I bring you Good News - again! Although why I bother beats me, I never get any thanks for it!
Anyway, my Good News is actually Bad News but then I know that is the sort of news you all enjoy over here and you need cheering up what with your Global Warming Doomsday scenario not quite working, er, well, actually failing big time, and your faithful Band of Brothers dwindling by the day, you really are in need of a huge 'end-of-the-world-is-nigh' story to cheer yourselves up! So here it is and don't forget to say thank you:
The Andromeda galaxy will collide with our galaxy in 4 billion years!
Now I know how keen you all are on such stories being backed by scientific expertise, you know, like a 2:2 in Fir Cone Studies from Peterborough Poly-versity, so let me assure you that this comes from some tremendous swot with degrees in stars and planets and things, and he took his measurements from some chap called Hubble - er, no, I don't know he is but apparently he has terrific eyesight and can see things you and I can't!
There you are - disaster, calamity, apocolypse - what better way could you start this June? No, no, don't thank me just the usual in an unmarked brown envelope . . .
"...what with your Global Warming Doomsday scenario not quite working, er, well, actually failing big time, and your faithful Band of Brothers dwindling by the day..."
North Carolina legislators have decided that the way to make exponential increases in sea level rise – caused by those inconvenient feedback loops we keep hearing about from scientists – go away is to make it against the law to extrapolate exponential; we can only extrapolate along a line predicted by previous sea level rises.
Which, yes, is exactly like saying, do not predict tomorrow’s weather based on radar images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain. Predict the weather based on the last two weeks of fair weather with gentle breezes towards the east. Don’t use radar and barometers; use the Farmer’s Almanac and what grandpa remembers.
Hilarious!
This reminds me of the comet episode of the Simpsons: "Let's go burn down the observatory so this will never happen again!"
Maybe they can take it one step further and make science illegal. They can lock scientists away in towers, except this time they're right, damn it!
"Which, yes, is exactly like saying, do not predict tomorrow’s weather based on radar images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain".
"There is virtually universal agreement among scientists that the sea will probably rise a good meter or more before the end of the century, wreaking havoc in low-lying coastal counties"
I'm confused. Is the radar showing actual images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain, or is it "probably" showing images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain?
Nevertheless, this investigation reveals that the oil and gas industry funding plays a much bigger role in the Fraser Institute’s budget than previously realized. Previously unreported cumulative funding from Encana stands at about $1 million; founding CEO Gwyn Morgan gave an additional $1 million, for a total of $2 million. Other important donors have included the Koch brothers ($523,000) and Exxon-Mobil ($120,000), along with significant but unreported regular donations by an unidentified Canadian Koch subsidiary and Exxon-Mobil subsidiary Imperial Oil. There is also circumstantial evidence pointing to support by Keystone XL proponent TransCanada and oil sands operator Canadian Natural Resources. Meanwhile, Pembina has transparently reported support from Suncor (and formerly TransCanada).
... Gwyn Morgan is the now retired founding CEO of Encana, and was a key fundraiser and supporter of Stephen Harper’s successful Conservative Party leadership bid.
A consequence of being stupid, ignorant, and intellectually dishonest.
The sea will probably rise, just as the hurricane will probably hit land. In both cases these are extrapolations from current observation as to what will (with some probability estimate) happen in the future.
Betula, when you directly quote a comparison between a prediction of tomorrow's weather and prediction of end of century sea levels and then say you're "confused" and contrast today's radar map with prediction of end of century sea levels, it's hard to conclude anything other than that you are an imbecile and that your thoughts and comments are utterly worthless.
Can I interest anyone in my petition on AVAAZ, "Tax carbon to create jobs"? Details at http://bkuk.com
Europe should take the advice of Vivid Economics in "The potential of carbon pricing to reduce Europe’s fiscal deficits" or the advice of the Fraser of Allender Institute in "A carbon tax for Scotland".
With less of an academic voice I say:
We need to tax carbon to save the world. The receipts should be used to
1) Pay international debts and
2) Create jobs by taking the tax burden from labour - even subsidising jobs.
So that's full employment and a world saved.
-------------------------------
P.S. I've found an easier way to challenge the deniers:
Which of the "Global Warming & Climate Change Myths" do you believe?
For me, it is hard to find any positives in the new scienceblogs format.
No KILLFILE
No numbers to allow simple back references.
Cannot see the article count without clicking on the article.
Useful old articles sometimes have formatting broken (URLS no longet hyperlinks), ad of course, disappearance of numbers means that some old discussions make no sense at all.
Girma's comment sums up denialism in a nutshell. Most "skeptics" have never seen "their" graph before but would be quick to agree that it's the right one, even if they have previously said that it hasn't warmed for 15 years, is cooling, etc. Whether it is scientifically sound is irrelevant to them.
For me, it is hard to find any positives in the new scienceblogs format.
Everyone agrees; there are none.
some old discussions make no sense at all
Feel fortunate if the comments you're looking for are even visible.
'Cannot see the article count without clicking on the article'
And trivially for some perhaps, like J Quiggin's blog, comment page numbers are at the bottom of the page, not at the section head for quick reference.
The one thing I will say for the new format is that the blockquote tags now result in something legible if multiple paragraphs are quoted (the homogenous blobbing of everything used to really piss me off.) And you can recess one blockquote inside another - handy when I was quoting Jonathon Holmes the other day, for example.
Oh,
and
now
I
(think I)
can
make
a
list
without having to resort to using multiple paragraph tags!
Other than that - no preview, no capacity for corrections, no permalinks, previous discussions reduced to gibberish: what's to like?
As for Watts' imbecility du jour - slow 'news' day, I figure. The Deniers' constant waving about of the shade of Feynman gets old very quickly, too...
While errors and mistakes get made in climate science all the time (it's a contact sport after all) Amazon, Glaciers etc. What strikes me is the sheer volume of errors, mistakes and more by denialists - there are freaking loads of them and they are on a monumental scale (which is what happens when you remove checks an balances) and dwarf anything by climate scientists. Here's just a few that occurred to me...
A Wegman et al (2006) study purporting to show problems in the nature of collaboration of climate researchers had to be retracted to do plagiarism, poor scholarship and a shady peer review process that took only 5 days (it normally takes months). Doh, Wegman!
McIntyre & McKitrick claimed in an op-ed in the USA Today that Mann had never made his data available for others. He did and it had been there for years. USA Today had to retract the claim. Doh, McIntyre & McKitrick!
In an article by Daniel Grossman, Richard Lindzen claimed the 1999 Hockey Stick study used only tree rings and only from 4 locations. He was wrong. It used ice cores and tree rings and the tree data came from 34 sites based in 12 regions of the planet. Doh, Lindzen!
Craig Loehle published a paper in 2007 in Energy and Environment that purported to show the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as today. Except that he didn't understand that the standard date in tree-ring data of BP (before present) is 1950 and not 2000, so many of his records were 50 years out. Doh, Loehle!
Climate scientist Hans Von Storch resigned as editor of the journal Climate Research because a contentious and flawed study purporting to show warming was not happening (Soon & Baliunas) – this papers peer review process had been murky and the publisher of the journal, Otto Kinne, would not let the editor say so. Doh, Kinne!
Marcel Crok penned a 2005 article in Dutch magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek that claimed the hockey stick, and the Kyoto protocol that was based on it were both wrong. Yet the the Kyoto protocol was adopted in December 1997 – 4 months before the first hockey stick was published in April 1998. Doh, Crok!
Representative Ed Whitfield's also claimed the 1997 Kyoto protocol was based on the 1998 hockey stick. Doh, Whitfield!
Dr. John Christy criticised Mann for lack of scientific openness by not sharing the source code used to generate the hockey stick (though the algorithm and method allowing reconstruction was) yet Christy had also refused to share code with Dr. Frank Wentz when requested to do so. Hypocritical doh, Christy!
Dr. John Christy and Roy Spenser argued in several papers in the 1990s that warming was not happening based on satellite measurements, yet problems with their methods later showed they were wrong and they both had to concede warming was happening. Doh, Christy & Spenser!
Changes that irritate me include:
No list of all posts in chronological order. I used to always scan the last 24 hours to see what was new. Now all you get are the last few in each category with duplicates, some that have been there for many days and others that get pushed off the list within hours. There are several blogs I'd occasionally read that I no longer visit because it is harder to see what they are offering.
Broken 'Go to (select blog)' at the top of each page.
The 'Recent Comments' still lists none for the June Open Thread and always seems to be out of date.
And, of course, the lack of comment numbers and preview.
Did Watts edit the post or something? He says he edited to make it clearer that this was an old paper, but it smacks of ass covering to me, given how many thought this was news. Mind you, judging by the comments, dimwittery cannot be ruled out. .
GSW just urged Jonas to post in the open thread. I hope that, if/when the software gets straightened out, Tim permanently bans the lot of these trolls.
I got sucked in. You should have put right off the bat it was from 2000. So I sent this out after reading the first part to alot of people and looked like a fool, cause I was one.
According to Watts the Hansen paper was "published in 2000, but long since buried"
From the paper (as quoted by Watts)
"If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change."
From the May 18-19, 2012 Camp David Declaration of the G-8 nations
"Recognizing the impact of short-lived climate pollutants on near-term climate change, agricultural productivity, and human health, we support, as a means of promoting increased ambition and complementary to other CO2 and GHG emission reduction efforts, comprehensive actions to reduce these pollutants, which, according to UNEP and others, account for over thirty percent of near-term global warming as well as 2 million premature deaths a year." http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/19/camp-david-declar…
As Eli notes, Hansen's hopes for "plausible success in slowing CO2" have been obstructed by among others Watts.
Have * none * of them read and comprehended para. 6 of the summary of the abstract before proseltysing their pointy little heads off, then blaming everyone else?
If Bastardi, Olaus, and the rest of these morons cannot read and comprehend "2000", you can hardly expect them to read and comprehend any of the rest of it. The patent stupidity of the posters there, from Watts on down, is immense. I'm surprised that Watts allowed Mike's post, that points out what an imbecile Watts is:
@”REPLY: Because it has been buried, Hansen doesn’t include it (along with many of his older publications) in his list of publications on his website.
I suppose if you don’t keep up with the scientific literature this and many other things would seem shocking. The paper is listed on Hansen’s web page. It is not on the first page because the first page only goes back to 2004. But at the bottom of that page there is a link to earlier publications: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html#2000
So, it was hidden in plane sight all along. In fact the debate about short term climate fixes while awaiting the longer term solution is pretty well known.
For me, it is hard to find any positives in the new scienceblogs format.
No KILLFILE
No numbers to allow simple back references.
Cannot see the article count without clicking on the article.
Useful old articles sometimes have formatting broken (URLS no longet hyperlinks), ad of course, disappearance of numbers means that some old discussions make no sense at all.
+1. I'm out till the fix some or all of this. Cheers.
Stop the presses! According to The Australian, when it comes to death threats the real victims aren't climate scientists but aggressive News Ltd attack hounds.
Now, the reason climate scientists get death threats in the first place is because Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair and the entire Australian newspaper rountiely publish blatant falsifications about climate science and regularly smear scientists and their motives with heavily personal, dishonest attacks (does anybody else remember the "Tim Flannery lives on the waterfront, lynch him dead!" fiasco?)
Any admission from these intellectually dishonest hacks that their aggressive stance against reality is to blame for the death threats against scientists? Do they take any responsibility?
But after 20 years of abuse and threats, Mitchell has some advice: "These climate scientists need to harden up."
Somebody go and tell that scientist whose children were threatened with gang-rape that she needs to "harden up".
I see nothing but tacit approval of those tactics in that article, as if being a highly-paid, highly-charged right-wing ideoligical mouthpiece and researching scientific matters are exactly the same thing. I am against online abuse, but the Bolts and Blairs of the world understand that the position they take will make them enemies.
Scientists, on the other hand, did not sign up for public abuse, and should we really expect to live in a world where death threats against scientists should be considered de rigueur? A part of the job? Becuase this is what Chris Mitchell and The Australian is apparently advocating.
It would be less sick if they weren't denying that threats were being made in the first place.
What is it with the right-wing media and their victimisation complex?
Having failed to prove that it's not happening - a form of abuse in itself, I might add - we now get a combined tu quoque fallacy and 'harden up' rhetoric.
To paraphrase a golden description of Basil Fawlty, there's a whole Psych conference in these guys.
The Australian really is a printed far-Right blog, and it behaves like a far-Right think-tank. Guess which one I'm thinking of...
You would not know the difference between a severe storm, the Beaufort Scale or watt even constitutes a Category 1 Hurricane(Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale), even if it rained on your parade and bit you in your posterior.
And the 'Old Duffer', is still busy cherry picking his way, to the room of the smallest number of greatest pretenders, living in denial, in the 21st century, the "Ersatz Alchemy Science Skeptics"..
Sad, for who would have thought, so few people would be scared out of their single mononeuron, by an inconvenient truth..
I think, by and large, taken in the round and with judicial consideration, the new design of this blog is about on par with the pseudo-science that most of its correspondents espouse.
Incidentally, 'Her Majship' is not amused that all that global warming you have been promising for the last 30 years failed - again - to make an appearance.
More Good/Bad News - oh, hell, I can't keep on explaining, you know what I mean. Anyway, according to the IEA (and, no, I haven't a clue who they are but I know you swots here keep right up to date with all these scientific boondoggles):
“Global carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion reached a record high of 31.6 gigatonnes in 2011.”
Crikey! Not sure what a "gigatonne" is but it sounds like a lot to me. So tell me, folks, when is this blasted global warming going to start? I mean, today, the 5th of June for God's sake, I have had to put my central heating back on! You told us over and over that if we didn't cut CO2 emissions we'd all fry. Anyone who suggested otherwise was, and still is, howled down. So I ask again, where's the heat? And, pur-lease, don't tell me its all sunk down to the bottom of the ocean!
So tell me, folks, when is this blasted global warming going to start? I mean, today, the 5th of June for God’s sake, I have had to put my central heating back on!
Tell me Duffer, what do you have your thermostat set at, 35 degrees C or what?
I think he is getting ready for the next world where he will find things a lot hotter than his Septic Isle (that's where people who tell lots of lies go, you know).
Here is what has really been happening with temperatures in the UK. Does Duffer live underground where he can't see what is happening or is he just lying as usual?
What you have top make allowances for, Ian F. is that Duffer has the memory (and the concomitant intellect) of a goldfish.
Your (beautiful) satellite image (during which the population of the UK were enjoying outdoor parades and concerts etc.across the entire nation in honour of HRH the Queen Maj's 60th. shindig) was yesterday.
David Duff, being an idiot fool denier and liar, apparently an't remember that far back.
Duff's understanding is that he has been told, over and over again, that every single day in every single part of the world it will get warmer than the day before and so if it's cooler where he is than what it was yesterday, that falsifies global warming.
Duff, if you want to wind people up here you're going to have to try a bit harder than "it's cold where I live!".
Not even you believe that argument. Is this really the best the sceptics have got at the moment? No wonder their belief system is collapsing. Day by day more and more scientists are speaking out about AGW and here's little old Duff insisiting that it's cold!
I was completely swayed by Duff's convincing revelation that global warming doesn't exist because it's cold where he lives until I read about a heatwave in Southern India:
Some areas of Purulia district are facing shortage of drinking water while civic authorities of Purulia, Raghunathpur and Jhalda towns have been supplying it once in a day instead of twice. "Drinking water tankers are also being placed in various parts and schools have been asked to extend the summer holidays," he added.
Officials said at least 32 people have died of heatwave in three districts of southern Bengal in the past two days.
By Duff's reasoning AGW is happening. Case closed!
*So tell me, folks, when is this blasted global warming going to start?*
FYI, Greenland just experienced its warmest ever May day (24.8 C) and Siberia is experiencing a record-setting heatwave, with temperatures in the mid to high 30s. Not that any of this is climate, but it is part of a growing data set showing an increasing trend towards warmer conditions at the poles - exactly as Keeling and Revelle said it would back in the 50s.
The trouble with idiots like the old Duffer is that they look out the back window and generate their 'science' on the basis of this.
"So tell me, folks, when is this blasted global warming going to start?"
Nothing for you to worry about Duff. By the time you die, they'll probably be less than another half a degree of global warming and less than an additional 10 cm of sea level rise. The damage caused by these rises will be relatively insignificant compared with the disasters that will come after you die but for psychopaths such as yourself, those disasters after you die are of absolutely no significance.
So don't worry about it Duff, it's not a problem we expect psychopaths to care about.
None of you seem to realise that I'm on *your* side! I love the thought of global warming - provided it's all around me! I don't care if you live in a desert like the Sahara or Australia, I only care about south west England and as I live miles inland I certainly don't care if the sea rises, in fact, if it washes away some of those ghastly monstrosities of seaside towns which blight our coast, then good riddance.
But my complaint is real - where and when is this warming going to happen? We've had three in a row miserable wet Summers and this looks like another bummer. I know because one of my hobbies is whittling. I carve models of Mann and Jones and Briffa (well, if they can create models why not me?) and then set fire to them to get a little warmth, but the 'Memsahib' will not allow me to do it indoors because of the mess. I haven't done any whittling for three years because its too bloody chilly to sit outside!
So I repeat, where's the warming gone? Where are the calamities, the 'Apocalypse Now' scenarios, the scorched earth? It certainly isn't here and I haven't seen any of it anywhere else exept where it's always been, ie, Sahara and Australia and frankly anyone who actually chooses to live in either deserves all they get!
Note that the temperature at the end of May was barely below the warmest recorded in any month of the year. Remarkable. Siberia is also experiencing a record heat wave right now, with temperatures in the mid to upper 30s. Unprecedented.
Of course this is 'only' weather, but it (a) supports predictions by Revelle and Keeling made in the 1950s (that the highest latitudies would be disproportionately warmer relative to normal than lower latitudies), and (b) it is aprt of a larger data set showing many more warm records are being broken than cold records. Is the planet warming? Most definitely. And its the poles that are receiving a large portion of it.
Duffer's 'science' is to look out the window and stick his finger in the wind.
"Walker’s recall election is completely irrelevant"
Oh, no it's not! And if, Bill, you are 'a believer' then you should start worrying because Walker's win presages a Romney win in November and you can kiss goodbye to all that greenery twaddle that Obama threw zillions of dollars at!
