s still a better approach to focus on smart solutions rather than just continually rabbiting on about the A in AGW is it not?"

It is.

Tell batshit betty and the rest of the deniers you hang round with that. They still refuse to believe there's anything called AGW and we don't have to do anything about it.

Until deniers stop denying there's AGW and we need to do something, proving the A in AGW will remain necessary, because deniers are insisting it is proved before they'll let ANYTHING get spent.

Try it on Betty for a demonstration.

Wow - "Uh, planting trees doesn't manage human CO2 emissions"

Yet, the IPCC says they should be planted.

"This IPCC report makes clear that avoiding dangerous climate change by limiting global temperature increase to 2°C (3.8 °F), as agreed by nations in Copenhagen in 2009, will depend critically on taking carbon dioxide out of the air.  There are two ways to do this. One way is to strip carbon dioxide out of emissions from power plants before it enters the atmosphere, and store it underground.  This technology is called Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and is still in early development stages.  Another way to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is by planting trees"

http://www.cgdev.org/blog/halting-and-reversing-deforestation-critical-…

Wow, are you ever right about anything?

Wow - "Do you even agree there IS AGW?"

You've been calling me a "denier" for years so why second guess yourself now? Stick with your imagination, it's all you have left.....

"Wow – “Uh, planting trees doesn’t manage human CO2 emissions”

Yet, the IPCC says they should be planted."

Yes. Was that supposed to be some sort of gotcha for me?

Waddaya think of StuPid's idea, then?

"Wow – “Do you even agree there IS AGW?”"

I'm not hearing a "Yes" yet!

Is oo too shy?

"Waddaya think of StuPid’s idea, then?"

Better than anything your retarded imagination has you believing you've done...

"I’m not hearing a “Yes” yet!"

You know you are incapable of hearing "yes". so you never will, no matter what I say....Yes?.

Wow - "Shall we forget the "plant trees" idea as your solution?"

Tell that to the IPCC Wow. With your track record, i'm sure they would listen to you...

So WoW?
Are you actually interested in focusing on smart solutions or are you just interested in arguing with people and calling them names?
Betula did actually point out some solutions @# 95.
But unlike me, Betula is also happy to get into the arguing and name calling.
You also like to argue that even though you're not right you're still not wrong, which is funny to watch but doesn't help anything to do with AGW or anything else .
Whoever moderates this site doesn't seem to have a problem with it.
So if that's what you want to do, go right ahead.
Even though I realise that you're trying to tempt me, I seem to have to repeat again, that I'm not interested thanks all the same.

"Are you actually interested in focusing on smart solutions or are you just interested in arguing with people and calling them names?"

We've already focused on smart solutions: Change to renewable energy sources.

What YOU haven't done is try to get batshit betty to agree.

Not even a little bit.

You've spent all your time snarking at me.

Get to it, StuPid,your goal is to get Batshit Betty to agree with the solution.

"Wow – “Shall we forget the “plant trees” idea as your solution?”

Tell that to the IPCC Wow. "

Go ahead, batshit. You tell them.

Stu, you have to understand that no matter what you post, with Wow it will be always be wrong, It could be from scientists, the IPCC, the U.N....it doesn't matter. You can even post his own words and he'll tell you it's wrong, in which case it usually is, making it one of the few times he's right...

"You know you are incapable of hearing “yes”. so you never will, no matter what I say….Yes?."

So you accept there is AGW!

BRILLIANT!

Hey, everyone! Betty accepts AGW as a reality!

Now, remember, StuPid, you have to build on this, next denier turns up, see if they accept that AGW exists, and get Batshit here to help them accept the change.

But you can go ahead and see if Betty will go and accept the solution now, because at least they accept there's something to act FOR.

See, StuPid, it doesn't matter for me, Batshit Betty here is convinced I'm always wrong.

It has to be YOU to get betty to accept the solution we have agreed on.

Good luck and get out there!

Wow - "Go ahead, batshit. You tell them"

I would tell them to plant as many as they can....i'm an Arborist.

Since you have a problem with it, I think it's best you tell them....besides, it's a retarded thought that belongs to you and since you will pass for a retard....they may believe you.

"Hey, everyone! Betty accepts AGW as a reality!"

So you do accept yes! So from here on out you will never label me as a denier, otherwise you would be lying about your acceptance...

This is the most progress i've ever made on Deltoid!

First Brexit, then Trump, now this....simply amazing.

WoW.
I did mention renewable energy.
In the big global picture hydro is the best performer so far.
But we also use wind and solar out here.
They have problems with reliability and don't really deliver via CBA.
I'm seriously not interested in getting involved in your game with Betula.
But it's still enlightening and amusing to watch.
So do please continue.
When either of you ask me a sensible, direct question I'll attempt to answer.

Sorry Jeff @#29 previous page.
Amongst all the posts between WoW and Betula I didn't spot your post to me.
All I can say however is refer to my post @# 99 on page 2.
It's a bit of a shame though.
Momentarily you sort of agreed with what Mundine wrote about exactly that attitude.
For a tiny little moment you recognised that 'Joe Public' is perhaps not as dumb as what Mundine dubbed 'the commentariat' keep trying to prove.

One of the main problems Jeffie has is that he is a communist and is not willing to learn that communism leads to catastrophy, always and everywhere, as a principle, which erveryone understands easly except the communists like shorter Jeff et al.

Of course he suffers from a lot of further deficiencies: 1) He believes in AGW and has not foundation for own judgement (devoid of knowledge in physics and atmspheric science), 2) he cannot judge the importance of solar magnetic field strengths on the Earth's climate, 3) her has no knowledge about clouds, 4) ... 1000) ...

Poor Jeffie, stop to blow you up to a balloon full of hot air and believe on catastrophic warming: increases on average temperatures (if not faked by communists and green monsters) are so small (tenths of a degree just make me laugh of the idiocies of these idiots) cannot do any harm to nobody on Earth, of course also not on your silly insects which you overexaggerate in importance due to your miserable life as a neglected unknown uninteresting pseudoscientist in an unimportant university without any impact on real life: your are simpler silly moron. Shut up and stop your work which wastes money of decent taxpayers which provide you with clothing and nourish you fool.

Well your method failed utterly there, StuPid.

You failed to convince ONE denier (and kim turned up too, so it wasn't just a one-off) to follow a plan of something constructive to help stop AGW.

MY method seems to have worked 100%,Batshit Betty agrees that there IS AGW and it's real and needs something to be done about it.

You, unfortunately, have been unable to benefit from my work and getting some deniers to sign up to DOING something other than posting nasty personal attacks on a blog to others.

I was really rooting for you there.

" So from here on out you will never label me as a denier"

As long as you don't go and start denying reality again, batshit betty.

Wow - "MY method seems to have worked 100%,Batshit Betty agrees that there IS AGW"

I always have, it's just that you never thought to apply your new found "method" of asking the question

Wow - "As long as you don’t go and start denying reality again"

Yet, I've never denied AGW exists...interesting.

Wait, are you starting to revert back to your old retarded self?
Don't let the big dark cloud cover your thoughts Wow...you're doing good, hang in there...stay with me here, follow the light Wow....for all that is good please follow the light!!

You;ve never said you accepted it, batshit betty.

And MANY times you've whined and whinged and bitched and moaned and vilified others for assuming you mean something you have never said.

Yet when I don't do that, you suddenly go all chinny-scratching "Hmmmm Interesting".

Hmmmm. Interesting. You appear to want to just complain about others and refuse to acknowledge reality. Almost as if you're in denial.

Hmmmmmm.

Batshit, you have never once thought of the AMAZING NEW IDEA of "Saying what you think" until after YEARS AND YEARS of being asked whether you accept AGW or not,and only when I had badgered you again and again and again for YEARS, and called you denier all that time.

If you didn't want to be called denier, you should have said you accept the science and not denied all evidence of it happening,not supported those who insisted it wasn't real, and supported those who were saying it is happening.

If you didn't want people to assume you're not a denier, you had YEARS to clear that up.

Yet you didn't deem it necessary.

THAT is why you're called batshit betty!

"Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won't come in."
Isaac Asimov

If the only way to get people to say they accept AGW exists is to call them deniers, you can't complain that people are called deniers when they refuse to say they accept AGW exists.

Well, if you're insane you can, but I'm talking to the sane people out there.

P4 #12
By god kim. You have exceeded yourself
in writing absolute shit. A new personal best.

Wow - "You;ve never said you accepted it"

You never asked - you assumed. But now that you know, I see such a civil side to you..

Wow - "Almost as if you’re in denial"

It's that dark cloud of assumption creeping in....your comment is almost as if you are going against your acceptance. Is this a semi lie I detect?

Wow - "after YEARS AND YEARS of being asked whether you accept AGW or not"

Never by you.

Wow - "If you didn’t want to be called denier"

It didn't bother me because 1) I know I'm not and 2) I figured you were retarded so it was just your way. It's not nice to pick on full blow retards...

Wow - "you had YEARS to clear that up"

I've been saying I've never denied AGW for years... not my fault you just woke up from your ideological slumber...

Wow - "If the only way to get people to say they accept AGW exists is to call them deniers"

I didn't say AGW exists because I was called a denier. I said it exists because you asked...

Wow - "but I’m talking to the sane people out there"

Since you are talking to me, It's good to see you no longer think I'm "batshit crazy"...

You really have come a long way Wow, and I'm glad to have been such a big part of your transformation.
I'm proud of you...

"A new personal best."

Well, given the direction of "best" for kuim, maybe "A new personal extreme" would be more accurate, LiD?

Hehe...Betula, I don't know how many times I have told the returders that I don't deny AGW to immediately be told that I do deny it. :-)

Little Napoleon Hardley is the most gifted returd in that respect. What ever you say he goes into mouth-frothing mode and starts rambling as you didn't say what you just said. It never fails. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 12 Jan 2017 #permalink

So you're saying that you accept AGW is a real thing as per IPCC!

BRILLIANT!

See, StuPid, my way gets results.

Yours has now failed with THREE opportunities in a row.

Wow - "See, StuPid, my way gets results"

Not to burst your bubble Wow, but since you are the one who changed your tune (finally realizing and accepting that I'm not a denier). I would have to say the results are mine. Believe me, it was a lot of hard work that took years...

The method that finally worked was calling you out on the fact that you wouldn't accept "yes" as an answer, even though "yes" is the truth...
You, being the retard that you used to be, new I was right about you, so in a failed attempt to prove me wrong by accepting "yes".... you unintentionally discovered the truth....putting you in the awkward position of having to admit the truth, lest you prove yourself to be a retarded liar and decide not to accept "yes".

In the end, knowing how retarded you were, I got you to use your own retardedness to kill itself, or at least suppress it

Welcome to reality.

Wow - "So you’re saying that you accept AGW is a real thing as per IPCC"

As long as you are accept things like - the planting of trees does and will make a difference...thus agreeing with the IPCC, and Stu.

Remember when you were retarded and you would argue about such truths as though they were false simply because you thought they were stated by a denier?

We can laugh about it now because those days are behind us.....the truth will set you free.

Olaus - "Betula, I don’t know how many times I have told the returders that I don’t deny AGW to immediately be told that I do deny it"

Olaus, Wow is no longer the retard he used to be, he has come along way to get to this point. Let's encourage him to keep him on the straight and narrow.....we certainly don't want a relapse.

Perhaps Wow can be the catalyst that puts Hardley and Lionel on the same path...

So,what are you two doing to stop AGW?

Posting here about "us retards" isn't going to do squat.

Olaus: fuck off, you boring idiot. You and your intimate bedmate Betula haven't ever once in years you've written bullshit up here actually attempted anything close to a scientific discussion. You both aren't up to it. Its wild turkeys and non-existent hiatuses and that's it. You claim that you don't deny AGW. Oh yes you do. Your denial, like that of Betula, is to deny its a problem. You do this while sucking your thumb. Neither of you two uneducated morons can discuss anything except in the most facile, sophomoric way. No depth. Betula is stuck on UN conspiracies that aim to steal his money to help poor in the south. This is the extent of his intellectual capabilities.

You are much the same. Neither of you can explain why there is an overwheling scientific consensus on AGW and the threat that it poses. Oh yes - you deny that too. Deny, deny, deny. Çannot explain why every major National Academy and scientific organization agree with the consensus. EVERY ONE.

The way you two clots write, one would think that the deabte over the causes and consequences of AGW begins and ends on blogs. Two responses to that: IT DOESN'T. And as a parting shot, my education and qualifications in science exceed both of yours combined by light years. Get over it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Jan 2017 #permalink

Damn it Jeff, I was hoping to surprise them on that, though I think they've already been warned by those whose education they rely on that it's a trap.

Well, they don't read shit and don't understand shit, so I should still be good.

@33 Shorter Hardley, stop behaving as an insane fool by elevating yourself above Olaus or Betula, as you are somebody who obviously wastes taxpayers money with totally irrelevant insect stories, which nobody misses and provide zero value to us. You are no climate research person but you open your mouth wide open about topics in atmospheric physics which you don't understand as naked layman who you are without education and knowledge. You just believe in tales which you like, eco moron

Wow - "So, what are you two doing to stop AGW?"

Well, personally I maintain a low carbon footprint, I have planted thousands of trees and shrubs over the years and I have helped save countless more trees and shrubs over the years..

I have also spotted and removed thousands of dead, diseased and hazardous trees along roadways and by structures, thus preventing property damage and potentially saving people from serious injury or loss of life..

On a larger scale, I plan on being a major player in helping to carry out the Paris Climate Accord.....because I have that kind of power..

Note - This is where we find out if the new Wow can detect sarcasm, unlike the old retarded Wow who couldn't....

Wow - "Posting here about “us retards” isn’t going to do squat."

Wow, you shouldn't lump yourself into a group with Lionel and Hardley....you are no longer retarded. So let's not bicker about who said what to who....we are on the same page now and those days are gone.

Hardley - "You claim that you don’t deny AGW. Oh yes you do. Your denial, like that of Betula, is to deny its a problem"

Hardley, you should try to be more civil and understanding like Wow. Put the ideology to the side and try and get a hold of yourself.

From here on out, I'll have Wow help to explain anything I write that you don't understand.

Shorter Hardley, in order to prove your total incompetence in climate science I confront you with a very simple question concerning atmospheric physics: what is the impact of increased solar magnetic activity on our atmosphere? Try it, green-socialist fool.

No, Betty, I haven't asked what you've planted, I've asked what you've done to stop AGW.

BTW, why is everyone arguing against the scientists and doing anything about AGW always saying they're planting trees, lots of trees?

It's almost as if this is just a lie.

But, hey, maybe your vitriol toward Jeff is making me suspicious of you, you should cut that out. So let me know where you're planting and your permit.

Quim, if it's so simple, you explain it. Wow me with your scientifical chops.

We've already seen that it takes ~100 million acres of trees to take up 1 year's CO2 output, 500 million if you take into account that that is 5 years growth.

For the total use of the entire world, even given Mackay's ridiculously low figures, that means after taking up 14 years' worth of tree planting land, you could have "planted" solar power to cover 100% of that use.

Using a more reasonable figure, it's maybe 5 years of planting.

For all those tree planters, you'd be better off planting solar panels.

Wow - "No, Betty, I haven’t asked what you’ve planted, I’ve asked what you’ve done to stop AGW"

I see, a reminder is needed:

IPCC - Another way to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is by planting trees. Trees have been sequestering carbon perfectly well for millions of years using photosynthesis.

http://www.cgdev.org/blog/halting-and-reversing-deforestation-critical-…

Glad to help a fellow AGW believer.

Wow - "why is everyone arguing against the scientists and doing anything about AGW always saying they’re planting trees, lots of trees?"

It could be because I'm an arborist for over 30 years and own a tree company...um. other than that I've got nothing.

I've discussed this on Deltoid going back many years....you probably don't remember because until recently, you were retarded.

But that isn't stopping AGW. We already have it. To stop you'd have to plant about 6 400 million acres of trees.

And then add 80 million for each year you spent planting that 100 million square miles of forest. If you stopped producing excess fossil fuels, you wouldn't have to do all that. So, no planting trees is not stopping AGW, it's only capturing CO2.

So, what are you doing to stop AGW?

Hey, you're the believer. I have reason.

Oh, and what permit do you have? For a start, we don't know how many trees you're actually planting. We don't know if they're being kept as permanent wood forests either. Where are all these trees? Is that anywhere near the amount needed (80 million acres per year).

Basically, we have nothing other than your say-so and nothing to show it is of any use whatsoever.

Surely you wouldn't be insisting in blind belief in the mere word of another?