Jeff, do pay attention, I couldn't care less about Siberia - a total lavatory of a place, I imagine - and Greenland is frequently warm. Just stick to the point, WHERE ARE THE CATASTROPHES?
"Betty – you have cottoned on that this is an Australian blog about climate, haven’t you? Walker’s recall election is completely irrelevant."
Well it is tangentially linked. The Koch brothers are reputed to have poured a lot of money into Walker's campaign. Must be money saved from Heartland :)
You want catastrophes then Google on 'UK floods 2012' for starters. Then drill down to discover the impact on wildlife (much loss in Somerset and in the Fens with some endangered species losing important nesting sites), farming and US (that is as 'WE' not The US) more directly.from disruptions to services including sewage. Fouled beaches should be considered.
Of course such things do not concern those with tiny minds and selfish mores.
Looking further afield it is not to much of s stretch to discover landslides, wildfires and much death from overheat coupled with drought. Of course the suffering of millions in southern India is of little consequence to you, after all it isn't your kids dying.
As for Romney, the only thing he is likely to win is a 'Janus Award' - when you have finished with it that is.
“Betty – you have cottoned on that this is an Australian blog about climate, haven’t you?"
Bill, apart from the fact that this is an open thread, there is a political link at the top of the page and politics is catagorized in the right column of the site....C'mon Bill, I think I may be sensing a little leftwing "Death Threat Denial" from you.
"Walker’s recall election is completely irrelevant".
So the people who are put into office have nothing to do with policies, including those that may have to do with global warming? Really? But the left deemed it so important....only now it's irrelevant...heh heh.
"So I repeat, where’s the warming gone? Where are the calamities, the ‘Apocalypse Now’ scenarios, the scorched earth? It certainly isn’t here and I haven’t seen any of it anywhere else ..."
It's liberals who want to kill Obama and have called for the deaths of just about every prominent liberal politician and every judge who didn't decide in their favor?
Everything you post just demonstrates how immensely intellectually dishonest you are, Betula ... you gain nothing by doing so.
But the left deemed it so important….only now it’s irrelevant…heh heh.
The Democrats took control of the Wisconsin State Senate yesterday. And exit polls favored Obama 51 to Romney 44. The biggest reason Walker held on is because 60% of the voters felt that recalls should only be used for malfeasance, not policy differences ... and because the Republicans outspent the Dems 7 to 1, which will indeed have a large impact on the November election.
But none of this changes the fact that AGW is real, it just shows yet again that you're a partisan slug, Betula.
What can it possibly be that drives societal detritus like David Duff to be so unaware of what's happening in their own country. And yet be proud and willing to declare their ignorance?
It's not like these stories aren't carried in The Daily <Sturmer or a local version of The Weekly Cousinfcuker, so it can only be namesake syndrome.
But the left deemed it so important….only now it’s irrelevant…
And again you show your combination of stupidity and dishonesty, Betula. Yes it was a very important race for the left, as articulated by leftist Rachel Maddow, especially if Walker had been recalled, and no it doesn't tell us much about the outome of the November presidential race, as articulated by two of centrist President Obama's paid spokespeople.
Back on track - here's an interesting discussion of the comparison of the dire prognostications of wailing, gnashing of teeth and oceans of tears before bedtime that the Mabo decision was going to spawn - according to its detractors - and the contemporary catastrophist carry-on re the carbon tax.
Don't trouble yourself, Betty - you'll never sort it all out.
The Pacific Institute is pleased to welcome Dr. Peter Gleick back to his position as president of the Institute.
Bill, you forgot to cue the howls of outrage from the Denialati.
What I'm looking forward to now is the response from Heartland, and especially word on the progress of their lawsuit. After all, it's not like Bast's case is falling to pieces or anything, is it?
And then there's the small unanswered matter about where the material came from that was supplied to Gleick...
This is a genuine and serious question. I am interested in real opinions. Since Tim often writes about shitty reporting in Oz, and I live in the US I have no perspective, I thought I would ask here.
There were a bunch of articles written today, and others when it was released, about the Finkelstein Report...
...and its ramifications. Most of the stories I have read are from sites with which I am unfamiliar. I am trying to see if this is internet spin, or if this thing is really has the possibility of seeing the light of day. A journalist friend sent the original link to me which was this.
I am very curious to the opinions on the report from those here who live there as I know there are many.
Honest question. Does anyone support this thinking, even if you believe The Australian spouts deception in science--another thing all together and an opinion I don't disagree with from what I have read--keeping in mind that this thing appears to pertain to all discussions, not just scientific issues?
Your comment about voters capable of doing it twice is odd, as it doesn't relate to any point made by me or Betula or the people in that video. But on that score, a) people know a lot more about him than when he ran, and the political landscape in Wisconsin has changed dramatically; b) people didn't vote for him, they voted against his recall; that makes a difference when, according to exit polls, 60% voters said that someone should be recalled only for official misconduct, and another 10% opposed all recalls. On top of that, Walker spent $29 million to Barrett's $2.9 million. With those factors, it should not have even been close, but it was because of (a).
There's still the possibility that he'll be removed from office for other reasons.
I don't disagree with any of the points you raised. Even I don't find the idea of recall elections all that comfortable - except in cases of genuine malfeasance - because sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and all that. Still, being an Australian that's not an issue... (so far as I know wwe have no such laws)
My response is directed to Betty and the whole 'you're losing the argument because we're more popular' brigade.
Taking too much to heart the results of 'free and fair' elections that are little more than popularity contests where candidates are sold to the electorate by the same people who sell us soap-powder, using the same techniques, is a path to madness.
As is allowing 'corporate persons' to plunge virtually unlimited wodges of cash into an electoral system, of course. But the very media who are supposed to point this out are the chief beneficiaries of the enhanced tonnage of advertising dollars.
Anybody else notice Duff's position has retreated to ignoring all the empirical evidence and postulating "global warming is only real if the effects which are predicted to happen decades and centuries from now effect me personally where I live today"?
This is what the "skeptics" have been reduced to - babbling arguments so lame not even they believe them. Their belief system is collapsing before our eyes.
My response is directed to Betty and the whole ‘you’re losing the argument because we’re more popular’ brigade.
Betula's statement in re Walker wasn't about that; it was
But the left deemed it so important….only now it’s irrelevant…
which is, of course, dishonest, as it refers two different things ... the statement about irrelevance was made by Obama spokepeople, not "the left", about its relevance to the outcome of the Presidential election. Of course they will downplay the idea that Walker retaining his governorship is bad news for Obama in November ... and they happen to be right. At the same time, Rachel Maddow is correct that this was a hugely important election; had Walker lost, it would have had major repercussions, and his not losing will embolden the other right wing governors who are engaged in trying to destroy the remnants of labor unions.
Taking too much to heart the results of ‘free and fair’ elections that are little more than popularity contests ...
Betula wrote
So the people who are put into office have nothing to do with policies, including those that may have to do with global warming?
He's certainly right about that relevance. Regardless of the mechanism by which these people are elected, the results of the elections have significant consequences.
Consequences? Certainly; I'm always in favour of the least-awful candidate. ;-)
(I'm also a paid-up member of my Union.)
I understand that climate wasn't relevant to this election.
And it's little suprise that the party that loses will say the particular dominates over the general, hence it has little to do with the next election, and the party that wins will say the general is dominating over the particular, hence the opposite - that's the law of the by-election. I agree that in this case the losers would appear to be right, though.
On June 6, 1:17 pm, Bill made the comment..."Walker’s recall election is completely irrelevant" He was referring to it's irrelevance as a subject on an open thread on a science blog..
"With those factors, it should not have even been close, but it was because of (a)"
Just as close as the first time...only less close:
"The race was a rematch of the 2010 race, when Walker beat Barrett by nearly 6 percentage points. Turnout Tuesday was higher than it had been 19 months earlier, and Walker was leading by 7 percentage points with 96% of the vote counted."
You hand someone a lemon and a lime. They say "Thanks for the lemons." You point at the lime and say "That's not a lemon, that's a lime." They say "Really? I suppose the other one isn't a lemon either." You think "Why am I even talking to this nut?"
I'm discussing it because ianam - i.e. someone worth discussing things with - responded to the point I was making that a political system that is capable of generating one victory for the likes of Walker is quite capable of generating another.
That Walker is a creature of both the Kochs and Zombie Economics* should surprise no-one. The steps taken along the US elite's ideologically-driven path to economic suicide - e.g. austerity and gutting worker's rights (even electoral disenfranchisement) - should surprise no-one.
And that some blatant moron should opportunistically claim all this has something to do with AGW should also surprise no-one.
Because the kind of stunted intellect that is gleefully triumphant at the rise of the Walkers of this world is precisely the kind of stunted intellect that will gloat over any poll that 'proves' the science deniers are 'winning'.
Talk about Pyrrhic victories! But, being as thick as the proverbial short planks x2, you'll just have to wait for History to rub your nose in that one.
And then you'll just deny it...
*Nothing happened between the WSC of '29 and the ascension of Saints Margaret and Ronnie in '79. Nothing worth us knowing, anyway.
Look at it this way Bill - the deniers are currently so strapped of any of the fake stolen email style outrages they have become addicted to (coupled with the recent heatwaves, humiliation of Heartland, restoration of Gleick and Monckton's new-found birtherism, which even the most hardline denier finds mildly alarming) that the best argument they can put forward is to pretend that a small state election was a referendum on AGW.
Because the kind of stunted intellect that is gleefully triumphant at the rise of the Walkers of this world is precisely the kind of stunted intellect that will gloat over any poll that ‘proves’ the science deniers are ‘winning’.
So what were these same people voting for the first time around ianumb? Oh, I know...perhaps they weren't voting for him, they were voting for a Governor.
What is it called when you keep doing the same thing and expect a different result ianumb?
"And that some blatant moron should opportunistically claim all this has something to do with AGW should also surprise no-one."
Yet some Moron would think I claimed such a thing but can't back it up....
Here's what I said....."So the people who are put into office have nothing to do with policies, including those that may have to do with global warming?"
I don't see anything about Walker or the recall in that sentence..... only that people vote for someone based on their policies. Do you deny that statement Bill? Are you a policy Denier?
By the way, how does Scott Walker feel about the Global Warming issue?
Snivelly Betula denies claiming the election was a referendum on AGW and then, with requisite weasel wording, goes on to make that very claim.
Logic can be a bit hard for him sometimes.
And yes, it was irrelevant, proven by the fact Betula had to go back to 2010 for a statement on the policy that was apparently so pertinent it won him the election.
Or it could just be Betula is simplifying things to suit his political, anti-science agenda. Who can say?
"Snivelly Betula denies claiming the election was a referendum on AGW"
You read into things the same way you read into future climate change scenarios....you speculate and you believe, but you can't claim it as being true because it hasn't happened. For you, if means is, could means does, might means will, may means did....everything is a big misguided assumption.
A tough and sorry way to go through life....but you wear it well.
It doesn't matter, you dishonest anal discharge, because it was a recall election, which affects how people vote. And I didn't gloat over a poll, you dishonest sack of pus, I merely pointed out what the poll indicated ... and exit polls are relevant to why people vote, whereas polls are not relevant to whether there is AGW.
Even Tim Curtin has more intellectual integrity than Betula.
you can’t claim it as being true because it hasn’t happened.
The same could be said of eclipses or Venus traversals before they happen. Of course only stupid and dishonest people use this "it hasn't happened line".
All your posting here does is alert people to the fact that you're a dishonest scumbag, Betula; it does not further your interests in any way.
It's remarkable that a lying evil sack of filth and slime like Betula, gloating over Walker's win, accuses me of gloating over ... what? My loss? I have nothing to gloat over; the election was a disaster for my interests. The demise of public labor unions is a disaster for my interests. The realities of AGW and the politics around it are a disaster for my (and the rest of humanity's) interests. The Citizens United decision was a disaster for my interests. I do not gloat, I despise ... I despise garbage like Betula for what they have done, while they gloat over it.
Here is the sort of non-gloating analysis about Wisconsin that I read, Betula. Go ahead and gloat over your success, you filth.
I knew you were a moron, but wow, such an angry moron...
Yes, you are a gloating poll clinging denier. You seek satisfaction in posting and clinging to a poll as a way to justify what has happened.... you can't except how out of touch you and your union loving progtards are with the rest of society....you're in denial and need to flash a poll for comfort and reassurance.
Sort of like the way you have to convince yourself you're not a moron with the ianam moniker. How's that denial working for you?
Betty, I think I can safely say nobody cares what you think, or how your thoughts form your 'opinions' - received as they patently are. No, the reason nobody cares what you think is that you have never, ever shown yourself to be capable.
I spend a fair bit of time in the field, Betty, and, returning from expeditions in foetid, swampy locations, I've subsequently discovered more intelligent things than you concealed in my socks.
As I said, the lying hypocritical scum gloats. I know how that's going for him ... it makes him feel so good, because he is evil unscrupulous garbage. Used to it? I am used to it ... remember, I expect the worst.
Betula won't say Walker's anti-science stance won him the election outright because he knows this is wrong. He'd prefer to smugly insinuate this in his weasley, slimy manner, which is exactly the gormless tactic we've all come to expect from hardcore science denialists.
The sad reality is that the majority of the public see climate change policy as a federal issue, and exit polls show alarmist Obama leading 54% (of course his AGW policies would have nothing to do with that, would they Betula?)
As stated before, Walker's anti-science stance in this recall election was completely irrelevant and it is a key act of desperation to pretend otherwise. I don't see much honesty or logic, just ad hom and blind ideoogical obsession.
Oh dear, Australian climate science appears to have been well and truly 'gergised'(*). Even worse, it has been 'gergised' by that absolute rotter, Steve McIntyre. Oh, the shame! Never mind, er, 'mates' I think you call each other 'down under there', it happens to us all. British climate (non)science was similarly 'gergised' a few years back when we all got to read their naughty little fibs.
Gergise: v., meaning, to pick your favourite proxy data sets to suit your theory.
McIntyre v., trans to feign expertise on a subject one has no knowledge of or education or training in. Used as in the following examples:
(i) The plumber had completely mcintyred the diesel injection system beyond repair.
(ii) The electrician proceeded to mcintyre the computer network, which was subsequently down for days.
(iii) Stevie had mcintyred the entire series in the belief that science was just number crunching.
davidduff n. - an airhead, ass, berk, blockhead, booby, chump, coot, cretin, dickhead, dickwit, dimwit, dipstick, divvy, dork, dunderhead, dwee, fool ,fuckwit, gonzo, halfwit, imbecile, lamebrain, moron, nincompoop, nitwit, numbskull, numpt, oaf, pillock, plonker, schmuck, simpleton, twit, wally. One who hasn't the first clue about a given subject.
Example: The davidduff paid up even though the garage had totally mcintyred his car.
Even though his television was now mcintyred beyond repair, the davidduff considered the bill good value as the technician had been very polite..
.
chek, much as it's a fine list, by his own admission the real thing used to specialise in hawking mcintyred motors to those too daft to see through the faux-genial manner... we're talking something altogether darker than the merely dense here.
Ah sadly, "Old Duffer" and "Betula" , being of unsound delusional mononeurons, locked into the one thought, one track a time mobius loop of denial, are proudly following the clueless traditions of the last King of "Hy-Brasil" ;)
Betula denied claiming the election was a referendum on AGW and now denies denying it. His argument is eating itself.
And McIntyre must be right. After all, Duff believes it and since when has he just gullibly swallowed anything? Well, except for sea rise, cosmic rays, imminent cooling...
I can't argue with your imagination, it's doing a fine job by itself.
To ease your pain, try telling your imagination to copy and paste what it is that's bothering it and then post it so it can prove to itself that it's wrong.
That's about all I can do for you in your unfortunate situation....if you can't do it, the only other suggestion I have is a psychologist.
And how ironic - Betty, despite your anti-PC zealotry you may yet succumb to Pc*. For a start, and it's important that you answer honestly here, do your sweaty feet smell sort of like cheese and off red wine?
mycology - isn't that an I-phone app?
*Phytophthora cinnamomi is usually abbreviated to the initials. Botanist's joke. We need to get out more.
Need to do a better job of looking up those big words Bernard...it's spelled phytophthora. Next time ask me first, I'm an Arborist and will be glad to help...
Yes, y'see Bill you evidently don't live in the real world as helpfully spoonfed to Betty by his preferred crank sources, and are blissfully unaware of the global-scale conspiracies to be found under every rock if you only had the eyes to see, like wot special awakened people like Betty here has.
Oh please Betula, are you now trying to argue from authority? Well, I can do that too.
I'm an ecologist, and I've worked (and decontaminated) in phyto-blighted forests. I do actually know how to spell it - but I was too busy changing your name from 'Betual', another mistyping spoonerism that I regularly come up with, to notice the other mistake.
But if muddle-fingered typos are all that you can come up with, keep at it. I notice that you never address anything scientifically-based - ceratinly, when it comes to global warming, you're conspicuous by your absence in posting anything that resembles a coherent and defensible argument.
As you and other regulars probably know, I am ever more convinced that the planet's already committed to a serious ecological collapse. It's not pessimism - just a familiarity with the numbers.
I'd say that there's about a 75% likelihood that by 2025 human's will have brought the planet to a place where, even if they were all instantaneously teleported away, the biosphere will undergo - or rather, be showing the not-so-early-ish signs of undergoing - profound irreversible reorganisation and simplification.
As I've noted on Open Mind, these signs will be certainly ever more evident at various times after 2025. Note, when I say at Tamino's, "‘Great Extinction’ events", I'm referring to the middle/end of such an occurrance, and not the beginning. We're already into the beginning...
If one were to define a 'tipping point' in terms of the latest time at which humans should have been fully/ and globally engaged in a war-footing program to reverse our biospheric degradation, I reckon that the turn of the millenium - 2000 AD - is a good (if somewhat arbitrary) landmark. Our social/political cultural inertia is such that even if gains could still be made today, by the time we get around to enacting them it'll be over Red Rover.
I think what Karenspot might be trying to articulate is Clarke's third law: ".Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
Which to the Karenspots of this world, most of the already surrounding science and technology might as well be tarot'n'tealeaves as far as they're concerned. The level of understanding is similar.