Wow - "So let me know where you’re planting and your permit"

Private properties. You don't need a permit to plant trees, or take them down...
The exception is if you to remove a town tree.... and the setbacks from the road are different from town to town.
In order to remove a town tree, you have to be a licensed arborist and obtain a permit from the tree department....the tree has to then be inspected by the tree warden and then posted for 10 days to notify the public of it's removal.... if there are any objections in that time, the subject is then taken to public meeting for review.

Thanks for asking though...

"Private properties."

Whose?

Sounds like you're just a landscape gardner, and your "planted trees" is just recycling, not growing new plants, so your "planting trees" doesn't actually do anything about CO2, even sequestering, and abandons even the pretense of stopping AGW.

So, I'll ask again, what are you doing to stop AGW?

Wow - "But that isn’t stopping AGW. We already have it."

If we already have it, that's why we try to stop it. It would be more difficult to stop if it didn't exist...

If you don't believe planting trees, or improving the health of plant material helps in any way, than you are going against the scientist......dare I say, you are appearing more and more like a denier.

Do you even believe in AGW?

Wow - "Is that anywhere near the amount needed (80 million acres per year"

If you believe it takes one person and one step to stop AGW, I'm afraid you may be falling back into retarded mode.....walk towards the light.

Whose?

Currently 120 estates ranging anywhere from 1/2 acre to 100 acres. Big money in these parts...you would recognize the names of many clients,

Sounds like you’re just a landscape gardner, and your “planted trees” is just recycling.

Nope. It's true we don't grow them, but a have a 4 acre yard, some of which is used to store plants though many are delivered directly to the job site. We deal with some good sized trees, most come from my friend Chet Halka, (Halka nurseries) who's family started planting in the 50's.....he has close to 3000 acres and is the place to go for large trees. Look him up.

And I like your recycling comment. It true, sometimes I have planted a tree and people feel like they did something for the globe, when in fact they have just moved a tree from one spot to another.
The pleasure should come from the fact that you know the more trees you buy and plant, the more the growers will grow.

For an interesting story, look up the Swamp White Oaks planted at the Freedom Tower....they came from Chet's tree farm.

Wow - "So, I’ll ask again, what are you doing to stop AGW?"

From the discussion we've had so far.....a lot more than you.

"Wow – “But that isn’t stopping AGW. We already have it.”

If we already have it,"

You said you didn't deny AGW was a thing. Are you reneging on that claim now?

"If you don’t believe planting trees, or improving the health of plant material helps in any way"

Sending money to Africa helps in some way. Someone there gets to drink clean water for a month.

The point is stopping AGW.

And, no planting trees, ESPECIALLY if you're merely replacing them for the local council, does not. Replanting trees doesn't even sequester CO2, so your quote from the IPCC is not in effect in your case specifically.

"Whose?

Currently 120 estates ranging anywhere from 1/2 acre to 100 acres"

Whose?

"From the discussion we’ve had so far…..a lot more than you."

Wrong. A 5MW facility over 30 acres.

"Do you even believe in AGW?"

Woah.

Looks like we've got a faithiest here.

I don't believe in AGW for the same reason I don't believe in doors. I have evidence for their existence and know what they are.

When you know, there's no need for "belief".

Your continued phrasing indicates that you're not genuine and you merely ape the right forms without knowing what the issue is.

A 5MW facility over 30 acres

Whose?

Wow - "I don’t believe in AGW for the same reason I don’t believe in doors"

Right, this isn't about AGW, it's about semantics....I forgot.

And some people don't believe in fences, so they don't put them up...

Strange though, I don't "believe" I saw the word "yes" anywhere in your comment...

"Whose?"

Mine.

"Right, this isn’t about AGW, it’s about semantics….I forgot."

No, it's about rationality. Belief is irrational. Knowledge is rational.

I just wonder, given you claim to "believe" in AGW rather than understand it, whether you're genuine in your belief. After all, if you're irrational about AGW, yours is not a reliable claim.

Someone who knew what AGW was and had an idea of what was needed would not be "believing" in AGW, they'd understand it.

"Strange though, I don’t “believe” I saw the word “yes” anywhere in your comment"

Do you? Why don't you know? Are you uncertain of your eyes? Must what you see be based on faith, that knowledge of what you see is unavailable to you?

This is why your claim to "Believe" in AGW is unreliable. You don't know by your own admission, but you want to be believed to are right.

Belief means you don't know what is going on.

I'm saying I don't know what is going on with you and your claim to believe in AGW.

Just like I don't know abut your claims to 120 estates.

What I DO know is that your definition of "planting trees" has no effect on AGW, nor even on CO2 levels.

"Mine"

"Oh, and what permit do you have?"

Wow - "What I DO know is that your definition of “planting trees” has no effect on AGW, nor even on CO2 levels"

Why do you deny what the IPCC says? Do you not have faith in the IPCC?

believe
bɪˈliːv/
verb
1.
accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
"the superintendent believed Lancaster's story"

--------
vs
--------

know
nəʊ/
verb

1.
be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.

Your insistence on "believe" when you were asked

“Do you even agree there IS AGW?”

when know or understand are far clearer on this than "believe" is evidence your assertion is false and you're trying to poison the well by labeling those who know and understand the science as "believers".

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

A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group—such as a nation or a besieged city—from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or nation. The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine.

“Oh, and what permit do you have?”

Yes, my question to you. Still pending an answer. I see you accept it is a valid query and one that deserves an answer, so that dodge isn't available.

Wow - "No, it’s about rationality. Belief is irrational. Knowledge is rational"

So if I were to say I know I believe in AGW, is that a rational or irrational statement?

"Why do you deny what the IPCC says? "

I don't. The IPCC never said "A blog poster who tries to avoid all questioning in a suspicious manner on Deltoid is planting trees and this will help stop AGW".

"Do you not have faith in the IPCC?"

Here again with the religious dogma slurs. The evidence that your claim of "Yes" was in fact false mounts up to convincing levels.

"So if I were to say I know I believe in AGW, is that a rational or irrational statement?"

Irrational.

And for anyone not inside your head, unreliable to boot, since the claim of belief requires no knowledge,therefore there is no evidence FOR that belief and therefore the claim of knowledge of personal belief is unverifiable and worthless as an evidentiary claim.

Wow - "Yes, my question to you. Still pending an answer"

Already answered at #47 - Did you not understand it due to a lack of reading skills or is there still some retarded in you creeping back to the surface?

Stay focused.

Wow - "The IPCC never said “A blog poster who tries to avoid all questioning in a suspicious manner on Deltoid is planting trees and this will help stop AGW”

A good example of avoiding my question in a suspicious manner...

Well done.

"Wow – “Yes, my question to you. Still pending an answer”

Already answered at #47 "

Ah, then I answered yours in #58. Cheers.

"A good example of avoiding my question in a suspicious manner…"

Because your question was nonsensical. The IPCC never said anything what you were doing.

Do you believe that you're doing what the IPCC says should be done, and believe the IPCC is right in that?

“This IPCC report makes clear that avoiding dangerous climate change by limiting global temperature increase to 2°C (3.8 °F), as agreed by nations in Copenhagen in 2009, will depend critically on taking carbon dioxide out of the air. There are two ways to do this. One way is to strip carbon dioxide out of emissions from power plants before it enters the atmosphere, and store it underground. This technology is called Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and is still in early development stages. Another way to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is by planting trees”

So I take it you're already at zero carbon footprint and pushing for zero carbon in your country, right, betty?

After all, it's no good reducing atmospheric CO2 by planting trees then burning petrol to put some more back in there. That won't reduce CO2!

Remember, betty, this is no different, apart from being a hell of a lot more polite and accepting, from the questioning you give to Jeff or Lionel on their claims.

A HELL of a lot more polite.

Wow - "A 5MW facility over 30 acres"

So have you stopped AGW?

Wow - "No, it’s about rationality. Belief is irrational. Knowledge is rational"

So it would be irrational of me to believe anything you say...

Wow - "Do you believe you're doing what the IPCC says should be done, and believe the IPCC is right in that?"

I didn't do it because the IPCC says it should be done, but would you accept it if I did?