I apologise Betula. Your charge that I was inventing the very arguments you yourself made and that I need a psychologist were so personally devestating (and lacking only the killer blows of "seriously, get a life!" and "lol get over yourself loser haha" that surely would have caused me to take my life, and perhaps that of a loved one) that for the past two days I have found myself bedridden and crying uncontrollably.
Ah, Betula June 10, 3:36 pm, thanks for the compliment!
At school, they often called me "Hey Stoopid", now calling me "Dumb", puts me in the schools highest and best class, the "Genius Class".
That being so, even my old summer science school teacher, the late Julius "Why is it so" S-M, helped us all to understand the simplicity of the "Second Law of Thermodynamics".
Many of his surviving lectures, can be found on "youtube", too.
I feel though, given your total lack of understanding of basic physics, from first principles, viewing all his lectures, would in all econometric probability, exceed the maximum storage capacity of your mobius loop mononeuron.
Sadly, it appears the understanding of the basic laws physics and the properties of matter, has so far eluded the limited memory capacity, of your sole flashy mononeuron.
Watts and McIntyre seem to be getting increasingly shrill, illogical and desperate since the wheels came off and the Heartland circus rolled into the ditch beyond recovery.
The 'auditor' and his monkey's latest line in stories about their layman science fantasies may impress their stable of equally ignorant foaming numpties who need to be fed every couple of days, but will have no other impact whatsoever in the real world.
That warm feeling that you're currently bragging about Petri is, you may recall, just like you get when you piss your pants, but won't last quite as long.
Seems like the right wingnuts like Olaus live, eat, breathe and exist on WUWT and other anti-enrvironmental anti-regulation blogs for their worldviews. Forget the primary literature; to these dinbgbats it does not exist. Only right wing blogs purveying a bullshit blizzard will do for them.
BTW, just finished reading Merchants of Doubt by Oreskes and Conway and its outstanding. It exposes the climate denial lobby as just another extension of the tobacco lobby, the acid rain denial lobby, the CFC-ozone depletion denial lobby, and the DDT is safe lobby which also links to various think tanks and a fervently libertarian political ideology with roots in the cold war and an irrational fear of communism. Essentially, the same people have played a prominent role in denying a range of environmental threats over more than 30 years, and much of this has been chaneled through the idea that only the market can address policy related issuues. Anyone arguing that regulations limiting corporate activity are needed are derided as communists, watermelons etc. by this sordid lot of crazies. The idea that the market can produce failures - in other words, serious environmental problems - is downplayed or ignored altogether.
Oreskes and Conway have done a meticulous job of explaining the strategies of anti-environmental lobby,the prominent people involved (e.g. Seitz, Singer, Jastrow et al) its political aims and its huge funding sources, in their book. I've read a lot of literarture over the past 10-15 years in this area, and I have presented many lectures on this topic in universities in different countries, but this book might be the best of the lot.
You really have nothing but an incomprehensible mish-mash of greviously uncomprehended talking points floating around trying to catch one of your all-too-rare neurons, dontcha, 'Karen'?
I have to admit watermelon that I do find it amusing addressing the co2 loonies in here as they do others. Actually it is funnier watching you all sook about it.
This is the only website I visit whereby I must lower my IQ to 25 to be on par with you all in order to communicate.
I think I read about this technique in a mag called the Mental Monthly while I was getting a pap smear.
Come now 'Karen', anybody who in all seriousness claims that someone on the rational 'side' ever said that the "Arctic will be ice free in 2012" is either a dishonest bag ofscum and/or is struggling to raise their IQ up to 25, not lower it.
Putrid, until you learn a little more about the ways in which the world works, your comments deserve to end up on the s*** heap. You haven't a clue about the various lobbies and how they have tried to undermine the health and societal risks posed by tobacco, acid rain, ozone depletion, loss of biodiversity, pesticides, various forms of pollution and climate change. The same deniers and think tanks have been relied upon as 'experts' in many of these areas for years. Few if any of them have any relevant qualifications. Like them, you and your freakish brethren (Jonarse, Flatula, Sun-Karenspot, Duffer, Pent-up-axe, et al) are driven by your far right political beliefs which you feebly try to camouflage as 'science'. Oreskes and Conway cover this in detail in MoD. The debate in these diverse scientific areas has never been about scientific accuracy but about the role of government in public policy. You clowns wear your libertarian hearts on your sleeves, and it bleeds through in everything you write. You can't believe that markets ever need to be regulated. Now we have Singer telling Romney to throw his weight behind a fossil-fuel dependent economy. If you bother to get off your butt and read MoD, instead of sniping away at the sidelines, you might learn something. However, you fear information. Knowledge. You are content to stay in the D-K shadows.
By the way, I assume that you mean 'merchant' and not the plural, unless Professor Oreskes has clones. Put it down to your semi-literate musings.
Whatever the tune your singing Jeff it is really starting look ridiculous, even the carbon markets are something to behold, have you noticed that the charts look a bit like a temperature graph ?
Pfffttt, phloooottt, * gurgle *, splobbb, Phhhwooshhh... - yes, it's another round of spattering, sputtering efforts by Denial's 3 Musketeers - Athos, Pathos and Bathos.
Anyway - back in the real world, those who have read Oreskes and Conway should also consider David Michaels' 'Doubt is Their Product', one of the most shocking books I've read - not least because despite decades of being active in environmental causes it turned out upon reading it I was actually largely blissfully unaware not only of the mind-boggling extent to which 'Product Defense Science' has become normalised, but also of its many, many victories - as exemplified by the fact that, if you're like me, you'll not even have heard of about half the case studies in the book...
I don't know how the sane around here can stomach exchanging blows with those like OP, Karen & Betula who have not yet graduated from that Kindergarten for Brownshirts.
Chek, looks like you fell foul of the link dropper on this board:
Undoubtedly good news, as a reading of this thread at Real Climate shows.
"Come now ‘Karen’, anybody who in all seriousness claims that someone on the rational ‘side’ ever said that the “Arctic will be ice free in 2012″ is either a dishonest bag ofscum and/or is struggling to raise their IQ up to 25, not lower it."
*Lionel didn’t anyone tell you ? The study by Gergis et al. has been chucked in the bin*
By who? Oh, you mean McIntyre, the same mining enbgineer guy with links to right wing think tanks and who doesn't publish much in the scientific literature. In other words a pseudo. The same guy who mangled PCA in a 2005 E&E screed that made anothjer feeble attempt to discredit the work of Mann and colleages.
Its hard to keep a straight face when Sunspot-Karen and the other libertarian twits here rely on blogs pushing corporate agendas for their 'science'. And note that the blogs don't do any original research - instead all they do is to take existing studies and data sets and f*** around with them to produce the desired results.
"The Arctic is screaming," said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the US government's Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.
And Nasa climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."
Karen-spot, you utter shmuck, the results of the study will almost certainly stand, a point your right wing hero even admits. And Karoly and the other authors noticed the so-called error before McIntyre did. I wait with baited breath for McIntyre to 'audit' and criticize a denial study that produces results in the other direction. He never will and I think its obvious why.The job of Mc, Watts and their brethrenIMHO is not to audit science but to do everything they can to promote a uni-directional view of climate science.
Moreover, like other twits, you place all of your climate change denial egg sin one basket. You haven't read much science in your miserable life. All you do is surf the denier sites, cut and paste their drivel, and make an idiot of yourself elsewhere. Some contribution.
They tried to pump it as good science and knew that they were falsifying the data, it's a common thing in climate science these days and someone has to point it out .
Do you think they should be allowed to get away with it just because it helps to support your biased and irrational views ?
Who pointed out the errors? The authors themselves found them before Climate Fraudit did. And, as I said, don't wait with baited breath for C(F)A to go over the few denial papers that have been published with a fine toothed comb. Its only science that supports AGW they go after. And above all, weblogs with agendas will certainly not do their own science. Heavens forbid, no. Their sole strategy is to hound scientists who produce results that don't fit in with their narrative.
This isn't science. Its an inquisition with a brazenly political agenda.
Skeptics have been looking through the paper, and three weeks after it was published a team at Climate Audit (kudos to Jean S and Nick Stokes) uncovered a problem so significant that the authors announced that this paper is “on hold”. It has been withdrawn from the American Meteorological Society website. Bishop Hill has probably the best summary of what this means, and how it unfolded.
When Steve McIntyre asked for the full data, she refused. Gergis has an activist past which she has recently tried to hide. She was proud to mention in her biography that her data has been requested from 16 nations: So requests from Tunisia, Cuba, and Brazil are OK; but Canada — not so much. Apparently she didn’t appreciate his expertise with statistics and told him to get the data himself from the original authors, and added ” This is commonly referred to as ‘research’. We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter. “
Note how Arctic sea ice extent has fallen behind the 2007 low in early June: a result of exceptionally warm (record warm, in fact) conditions through much of May in the Arctic.
That said, I find it a bit troublesome that you still haven't shared any proofs confirming the existence of a right wing multi-billion denial machine obstructing climate science. Why not?
That said, I find it a bit troublesome that you still haven’t shared any proofs confirming the existence of a right wing multi-billion denial machine obstructing climate science. Why not?
So you've read Merchants Of Doubt I'd be interested in hearing your criticisms of it at length.
Also all that political mumbo jumbo that loopy jeff was muttering about me is a good sign of a self inflicted methane overdose causing hallucinatory and fantastical delusions and assumptions.
I have heard of mad scientist's before, is the the club or just a sub branch ?
My mistake! It's hard to tell you ranting conspiracy theorists apart. Next you'll be telling me you're not Sunspot and that you don't believe free energy is being supressed!
Betula, don't you have some YouTube videos to leave comments at?
Lionel A...
"I don’t know how the sane around here can stomach exchanging blows with those like OP, Karen & Betula who have not yet graduated from that Kindergarten for Brownshirts"
If karen had done any reading at all of the science of Antarctic sea ice levels she would know that it is well known that sea ice will not decline because of a number of factors, all related to Global warming!
It is always nice to see how the ignorant AGW deniers are so lacking in critical thinking and research skills.
Betula, yes I think Lionel's comment was over the top, however, in Reality Land you generally don't show disagreement with Nazi allusions by making more extreme Nazi allusions. That is worse.
That said, I find it a bit troublesome that you still haven’t shared any proofs confirming the existence of a right wing multi-billion denial machine obstructing climate science. Why not?
Start here you oaf , what do you think Heartland were all about?
a gif from sceptical science of all places, sheeez your desperate going there Ian,
So yeah, It is always nice to see how the ignorant AGW deniers are so lacking in critical thinking and research skills.
SkS poses a large problem for deniers, because unlike WUWT which stumbles from meme to meme without rhyme or reason (so sad they've dropped the UHI stuff after Watts was forced to admit he was wrong), SkS collates the science into a large easy to read, user-friendly website with a single, coherent hypothesis. It's no wonder Karen dismisses it out of hand.
Just interestingly, Karenspot - you still believe that the modern warming was caused entirely by sun activity, as per your name and original claims?
That said, I find it a bit troublesome that you still haven’t shared any proofs confirming the existence of a right wing multi-billion denial machine obstructing climate science. Why not?
Stop being such an FW and Google on Mashey and Kochtapus.
@Karen: I have been through all that with Barnturd J in the March or April open thread, please feel welcome to peruse my views there.
Oh, that's right. That was where you claimed ice around Svalbard hadn't got worse between 1947 and 2012, and then "proved" that by showing that it had got worse between 1947 and 1985 and then that it got worse again between 1985 and 2012. I'd forgotten that marvellous piece of idiocy was you. You deniers all blur into one these days.
But you did not address my questions in your discussions with Bernard, so I'll ask them again: "What do you think the future holds for the Arctic – ice-free at some point, or recovering? If the former, when do you think?"
"Betula, yes I think Lionel’s comment was over the top"
Interesting how I had to go over the top to get you to admit that Lionel was over the top...I never would have heard it from you otherwise, in fact, it wouldn't even have even occurred to you.....bro.
I make no apologies I am old enough to have played in bombed out streets, known rationing, know the history of between the wars and have done my time in the front line.
Sunspot/Karen/Mack/(insert sock here) said at 1:59 pm:
How do you explain this jeff ?
The answer is simple - Sunpimple is too stupid to understand the science, and thus doesn't see the explanation that is obvious to anyone who is polyneuronal.
Ian Forrester's already pointed to the reason why the planet's poles exhibit different responses to global warming, but it seems that the pimply one just can not intellectually assimilate the very basic physics involved. And he's been told more than once over the last year or so...
This inability to understand is probably correlated with the less-than-average intelligence quotient under which Sunspot/Karen/Mack/(insert sock here) obviously labours, and which is further illustrated by the fact that he persists with his punctuational tells (spaces before marks) and grammatical confabulations (count the your/you're guffs on this page alone...).
Still, for the sake of completeness, let's repeat an explanation of a significant difference between the two ends of the planet: the Arctic is an ice sheet floating atop an open ocean, and the Antarctic is an ice sheet sitting on a stonking great land mass called a c-o-n-t-i-n-e-n-t.
Can you say that word Spotty? C-o-n-t-i-n-e-n-t... (For bonus points, can you count the syllables in that word?)
Assuming that you managed to answer both previous questions correctly, how about attempting some more? (Don't panic, they're still Level 1...)
Sunspot/Karen/Mack/(insert sock here) - what do you think the minimum September Arctic sea ice extent will be this year? And what about the minimum September Arctic sea ice volume?
And on what understandings of physics and statistics do you base your answers? Extra bonus points and a teddy-bear stamp if you can use the word c-o-n-t-i-n-e-n-t in a sentence in your answer. Appropriately use it, that is.
And it's gratifying to see that I am getting up your goat, maculous one. I especially like 'Barnturd'... you're so clever - that must have taken you all night to think up. Do keep them coming though - I like this game.
Heh, I see that FrankD pre-empted my questions to Mackulus regarding the sea ice figures. Should have refreshed first.
Still, it doesn't hurt to ask more that once - Spotty is recalitrantly unable to hear the question even after multiple repeatings, but he may one day surprise us all with a straight answer.
"What do you think the future holds for the Arctic – ice-free at some point, or recovering?"
Recovering from what? A given time in your head where the arctic climate remains a constant? How about 10,00 years ago or how about 150 years ago? At which point is it "recovering to"?
"The warmest summers occurred 8–10 kyr ago and the coldest only 150 years ago. The summers over the past 100 years have been the warmest for more than 1,000 years, but are still not as warm as those of the early Holocene."
Someone calls sea level rise a left wing term and Lionel has visions of brownshirts and flashbacks of bombed out streets......yet kids being indoctrinated with chants of "obey", while others are being forced to chant "yes we can" while basking in the presence of the Presidents personal emblem.... doesn't raise an eyebrow.
Forward Lionel....c'mon, let's get the children to all sing it together....Vorwarts, Vorwarts!
Hey Betula, why do you always ask questions and then just project your own answers? Is it because your own facile responses are easier to refute than real peoples? Is it because you are actually as big a dipshit as you wish everyone else was? See, everything after your first three words is just your own fantasising about what I might have meant.
Your projection is as tedious as it is predictable, and as obviously evasive as it is unoriginal. Go talk to yourself in a mirror, Betula. I was asking Karen.
Can't be long now till Betty and the Wattards' meme de jour is that an ice-free Arctic ocean in summer is just the LIA 'rebound' natural state of things.
.
And they'll buy it too, no questions asked.
Lord, the e-mails to Jones are horrific. Do you believe anyone denies that? C’mon!
The wattards (and his dbs mod) and Pope Montford's flock seem to be doing a fair job of minimising those threats out of existence.
And you can drop the 'sceptic' tag, Petard, as it doesn't fit at all well with your M.O. You're a denier, and like all deniers, you're on the paranoid conspiracy crazy spectrum. Whether you're in the yellow zone or in the red-orange zone like those emailers harassing Phil Jones is only a matter of degree. Your preference for a nonsense narrative puts you there, crocodile tears or no..
Chek, if you stop waggling poor Jeffie's leg (left leg I presume?), you would understand that it I just did the opposite to what you are claiming.
I don't like death threats. Period. Learn to live with it.
And me conspirasist? I'm not the one shouting about a well funded right wing denial machine obstructing climte science, you are. Still no proofs backing it up though, except plenty of foam from Jeffie's big mouth and some scary high-frequency hip movements by you
Your inability to read or indeed recognise previously mentioned documentation is just another characteristic of your brand of denial, Petard.
So what if you bleat here don't 'like' where the logical conclusion of your journey into denierland leads? You do NOTHING to tackle it at its source, because it serves your agenda.
Betty is one of the most uninteresting nutters I've ever had the misfortune to encounter. It's like being subjected to some unconvincing Turing Test where a garbled version of what you've just said get's spat back at you by a sneering 14 year-old with BPD.
Why bother?
Then, demonstrating unavoidable cousinship in the necessarily incestuous hotbed of Denial, we have Olaus' persistent, equally garbled attempts to be a smart-arse in a language clearly not his own - i.e. human speech.
Re the hate-filled, sociopathic abuse directed at Phil Jones; this is a copy of a comment I jst made over at Eli's.
PZ Myers' statement on his blog -
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Public exposure and humiliation is the least that these types deserve.
Again, note the pattern:
1: Abuse.
2: Contemptuous denial that any abuse has occurred.
3: Grudging acknowledgement that abuse has occurred, but it's the abusee's own fault, combined with nit-picking about what constitutes a threat that would never be applied to verbal thrusts directed at the 'skeptic's own precious carcass.
4: Revisionist claims that any grudgingly acknowledged abuse is actually all a ploy anyway because we all know the abusees are actually the abusers.
4 steps. A foxtrot to Hell. Then just hose down the area and repeat.
Maybe it's time someone did an FOI to see whether the UEA's dodgy and discredited Phil Jones really did get any of those "death threats" he claims to have received after Climategate and which allegedly drove him to consider suicide. Speaking for myself, if Phil Jones released a report claiming that grass is green I'd feel compelled to go outside just to double check.
Interpret your way out of this, little man. He will, of course.
There are plenty of historical precedents of this kind of hateful targetting of outgroups. None of them are pretty...
This is typical denialist stuff and you can see more of it in these comments here. And we have all of you folks repeatedly insisting that climate scientists were lying about receiving this stuff. Rather, it is Delingpole and the rest of you who lie every third word.
Jun 14, 2012 at 6:27 AM | mk
" I think there is a touch of the beast in all of us and it shows itself in frustration. Those that write hate mail probably do not know how to better articulate their frustration. "
Over and over here one can see this rationalization ... hateful ignorant dishonest deniers were *frustrated*, poor things. Completely lacking in genuine skepticism, so many of you are motivated by views like johanna's: "Of course they are vile, but once again I am amazed at the preciousness of people who want to drive major changes in the way we live without any consequences." Totally beyond you is the possibility that you might be wrong, or that Phil Jones might be as convinced of his views of AGW as you are of yours and that he is genuinely presenting the science as he sees it, not wanting to drive major changes and all that hoohaw which has nothing to do with science but everything to do with your political ideology.
When I want to show people what the global warming denialist mentality is like, I don't point them to death threats, I point them to pages like this where they can see just how thick the intellectual dishonesty is.
Jun 14, 2012 at 6:51 AM | mk
You specifically state" These are death threats, and vile abuse. Rather than take a moment to reflect, most of you are trying to say 'they're not that bad' or the more demented amongst you are still trying to claim they're fabricated"
The examples I quoted directly refute your statement. They all condemn these vile emails.
That's a rather remarkable bit of illogic coming from someone claiming to be a "ThinkingScientist". How could instances of condemnation of the emails possibly refute an assertion about "the more demented amongst you"? Unless you are claiming that those who are condemning the emails are the more demented ones here? ZDB's assertion is confirmed, and your ridiculous blather utterly refuted, by statements such as that by Mark F: "Um, Phil wrote most of them? The language and mood suggest a lame attempt at sympathy-getting."
Jun 14, 2012 at 7:02 AM | mk
You can't have it both ways. Either they were unassuming scientists, quietly beavering away - in which case no-one would ever have heard of them - or they were claiming to predict future catastrophe for the planet, requiring a major reconstruction of the economy and political structures.
The lack of rationality in some of these comments is stunning. Of course you can have it both ways ... unassuming scientists, quietly beavering away, get heard about all the time when their work has significant consequences.
Jun 14, 2012 at 7:13 AM | mk
mk, you're coming over as exactly the sort of chap, or chaps, who would send abusive emails, you're certainly sending abusive posts, which isn't common on this site. You're also setting up strawmen, the vast majority of posts, and the site owner, have unequivocally condemned the emails.
"When I want to show people what the global warming denialist mentality is like, I don't point them to death threats, I point them to pages like this where they can see just how thick the intellectual dishonesty is."
Nicely put.
Your point about Jones not being politically motivated, but I have to tell you that his first comment about CA was that it seemed "right wing". I'd have thought a scientist would have commented on the audits rather than the politics of the site, which, by the way, are politically neutral.
I don't know what anyone else thinks but I believe you're lowering the tone of the site with your foam flecked rantings.
Jun 14, 2012 at 7:27 AM | geronimo
geronimo, you're exactly the sort of dishonest person I refer to. This thread is full of abusive claims about Phil Jones, and your own ad hominem claim that I'm "exactly the sort of chap" is quite in contradiction with many of the statements here about the sort of people who sent these emails and the sort of language that was used in them. One of the most radically intellectually dishonest assertions here is that they mostly read like they are from the same person.
"the politics of the site, which, by the way, are politically neutral."
Oh, but that tops it. I quoted johanna's ideological, not scientific, opposition to AGW claims, and the posts at this site are thick with that sort of thing.
Your silly assertion about "foam flecked rantings" and lowering the tone of the site is as dishonest and selective as "ThinkingScientist" attempting to refute a point that no one here has withdrawn the claim that climate scientists made up the death threats by irrelevantly quoting people voicing disgust at the emails while at the same time ignoring the relevant comments that actually did reinforce the meme, and never quoting any comment that actually did withdraw the claim.
Sorry, but what you *claim* to believe means nothing to me because it's transparently false and so is your motivation. Again, I *will* point to this thread, and comments like yours, to illustrate the intellectual dishonesty of deniers. If you think that it does not illustrate that, then you have no beef.
Jun 14, 2012 at 7:41 AM | mk
Your point about Jones not being politically motivated, but I have to tell you that his first comment about CA was that it seemed "right wing". I'd have thought a scientist would have commented on the audits rather than the politics of the site, which, by the way, are politically neutral.
Sorry, I misread that ... you're making a claim about CA, not this site; but your claim about CA is also false. And what you claim you would have thought a scientist would do is irrelevant. To someone as familiar with the climate science and with the sociology of the non-scientific discussion of it as Phil Jones is, what stands out and is relevant is the obvious political ideology that permeates the denier sites. It's like Richard Dawkins coming across an anti-evolution site and remarking that it seems religious ... in his experience, such sites are not the place to go for, or to expect, valid science.
Jun 14, 2012 at 7:47 AM | mk
"You're also setting up strawmen, the vast majority of posts, and the site owner, have unequivocally condemned the emails."
As I said, the irrationality is strong on this site. I never mentioned the site owner, so it is you who are attacking a strawman. As for what "the vast majority of posts" do, that's a point of dispute between us, so it would not be me setting up a strawman, at worst it would be me making a false claim. But I don't think my claim was false ... the posts are riddled with rationalizations like the one I quoted. And then there are the numerous people saying they have no sympathy for Jones and in various other ways weakening the condemnation, people disagreeing with Steve McIntyre that the emails are despicable, people questioning the authenticity of the emails, and people even accusing Phil Jones of writing them. No, it was no strawman, I told the truth, unlike you.
Goodbye and have a nice century, if you can.
Jun 14, 2012 at 7:58 AM | mk
This is how dissenters are treated at Bishop Hill, but you won't see any deniers complaining about freedom of speech in this case:
Would commenters please calm down.
Troll comments and follow-ups have been removed. Please DNFTT.
P. Lewis : that's one of the reasons I am a bit suspicious.
That and some faith left in humanity : someone, even an advertiser, couldn't have done anything so stupid ...
Hmmm, lets do a quick "Who Is" domain name search first.
ArcticReady.com, first registered April 29th, 2012.
Address P.O. Box 821650 Vancouver WA USA 98682
Look, my lord, it comes!
HAMLET Angels ... And there assume some other horrible form, ... Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. HORATIO.
The problem is, if one clicks on java scripts, one can easily be infested with key loggers, trojans or other malware, quite easily. After all, one presumes people around here, are familiar with the infamous "Facebook virus" infection of 2011?
thanks for the links. To Ianam : before the Heartland ad campaign, I would have immediatly thought about the fake. But Heartland proved me people can be *that* dense.
NB the registrant's address is Shell House London, which also contains Shell's own servers!
Now, the telephone number of ArcticReady.com is 1 360 449 5933. If one Google's the number, one finds, it is linked to over 68K domains. In the past the same telephone has been linked to an Ipod scam as well.
Um, Daryl, ArcticReady is a creation of the Yes Men. And Greenpeace.
It's a scam, yes. But not of the type you're describing. In fact, it's a secondary-scam -
Last Thursday somebody on Youtube called "kstr3l" posted a video from his phone of a Shell PR event gone horribly, hilariously wrong. By Friday afternoon it had already been watched 500,000 times, and was making the rounds with the tag #ShellFAIL. Then journalists who had covered the story received a threatening email to cut it out, calling the whole thing an environmental activist hoax and directing people to a website about the company's arctic oil drilling plans.
The event was a hoax, and so was the follow-up email and the website with its often hilarious-if-it-wasn't-true fake Shell marketing copy. From the ArcticReady.com homepage: "That's why we at Shell are committed to not only recognize the challenges that climate change brings, but to take advantage of its tremendous opportunities. And what's the biggest opportunity we've got today? The melting Arctic."
I.E.They're using their powers for Good, not Evil:
According to a story in Der Spiegel, all those islands in Oceana are not disappearing under a rising tide of water brought about by, er, global warming - do stop giggling, this is serious! According to some French sceintific swots, it's the other way round, you see, the Islands are sinking rather than the sea rising. Something to do with those tectonic plates shifting around and opening up holes in the sea bed. Or, as you might put it, "How was it for you, dear, did the earth move for you?"
By the way I'm still waiting for my share of global warming. It has been non-stop cool and wet since the beginning of May! I should sue you lot under the Trade Descriptions Act!
Bill...
"They’re using their powers for Good, not Evil"
Oh I get it, so in the link provided by Rattus, the angry icebergs are actually good icebergs and it's the oil rigs that are evil? And here I was trying to save the oil rigs....duped yet again.
bratisla...don't you see it now? The angry icebergs are real, only they aren't evil. Don't worry, everything will be ok.... they are just trying to protect their friends the Polar Bears from the evil oil companies that provide you and Bill with the ability to travel, heat your home, use appliances, bring food to your table, purchase merchandise and access those very confusing and "suspicious" sites on your computer...
Cont'd: example: The davidduff couldn't even comprehend the headline in his own link. (Hint for davidduffed readers: the clue is in the 'more than'.
Betty, there is no need to destroy - or even risk destroying - the biosphere or any habitats to achieve any of those results. Now, consider these tow statements:
There will never be enough oil.
Oil is a finite resource.
Now go away and contemplate that for as long as it takes to sink in, because once the irreplaceable is lost, there's no bringing it back. And that's regardless of whatever techno paradise the oil companies are selling you.
What is it about trolls that attracts to them to such a lo-level of the stupid?
It has been non-stop cool and wet since the beginning of May!
This is a completely meaningless statement unless you have some reference point with which to compare your claim. For all we know "non-stop cool and wet" could be quite within the typical climatic envelope for your district.
Contrast your pointless comment with the fact that today was the first day this year that my part of the world had the first (desultory) fog of the year, when by now we usually have had at least a dozen hearty fogs, and ones that start from early April.
And in terms of biological responses, my medlars are usually thoroughly frost-bletted on the trees by mid-May: this year they all fell from the trees mid-June, and half were still as hard as gold balls. None of the old orchardists I know have seen this in the district before.
Added to that, in the last week we have had drosophila over all of the late season fruit, and hovering around the red wine bottles. This is in the southern winter - usually drosophila are completely gone from this area by April - around the same time that the fogs are expected to start.
Everyone here is commenting on the bizarre timings, that have simply not been seen before. We're certainly experiencing warming-related phenonema that are way beyond the typical climatic envelope for our district...
Otherwise I call bulldust, as from memory you claim to live in the west country (of UK) somewhere and towards the end of May we had a hot dry spell which happened to break on the day of the London Thames Pageant, June 3.
Lionel, when you're a denier, it's only one small step further to deny the evidence of ones own eyes.
Ergo, to dai, there was no heat wave AT ALL since the beginning of May, and any memory or footage produced showing otherwise is the result of the illuminati NWO beaning thought waves into everyone's heads, causing mass hallucinations.
Duff..has been non-stop cool and wet since the beginning of May!
Yeah, England had its coldest May since 2010. The coldest May for 2 years! Brrrrrr. The temperature anomaly for the UK was only 0.5 °C above the 1971–2000 average. Brass monkeys!
So, the honeytrap, was aimed directly at the next generation of rubes, all freshly graduated from the school of ersatz journalism(political science major 101, is the primary component of the course)aka propaganda .
So the eco-warior-yet-AGW-denier Betty, despite his self-imposed frugality, hails the move of the oil companies et al into the arctic in order to sustain the unsustainable for half a decade or less. Because subsidising and providing for already obese first worlders in industrial scale consumption is of far greater importance than preserving eco-systems - particularly those that uniquely affect the planet we live on.
Tell me Betty, assuming the energy industry et al succeeeds in getting a foothold in the region, what risks do you find acceptable? A Deepwater/Exxon Valdez/Campeche type incident evey five years? Or every fifty? Or five hundred?
Bearing in mind - as I'm sure you self-professed eco-warrior types always do - that once gone there ain't no getting it back
Note to readers: Despite the charade, Betty here is about as much in touch with terrestrial ecology and our absolute dependency on it as the crew of the Shuttle Endeavou in their highest orbit..
Thanks for linking to that article Duff. I didn't realise the islands were sinking and the seas were rising at the same time. A double threat! I wonder what is causing the seas to rise and how that can be slowed?
"The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2012 was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F). This is the second warmest May since records began in 1880, behind only 2010.
"The Northern Hemisphere land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2012 was the all-time warmest May on record, at 0.85°C (1.53°F) above average.
"The globally-averaged land surface temperature for May 2012 was the all-time warmest May on record, at 1.21°C (2.18°F) above average.
"May 2012 also marks the 36th consecutive May and 327th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average.
"According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, there is a 50 percent chance that El Niño conditions will emerge during the second half of 2012.
Let me be the first to identify that Duff is clearly now working for Vantage Weather Services. He may not be as buxom as their preferred 'employees', but he's certainly sufficiently addled.
Chek...
What's to worry about? Big Government needs to approve it and will oversee daily operations to make sure they are compliant with Federal Regulations. What could go wrong?
Isn't this your utopia?
"The Obama administration also previously signed off on Shell's broad drilling blueprints for the region, and the Environmental Protection Agency has issued clean air permits for the flotilla of vessels that will be involved in Shell's operations."
As you know Betty, there is a small - actually no, a large army of K Streeters working tirelessly to hollow out and render Government regulation of industry moot, just as is happening in Harper's regime in Canada. The EPA is itself under threat.
Perhaps you missed this, from your own link? Or more likely decided it didn't comply with your narrative. "Government auditors warned in a March report that icy conditions, dark days and a lack of infrastructure could hinder efforts to clean up any spill in the region, even if a damaged well were capped swiftly.
"Meanwhile in the real world May 2012 was the second warmest on record."
This means, I presume, that La Nina is finished and that we can look forward (ha) to yet another warmest 12 month period and then warmest calendar year on record. Denialworld will then regurgitate their "antidotes to warmest year on record" on cue.
LiesLand mocumentary, is thirty five minutes of short on facts and long on propaganda. Martin Durkin style, errors and easily debunked fictitious claims, from start to finish. Made an interesting use of Chesapeake Energy's paid industry consultants, as expert witnesses, to skew the view.
One youtube user "TXDSGMACH", shows complete ignorance,or even a basic understanding of the geology of "Marcellus Shale" period..
To Ianam : before the Heartland ad campaign, I would have immediatly thought about the fake. But Heartland proved me people can be *that* dense.
Sorry, but it is obvious to any reasonably intelligent person that ArticReady is a parody. Heartland's ads are irrelevant, not least because, every day, numerous deniers (including, of course, Deltoid's trolls) present stuff far more absurd, and much closer to ArticReady, than Heartland's poor judgment about how their guilt-fallacious ads would be received. Actually, No Pressure is considerably more relevant because it was a form of parody. If you think for a moment that Shell could possibly really be behind ArticReady, then you're also capable of thinking that teachers really will blow up students who don't volunteer to reduce their carbon footprint. Either is a sign of severe mental retardation.
A note on Poe's Law: Like Godwin's Law it is humorously formulated as hyperbole that is literally true. The original formulation is "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing." Note that the qualities that make someone that someone are not positive ones. (And in the case of ArcticReady, there are numerous blatant displays of humor -- again, blatant to anyone with reasonable intelligence.)
I understand that this blog is Australian and so I would like to offer my sympathy to you all. First, for the sheer hell of clinging for life to the extreme edges of a total desert. Second, because on top of all your other travails you have to put up with and pay for another load of incompetent lying liars at your Bureau of Meterology who are the equal of ours at the Met Office.
Apparently their so-called 'High Quality' data is not something under which you would wish to shelter in a rainstorm, it having more holes in it than a Swiss cheese! Under pressure of a threatened audit of their old stats the 'BoM' threw them overboard and started again. According to reports, the new data is as dodgy as one of my old second-hand cars (than which, etc, etc) and contains all the old errors but just mixed up a bit more. Also, this new series was rushed out so fast it has a literacy rating of E for effort!
After due analysis, the critics summed it up, thus:
"1.Like the old HQ series, the Acorn record is also still impossible to replicate.
2.The record is much shorter than 100 years for many sites. It’s supposed to be high quality, but it has many gaps and spurious errors. If volunteers can write code on laptops to check for errors — and find, for example, that one 36.8C was accidentally changed to a 26.8C (and there are many) why can’t the Australian BOM?
3.Like the old series, Acorn’s trends are very different from what the raw data shows. (Why do we bother with thermometers?)
4.Hot and cold extremes have been adjusted, for the most part warming winters and cooling summers, and at some sites new and more extreme records have been set."
You couldn't make it up, er, well, you could if you work at BoM!
More anti-science by blog. *Sigh*. Duffer, you deniers never cease to amaze me. The blogs you forever cite never do real science, never publish in the scientific journals, rarely if ever attend the relevant conferences, and instead seem content to sit by the sidelines sniping away at any studies/scientists/institutions you don't like. Do you and the other deniers do anything but sit on your collective butts reading denier blogs? What a sad lot you bunch are.
In Australia, if you're a polluter and stinking rich, you can buy a big chunk of the country's remaining relatively democratic print media with the view to controlling its board of directors and the editorial staff, so that you can impose your political and personal views on the output of your new company.
What's that you say, Skippyduff?
Anthony's got some more clueless Curtin-grade mathwank showing it's all faulty records and a big frawd and the Polar regions are only melting due to Al Gore sending crack teams of greenies there with their de-icer sprays and shovels?
Tell you what Skippyduff, come back and try again when Anthony falls down a well or a disused mineshaft or otherwise does something useful.
I see Jeffie and his hate-minions are on a scientific roll, being stunned by the blogs denialist read. :-) Well for a guy who belives that Himalayan glaciers support 500 millions humans and yetis with fresh water, and consider any ecology scare report on "climate change" (where CAGW is taken for granted) as climate science, and thrives on an illuminati of fossil fuel funden Elders that obstruct climate science....isn't it a bit...ehm...rich? ;-)
Do you and the other deniers do anything but sit on your collective butts reading denier blogs? What a sad lot you bunch are.
They don't even have the guts (or, more likely, knowledge) to visit the other active thread and either defend or criticize Tim Curtin and his idiocy over the notion that N2 and O2 are the real greenhouse gases.
What I don't get is why you'd incorporate perfectly workable blockquote CSS - the old one was shocking, lumping all paras into a congealed mass like that bill you left in your pocket last wash - but then insist on italicizing the contents.