Besides, I couldn't find where the IPCC says I should buy a A "5MW facility over 30 acres"

https://www.solarmarket.com.au/carbon-reduction-solar-panels/
WoW.
Good in you for having solar panels.
I hope you also realise that the same argument you're using about trees (ie not enough room etc) can also be applied to needing acreage to have enough panels to actually make a big difference?
& ironically you have to clear away any trees on a solar panel site because they interfere with the direct sunlight and the infrastructure.
Also ironically, and unlike planting trees, there is a quite significant carbon footprint involved in constructing and maintaining and replacing solar panels.
But solar energy is still very useful, especially on a small scale like running meters and small pumps and etc.
So there's no question it is part of doing your bit in stopping AGW.
Good for you.

"So have you stopped AGW?"

You're the first one who has asked if anyone has stopped it. Has your tree planting STOPPED AGW????

"So it would be irrational of me to believe anything you say…"

No, it would be irrational to believe without evidence. And if you have evidence, you don't need to believe, you know.

"I didn’t do it because the IPCC says it should be done"

Then why are you claiming benefit for them?

"Besides, I couldn’t find where the IPCC says I should buy a A “5MW facility over 30 acres”"

AR5 3.3 :Reduce CO2 emissions 80% by 2050.

Planting trees won't cut emissions.

"I hope you also realise that the same argument you’re using about trees (ie not enough room etc) can also be applied to needing acreage to have enough panels to actually make a big difference?"

ROFL! StuPid,I hope you realise that I've already done the calculation. To build out enough trees to offset (not reduce) CO2 in the atmosphere over14 years will take up as much land as enough solar PV to power the planet,even if you use Mackay's ridiculously low figure of 10W/m^2. Using my real figures you get 41W/m^2, so offsetting merely 2.5years will have taken up as much land as 100% solar PV replacement would.

So, yes, I realised that your argument was specious and wrong long before you prattled it out here, StuPid.

"ironically you have to clear away any trees on a solar panel site because they interfere with the direct sunlight and the infrastructure."

Uh, if that were true,then you would have to clear away any trees before you can plant yours.

However,here in the real world, it isn't 100% tree cover. No trees had to be cleared,and 100% near enough of the grass is still there, this time with far FAR more wildlife supported because it's left fallow.

"Also ironically, and unlike planting trees"

Unlike planting trees,these will be replacing CO2 production for 25 years, and most likely 85%+after 35 years. And 4 years to EROI,which it has nearly done already.

Meanwhile your trees will have to be carried out there by truck, using petroleum distillates to power it. And each year you have to travel further, meaning more CO2 output per tree planting.

"especially on a small scale like running meters and small pumps and etc."

5MW???? Small scale??? It runs an entire village!

My god, you're ENTIRELY CLUELESS about solar!

ROFLMAO!!!! What a frigging idiot you are!

Jeff @#33?
Your parting shot ?
What on earth does that have to do with anything?

StuPid #77,your coward's taunt?

What on earth does that have to do with ANYTHING???

Wow - "So, what are you doing to stop AGW?"

Me - "So have you stopped AGW"

Wow - "Has your tree planting STOPPED AGW????"

Well, looks like you've stopped it at much as I have.....congratulations!

Wow - "AR5 3.3 :Reduce CO2 emissions 80% by 2050"

I didn't see anything there about purchasing 30 acres, what do you think I should do?

"Stop"
"Stopped"

Not the same words. See the "ped" at the end of the second one, dumbass?

"looks like you’ve stopped it at much as I have"

You're not even stopping it. Not even reducing. Not even keeping it level. There's not even the possiblity that if it were done more that it would stop it if everyone did what you are doing.

So there's a hell of a difference.

I'm doing something that will stop AGW.

You're doing something you get paid to do.

"Wow – “AR5 3.3 :Reduce CO2 emissions 80% by 2050”

I didn’t see anything there about purchasing 30 acres"

No, you didn't.

But what you did see is that it must be reduced by 80% by 2050.

Planting trees doesn't reduce CO2 emissions, idiot.

Wow - "if you have evidence, you don’t need to believe, you know"

Since I don't have evidence of your 5MW facility over 30 acres, my believing you would be irrational...

Do you think that global electrical power could be replaced by less than 30 acres of a solar PV farm, betty?

If not, then it has to take more than 30 acres.

To install as much as is needed, you have to buy more than 30 acres. And I've done 30. Others have done more. When enough acres have been set as solar PV, it will be enough to power the entire earth, reducing CO2 emissions by 80% or more.

No matter how many trees you plant, no CO2 emissions will be reduced.

"Since I don’t have evidence of your 5MW facility"

But I answered your query in #58 to the same standard as you believe answers that sort of question.

If this is enough to disbelieve the claim, then you are still wanting on that answer: Whose?

Wow - "Remember, betty, this is no different, apart from being a hell of a lot more polite and accepting, from the questioning you give to Jeff or Lionel on their claims"

Really? I don't ever remember claiming I witnessed climate change first hand and not once did I mention dunning - kruger......and there have been plenty of times I have thanked them for the entertainment here at Deltoid..

Really? I don't recall

WoW.
It's still the same argument.
Shouldn't it be a suite of measures?
Unlike you apparently, I don't think it's one or the other or all or nothing.
Solar panels and tree planting and CZM and animal husbandry and etc etc can all help to move humanity to a better place.

Wow, I don't want to be considered irrational, so I'll just say I don't believe you based on the lack of evidence, and hope you will use this statement as evidence to accept my belief.

Wow - "To install as much as is needed, you have to buy more than 30 acres. And I’ve done 30"

So you've done nothing. At least the new Wow is honest.

"Really? I don’t ever remember claiming I witnessed climate change first hand"

Really? I don't remember anyone censuring you for claiming that you had.

Whining for the sake of whining is counterproductive and will only ensure that you will be demonised and pilloried, since you reap what you sow. And all your complaints about the "unfair treatment" will echo hollowly within your hypocrisy.

And Jeff DID see climate change first hand.

Unless you're going to disbelieve that climate changes have any effect on wildlife, in which case you will need to tell us why scorpions don't live above the arctic circle.

"and there have been plenty of times I have thanked"

Yes, this is another vile trick of the bedwetting crowd. Passive-aggressive bullshit.

Doesn't carry, dearie.

I have found your insanity entertaining on occasion in the past. Since I said I found it entertaining, you can find nothing to be upset about in that comment. Yet you will.

Because not even you believe the bullcrap you spouted there.

"and not once did I mention dunning – kruger"

Well, you did, several times. Even accusing others of it as well as the incessant whining about being pointed to it and the definition.

After all, Jeff was only telling you that you were the poster boy for Dunning Kruger as a COMPLiMENT. It's not HIS fault you took it as a slur!

"It’s still the same argument."

What is?

"Unlike you apparently, I don’t think it’s one or the other or all or nothing."

Unlike reality, one is not like the other.

When you sweep the floor of a room, you do not consider you to have reduced world poverty, since floorsweeping doesn't enhance the economy or give the poor extra wealth.

Likewise planting trees sequesters CO2, but does not and cannot and never will reduce CO2 emissions. Because plants aren't replacements for power stations. Something you have completely ignored.

Unlike you, I know what plants do and what power stations do, and they're not replacements for one another.

"Wow, I don’t want to be considered irrational"

So you'll stop saying you "Believe" in AGW?

"So you’ve done nothing. "

Nope. Due to that solar power station 5MW of fossil fueled power stations are no longer running, meaning that the CO2 those coal stations used to produce (about 43,000 tons of CO2 per year) has been taken off our emissions.

Reducing our CO2 emissions.

How many power stations have been removed from service and replaced by trees, betty?

Wow - "And all your complaints about the “unfair treatment”

Only I never complained about unfair treatment. You're slipping back Wow...

Wow - "And Jeff DID see climate change first hand"

So he lied when he said he didn't....

Hardley - 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”

Dropped the wrong figure in there!

You can put the right ones in, the average figure for a CO2 plant is easily available.

Wow - "So you’ll stop saying you “Believe” in AGW?"

Actually, I asked if you believe in AGW.

"Only I never complained about unfair treatment."

Yes you did. You did in the one I replied to!

"So he lied when he said he didn’t…."

So you lied when you said he did...

Betula January 12, 2017

Wow – “Remember, betty, this is no different, apart from being a hell of a lot more polite and accepting, from the questioning you give to Jeff or Lionel on their claims”

Really? I don’t ever remember claiming I witnessed climate change first hand

"Actually, I asked if you believe in AGW."

Actually, you said you believed in AGW.

Wow - "Due to that solar power station 5MW of fossil fueled power stations are no longer running"

Whose?

"Whose?"

Someone else's.

I wonder how much of the earths resources, and how many CO2 emissions, are used throughout the process of extracting materials, manufacturing, transporting and installing one solar panel?