Olaus seems to constantly suggest that I am "hate-fillled'' for some deluded strenage reason.The again,if by 'hate' he means that I loathe the abuse of science by a well-funded coterie of ostensibly right wing ideologues who are compromising the future to promote the short-term agendas of the privileged few, then OK, I 'hate'. Olaus consistenly denies that there is an exceedingly well funded denialati, when there are piles of evidence that, when the collective cash is added up to the following: think tanks, astroturfand other front groups,pundits, the corporate media, books and articles, politicians, including both donations for election campaigns and lobbying, Public Realtions firms ( abillion dolar industry unto itself), and some scientists, the total is immense. Billions of dollars? Over the last decade, most certainly. Sharon Beder, Naomi Oreskes, Andrew Rowell, David Helvarg and others have written extensively over many years about the denial industry, and many other sources are available.
Olaus, like other D-K acolytes, demands that I personally deliver the evidence to his door step, and even then he'll just bin it and call it all a 'vast conspiracy'. People who don't like the message will always shoot the messenger. When it comes to 'science', Olaus and his brainless horde don't give a damn. The evidence re: AGW has been 'in' for the past 10-15 years, yet all he and his free-market absolutists want is to let the markets decide, and the eviscerate the role of the government in the economy.
Olaus seems to constantly suggest that I am “hate-filled”
I suppose disdainfulness can come across as "hate".
Timewasting trolls should be given the ever-decreasing latitude their current and past follies deserve before being treated with thorough disdain (though I'd much rather ignoring their follies altogether with killfile).
" When it comes to science, Olaus and his brainless horde don't give a damn. " Jeff , if you want some science . I'll give it to you..... http://jennifermarohasy.com/author/nasif-s-nahle/
Just read it you brainless fuckwitt!
(sorry Tim but couldn't resist your cookie)
But I am sure Sydney, or Australia, are not alone in having such a problem.
Packaging of consumer products and the mechanisms for recycling, or disposal, need a major rethink involving producers, sellers and end users. If climate change doesn't get us then this will.
Mack.... what an ass**** you are. Yesterday I was discussing how idiots like you and other deniers on Deltoid rely on pseudo-scientific bull**** that oozes from a range of far right web logs and think tanks and the like. from people who stay a million miles away from conferences where the real professionals who publish in the real journals discuss and debate the issues.
So what do you do? A piece by Nasif Nahle, who appears to have hardly published a scientific paper in his life, posted up on Marohasy's comic book right wing blog Where is the primary literature? In what journal has Nahle published this tripe? On his contrarian web site?
As I said, you deniers are a bunch of idiots of thr first order. As soon as I see Nahle's shite publiushed in a major scientific journal, I will respond. But not until. Certainly not on a right wing blog. So take my advice: p*** off until you are capable of citing real science published in a high impact journal that appears on the Web of Science.
On one of the Nasif Nahle threads linked by Mack, a reader (Dave) gushes forth in his praise of Nahle's 'science'.
Nahle then responds: "Thank you very much for your kind words! I’ll keep doing my work adhered to science..."
He forgot to add in the important caveat: ..."but I will ensure that my 'science' is always posted on right wing blogs like this one, and that it is never, ever scrutinized by experts in the field. And above all I will make sure that I do not send it to a scientific journal. I promise you this".
I checked up our old friend Nasif on the Web of Science to see how many of his studies are in there. Guess what. A big, fat zilch. Zero.
Why does this not surprise me? Mack and the other clowns who contaminate Deltoid adhere to the 'only science is libertarian blog science' credo.
Massive Nail has been here before. He was using a RATE of temperature change with a self-selected volume of atmosphere to show that the temperature increase (not a rate) was "explained" by it.
Jeffie, 10-15 years of AGW-proof "has been in" you say. I believe you mix up the numbers (like merchants of fear always do). I'm sure you are reffering to the hiatus of the warming trend (of 10-15 years) that has "showed up" despite the record levels of Co2?
And still no evidence of the right wing denial machine obstructing climate science? :-)
Authoritarian personalities prosper in hateful and intolerant environments (sic), hence Jeff feel at home at Deltoid where everything is black and white. Why this is the case is no mystery. Self loving authoritarian personalities are drawn into sects where they can boost there egos pointing finger at "others" not listening good enough to the gospel at hand.
What's actually interesting Petard is that you have no defence of the quack science propagated by your 'heroes', but you settle for attacking Jeff Harvey, - who like most here treats your preferred crank 'science' with the respect it deserves ( which is none) - and who stood up and scuttled Lomborg's lukewarmer boat circus act. Always a hard one (hehe) for you Lomborg mafosibois to .... er... swallow (hehe).
Petard: - "still no evidence of the right wing denial machine obstructing climate science!
Of course you blind yourself to what is previously documented, but never mind as it of course cuts no ice (as they say) with those capable of reading long words and who know better. As a rule of thumb, the more a dyed-in-the-wool deniertwat denies, the greater the likelihood of the facts being denied being spot on.
You should know by now - Petard, once hoisted as a troll and furthermore a Jonarse N pack-troll, always a simpleton troll. In short, you and your pack are wasting your time - which is fine as every second spent here is a second saved elswhere to whom your crackpot evidenceless kookiness is an as yet unknown quantity.
Chek, you sure are a One hour photo-guy when it comes to Jeff. That level of adoreship can't be healthy. Seek help or Jeff will soon find you crawling around in his bedroom smelling after an odd sock or two to put in your Jeff-shrine. I don't want that to happen to him. He might be a big little Napoleon, but that doesn't mean he deserves being stalked by character of your creepy kind.
When you believers can provide me with something more substantial than hateful conspiracy theories I will gladly listen to you.
In other words: nothing new on the climate threat front.
I repeat - and thanks for verifying - that what’s actually interesting Petard is that you have no defence. Claiming ignorance is no defence - but it's the best you can do.
Ah mack, Betula and old Duffer, watt they are really trying to say from their limited monochromatic factually challenged world of cranks in denial, "The Sky is Pink".
I see Olaus attempted something in addition to insults and links to loony blogs; a link to an actual research paper.
Speaking of which: [link to report that emperor penguin populations are likely to decline in the coming century]
On the other hand: [link to a paper that describes a single census but includes the sentence 'Understanding the causes of penguin decline will however require additional effort.']
Olaus: the 'on the other hand' suggests you never actually read the paper. Try again, but this time, if you can, find research that actually supports your views and try a little harder to keep your insults in check.
You know that dreary Uncle at the family Christmas party who considers himself quite the 'character' when he antagonises everyone with the same alleged 'jokes' each year? The one no-one likes?
What's that, Skippyduff?
You spend most of your time rolling around and wallowing in the ordurous Anthony's site and then wonder why you still have no grasp of even simple concepts like 'weather' and 'climate'?
Well Skippyduff, I'd recommend a two month bracing, cleansing shower over at Real Climate where you might train yourself to recognise actual science as opposed to anthonyquackery.
That is, I *would* do that, but we all know how you hoppity skippity little fellas just love caking yourselves thickly in sh!t and stupidity the whole live-long day.
Richard S, please read the second paper yourself. It says:
"We estimated the breeding population of emperor penguins at each colony during 2009 and provide a population estimate of ~238,000 breeding pairs (compared with the last previously published count of 135,000–175,000 pairs)."
An increase.
The decline you want to understand is stil all about "may" or "will", hence "polarbeared" seems appropriate. So the sentence "understanding the causes of penguin decline will however require additional effort" should be "understanding the causes of a possible penguin decline will however require additional effort", at least when it comes to emperor penguins.
focuses on a much-observed colony of emperor penguins in Terre Adélie, Antarctica
whereas Fretwell et al.
examined the whole continental coastline of Antarctica
.
This is 1 colony versus 46 colonies.
This is a modelling exercise of future population on one well-documented colony versus pinning down more accurate estimates of current population continent-wide.
Both studies acknowledge an undoubted decline in Emperor penguin numbers.
As usual, Putrid is out of his depth. The IUCN has recently revised the status of the Emperor Penguin from being a 'species of least concern' to 'near threatened'. And of course penguins are of course not the only example of biodiversity being deleteriously affected by climate change and many other anthropogenic factors. The number of endangered or threatened species on the IUCN lists is larger now than ever, and of course still rapidly growing. We are into the planet's sixth extinction event and the first to be generated by one of its evolved inhabitants - us. Hardly a advertisement for evolutionary success - or one that shows how intelligence can be 'self-extinguishing', as E.O. Wilson recently wrote.
I’m sure you are reffering [sic] to the hiatus of the warming trend (of 10-15 years) that has “showed up” despite the record levels of Co2? [sic]
Someone is so ignorant of the nature of data, and of their statistics, that he doesn't understand that given the current rate of warming (a touch under 2 degrees celcius per century) and given the existing random noise in the Earth's climate signal (that is, the weather), the planet could warm consistently and continuously for a thousand years, and reach an average global temperature 20 degrees warmer than the present, and always demonstrate a statistically defined hiatus "of the warming trend (of 10-15 years)".
Olaus Petri is either a propagandist, or an idiot.
And as I have noted in the past with similar juxtapositions, these conditions are not mutually exclusive.
If I was demonstrably wrong in calling you "either a propagandist, or an idiot" I would perhaps be "feeling a little bit bad" about it, as seems to be the affliction of some on this thread.
As P Lewis clearly showed in his above response, scientists generally try to discover how the universe and its systems work. But to Petard and his ilk, they are either incompetent or unreconstructed Stalinists out to impose an agenda on freedom loving peoples. Either fantasy would fit with the example Petard singularly failed to show with his links above, or with his ongoing 'attack the scientists' vendetta.
The rather more mundane reality that Petard himself is too uneducated in the relevant fields, too unintelligent , too politically motivated and lacks the necessary critical thinking skills to make head or tail of science in any rational way is an inconvenient truth best ignored for the sake of his puffed-up egotism.
True to form, he will ignore being shown to be the idiot he is yet again, and as per the definition of insanity, will try the same tired means again and again and predictably, yet again. Like Duff, he'll never learn.
I think any annoyance Jeff had was temporary, Mack.
Now we're calm, Nahle's work is *presented* as if it's scientific. But even if you do something as simple as dimensional analysis (something you should have been taught in High School physics), you find his work falls down.
He has a citation list that LOOKS like the citation list you see at the end of a *real* physics paper, but you find that none (or only a small minority) actually cite any facts he states as if true (the reason why a citation is put in a paper. I.e. if they don't calculate the specific heat capacity with temperature of CO2, then they'll cite a paper that DOES).
Just like a scam artist using official headed notepaper to make you believe just on casual inspection, that the invitation to a new conference is genuine, Nahle's "papers" are constructed to *appear* like a science paper.
But it's no more a factual account than The Sunday Sport (The National Inquirer in the USA would be the equivalent) is a genuine news source.
Judith's crime is to pass them off as genuine because she has peddled the idea that she is competent and honest.
That you fell for the scam is their fault. We're trying to show you that you've been gulled.
Which on an immediate emotional reaction level would make you angry: "you calling be stupid!!!".
PS my post was that you don't have to put many words to an apology. "Sorry Jeff" was completely adequate. Abasement (or Notpology which requires more words to pull off) isn't necessary. Just "Sorry".
>Only this is the fourth wet cool summer in a row.
Shockingly, Duffer is wrong about that. There was above average rain in 2009, 2010 and 2011, but the average temperatures were 0.7 above average, 0.6 above average and 0.4 below average respectively. So that's actually a whole one summer in a row that was below average.
The ludicrousness of proclaiming 2012 wet and cool after the princely total of 21 days speaks for itself.
Fellas, no need to please me with friedly words. The emperor penguins might take a nose dive due to climate change, or maybe not. And it might be an A involeved, or mabe not. The paper Richard S made such a fuzz about showed nothing of a "decline" besides a big If. If sure has incarserated your authoritarian minds. ;-)
That's why you guys can't understand the meaning of words. Pay attention to the "may":
"An accurate assessment of the emperor penguin (Aptenodytes fosteri) population is urgently needed as recent research indicates that numbers may decrease significantly in coming decades [1], [2], [3]. These studies have highlighted the susceptibility of emperor penguins to changes in sea ice distribution."
Now pay attention to the worries of lesser ice, because that also is a concern in Lewis' link (that ended up in an 12 year old paper, mind you). I hope he noticed that the authors blamed the decline of emperor penguins to the loss of ice:
"We show that over the past 50 years, the population of emperor penguins (Aptenodytes forsteri) in Terre Adélie has declined by 50% because of a decrease in adult survival during the late 1970s. At this time there was a prolonged abnormally warm period with reduced sea-ice extent."
But since the ice extent in Antarctica is increasing, not decreasing (given the latest report), and the population of emperor penguins is improving, maybe we should worrie about an increase of penguins to unprecedented levels that, in the end, could harm the delicate ecology of the Antarctic region:
I wonder if Duffer, Petard and the other sundry Watts' crew might find Bill Chameides Congressional statement this week to be in terms simple enough for almost anyone to understand?
So I wasn't wrong, Frank, I was right, it has been four wet summers in a row. And as for your "average" temperatures, average of what, and who measured them? If your answer is the Met Office please excuse my giggles. And is it raw data or adjusted?
And no-one has answered my question as to when weather becomes climate? Er, 'when it suits us' is not a very compelling answer.
The NOAA’s National Climate Data Center recently announced that the last 12 months were the warmest on record in the “contiguous” U.S., extending the 2011-12 hot streak that has now eclipsed the previous record in 1999-2000 by a half degree Fahrenheit. Apparently, that was just too much for the Heartland Institute’s James Taylor who used his regular column in Forbes magazine to accuse the NOAA of “doctoring real-world temperature data”. According to Taylor, the “alarmists” at NOAA “simply erase the actual readings and substitute their own desired readings in their place”.
But it turns out that Taylor’s source is none other than hapless climate blogger Steven Goddard, who recently leveled incoherent and unsupported false accusations against James Hansen and NASA’s Gistemp record, as well as NOAA. Goddard also relies on the same reviled NOAA data in his botched attempt to buttress his case that NASA is “hiding” an 80 year cooling trend. Never mind that the U.S. “lower 48″ represents less than 2% of the Earth’s surface area in any event, or that past attempts to show U.S. cooling have been proven utterly wrong.
If Forbes has a shred of integrity, this sorry episode will surely result in an abject retraction and apology to NOAA, along with the banishment of Heartland from the magazine’s pages. And it’s also high time reputable commentators in the mainstream media called out the irresponsible behaviour of Forbes and other right-wing media.
Olaus claims that the paper on emperor penguins he cited documents an increase in their population. Not so. The authors used a completely new survey technique (including satellite imagery) that 'found four new colonies and confirmed the location of three previously suspected sites'. They were attempting to establish a good, reliable baseline for future studies. Olaus: you need to read critically, understanding the experimental procedures and how they may affect the results.
The paper Richard S made such a fuzz about
In your imagination! It was you who brought it up and I merely pointed out that it does not show what you think it shows.
We're a funny old thing us humanz and we all have different perspectives. Perspective is essentially what moulds opinion and when it comes down to this AGW issue there can be only two opinions......whether or not man is changing the global climate.
When I look at the arguement between Nasif Nahle and Neutrino over at Jennifer Marohasy's from my perspective I can see a scientist with the cojones and maths capability to come out and challenge the establishment (what you guys represent). Would an American,Canadian,Uk, NZ, have done this?
As for the climate scientists.... well..."Phyeeseks, we don't need no steenkin' physeeseks" :) :) :)
Really did want some input from people down that way. No takers? Too busy sparring with Duff and Olaus on the same ol' tired topic?...
Posted 6.7.12. Still there...
This is a genuine and serious question. I am interested in real opinions. Since Tim often writes about shitty reporting in Oz, and I live in the US I have no perspective, I thought I would ask here.
There were a bunch of articles written today, and others when it was released, about the Finkelstein Report…
…and its ramifications. Most of the stories I have read are from sites with which I am unfamiliar. I am trying to see if this is internet spin, or if this thing is really has the possibility of seeing the light of day. A journalist friend sent the original link to me which was this.
I am very curious to the opinions on the report from those here who live there as I know there are many.
Honest question. Does anyone support this thinking, even if you believe The Australian spouts deception in science–another thing all together and an opinion I don’t disagree with from what I have read–keeping in mind that this thing appears to pertain to all discussions, not just scientific issues?
Dear Richard S, the census in question didn't come up with a decrease. That's the main thing. If anything it showed an increase. I'm sure the results and the methods used can be criticized, no problem with that.
Nothing to add regarding the inverted ice problem that now threatens to make the number of emperor penguins to sky rocket? ;-)
"Perspective is essentially what moulds opinion and when it comes down to this AGW issue there can be only two opinions……whether or not man is changing the global climate."
You misspelt "options".
There are two options. AGW is essentially correct, AGW is essentially false.
That you can have an opinion doesn't change reality.
You may opine that you can fly.
The ground when it meets you at terminal velocity will have a different "opinion".
BPW this subject has been brought up here before, if it is spoken about in here you are labled a whacko conspiracy theorist nutter.
The reason is that if this Finkelstein Report was put into law it would stop information and reporting about the lie's being spewed forth by the AGW minions in here, these idiots in here want it !!!!
Mind you they only want it because of all the information about the IPCC and AGW that is being continuously uncovered is hugely embarrassing to them, and they all are looking more foolish by the day.
If you scroll back up the thread you will see the other side of the coin, Barnturd J.
June 19, 3:36 pm grizzle gutsing about Gina Rinehart who holds different views to him/it, never mind the fact that Barnturd supports the ABC, our government run propaganda machine.
I doubt very much that the current government in this country will remain in power, good riddance to bad rubbish I say, and I have mostly always voted for them.
The future prime minister has recently repeated that he will rescind the carbon tax here, no doubt if the Finkelstein Report, or part there of, is passed in parliament and bought into law it will remain, but what do those in here care ?
if Nasif Nahle really has the alleged 'cojones and maths capability to come out and challenge the establishment' let's see him publish something somewhere other than some inconsequential anti-environmentalist blog like Jennifer Marohasy’s.
Simple.
He won't try, of course, because it's rather more fun to be feted as a genius by the rowdies of the far Right than to watch your work shot down in flames by the merely competent.
And, oh, the irony; the friends of the Koch Brothers and Exxon cast themselves as being up against 'the Establishment'! You could not make it up...
'Karen', true to your identity, never let knowledge of an issue stand in the way of being an ignorant Tea Party loudmouth, will you?
After all, it's your raison d'etre.
BPW needs to learn how to present him of herself upon arriving if he wants people to have a reasoned discussion of some matter. Better yet, find a blog where people are actually debating the Finkelstein Report, rather than playing tone/concern troll here with it.
They probably have more to say on the matter at Crooked Timber, Crikey, or even over at John Quiggin's - even the ABC MediaWatch comment threads, come to think of it - I suggest you try. If you're sincere you will.
Rinehart G may well have a different opinion to Bernard J, but Bernard hasn't just demanded three seats on the Fairfax Board. What kind of infantile fantasist do you have to be to not grasp that in our Corporatised Media Landscape some animals are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more equal than others? Servile Pollyannaish BS about Murdoch and Rinehart just having 'opinions that they're entitled to like eveyone else' makes my flesh crawl...
Peterd brayed: "Nothing to add regarding the inverted ice problem that now threatens to make the number of emperor penguins to sky rocket?"
Antarctic sea ice is seasonally variable. The whole polar bear problem (which another of your earlier snide remarks alluded to) in tha arctic is because the extent of the arctic cryosphere is now becoming seasonal, which it wasn't before.
I strongly suspect that neither you nor I know enough about penguin lifestyles to know how the spectacular break up up the ice shelves around the West Antarctic peninsula will impact the region's ecology.
But then I'm not the one pretending to after twenty seconds of googling to make a point informed mainly by ignorance.
bill, please explain your reasoning in labeling me a Tea Party loudmouth, your presumptions are as shoddy as your CO2 conjecture and your other ramblings.
Then explain to me why you are sitting at a monitor and keyboard somewhere "constantly" monitoring dumbtoid ?
Are you paid to do this ?
Or.... are you just an impotent grumpy old fart with no friends ?
Karen, the only thing deltoids are consistant with is their faiblesse for making stuff up, including political preferences of their opponents.
They live in a world of conspiracies where the right wingers are all over the place, obstructing justice and promoting evil. Another common demonimator of the deltoids is of coures their hateful intolerance towards anything not like themselves.
And what do you have to be, dear 'Karen', to devote your time to haunting the blogs of those you don't agree with specifically in order to antagonise people and clog up any discussion with half-digested nuggets of chum? All the while deploying the Primary School Trump Card - 'I know you are, but what am I?'
Answer of course, is 'Troll'.
Watch out, if you keep at it too long you end up as Olaus. There's no way back from there.
(At least 'faiblesse' now gives us some clear idea what English is a second language to in this case...)
Petard flaunts his blatant, easily discovered dishonesty as if it truly doesn't bother him. I suppose that's an almighty benefit in the circles he moves in away from here.
The report you linked to is in another organ of the Murdoch stable. Bloviation about the end of free speech is entirely predictable. MRDA - "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?"
I'm glad you raised this. I laughed so hard I peed myself a little when I read Karen's: "I have mostly always voted for them..." Sure, she did. Until she became "concerned" with them...
Just watched Dellingpole on Andrew Neil's Political show on BBC and again he relied on the "statistical significant" meme, completely ignoring that in 2011 it became statistically significant. The guy made me scream at the TV.
the census in question didn’t come up with a decrease. That’s the main thing. If anything it showed an increase.
A single data point can never show either an increase nor a decrease. I would have thought that would be obvious. The main point is either that you thought it could be quickly passed off as showing an increase, or that you were sufficiently unaware that you really thought it did show an increase.
Nothing to add regarding the inverted [?] ice problem that now threatens to make the number of emperor penguins to sky rocket?
I gather that in the near future (next 50 years), Antarctic ice is expected to advance in some areas (greater snowfall, don't you know?) and retreat in others. Are you claiming that this won't affect penguin numbers or are you claiming that biologists should not study them? If not, why not?
If you scroll back up the thread you will see the other side of the coin, Barnturd J.
June 19, 3:36 pm grizzle gutsing about Gina Rinehart who holds different views to him/it, never mind the fact that Barnturd supports the ABC, our government run propaganda machine.
I support an Australian media where one of the largest companies is free from the complete control of all content by one very extreme and very rich individual, who is hell-bent on ensuring that the whole country's political landscape is massaged to ensure that she becomes even more wealthy than the wealthiest woman on the planet.
I make no apologies for this stance. You see, I actually believe in a non-propagandised democracy. If you have a different point of view, you're past being right wing, and heading straight past Godwin territory to boot.
All the right-wing neo-feudalist blogs are positively crawling with devoutly observant rabid environmentalists who only object to the infringement of billionaires' rights to dump carbon into the atmosphere.
Objecting to that is what defines us as communists - in dickheadland.
Fellas, no need to please me with friedly words. The emperor penguins might take a nose dive due to climate change, or maybe not. And it might be an A involeved, or mabe not. The paper Richard S made such a fuzz about showed nothing of a “decline” besides a big If. If sure has incarserated your authoritarian minds. ;-)
That’s why you guys can’t understand the meaning of words. Pay attention to the “may”:
“An accurate assessment of the emperor penguin (Aptenodytes fosteri) population is urgently needed as recent research indicates that numbers may decrease significantly in coming decades [1], [2], [3]. These studies have highlighted the susceptibility of emperor penguins to changes in sea ice distribution.”
and in doing so demonstrates that he does not understand the language of science.
In this context, "may" doesn't mean the "slight possibility" that Petri wants it to mean, it means "it's very likely so, but because we're scientists we don't make absolute statements, and therefore we're going to frame our assertion conservatively".
The simple facts are:
1) in the long term the warming of the planet will melt ice, even in Antartica, and
2) without ice penguins are stuffed.
Neither statement is controvertial; the former is likely to occur, and the latter is inevitable if and whe the former eventuates.
Olaus Petri's spin is just so much misrepresenting denialist propaganda.
" Inconsequential" Tell that to Jennifer Marohasy, to Tim Lambert , to in fact every blog owner . Tell it to the internet Billbaby, but most of all tell it to yourself.
Gawd, you folks could be out-thunk with one hemisphere tied behind the back!
Tim L's blog can hardly be 'inconsequential' in your own opinion, can it? - you're here all the time!
WUWT might safely be called many things, but I wouldn't label it 'inconsequential', sadly.
In this context, 'inconsequential' means of only some interest and only to people like yourself.
Betty draws a remarkably long bow on the basis of - wait for it - an adopted moniker, whereas LB has reams of raving to go by in making an assessment of Olaus and KarenMcSpot's clearly dysfunctional personalities.
Hey, just caught up on that Marlowe Johnson link re McK - what's the population density of the Pacific Ocean? What happens if you take the population of the entire US, average it across its area, and then claim that's the population density - and indicative temp-driving affluence - of, say, Cottonwood Falls, Kansas? Kake Alaska? the Mojave Desert?
Oh, and 56 million people in Antarctica? Fun and games if correct!...
Oh, disappearing posts! Anyway, read Marlowe Johnson's McK link - it's rather entertaining. What is the population of Antactica? Or the population-density of Kake, Alaska?
Oh, and Mack - rest assured, I'll cry myself to sleep tonight at the thought of your disdain...
(hope the formatting hasn't changed, but no preview, so who knows). It's about the RIO+20 conference and written by someone with a background in pyschology. Like many others, he looks on with some bemusement at this "believer" pantomime.
Delusion? Like insisting that the world's scientific bodies are fraudulently fabrcating scientific evidence to form a one world government at the behest of the UN?
I can't speak for Mack or Sunspot but I would say that I am very disappointed that you, a Phd Fartologist, can't enable your own olfactory system to sniff out and bring to the fore the stench that is disguised as climate science, maybe you need to clean your teeth and gargle with some Harpic, the verbal diarrhea that you spew forth is mere flatus.
Read in between the lines, Karenmackspot. He's quite deliebrately been cut out of the party. You have no problem arguing that a cold day is proof global warming is a UN scam, so I don't know how you fail to make this connection.
I am very disappointed that you, a Phd Fartologist, can’t enable your own olfactory system to sniff out and bring to the fore the stench that is disguised as climate science
Don't fret, KarenMackSunspot. I can smell the pong of nonsense "disguised as climate science" quite well, and the stink coming from you would make the Great Sphinx gag.
Hey, Geniuses - if precipitation has increased with the intensified hydrological cycle due to AGW, but it's, um, winter, or you're at a high altitude, what form might that precipitation be likely to take? (Hint, like yourselves, it's flaky.)
Yep, Monckton joining the Birthers in earnest really finished him, at least with everyone who isn't crazy enough to be a troll on Deltoid...
In other developments on the Monckton front, the potty Lord seems to be shifting his business plan from AGW denial into Obama birther claims. More notoriety and money to be made on that front in a US election year it seems. A 'member of the House of Lords' who isn't a member of the House of Lords claiming the President isn't the President should backfire nicely.
I'm guessing you aren't too familiar with UK politics. Being leader of UKIP in Scotland is about as minor a political role as it is possible to have. UKIP polled 0.28% of first preference votes in the 2012 Scottish council elections. Call it a banishment rather than an ousting if you prefer.
This bill genius is trying to tell us that global-warming is causing more snow. or maybe even that snow is not equal to cold.
Aaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
what a fuckwit.
This bill genius is trying to tell us that global-warming is causing more snow. or maybe even that snow is not equal to cold.
Aaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
what a fuckwit.
Spoken like a true - and clueless - projectionist.
1) Increased temperatures increase evaporation.
2) Atmospheric humidity is moved around the planet by atmospheric circulation, including from the evaporating tropical regions to the poles.
3) Atmospheric humidity can precipitate out of the gaseous phase when temperatures cool - as they do at the poles.
4) When more-warm-and-humid-than-usual air moves from the poles to the more-warm-than-usual-but-still-colder-than-naught-degrees-celcius, there will be more snow than usual.
If you have a solid grasp of the physics that contradicts this scenario, KarenMackSunspot, please share it with the world.
When more-warm-and-humid-than-usual air moves to the more-warm-than-usual-but-still-colder-than-naught-degrees-celcius poles, there will be more snow than usual.
Perhaps "Karen" is from one of those redneck states in the north of Australia where they've never heard of cold weather in summer. Heck, even I've been skiing at Mount Buller in April. Bushwalkers in Victoria have complained about white things falling on them in February for a long time, and then there's Tasmania's weather.
@ Bernerd 11.50am.
Your "scenerio" is not physics but unsubstantiated theoretical AGW constructed climatology. Your 1,2,3,4 fabrication is in reality is just circumlocutious crap .
Very much like everything else you say.
Karenmackspottroll exhibit 1: "This bill genius is trying to tell us that global-warming is causing more snow. or maybe even that snow is not equal to cold."
Karenmackspottroll exhibit 2: "talk about pulling an old turd outta the thunderbox"
Is everything uttered by Karenmackspottroll unwitting (unwitted?) projection?
I see that during my short absence the shaman brigade of Deltoid went full charge. Tents are shaking and the speaking tongues work more than ever like power drills. :-)
Still no reply on the good news that the emperor penguins are doing quite well and that there might be an increase in the future?
And again, the census showed nothing of a decrease. If any conclusion can be made regarding numbers it is that they have gone up. And I don't question that there might be a methodology problem with the article, only that its results, if anything, support an increase.
Therefor any statements of them (jefferor penguins) being threatened can be reckoned as "polarbearing", not the least based on the fact that the articles brought forward (in defense for a decrease) blamed loss of ice as the cause.
In other words they should be deep down in the bin. But in climate scientology there aren't any bins if there is a scare involved, only gloomy crystal balls. ;-)
In response to the utter bilge being promulgated by Olaus ' pathetic' Petri, who vainly tries to estimate projections of Emperor Penguins in the coming century (an uneducated guess from an uneducated layman, in other words), reflect on Bernard's words. If the IPCC is remotely correct, and ice cover in the Antarctic shrinks at the rate that is currently occurring in the Arctic, the penguins are finito. No if or buts. Area-extinction models, which generally underestimate extinction rates, confirm that.
But let's see how warming is affecting other biota:
CLIMATE CHANGE UNCOUPLES TROPHIC INTERACTIONS IN AN AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM
Monika Winder1,3 and Daniel E. Schindler1,2
1School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Box 355020, Seattle, Washington 98195-5020 USA
2Department of Biology, University of Washington, Box 351800, Seattle, Washington 98195-1800 USA
The largest uncertainty in forecasting the effects of climate change on ecosystems is in understanding how it will affect the nature of interactions among species. Climate change may have unexpected consequences because different species show unique responses to changes in environmental temperatures. Here we show that increasingly warmer springs since 1962 have disrupted the trophic linkages between phytoplankton and zooplankton in a large temperate lake because of differing sensitivity to vernal warming. The timing of thermal stratification and the spring diatom bloom have advanced by more than 20 days during this time period. A long-term decline in Daphnia populations, the keystone herbivore, is associated with an expanding temporal mismatch with the spring diatom bloom and may have severe consequences for resource flow to upper trophic levels.
Climate change and population declines in a long-distance migratory bird (NATURE, 2006)
Christiaan Both1,2, Sandra Bouwhuis1,3, C. M. Lessells1 & Marcel E. Visser1
Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), PO Box 40, 6666ZG Heteren, The Netherlands
Animal Ecology Group, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Studies, University of Groningen, PO Box 14, 9750AA Haren, The Netherlands
Phenological responses to climate change differ across trophic levels1, 2, 3, which may lead to birds failing to breed at the time of maximal food abundance. Here we investigate the population consequences of such mistiming in the migratory pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca4. In a comparison of nine Dutch populations, we find that populations have declined by about 90% over the past two decades in areas where the food for provisioning nestlings peaks early in the season and the birds are currently mistimed. In areas with a late food peak, early-breeding birds still breed at the right time, and there is, at most, a weak population decline. If food phenology advances further, we also predict population declines in areas with a late food peak, as in these areas adjustment to an advanced food peak is insufficient. Mistiming as a result of climate change is probably a widespread phenomenon, and here we provide evidence that it can lead to population declines.
REPEAT ASFTER ME OLAUS: MISTIMING AS A RESULT OF CLIMATE CHANGE IS PROBABLY A WIDESPREAD PHENOMENON.
Climate change and evolution: disentangling environmental and genetic responses
P. GIENAPP1, C. TEPLITSKY1, J. S. ALHO1, J. A. MILLS2, J. MERILÄ1
Abstract
Rapid climate change is likely to impose strong selection pressures on traits important for fitness, and therefore, microevolution in response to climate-mediated selection is potentially an important mechanism mitigating negative consequences of climate change. We reviewed the empirical evidence for recent microevolutionary responses to climate change in longitudinal studies emphasizing the following three perspectives emerging from the published data. First, although signatures of climate change are clearly visible in many ecological processes, similar examples of microevolutionary responses in literature are in fact very rare. Second, the quality of evidence for microevolutionary responses to climate change is far from satisfactory as the documented responses are often — if not typically — based on nongenetic data. We reinforce the view that it is as important to make the distinction between genetic (evolutionary) and phenotypic (includes a nongenetic, plastic component) responses clear, as it is to understand the relative roles of plasticity and genetics in adaptation to climate change. Third, in order to illustrate the difficulties and their potential ubiquity in detection of microevolution in response to natural selection, we reviewed the quantitative genetic studies on microevolutionary responses to natural selection in the context of long-term studies of vertebrates. The available evidence points to the overall conclusion that many responses perceived as adaptations to changing environmental conditions could be environmentally induced plastic responses rather than microevolutionary adaptations. Hence, clear-cut evidence indicating a significant role for evolutionary adaptation to ongoing climate warming is conspicuously scarce.
Climate Change, Elevational Range Shifts, and Bird Extinctions (CONSERVATION BIOLOGY)
CAGAN H. SEKERCIOGLU1,*, STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER1, JOHN P. FAY2, SCOTT R. LOARIE2
Abstract: Limitations imposed on species ranges by the climatic, ecological, and physiological effects of elevation are important determinants of extinction risk. We modeled the effects of elevational limits on the extinction risk of landbirds, 87% of all bird species. Elevational limitation of range size explained 97% of the variation in the probability of being in a World Conservation Union category of extinction risk. Our model that combined elevational ranges, four Millennium Assessment habitat-loss scenarios, and an intermediate estimate of surface warming of 2.8° C, projected a best guess of 400–550 landbird extinctions, and that approximately 2150 additional species would be at risk of extinction by 2100. For Western Hemisphere landbirds, intermediate extinction estimates based on climate-induced changes in actual distributions ranged from 1.3% (1.1° C warming) to 30.0% (6.4° C warming) of these species. Worldwide, every degree of warming projected a nonlinear increase in bird extinctions of about 100–500 species. Only 21% of the species predicted to become extinct in our scenarios are currently considered threatened with extinction. Different habitat-loss and surface-warming scenarios predicted substantially different futures for landbird species. To improve the precision of climate-induced extinction estimates, there is an urgent need for high-resolution measurements of shifts in the elevational ranges of species. Given the accelerating influence of climate change on species distributions and conservation, using elevational limits in a tested, standardized, and robust manner can improve conservation assessments of terrestrial species and will help identify species that are most vulnerable to global climate change. Our climate-induced extinction estimates are broadly similar to those of bird species at risk from other factors, but these estimates largely involve different sets of species.
Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change
Warren, M S, Hill, J K, Thomas, J A, Asher, J, Fox, R, Huntley, B, Roy, D B, Telfer, M G, Jeffcoate, S, Harding, P, Jeffcoate, G, Willis, S G, Greatorex-Davies, J N, Moss, D and Thomas, C D (2001) Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature . pp. 65-69. ISSN 0028-0836
Habitat degradation and climate change are thought to be altering the distributions and abundances of animals and plants throughout the world, but their combined impacts have not been assessed for any species assemblage. Here we evaluated changes in the distribution sizes and abundances of 46 species of butterflies that approach their northern climatic range margins in Britain—where changes in climate and habitat are opposing forces. These insects might be expected to have responded positively to climate warming over the past 30 years, yet three-quarters of them declined: negative responses to habitat loss have outweighed positive responses to climate warming. Half of the species that were mobile and habitat generalists increased their distribution sites over this period (consistent with a climate explanation), whereas the other generalists and 89% of the habitat specialists declined in distribution size (consistent with habitat limitation). Changes in population abundances closely matched changes in distributions. The dual forces of habitat modification and climate change are likely to cause specialists to decline, leaving biological communities with reduced numbers of species and dominated by mobile and widespread habitat generalists.