Does anyone have those numbers?

Wow - "Someone else’s"

Whose?.

WoW.
More trees means less CO2 in atmosphere.
Less trees means more C02 in atmosphere.
It's not rocket science.
They play their part along with a suite of other measures including Solar panels.
The IPCC has taken up a lot of papers on this stuff you know.
Local people like yourself and Betula and me are implementing some of these measures even though we aren't PhD ecologists stuck in an ivory tower somewhere.
We could even have such lowly occupations as farm hands or landscape gardeners or toilet cleaners or whatever but we're still making a difference.
What is the relevance of sweeping floors and reducing world poverty?
How does you having a 30acre solar panel site reduce world poverty?

"WoW.
More trees means less CO2 in atmosphere."

Not until you are planting more trees than you're cutting down and the excess is taking up CO2 faster than you're producing it.

Sums.

Try some.

"I wonder how much of the earths resources"

A tiny fraction,plenty left.

"how many CO2 emissions"

"How MUCH" you mean?

Ah, already answred that. less than 4 years and it's paid back and it's 100% carbon free, even if it had been produced by 100% dirty coal.

Since the UK mix is a lot lower than that, we have probably already paid back any "debt". And we have at least 21 years, and maybe well over 30 left on the panels before they need to be replaced.

If you didn't know, you could have ASKED me,rather than go all fainting fanny over your lack of knowledge.

And if the replacement had been a coal fired power station, maybe 30x as much of the earth's resources would have been used in its creation, and vastly more CO2 produced in its building that would never have been paid back, since the plant would either produce CO2 or no energy.

http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Solar-Cell.html
Betula @#1
Yes.
Here's one of many readily available.
Note in particular it involves mining among other not so good for the natural environment human activities.
But WoW is also correct that people need to consider long term benefits....which of course also applies to other measures like planting trees.

"Betula @#1
Yes."

Yes what?

Yes he doesn't know?

You DO know that your home requires mining to get the materials to buid that too, right, StuPid?

And if you have two cars, you probably have more rare earth metals and other refined materials than the 30 acre site needed.

Yes of course I know WoW.
That's not rocket science either.
What are you so upset about?
I have congratulated you for doing your bit.
As has Betula and me and probably millions of others even though they're not PhD ecologists.

Wow - "You did in the one I replied to!"

Now all you have to do to support your claim is to show where I stated anything about unfair treatment. Unless it's just your belief, which would be irrational.

Wow - "So you lied when you said he did…"

Nope. Follow the bouncing Hardley...

Hardley - "On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand”

Hardley - “In my work as an ecologist I work on shifting zones, and here I could see it in real.”

And just in case, here it is spelled out in Dutch - "Op onze reis hebben we de klimaatverandering aan den lijve ervaren"

But then when he was questioned on this -

Hardley - "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”

You see Wow, when he lies and puts that lie in writing, it's hard for him to lie his way out of it...

But because he lied, you probably BELIEVED that made me a denier....back when you were retarded.

& of course that would also apply to your house and mode or modes of transport and numerous other bibs and bobs you take for granted including however you access the internet wouldn't it?????

"Yes of course I know WoW."

So why then did you make the asinine claim you did and not do this thing that you say is not rocket science and "of course" you know?

"As has Betula and me "

Neither of you have reduced CO2 emissions.

NEITHER of you.

And Betty hasn't even increased the sequestration of CO2.

...so you lied when you said he didn't...

"& of course that would also apply to your house "

But you and betty here were complaining about how mining was needed to build the solar panels. So you should also be complaining about the mining needed to build houses. And your cars. And your TVs, computers, fridges,...

I didn't complain that mining was used to get the materials to build anything, so I don't complain about your home.

You and betty have to.

Wow - "A tiny fraction,plenty left"

Very vague answer. Are you basing this on a belief?

Wow - "Ah, already answred that"

No, you didn't.

"If you didn’t know, you could have ASKED me"

If I didn't ask you, why are you claiming to have already answered?

"Wow – “A tiny fraction,plenty left”

Very vague answer."

Who cares. Do you claim it's not a tiny fraction, or that it is running out?

"Wow – “Ah, already answred that”

No, you didn’t."

Yes I did.

"If I didn’t ask you, why are you claiming to have already answered?"

Because I posted an answer anyway to the poster child of pouting petulance: you, betty.

why? Because I want to help you, irrespective of how much you don't want to.

"Life in the 21st century wouldn’t be the same without rare earth metals. Cell phones, iPads, laptops, televisions, hybrid cars, wind turbines, solar cells and many more products depend on rare earth metals to function"

"More mining of rare earth metals, however, will mean more environmental degradation and human health hazards. All rare earth metals contain radioactive elements such as uranium and thorium, which can contaminate air, water, soil and groundwater. Metals such as arsenic, barium, copper, aluminum, lead and beryllium may be released during mining into the air or water, and can be toxic to human health. Moreover, the refinement process for rare earth metals uses toxic acids and results in polluted wastewater that must be properly disposed of. The Chinese Society of Rare Earths estimated that the refinement of one ton of rare earth metals results in 75 cubic meters of acidic wastewater and one ton of radioactive residue"

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/09/19/rare-earth-metals-will-we-have-…

Wow - "Who cares. Do you claim it’s not a tiny fraction, or that it is running out?"

Without knowledge it's just your belief....which is irrational, and probably the reason you don't care.

Wow - "Ah, so you’ll be giving up your mobile phone, then, betty?"

I'll be planting more trees...

"Without knowledge "

You can make no claim. But you do anyway, indicating that this claim is empty and not any form of reply.

I have knowledge. I can make a claim that is from rationality.

You have none. No claim can be made that is anything other than irrational.

From your link @22 -

"But, again, Law's is not the only lab working on the problem."

It's your link, maybe you could tell us what "problem" he's talking about.....or maybe you don't care.

"I’ll be planting more trees…"

Copper poisons trees, betty. If you are offsetting rare earth metals, your trees are offsetting my solar plant's rare earth metal use.

Therefore your complaint about their use and environmental damage is being offset by you and is no longer a problem at all.

Ta.

"It’s your link, maybe you could tell us what “problem”"

You read it.

Did you forget already?

Wow - "I have knowledge"

That's what you believe, therefore, you're irrational.

"That’s what you believe,"

No, you can't tell me what I believe. You can only believe what I believe.

Which means, to quote you:

" therefore, you’re irrational."

Wow - "Did you forget already?"

You linked it to indicate no problem, yet it talks about a problem...

Did you forget to read it?

So, batshit betty, you accept AGW, but do even you know why?

"Wow – “Did you forget already?”

You linked it to indicate no problem,"

And that made you forget what you read?

Wow - "you can’t tell me what I believe"

I already did. I have knowledge, I can make a claim that is from rationality...

Wow - "And that made you forget what you read?"

It proves you don't know what you linked..

"Copper poisons trees, betty"

That depends on the form and application. Copper fungicides are used on trees all the time.

"Wow – “you can’t tell me what I believe”

I already did."

No you didn't, you told be what you said I believed. Whether you believe that or not I cannot tell.

Words. Ask a grown up to help you with them.

"It proves you don’t know what you linked.."

No, it proves that I asked “And that made you forget what you read?”.

"That depends on the form and application"

So does any poison, betty.

Do you actually know about plants at all?

"Do you actually know about plants at all?"

I know that a blanket statement about copper killing trees requires correction.

You're welcome.

So far, as far as it comes to doing anything about AGW, I've reduced our CO2 emissions by 5MW of coal generation. StuPid has done nothing to reduce CO2 emissions and Batshit Betty has done nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.

They also know what they're talking about is bullshit, but keep saying it anyway.

This isn't looking good for those who claim to accept AGW and want to do something about it. Other than myself, anyway.

"I know that a blanket statement...requires correction."

Ah, so you'll be fine when I correct your blamket statements, then.

Oh, no, you've whined about them.

Odd.

Wow - "No you didn’t, you told be what you said I believed"

So you don't believe you have knowledge?

Wow - "Ah, so you’ll be fine when I correct your blamket statements, then"

Stop your whining.

You also didn'tcorrect StuPid's blanket statement,either.

It's as if you don't want to correct blanket statements,you want to snipe and snark at me for daring to question you and being far FAR smarter.

Don't worry, even though you and StuPid only went to vocational college to learn how to use a saw, this doesn't mean you're inherently inferior.