Still no reply on the good news that the emperor penguins are doing quite well and that there might be an increase in the future?
Liar.
And I don’t question that there might be a methodology problem with the article,
No-one has suggested there might be a problem with the methods (not 'methodology') described in that paper. A census that finds 4 previously unknown colonies and confirms the existence of 3 suspected colonies is likely to be an improvement on earlier studies. The problem lies in your understanding of what was done and how it fits in with earlier work.
Although it hasn't happened for a few years now, it has been known to snow on Mt Wellington at Christmas. And just so our dense NH trolls don't become confused, that's a southern hemisphere Christmas.
Your 1,2,3,4 fabrication is in reality is just circumlocutious crap .
KarenMackSunspot, the Tourette-afflicted numpty who just can't disguise the illiteracy tells common to each of his socks, can you stop with the potty-talk for a moment and explain with which of those four points you take such umbrage?
Olaus Petri.
Amongst many scientists I know, one is a penguin biologist. Operating on the premise that no-one would know better than a penguin biologist, I asked her about the status of Antarctic penguin populations, and she is very concerned for their security in the medium to long term. Very concerned. I won't say what she thinks about your interpretation of the science, beyond noting that KarenMackSunspot has been phrasing the same sentiment, but far less delicately and with rather more fixation on the post-digestive functions of the alimentary canal...
Looks like we have a few more "bombshells" from the Global Warming Guru ....
"it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect."
- "blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion"
- "The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”
- "about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”
l
The amazing thing is, the Deltoid geniuses don't know that they don't know it.
As and example of how brain-dead that idiot there is, in his "opinion" piece, he claims quotes "recently from msnbc", then Guardian and goes to give the apparent quotes from it thereafter. But the entire guardian interview is available here:
That toronto rag piece was so confused about what it was talking about, its entirely possible that lots of those mined quotes were from 6 years ago.
Like I said, it had MSNBC but then talked about the Guardian (two years ago), but in neither place did he talk about "settled science". That was Times piece, not mentioned AT ALL on that piece of vapid crap.
Trust old Betula to wade through the sewage of the tabloid media and cite a screed from another right wing pundit(mis)quoting a 92 year old scientist. There isn't a rock in existence under which the denialists will not look for something - anything - to give the impression that common sense and science are on their side. The latest bete noire has been to saturate the internet with interviews from James Lovelock, ever since he slightly moderated his views on climate change. Once this miniscule shift weas detected by the denialosphere, they swooped on him like a pack of rabid hounds, desperate to saturate the media with the notion of a ' warmist who has seen the light'. This shows how utterly desperate the liars and deceivers in the denial camp are. Expect Lovelock to crop up a few thousand more times in the coming months in interviews with the right wing punditocracy, in a desperate attempt to give the impression that the scientific community writ large is coming around to his way of thinking, or that those who don't (meaning 99.9% of researchers in the environmental sciences, like myself) are out on a limb.
Its pathetic, but par for the course. Michael mann correctly refers to this as the 'Serengeti strategy' in his recent book, but this is a different approach. In their attacks on climate science, the deniers have, like predators in the Serengeti that single out prey on the edge of a herd, singled out a few scientists to smear, under the impression that if they can effectively bring down the reputations of these scientists then the entire foundation of science underpinning the warming will collapse. Now, using Lovelock, they are using a reverse strategy: singling out well-known scientists who once strongly supported the evidence behind AGW but, allegedly, who have had a rethink in recent years and have reconsidered their opinion. Lovelock fits the bill. So he gets splashed all over the right wing corporate media as if he is some sort of world renowed expert who must, by definition, be correct, because he has apparently become more sceptical. Remeber how the right wing media did the same thing with Bjorn Lomborg: the allegedly left-leaning greenie who re-evaluated the evidence and ended up promoting a world-view strongly aligned with corporate/libertarian agendas. Nothing makes a better story than a horse changing mid-stream, and the deniers have honed the art of making mountains out of veritable molehills out of this. That Lomborg probably hasn't got the foggiest clue about anything he writes about in his book doesn't matter: his message resonates with the interests of the privileged few and is heavily promoted. Heck, his book covers a wide diversity of exceedingly complex fields that take decades to master, and he writes it in 15 months? And the media didn't smell a rat? Now Lovelock is suddenly the flavor of the month in denial circles.
As for poor old simpletons like Olaus, I could cite dozens of srudies in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which already provide strong evidence of warming-related effects of multi-trophic interactions and that are almost certainly culpable for recent population declines of various taxa. Pied flycatchers, summer tanagers, Yellow-Billed Cuckoos, Daphnia, caribou, oligophagous insects, and many other diverse animal (and plant) taxa are being negatively affected by warming. The problem is, that when your entire world is Watts Up with That, or Jennifer Maharosy, or Climate Audit, as is the case with the deniers here, then this science does not register with you.
It turns out Monckton has been ostracised for inviting former British Freedom Party members (i.e. fascists) to join the UKIP, despite a long-standing ban.
It's sad what's happening to the deniers. Watts is growing ever more shrill, with a new nail-in-the-coffin-stickied-post-that-definitely-proves-the-scam-this-time every week, Monckton following the extreme right wing publicity-and-cash-machine into irrelevancy, a record low in arctic ice and a planet that just just refuses to cool, no matter how many times angry commenters predicted it.
This must be very frustrating, especially in light of the coming El Nino.
Shades of Anthony Flew -- reviled by Christians when an atheist, embraced by Christians when he abandoned atheism (because he had been convinced, wrongly, that the arguments of Intelligent Design proponents could not be answered) -- despite the fact that he still completely rejected Christianity. Such is the way of intellectual dishonesty.
"intellectual dishonesty" :) :) Yeah ,you guys here have honed that down to a fine art . But were dealing with brainwashed teaching dickheads like bernerd and Jeff .here.
Karenmackspot, if you want to accuse others of intellectual dishonesty perhaps it's best not to be using multiple sockpuppets while claiming cold weather proves something or other.
“intellectual dishonesty” :) :) Yeah ,you guys here have honed that down to a fine art .*
Really?
I note that you still haven't pointed out the apparently scandalous scientific "intellectual dishonesty" that you claimed I engaged in at 11:50 am on 23 June.
You make a lot of noise about how scientists are liars and frauds, but you never seem to put forward any evidence, even after I have noted this point on numerous occasions.
Why is this, I wonder...?
[*And seriously, work on your poor punctuation - you only present as an uneducated ass when you comment.
Yeah you’re a real educator Bernerd but I’m not one of the adulating imbeciles you have in this classroom.
Heaven forbid that you should ever darken the doorway of a classroom, a lecture theatre, or a laboratory - the latter two being way beyond your league. If you had done so beyond the minimum legislated educational requirement, you might actually put forward an evidenced argument, rather than the mere completely unsubstantiated ideological rants to which you are prone.
As it stands, you have never advanced an argument that was structured, referenced, and/or defensible. You're just a drive-around-the-block shooter of tabloid garbage claims, hoping that you might suck some poor unsuspecting innocent into your anti-scientific world of paranoia and conspiracy.
*but I’m not one of the adulating imbeciles you have in this classroom*
No, instead you're one of the scientifically illiterate imbeciles who is outside the classroom.
Note how Karensmackspot didn't attempt to rebut a word I said above - par for the course. Just the usual last resort to ad homs. Well done, you sad little person.
As for GSWs link, well there you have it. A corporate psychologist wades into areas well outside of his competence and adds his two cents worth. He might have mentioned that the 1992 summit on biodiversity in Rio was a flop because it was effectively hijacked by a coterie of transnational corporations who were more concerned over who had the patent rights to biodiversity than with protecting it. And in spite of what our corporate psychologist says, the planet's biota are a lot worse off now they were back in '92. The number of species that are at risk, threatened or endangered on the IUCNs list has markedly increased since then. At the same time, the planet's distribution of wealth has been increasingly concentrated towards the privileged few. Africa's share of the global economy has shrunk from a miniscule 4% to an even more miniscule 1.3% (Bond, 2006), suggesting that the powerful elites who run the show are not remotely concerned with either protecting the planet's decreasing genetic diversity nor reducing poverty.
All in all, what makes the posts of the deniers here even more utterly pathetic is the fact that none of them probably are part of the tiny self-centered elite sector of society. And yet, here they are batting for those who would gladly throw them to the dogs. It shows one how the power of manipulative propaganda is aimed not at the politically converted, but at the masses who, as Walter Lippmann once explained, must be managed like sheep.
I see Jeff quoting Karl Marx and Walter Lippmann, why don't you throw in Edward Bernays ?
Your beloved UN is well aware of these three devil's and no doubt use's a mixture of tricks from the later two, they most likely also have plans to implement the formers financial armageddon across the globe.
Even though you know this, will you speak up against it ?
I admire the way Karenmackspot is using her multiple personalities to tagteam commenters here. Isn't a shame that there are so overwhelmingly few fake sceptics left that they have to fake identities in order to beef up their numbers.
Your beloved UN is well aware of these three devil’s and no doubt use’s a mixture of tricks from the later two, they most likely also have plans to implement the formers financial armageddon across the globe.
What a couple of toffee nosed teaching wankers you both are. Your intelligence stretches no further than the textbook in front of your nose. And this Jeff tit says the "masses... must be managed like sheep" ...Yeah control freak. Tossers like you used to let loose with cane back in my day.
Here's some more - the falling differential of temp between the equator and the poles allows the jet-stream to do some very weird things indeed, including dragging masses of sub-arctic air south into Europe and North America. and all the while, temperatures continue to rise, and, on the other side of the meandering stream, new heat records are set. (Warning - some danger of learning something from video. Probably best avoided, eh?)
One of the first books I read that discussed climate change - apart form McKibben's End of Nature - was Gleick's Chaos (James, not Peter, don't get into a lather), which reinforced to me that when you shove non-linear systems out-of-whack they will swing crazily before reaching a new equilibrium. If they reach a new equilibrium at all. Well, they will, in the long run, but, to quote Karl Marks 'in the long run we are all dead'*.
So, sorry, the moronic world-view that holds that AGW must mean that everywhere in the world must warm monotonically, and that heavy precipitation in the form of snow does not count as heavy-precipitation because, it's, y'know, cold, and all - is just that; moronic.
Sorry to break it to you guys, but you are where you are because, when push comes to shove, you really are not very smart. You might have all the technical proficiency in the world in some limited sphere - or might imagine that you do (read the ongoing Curtin thread train-wreck) - but when it comes to being an alleged sentient operating in a complex biosphere that must remain healthy and vibrant for the benefit of us all, you could not possibly be any dumber.
And whole armies of you swarming about and endlessly shouting congratulations at each other about how f'in' brilliant you all are - WUWT, BH etc. - is just thick en-masse, not proof that you have a point.
The fact is, the world is complex, and tricky, frequently counter-intuitive, and in order to understand it you must have at least some ability to switch off your eternal desperate search for ego reinforcement and not just automatically reach for the closest prejudice to hand - AKA what you and the rest of your dreary reactionary cronies think of as 'common sense'.
You argue like children because you reason like children. Period. Scary children. Lord of the Flies children.
Seriously.
*Actually, this is Lord Keynes, but 1: you didn't know that, did you? ('Marks' indeed!) and 2: you could scarcely hope to distinguish between them anyway.
You’re such a control freak you think that man can control the climate. Yeah ….You’re that looney.
A "looney"? Karenmackspot, I am hurt you could ever think such a thing about a humble chap such as myself!
You're right, I do believe man can affect the climate. As does Monckton, Singer, Cristy, Spencer, and Lindzen. Would you describe them as "loonies"?
I've always thought that "looney" was more used to refer to conspiracy theorists who troll websites with multiple identities in order to push their fringe beliefs that the UN is conducting scientific fraud to install a one world government! Silly old me!
Mack, you're such a moron you can't even understand what the difference is between controlling and affecting.
You don't think we can affect the climate? Or is this something Curry has told you to say and you're of so little willpower and self-motivation that you just believe and parrot the ridiculous claims?
It defies logic when I read nutty remarks like this: "Your beloved UN is well aware of these three devil’s"
Talk about paranoid delusion. The UN hasn't had any teeth for years, not since it was co-opted by the US-UKisNato axis.
As fore Mack, you must be proud swallowing the volumes of corporate mainstream media propaganda you've been fed in dollops over the years. You certainly are a part of Lippmann's ' mindless herd'. James Madison, one of the early Presidents of the United States, claimed that the country needed to be be in the control of a 'better set of men', meaning those from the rich privileged class. This 'better set of men' - is well represented by people from groups like the Council on Foreign Relations, an elite Ivy-League group set up in 1919 (and which formulated the 'Grand-Area Strategy' as a metaphor for controlling the flow of capital from the poor to the rich nations, focusing on the Middle-East and Caucasus region. What is happening now as the planet's resource base is sucked dry to support the short-term agendas of the privileged few (Michael Klare's latest expose details this as do earlier tomes from Greg Grandin, Tom Athanasiou and Patrick Bond) is that the denial industry has upped the ante in order to keep the 'mindless herd' - well represented by the Mack's, the Karen's, and the Sunspot's -(or all three packaged into one) in their place as useful idiots. Whenever their wafer-thin intellectual positions are challenged, out come the ad homs or the latest Fox-News derived rants detailing evil UN or communist agendas. Don't argue with facts of statistics because they don't know any. All they are left with is the detritus from some right wing blogs or the corporate media.
This buch of idiots couldn't debate their way out of a soaking wet paper bag. They need to learn a little about the way the world works - foreign policy agendas, resource depletion, the declining health of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems - and put two and two together and to stop rehashing drivel from the few myopic sources that they do read.
KarenMackSunspot descends into a paroxysm of juvenile pretense that he is a conversing "they", not at all concerned that it's rather odd that they are suddenly both online as soon as John points out that they have previously not spoken to each other.
KMS, if you're going to start talking to yourself, one-sentence exchanges will tend to support those of us who can see your transparent sock-puppettry. Get a clue.
And still no structured argument I note, Foulspot.
And dude, it's great to see that Jeff, myself, and others are living rent-free in your mind. Rail against it as hard as you might, small man, but you aren't fooling anyone with an IQ over 75 - you're all sound and fury, but you don't actually have a case.
As a challenge, if you do have a case, can you enunciate it in 100 words or less? Go on, you know that you want to...
*I remember that somewhere in a not to distant thread that Jeff was alarmanising that the jet stream was going stop!*
Given that I am a senior scientist with 120 publications on the Web of Science since 1993, Karen, I would never, ever make up such an absurd remark. You, schmuck, are a liar. A brazen liar. Incapable of discussing anything remotely scientific here, you have to resort to blatant lies and then to joke about them. This suggests that you are some kind of wing-nut.
If you want to engage in Kindergarten level science, do it somewhere else. I note that you and your alter egos have failed to discuss a single scientific fact on this thread. When they are thrown at you, then you come back with infantile smears and lies. The latest takes the cake. Making things up actually makes you look more of an idiot than you already are, which is considerable.
Ever eager to help you beleaguered few, I bring you news of the very latest change in 'terminalogical inexactitudes' so that you can be bang up to date with your fibs. ooops, sorry, I mean PR-speak:
"One leader at a meeting related to the Rio +20 conference this week, noting that because conservatives reject the notion global warming, “We don’t use the term climate change anymore. It’s sustainable development.”
"Sustainable development" - got that? No more 'global cooling', no more 'global warming', no more 'climate change', from now on it's 'sustainable development'.
David these are only the die hard flat earther type O' warmers left in here. I suppose that you also have noticed that this once warmer flushing blog only harbours the most deluded now, all the others have changed their monikers and gone over to WUWT or Bishop Hill.
CO2 hardly gets a mention since they changed to the CC meme
You're right, Karen, they are an endangered species here and so one must treasure them and constantly hold them up to our children as an example of what happens if you swallow nonsense wholesale!
I was, like Ramsdorff' s research, referring to the Gulf Stream as a result of the massive inflow of fresh water from the melting Arctic ice. Trust 'Karen' to confabulate the Gulf Stream and the Jet Stream. How insidiously stupid can one be? These deniers take the cake.
Then there is this:
"You’re right, Karen, they are an endangered species here and so one must treasure them and constantly hold them up to our children as an example of what happens if you swallow nonsense wholesale! By the way, you fight the good fight!"
Duffer means "fight the no-fight or fight the vapid fight"", because the truth is that Karen/Mack/Spot have not once discussed actual science anywhere in any thread. Sure, they've cut and pasted snippets from right wing blogs, but these are usually rants from deniers and nothing within a light year of a scientific journal.
The Rio 1992 summit was about biodiversity and various threats to it. The evidence is that, since 1992, the health of all of the world's ecosystems - every single one - has continued to decline. Every ecological indicator is negative, and there is a wealth of data to show this to be the case. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) was the latest. Economically critical ecosystem services - from nutrient cycling to pollination to water purification - have been reduced in their capacity and efficiency. Marine fisheries are on the brink of collapse, as marine food webs have been depleted down the food chain. Deserts are expanding, the Aral Sea isn't, species and genetically distinct populations are decreasing exponentially, 50% of the world'as tropical wet forests are gone, and plant/animal invasions are homogenizing the biosphere. But of course, our resident idiots know nothing about the science underlying the MEE and have not read a page of it. In their true wisdom, expect them to dismiss it out of hand without having even glanced through it, certainly not understanding what it says, and then to dismiss it as part of a global left-wing/socialist/communist conspiracy. How predictable.
Then Duffer comes up with the howler of suggesting that Karen is 'fighting a good fight' when she/he/it isn't fighting anything at all: just parading ignorance. You clowns don't want a discussion of science, but to just further illustrate that their are no boundaries to stupidity.
“One leader at a meeting related to the Rio +20 conference this week, noting that because conservatives reject the notion global warming, “We don’t use the term climate change anymore. It’s sustainable development.”
The "leader" was Huxley Lawler, an obscure employee of an obscure Australian local council. No wonder you didn't name him. He's a nobody. Everybody knows that we receive our directives straight from the desk of secret UN chief and cult leader Al Gore.
Try a bit harder Duff. Your jolly old man persona is beginning to wear thin. It's what, three years now since you claimed that the AGW theory was "over" (whatever that means!) only to be faced with the warmest year on record.