Your actions and attitude decide that.

"Stop your whining."

Ah, you'll want correction on that, right?

You mean some specific case of whining, which you want me to find because you have trouble reading and remembering what it was five seconds later.

"So you don’t believe you have knowledge?"

So you forgot what you quoted?

"No you didn’t, you told be what you said I believed”

If you forgot that again already, here it is again. See if you can catch it this time,

"No you didn’t, you told be what you said I believed”

Wow - "I’ve reduced our CO2 emissions by 5MW of coal generation."

Wow - "Basically, we have nothing other than your say-so"

Yeah, but we don;t have anything other than that for you or StuPid, either.

So if you're going to go downthe "I don'tbelieve you" route, then you DO catch up at that point, but we have that you are doing nothing still.

So it's not like you come off well out of the deal.

So are you going for the "Well I don;t believe you" gambit? I know how you go all "Exorcist child" when people assume what you mean when you haven't used some exact and precise wording.

Are you, Batshit Betty, going for the "Well I don't believe you". option. Is that option in play?

For any lurkers, batshit's quote comes from here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2017/01/01/january-2107-open-thread/com…

Oh, and what permit do you have? For a start, we don’t know how many trees you’re actually planting. We don’t know if they’re being kept as permanent wood forests either. Where are all these trees? Is that anywhere near the amount needed (80 million acres per year).

Basically, we have nothing other than your say-so and nothing to show it is of any use whatsoever.

At the time,it seemed like "take your say-so" was the option in play,but Batshit crazy loonbags here seems to want to put in back in play now that he's losing the argument and can't figure out how to win.

Wow – “I have knowledge”

Me - "That’s what you believe, therefore, you’re irrational"

Wow - “you can’t tell me what I believe"

Me - "I already did.”

Wow - "No you didn’t"

Wow at his finest.

Wow - "So if you’re going to go downthe “I don’tbelieve you” route"

You mean the Wow route. And just so you don't forget it, here it is again:

Wow – “Basically, we have nothing other than your say-so”

Wow - "Batshit crazy loonbags here seems to want to put in back in play"

What's the whining about Wow? Don't like your own style?

"Wow at his finest."

Thank you.

Quite why you seem to believe this is somehow embarrassing to me remains, as with every claim you're making, entirely obscure.

"What’s the whining about Wow?"

Why do you claim that is whining? I'm asking if you're going the "I don;t believe you" route. Is it on the table, because I'd been working on the "I will accept your claims at face value" route so far.

"Wow – “So if you’re going to go downthe “I don’tbelieve you” route”

You mean the Wow route."

No, down the "I don't believe you route." But if you feel safer with calling it mine, who cares? Go ahead.

I've not done it so far because I was assuming that we had agreed to take at face value the claims of what we'd done.

The problem for you is that what you've done has done nothing about reducing CO2 emissions, nor does it do anything to sequester any CO2,which was your alternative "point".

So I really don't need to disbelieve you.

However, you appear to want to disbelieve me, so I'm asking if that is actually what you want.

Are you going the "I don't believe you" route?

If you find this hard to answer, it's either "Yes" or it is "No".

This should not tax your poor overworked brain any more than absolutely necessary.

"here it is again:"
Oh, and what permit do you have? For a start, we don’t know how many trees you’re actually planting. We don’t know if they’re being kept as permanent wood forests either. Where are all these trees? Is that anywhere near the amount needed (80 million acres per year).
"Wow – “Basically, we have nothing other than your say-so”" and nothing to show it is of any use whatsoever.

" Don’t like your own style?"

Don't know what you're talking about.

Is it yet another constructed fantasy arising from the fact you don't appear to be able to remember more than about a dozen words at one time?

So, Batshit Crazy Loopypants Betty, ARE you going down the "I don't believe your claim" route?

Is "I don't accept your claim" now an acceptable option in this conversation?

A yes or a no.

Simple.

Maybe not for you,but you CAN make it, I have faith in your ability to manage at most one word!

WoW @#14
Errrr?
Did you forget I said we also use solar and wind out here?
Within a 7 km radius of here there is far, far more than 30 acres of solar panels.
There are also wind farms.
It's all us dumb ass locals doing our bit.
As well as that people have planted trees and rejuvenated wetlands and helped out the native fauna and all sorts of other stuff.
I wasn't complaining about what's used to make solar panels, I was answering Betula's question.
It does involve mining does it not?
Everything we do comes with an impact does it not?
Including planting trees.

Wow, Betula has been going down the "I don't believe you" route since he came on here several years ago. And its not based on any scientific acumen, as he doesn't possess any. He simply is a complete neophyte when it comes to anything remotely scientific. C02 fertilization and Wild Turkey sum up Betula's world. I am sure he'll love the new Susan Crockford book on Polar Bears, aimed at distorting the underlying science and targeting children. It's written at about his level of understanding of science.

Betula's worldviews on science and policy are strongly correlated with his pre-determined right wing political views that embrace the idea of frightening left wing/UN mediated conspiracies that want to redistribute wealth from rich countries to poor countries. Despite not possessing a shred of evidence for this, he really believes it. And this perspective overflows into every other bit of discussion he pursues.

Betula and Olaus don't do science. They never did. They simply make things up on the spot, and assume that AGW is not a threat because it has policy implications that conflict with their own political beliefs. They never admit it, but it stands out like a sore thumb. It's as clear as night and day.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Jan 2017 #permalink

Another Betula gem: "Really? I don’t ever remember claiming I witnessed climate change first hand and not once did I mention dunning – kruger……"

There are countless examples of seeing climate change first hand as I said. You just ignore them since they crush your original argument that it's not possible to witness AGW first hand. Want more examples? Go to the empirical literature. Full of studies on range shifts, altered food webs, changing phenology etc., all first hand examples of climate change.

As for Dunning-Kruger, of course you don't mention it because you are one of its examples. You know bugger all about any fields remotely related to climate or environmental science and yet you try to give the impression that you know as much or more than experts in these fields. Now I expect you to respond with the remark, "Hardley making things up again".... but the very FACT that you habitually dismiss the serious implications of climate change - which are recognized and accepted by every National Academy on Earth and every major scientific organization strongly suggests that you, who has no scientific expertise whatsoever, is disagreeing with the broad consensus position. On what scientific basis? None. Its based on your political beliefs.

Pure Dunning-Kruger.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Jan 2017 #permalink

Hey Hardley, I just ran across this -

Hardley - "That humanity is continuing to simplify immensely complex systems of which we have little understanding is indicitive of the planet-wide experiment we are conducting, the end results of which can be catastrophic"

http://www.ecoglobe.org/nz/biodiv/biod2211.htm

Which reminded me of this

Hardley - Dec. Pg10 -
AGW is havbing harmful effects for sure – invoking the term ‘catastrophe’ is a feeble attempt to push the debate to extremes"

You must hate it when someone exposes your own feeble attempt to debate "a feeble attempt to push the debate to the extremes"...

Happy debating.

Hardley - "There are countless examples of seeing climate change first hand"

You're referring to your trip at Algonquin, correct? Because we wouldn't want to change the location of your "first hand" comment, that would take it out of context and be deceiving...

"Wow, Betula has been going down the “I don’t believe you” route since he came on here several years ago. "

Batshit betty has, to date, not actually said so. They're quoting me as if this means something, but is very reticent to say what it means.

So either it's meaningless or Batshit Betty is really scared of telling anyone what they're on about. First thing is to find out if it's the latter. Then find out why.

Batty betty's psychosis is an excellent test case.

Hardley - "Betula has been going down the “I don’t believe you” route since he came on here"

I never said I didn't believe you Hardley, you said you witnessed climate change first hand at Algonquin so I asked you what it was you witnessed....you then told me you didn't witness climate change first hand....and then you said you did.

It looks as though you've gone down the.... you don't believe yourself route....

"Errrr?
Did you forget I said we also use solar and wind out here?"

Well you kept banging on about the trees. And remember this:

"It does involve mining does it not?"

If it impacts EVERYTHING we do, it's not worth mentioning unless you're trying to scupper doing anything.

WHY DO THAT???

We have already established that you knew that planting trees wasn't reducing CO2 emissions. So why the refusal to insist on tree planting???

"It’s all us dumb ass locals doing our bit."

Remember, YOU called yourself AND your neighbours dumbasses.

I just called you a dumbass for what you said, not what you are.

Right, so you've done SOME use of renewable energy. THAT is a solution to AGW.

NOW, see if your entente cordiale with the Batshit Bettys of this world has bourne any fruit.

Get them to accept that we need to decarbonise our energy infrastructure and work toward that end.

So far you're 0 for 3. Give it another go.

If it fails, we know your method is worthless and crying about other methods is just you hoping you can blame others for your lack of success.

Batshit" Because we wouldn’t want to change the location of your “first hand” comment"

You do that every post you make about what Jeff said.

First you claim he said it.
The next post you claim he didn't.
The next post you claim he did.
Then you post he didn't.

Now you're posting he did again. And then saying you're a bad and mean person because you keep changing what Jeff claims "would take it out of context and be deceiving…".

Quite how is, unfortunately, as locked up inside that insane braincase as what the point of quoting me means is.

Wow - "Batshit betty has, to date, not actually said so"

Congratulations, you got something right! However, your wording seems to indicate you believe something....which of course, if it were true, would be irrational on your part.

"I never said I didn’t believe you Hardley,"

So do you believe him?

"Congratulations, you got something right!"

No, it's quote obvious you haven't said anything.

But you ACT like you've said something.

Your complaining is complaining about someone who is trying to accept you as a sane and rational human being who is attempting to convey information when they write messages on a blog.

The alternative is you're a frutcake who has nothing to say but is intent on spewing anything that comes into that empty and insane head no matter what it means, says or does.

So even YOU think you're insane.

So stop complaining about people thinking you aren't. That's not merely insane, it's very rude and can only make people think that EVERYTHING you type is a load of lying shite.

"you said you witnessed climate change first hand at Algonquin so I asked you what it was you witnessed….you then told me you didn’t witness climate change first hand"

If any of that were true, then you would be quoting it in full, since it would support your claim here in its entirety.

Since you haven't, and you have made if VERY clear your typing has no purpose or meaning, we can easily claim your assertion here is another pack of insanity without any tie to reality.

No complaint is valid, since you could so easily have avoided this by doing things differently, and by not complaining when people try to interpret your words into something that would come from a sane and honest person. The fault is entirely your own.

Now,Batshit Betty, StuPid is going to try to talk to you to see if the problem in nothing happening the way he wants is his fault or the fault of others "doing it wrong" as it were.

Please listen carefully.

You have done this before. It appeared to be quite pleasant for you, and you got along. So no need to be scared or fly off the handle like you do with everyone else as if you're a severely autistic individual let loose on the internet.

If it makes you feel safer, especially since you and StuPid have talked a lot before so nice and quietly, you can ask StuPid what he wants to say, invite him to pass on his message. That means you stay in control of thesituation and you can't be taken out to a place you aren't completely comfortable with.

Since StuPid is in Australia, as far as we know, he may not be able to get in touch with you immediately.

So go ahead and ask StuPid what he wants to talk to you about and listen carefully to what he wants to say.

"So do you believe him?"

If I did believed him, by definition, that would be irrational....yet, if I didn't believe him, by definition, that would be irrational.

So If I believed his first statement, "I witnessed climate change first hand", and then decided to believe his second statement, "I didn't believe climate change first hand.... but changed back to believing his third statement, "I did see climate change first hand". only to wondered whether or not to not to believe you Wow, when you said - "He did see climate change first hand" (maybe because I forgot I believed his second statement), then the first and second irrational beliefs would cancel themselves out. leaving a net gain on the third belief, only to be cancelled out if I were not to believe you.

Now, if you believe this answer to be irrational, I just gave you the knowledge to show you it isn't.... that is, "irrational" is cancelled out of the equation....therefore, by definition, you must put away your beliefs and accept my answer.

For further information, It's all in the Deltoid handbook under "learning techniques".

Hope this helps.

Wow - "If any of that were true, then you would be quoting it in full, since it would support your claim here in its entirety."

Already done. many times, since 2012. You have a computer, learn how to use it...

“Wow, Betula has been going down the “I don’t believe you” route since he came on here several years ago. ”

Batshit betty has, to date, not actually said so.

I should stress that this is contingent SOLELY ON THE LAST FEW PAGES OF THIS THREAD.

Batshit betty may have done it thousands of times, but nobody is going to try to wade through thousands of bullshit from betty and the other incoherents that infest this blog to find evidence that batshit betty HAS before, one or many times, used the "I Don't Believe You" gambit when batshit really doesn't give a flying fuck and will ignore it and bury it under thousands of shitposts and then pretend it never happened.

Moreover, it doesn't matter to me at this moment.

I'm concerned with this current conversation where Betty has said he agrees that there is AGW, but to date has not said how or why, only how NOT.

Which is EXTREMELY odd.

I want to find out if in this conversation where we say what we're doing to reduce CO2 emissions we are going to be using the "I don't believe you" return on any claims someone is doing for how they deal with the AGW that the know is happening.

Because if we are, then I need to know.

If we aren't, Batshit betty has to stop trying to quote me to no point.

At that point, we can get on to what Batshit Betty, after spewing spittle around the room in insane rage at not being listened to when they haven't said they're a denier, but haven't yet said they accept that AGW is real, screams "YES!" to the question “Do you even agree there IS AGW?”.

We need to find out what HE means by "Agree" here.

He keeps trying to ask if others "Believe", and he's even categorised himself as a "fellow believer", though he went apeshit (again!) when he was accused of saying he believed in AGW, so I need to know if he accepts that AGW is a real thing through belief or knowledge.

So far all he can do is quotemine and insist everyone else work out what he means (apparently so he can go apeshit (yet again!) when they do so. He does so hate people doing the work he's either too lazy, too stupid, or too mendacious to do himself.)

So, Jeff may be 100% correct, but I am not going to check since Betty will never EVER accept that he has done so by, for example, apologising to Jeff and everyone here for lying about it, explaining why, and promising not to do that again because it's bad.

"Already done. many times"

Where?

"since 2012. "

But you can't narrow it down?

"You have a computer, learn how to use it"

Ah, either you are wanting me to waste my time looking through a years worth of posting for something you haven't yet defined, or you're lying and relying on the vagueness to stop me from finding out because when I find evidence to the contrary, you will claim it's not that.

YOU know what you're talking about, at least you claim to, AND you have a computer.

Learn how to make an effort.

"“So do you believe him?”

If I did believed him,"

So you don't believe him?

If not even you know whether or not you believe Jeff, you can't complain when Jeff says you use the "I don't believe you" claim, since not even you know whether he's wrong.

Now, Batshit Betty, StuPid is going to try to talk to you to see if the problem in nothing happening the way he wants is his fault or the fault of others “doing it wrong” as it were.

Please listen carefully.

You have done this before. It appeared to be quite pleasant for you, and you got along. So no need to be scared or fly off the handle like you do with everyone else as if you’re a severely autistic individual let loose on the internet.

If it makes you feel safer, especially since you and StuPid have talked a lot before so nice and quietly, you can ask StuPid what he wants to say, invite him to pass on his message. That means you stay in control of thesituation and you can’t be taken out to a place you aren’t completely comfortable with.

Since StuPid is in Australia, as far as we know, he may not be able to get in touch with you immediately.

So go ahead and ask StuPid what he wants to talk to you about and listen carefully to what he wants to say.

"C02 fertilization and Wild Turkey sum up Betula’s world."

We do, however, now have Batshit Betty, after ranting in a major temper tantrum, saying that he does accept AGW, therefore there will no longer be BS about CO2 fertilisation and wild turkey tangents.

If betty were to renege on that very VERY firm yes that he DEMANDED be heard and accepted and therefore VERY VERY definitely a yes to the question I asked him: "Do you even agree there IS AGW?".

"Yes" was a categorical, definite and distinct answer to that question from batshit betty.

Lying about that would forever destroy their attempt to make any claim or complaing about others lying, since this was a vitriolically insisted on answer by batty betty.

Come on, StuPid, you can approach Batty Betty and use your method to get them to do something to stop AGW.

Surely you're not afraid?

Yes, yes, I know. Betty isn't asking you, and that's sad. But they're not right in the head sometimes. They don't necessarily mean anything by it.

So go a head.

Ask them.

See if your method works when given its chance.

Betty, you can start contact with StuPid any time.

Just ask and wait for an answer.

Jeff, Lionel and myself will just talk among ourselves, leave you to prepare for contact.

Feel free to ask StuPid any time.

Goodness,they're both very shy all of a sudden. Have you two boys had a falling out recently? Well, here's a wonderful chance to mend those fences!

StuPid, talk to Betty, see if you can get them to agree to stop messing about and concentrate on doing something to stop AGW.

Betty, talk to StuPid, ask them what they want to talk to you about.

One of you has to go first.

Wow. Go on (no Aussie pun intended).

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 13 Jan 2017 #permalink

What's funny to see here is that shorter Hardley appears to consider himself a guru and pupils wow and lionel as dogs without own value and knowledge which follow the silly uneducated guru blindly. What makes every normal person laugh is that these mental deep flyers present themselves with utter self-complacency but no foundation whatsoever: poor non-performers obsessed with radical communism and stubborn.

With President Trump taking over the office of POTUS the decadent spoiling life style of these parasites will be changed to enforced decency unknown so far to these idiots.

Hey, StuPid, kim's here! Ask kim! Ask kim!

TWO chances to prove that your method could work! It's not all on one throw of the dice!

I know this is one you haven't had any quality bonding time with, but you're going to have to talk to strangers at some point.

Wow - "So do you believe him?”

Which statement? He did or he didn't"

"Wow - "So you don’t believe him?

Which statement. He did or he didn't?

Hi ccR.

Well, still waiting for either of these two boys to start talking. Little disappointed that StuPid, with all his previous frequent insistence that Jeff or Lionel stop doing what they're doing and start doing something about the REAL problems, that he's spend, what, a dozen posts not asking Batshit Betty if they agree with him on reducing CO2 emissions and what he's doing for real to make that happen.

Wow - "though he went apeshit (again!) when he was accused of saying he believed in AGW"

Because you can't back it up and I can prove you're wrong - AGAIN.

You asked - 91 pg3 - "Do you even agree there IS AGW?"

To which I said yes...(according to you I screamed it)

You then said - #6 - "So you accept there is AGW!"

Where is the word believe? You just agreed I "accept it"

Oh wait, I asked you if you "believe"...

Me - 49 pg 4 - "Do you even believe in AGW?"

Wow - 58 - "it’s about rationality. Belief is irrational. Knowledge is rational."

Me - 63 - "So if I were to say I know I believe in AGW, is that a rational or irrational statement?"

Definition of if

1
a
:
in the event that
b
:
allowing that
c
:
on the assumption that

Wow - 92 - "So you’ll stop saying you “Believe” in AGW?"

Me - 96 - "Actually, I asked if you believe in AGW."

Wow - 98 - "Actually, you said you believed in AGW."

Yet, I never said it....it was phrased in the form of a question and "in the event that" or "the assumption that" I said it.

This is where you revert back to your retarded playing of words Wow, which suits no purpose but to play retarded.

The above is fact based knowledge that your accusation is wrong... but don't worry, no apology needed Wow..... proving you wrong time and time again is satisfaction enough for me.

"Wow – “So do you believe him?”

Which statement? He did or he didn’t”"

Whichever one you were on about here:

#62: January 13, 2017

Hardley – “Betula has been going down the “I don’t believe you” route since he came on here”

I never said I didn’t believe you Hardley, you said you witnessed climate change first hand at Algonquin so I asked you what it was you witnessed….you then told me you didn’t witness climate change first hand….and then you said you did.

It looks as though you’ve gone down the…. you don’t believe yourself route….

Either you know whether you believe him or not or you falsely accused Jeff knowing that you had no idea whether he was correct or not.

Wow - "saying that he does accept AGW, therefore there will no longer be BS about CO2 fertilisation and wild turkey tangents"

So AGW doesn't affect animals and CO2 doesn't play any role in the future affects of climate?

Can you back that up?

I have to say - "Your continued phrasing indicates that you’re not genuine and you merely ape the right forms without knowing what the issue is"

"Wow – “though he went apeshit (again!) when he was accused of saying he believed in AGW”

Because you can’t back it up and I can prove you’re wrong – AGAIN."

Unfortunately, you can't. You even "congratulated" me on accepting your "yes".

"Me – 49 pg 4 – “Do you even believe in AGW?”

Wow – 58 – “it’s about rationality. Belief is irrational. Knowledge is rational.”""

What happened to the intervening 106 posts?

That 58 has nothing to do with that 49.

"Me – 63 – “So if I were to say I know I believe in AGW, is that a rational or irrational statement?”"

And you said you DID believe in AGW.

But you ALSO said you NEVER said you believed in AGW.

“Wow, I don’t want to be considered irrational”

"Wow – “So you’ll stop saying you “Believe” in AGW?”

Actually, I asked if you believe in AGW."

So now I want to know whether you accept AGW or not, because you don't seem to know if you believe it or not, and haven't given any other indication that you actually do agree there is such a thing as AGW.

All you've done is prove YOU are saying don't believe you.

"So AGW doesn’t affect animals and CO2 doesn’t play any role in the future affects of climate?"

Why do you say that?

"The above is fact based knowledge"

Yes.

But it's not proving what you claim it does.

Therefore the fact based knowledge conclusion is that you are wrong.

"I have to say – “Your continued phrasing indicates that you’re not genuine and you merely ape the right forms without knowing what the issue is”"

Except you didn't.

And insist that when you use other peoples words, they aren't meaning YOU are saying them.

You've made that PATENTLY clear.

So you're really saying here: "I have to say".

A monologue of insanity"

Wow @69 - "Since StuPid is in Australia, as far as we know, he may not be able to get in touch with you immediately"

Wow repeated @76 - "Since StuPid is in Australia, as far as we know, he may not be able to get in touch with you immediately"

Wow @78 - "Come on, StuPid, you can approach Batty Betty and use your method to get them to do something to stop AGW....Surely you’re not afraid?"

So what happened to..."he may not be able to get in touch with you immediately"? Did he forget he said it? But it continues...

@81 - "Goodness,they’re both very shy all of a sudden. Have you two boys had a falling out recently?"

Again, he forgot he said......"he may not be able to get in touch with you immediately"

@84 - "Hey, StuPid, kim’s here! Ask kim! Ask kim!"

And @86 - "Well, still waiting for either of these two boys to start talking".....all the while forgetting he said..."he may not be able to get in touch with you immediately"

"A monologue of insanity”

Yes, but don't let it get you down.

"So what happened to…”he may not be able to get in touch with you immediately”?"

So what happened to your comment to StuPid?

Did I miss it?

Or did you forget to post it?

Wow - "Either you know whether you believe him or not or you falsely accused Jeff knowing that you had no idea whether he was correct or not"

Hardley talks out of both sides of his mouth, so determining which is the truth and which is the lie is very difficult.

There are several reasons I questioned his first statement about seeing climate change "first hand"...

The first was he never mentioned what he saw. The second was a question of time scales, trends and the difference between weather and climate.
His "witnessing" was a mere speck in terms of scale, I don't know how you witness a trend over 20 days, and a scientist should know the difference between short term weather and long term climate.

Now let's look at this statement, which was in response to my questioning his first statement..

“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.”

This makes sense, even without Hardely mentioning the difference between weather and climate...

Those of us who accept AGW would surely point out the difference between weather and climate to any denier who suggested he witnessed climate change in Algonquin because his friend got frostbite...correct?

So, not witnessing climate change makes more sense, but since you (Wow) said he did witness climate change first hand.....

Wow - "And Jeff DID see climate change first hand"....

I was wondering if you could explain how the difference between weather and climate helped form your conclusion, and why you believe he's lying when he said he didn't see it.

Thanks.

A continuation of the monologue of insanity:

"So what happened to your comment to StuPid?"
"Did I miss it?"
"Or did you forget to post it?"

Good stuff....only on Deltoid.

Wow - "And you said you DID believe in AGW."

Nope, I agreed "there IS AGW?”

"believe" is what I asked you.

It's all laid out above, you can deny and dance all you want, it's entertaining.

Wow - "And insist that when you use other peoples words, they aren’t meaning YOU are saying them."

Sure I was saying them...I learned them from you and I said them out loud, I even said the word quote out loud....and then I put them down on paper with quotes.

I must say, this is fun! (without quotes)

"Wow – “Either you know whether you believe him or not or you falsely accused Jeff knowing that you had no idea whether he was correct or not”

Hardley talks ...

And you won't.

Do you believe him in the comment I referred to. You refuse to answer.

You refuse to let anyone else answer.

You refuse to allow no answer.

You refuse to pretend you have one.

Several of these are not options available to you.

Do you believe him in the comment I referred to?

Yes?
No?