It must fill you with seething rage that year after year your pathetic predictions (no sea level rise! global cooling!) fail to pan out.
Duff, you unhappy, miserable old sod, I suggest you cheer up, go outside and enjoy your twilight years instead of sitting at the computer railing against science and that Kenyan Obama! You're not getting any younger! :)
Well, with both Skippyduff and Karenmackspot resorting to their blustering versions of 'final nail in the coffin' just above, that's the idiot contingent fresh out of "arguments". Again.
The public and media are no longer listening to the deniers. Watts and co. have been wrong so often, with every "bombshell" and "final nail in the coffin" such a fizzer that the public have completely turned their backs on them. Even worse, no matter how shrill and insisent Watts becomes, the media now ignores him having been burned so often in the past.
There was a great article published in Popular Science that contains un unfortunate section on one of the actual thought leaders in the denial movement:
Just as in the rest of the country, belief in human-caused climate change in Oklahoma has been rising with the thermometer—according to Krosnick, a large majority of Inhofe’s constituents now believe that anthropogenic global warming is real. I ask Inhofe if he’s noticed any climate changes in his home state, such as last summer’s unprecedented heat and severe drought, withering crops, wild fires and dramatically expanded tornado season. “There’s not been any warming,” he snaps. “And there’s actually been a little bit of cooling. It’s all documented. Look at the Dust Bowl. Back then it was a lot hotter. Matter of fact, now they say the hottest time was actually during that time—1934, I guess.”
Actually, last summer’s average temperature of 86.9˚ was the highest ever recorded in Oklahoma. And last spring’s drought, when hundreds of farmers abandoned livestock they could no longer manage to feed or water, was the worst since 1921.
Many of the scientists I’ve spoken with say that no single act of harassment or intimidation has stung more than Inhofe’s “list of 17,” the call for the congressional investigation of prominent climate scientists. Mann, I tell Inhofe, said it “smacked of modern-day McCarthyism.”
“I’m not the guy that called for investigations, I don’t think,” Inhofe says. He quickly glances at his communications director, Matt Dempsey. “Did I ever call for investigations?” I study Inhofe’s face for a clue as to whether he’s joking—he brags about the episode in his book. It’s clear that he is not. Dempsey nods at his boss. “Okay,” Inhofe says. “Maybe right after Climate Gate, I said they need to be investigated.”
We're going to have to simplify things for the residual loonies here Karen. They're obviously still obtoosly confused . I'm from NZ. but you;re going to cop this carbon tax that the" intelligensia" (but not you Bill) will have inflicted upon you?
Mack, Jooliar is gunna get the boot, and when the mad monk gets in he reckons he is giving it the chop !
Mind you he will most likely just change it's name to an environment levy, and I don't really mind that so much so long as it is used for "our" environment, not to feather the nest's of the NWO.
Mack, Jooliar is gunna get the boot, and when the mad monk gets in he reckons he is giving it the chop !
Mind you he will most likely just change it's name to an environment levy, and I don't really mind that so much so long as it is used for "our" environment, not to feather the nest's of the NWO.
I noted their ignorance of each other knowing that Karen would immedately start talking to herself and dropping pointless details to prove Mack "real". She couldn't have fallen for a more obvious trap.
What you characteristically do is to repeat the same idiosyncratic mispunctuations over and over, and hilariously you did it yet again as both 'Karen' and 'Mack' after I pointed out your deficiency once more, back at 8:16 am 24 June.
Poor education, pathetic subtlety, prurient excuse for understanding of science...
And you wonder why we don't treat you with anything like respect.
Somehow I don't think Watts will be pushing that study, but I'm sure an amateur has fitted out some polynomials that show a nice downward curve on tree ring proxies from an obscure reigon of Mongolia dating from 1880-1910 that definitely prove the scam this time, for realz.
The signal to noise ratio on this blog is dropping dangerously low. As a relative outsider I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Wow, Bernard J, Lotharsson, chek, bill, ianam, Jeff Harvey and several others for providing a robust defence against the river of shit that has been polluting the blog since pretty much its inception. Your efforts are not unnoticed. Furthermore, I'd like to extend a big "fuck you" to the small group of sad individuals on the other side of this "debate" - you know who you are, you bunch of losers. Toodles!
With this week's crop - Stevie boy blogging on Muir Russell, Pope Montford b(f)logging a Christopher Booker 'story' (yes, really!) and Anthony 'UHI' Watts agreeing with North Carolina's revisionist approach to research - it seems we're already seeing denialism atrophy.
"Denier favourite Judith Curry agrees that declining arctic ice caused by global warming is “[playing] a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters“.
Oh I see....once this miniscule shift by Curry was detected by the alarmosphere, so now they swoop in on her like a pack of rabid hounds, desperate to saturate the media with the notion of a ‘ denier who has seen the light’. This shows how utterly desperate the liars and deceivers in the alarmistcamp are.
Just kidding John, that was me paraphrasing Jeff Harvey from his June 23rd rant....only I forgot to mention how great I am. Fits rather well don't you think?
So John, with Judith Curry as your new go to authority, I'm glad we can finally agree that articles such as the one below are bunk. You're finally coming around...
"BPW needs to learn how to present him of herself upon arriving if he wants people to have a reasoned discussion of some matter. Better yet, find a blog where people are actually debating the Finkelstein Report, rather than playing tone/concern troll here with it."
So let me get this straight. I need to learn how to present myself? On a blog? On THIS blog? Interesting. Not sure what it means, but it's interesting. Seems you have quite the high opinion of yourself.
bill, here's a thought. I live in the US. I don't frequent, or frankly know, many Aussie blogs. I know that there are many Aussies here. The topic was brought to my attention by a journalist friend, so I asked here. God forbid I get a straight answer. After all, the topic of how the Australian press handles science and other matters is NEVER discussed here. And to ask on an open thread? The horror!
As for concern/tone troll, I have little respect or use for those terms. Weak rhetoric. I would be concerned if the US government was considering entering the business of moderating the press directly. And as for tone, I don't much care. But some should, because it matters more than you think. But snark away and continue the head-scratching back and forth with the usual suspects as it sure seems productive.
Now, had you left off the above and simply pointed me in another direction, that would have been fine, and appreciated. And since I am genuinely interested, I will go take a look.
FrankD, thanks for your more reasoned response.
I will say the other reason I asked here was my interest in the responses from the locals. The lack of response, to what was a very genuine question, is telling. And that people here would rather continue the back and forth with the regular antagonists on topics which are simply tired and lack any focus on issues which actually matter and can, and should, be addressed is telling as well.
But keep on keepin' on if it suits you. It's solid entertainment. In the meantime I'll head elsewhere for an answer to my questions. Frankly, I guess I should have known better than to expect a reasoned response here.
Betty - from your link: "That the politically motivated Enviro-Marxists are losing their hopeless war on the harmless trace gas CO2 and that their plans for world socialist domination have been derailed."
With intellectual powerhouses and a depth of understanding like that to point to, 10:10 should reframe their campaign as Dignitas Direct.
Unfortunately for you and me, crowing punditry and deluded commenters do not influence the events the science tells us are in train.
You write, "And that people here would rather continue the back and forth with the regular antagonists on topics which are simply tired and lack any focus on issues which actually matter and can, and should, be addressed is telling as well."
Sp please perchance, tell me in your opinion what topics merit discussion? Growing evidence that our global ecological life support systems are under threat don't merit discussion, in spite of the fact that our civilization depends on a range of services that emerge from them? I'd also like to point out that the US media, if not wholly owned by powerful multinational corporations, is utterly beholden to them. The whole political system is a sham, a plutocracy in which a very small but wealthy and powerful minority ensure that the system reflects their interests. Herman and Chomsky's 'Propaganda Model' was obviously written with the US media in mind; given their incessant cheerleading for expansionist wars abroad, my take is that the US media isn't that far removed from Pravda in the former Soviet Union in terms of content and bias. The only real alternative are books and some media sites (i.e. Fair, Common Dreams, Z-Net, Counterpunch, Democracy Now!) on the internet; the US mainstream corporate media's record, especially on foreign policy and environmental issues, is shameful. Not that its much better over here, in Europe, mind you.
As for Betula, Mack, Karen, and Duffer, whats utterly amazing is that this bunch of high school dropouts is trying to give impression of the scientific high ground with respect to the scientific evidence behind AGW (and other environmental issues), irrespective of the empirical evidence, and, more importantly, the views of the vast majority of experts in the relevant fields. Now that takes remarkable hubris. Lacking any scientific underpinning, they then have to resort to the usual comedic arguments relating to global UN agendas, communism, etc. ad nauseum. Its tiresome, particularly since the UN hasn't had any teeth since the late 1940s, and has been largely co-oped by the United States and its proxies. Which country has vetoed more UN resolutions - including those advocating food, health and security for all of the world's people, and global protection of the planet's ecosystems (true, if one can stomach it) - than all of the other members of the so-called Security Council combined? Of course, the US. One just has to look through some of the resolutions in which the US has stood alone from the rest of the General Assembly to realize that promotion of democracy, freedom and human rights is not a priority of US foreign policy.
Anyway, I am more than willing to take on any of the moronic deniers here in debating the condition of the planet's ecosystems and the consequences for ecosystem services, but since the brainless brigade appear to have never set foot inside a science class, what is the point? Instead, expect more vacuous smears and jibes.
You know, what is even more sad, is that Betula's day job is apparently to prune vegetation. Seriously. He does not benefit from the current political economic system which is driving our ecological systems to hell in a handbasket. Yet, his views reflect those of the wealthy few. I am sure the think tanks and their paymasters love to see average Joe's like Betula bolstering their agendas. Talk about being useful idiots.
My guess is that Mack and Karen are also middle or lower range income earners. I say this on the basis of their utter stupidity with respect to scientific arguments (heck, Karen can't tell the jet stream and Gulf Stream apart, and has to defend her/its/his smear with a WIKI entry but no links to me saying that the jet streram would cease because of course I never made such an absurd remark), and their inability to write proper English. So why does this lot worry about UN agendas and world government (the only chance of that was soon after WW II when the US became an imperium, but since the 1950s its global reach has dissipated profoundly). To be honest, I have rarely read such utterly puerile nonsense re: global socialist/communist agendas, but this lot of average schmucks actually appears to believe it. If they were corporate CEOs, I would understand their desperate desire to maintain the status quo, but these people are clearly not members of the elite 1%.
Never mind Betty, your championing of the brand of ideological sewage that requires support from abject ignorance still comes across with absolute clarity.
Great to see dear that Richard S takes his time to investigate. :-) He goes on a walkabout and ask his friend about the penguins and was told that she was concerned, very concerned. Well did you ask her if she was concerned about the increasing ice mass as well? Because, you know, the worrisome part was loss of ice, remember? And now it isn't a problem anymore. :-) What does that tell you about the quality of the research wrt jefferor penguins?
Be happy that climate scientology not even can base their scares on proper presumptions. ;-)
I suggest you roll over belly up on this one Richie.
And the Ming penguin himself is true to form: he starts barking about something completely different. Why, is beyond me. I have told Jeffie numerous times that I do not doubt that nature responds to climate change, an he still goes on about it. What's wrong with him?
Why can't he stay on topic and stop making out with his straw men?
Petard, it's all-too-obvious that you oh-so-want your take-home message to be 'there's nothing to worry about'. And yet you hang round here like a spare dildo at an orgy because, existentially, you realise it's not.
The solution is obvious - stop filling your head with the trash you currently consume, and educate yourself. Real Climate and Skeptical Science may, with sufficient diligence on your part, alert you to what's happening.
Great to see dear that Richard S takes his time to investigate. :-) He goes on a walkabout and ask his friend about the penguins
Can't you get anything right? There are no penguin experts amongst my friends and I never claimed there were.
I see that after your failed attempt to produce a research paper to back your claims, you are descending once more into insults. At least, you don't need to read for comprehension to produce them, do you?
Chek, I'm sure there are lot of things to worry about, but loss of ice in the antarctic region seems not to be one of them, hence the scares regarding jefferor penguins were based on a wrong understanding.
Sorry Richie, it was Bernie that took his time to make a canossa walkabout to penguin land. Please try forgive me my friend. Either way I was the one presenting a paper that showed an increase of emperor penguins, if anything.
You and your fellow believers came up with articles that claimed otherwise based on the conviction that loss of ice was a problem. Well it wasn't. Consequently all the "mays" and "ifs" were crap.
Petard, all that I can see we can agree on is you're a myopic dunce
.
Regardless of whatever trash you've read about (seasonal) sea ice, the western ice shelves are currently disintegrating due to to .... 'warming'. And then - given the topography - what stops the land bourne ice slipping into the sea? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17803693
Don't worry, it's a rhetorical question. I don't expect intellectual fruitflies like you to think that far ahead. You can go cuddle up to sleep with your favourte anti-science memes.
That's because you know nothing about them, and since your raddled, second-hand misunderstandings have already been exposed, there's nothing to predicate continuing discussion of them.
One could be forgiven for suspecting that OP is concentrating very hard on penguins and the Antarctic because he doesn't want to factor this into his reality.
I think more Karl Marx quotes from Jeff and Bill would be of great influence….
You know, it is difficult to mock someone who is stupid to the point that they are incapable of comprehending their own stupidity. Truly our Trolls inhabit a world beyond satire...
Speaking of which, the other issue that's being carefully avoided is Monckton's complete wig-out, calling the (doubtlessly-smartly-uniformed!) boys from the British Freedom Party into the UKIP fold, much to the alarm of even this redoubt of the lunar-Right...
I wish that the independent minded people who are willing to stand away from the major parties could remember that because we are so few, we should stand together.
And UKIP is, for all its faults, the biggest of the freedom loving, democracy loving, independent minded parties. And I don’t like this splitting off, which is very prone to happen in those smaller parties precisely because you have to be independent minded to start with. And this makes everyone willing to fight and go their own way.
But the British Freedom Party won’t really come to very much, I don’t think, and I would very much like them to come back and join us and we stand together…
And let us never forget that this buffoon has been one of the chief spokespeople of your movement, Deniers.
I suspect that this revealed politics probably resonates with a substantial segment of Denial itself, though most aren't yet daft enough to actually say it out loud.
Instead they gaily project away. You know, we're the democracy-hating intolerant conspiracists, who are simultaneously trying to hand all their hard-earned wealth over to the undeserving Third-World poor so they can frivolously eat a bit more and maliciously install wind-turbines, while all-the-while genocidally exterminating the tragic poor of the Third-World by denying them nourishing coal-fired power-stations...
( I know it doesn't make sense, but not much in Denial does!)
If Teh Stoopid institutionalised insists on giving us a Great Depression to cap its existing generous gift of a Great Recession, as seems likely, I fear we will have to watch these strident, hysterical and reactionary forces coalesce into something very ugly indeed - and perhaps much less discreet.
“When I get an e-mail that mentions my child and a guillotine,” [Katharine] Hayhoe says, “I sometimes want to pull a blanket over my head. The intent of all this is to discourage scientists. As a woman and a mother, I have to say that sometimes it does achieve its goal. There are many times when I wonder if it’s worth it.”
That this appalling Denier rabble is so monumentally self-righteous, and routinely claims victim status for itself, should surprise no-one with any knowledge of History.
The above from Popular Science - here's a version that's (currently) readable here in the Antipodes.
I bring you Good News - again! Although why I bother beats me, I never get any thanks for it!
Anyway, my Good News is actually Bad News but then I know that is the sort of news you all enjoy over here and you need cheering up what with your Global Warming Doomsday scenario not quite working, er, well, actually failing big time, and your faithful Band of Brothers dwindling by the day, you really are in need of a huge 'end-of-the-world-is-nigh' story to cheer yourselves up! So here it is and don't forget to say thank you:
The Andromeda galaxy will collide with our galaxy in 4 billion years!
Now I know how keen you all are on such stories being backed by scientific expertise, you know, like a 2:2 in Fir Cone Studies from Peterborough Poly-versity, so let me assure you that this comes from some tremendous swot with degrees in stars and planets and things, and he took his measurements from some chap called Hubble - er, no, I don't know he is but apparently he has terrific eyesight and can see things you and I can't!
There you are - disaster, calamity, apocolypse - what better way could you start this June? No, no, don't thank me just the usual in an unmarked brown envelope . . .
Boooooooooring.
and your faithful Band of Brothers dwindling by the day [citation needed]
It's really extremely sad that these intellectually decrepit old has-beens are only left with fantasies to comfort themselves with.
But then again, if you've always been a fatuous w*nker, I suppose that's all you've ever really had.
Here is some news you may have missed Duff.
According to John Dunn, a Heartland policy adviser,
"The people that warm spells kill are already moribund."
Don't say you were not warned.
"...what with your Global Warming Doomsday scenario not quite working, er, well, actually failing big time, and your faithful Band of Brothers dwindling by the day..."
I've seen that meme before...
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/demise.html
(This is just between us but I think Duff is trying to be funny)
Here's something relevent - North Carolina have banned sea level rise:
Hilarious!
This reminds me of the comet episode of the Simpsons: "Let's go burn down the observatory so this will never happen again!"
Maybe they can take it one step further and make science illegal. They can lock scientists away in towers, except this time they're right, damn it!
"Which, yes, is exactly like saying, do not predict tomorrow’s weather based on radar images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain".
"There is virtually universal agreement among scientists that the sea will probably rise a good meter or more before the end of the century, wreaking havoc in low-lying coastal counties"
I'm confused. Is the radar showing actual images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain, or is it "probably" showing images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain?
According to Ethon, Roger says there are no hurricanes.
I have an ongoing series comparing the libertarian Conservative-friendly Fraser Institute with the environmentally focused Pembina Institute.
Fraser vs Pembina, part 2: Funding
Future posts will examine the quality of Fraser "research" among other topics, but in the mean time here is my analysis of their wretched Independent Summary for Policymakers (co-ordinating author: Ross McKitrick).
Heartland North, anyone?
A consequence of being stupid, ignorant, and intellectually dishonest.
The sea will probably rise, just as the hurricane will probably hit land. In both cases these are extrapolations from current observation as to what will (with some probability estimate) happen in the future.
P.S.
Betula, when you directly quote a comparison between a prediction of tomorrow's weather and prediction of end of century sea levels and then say you're "confused" and contrast today's radar map with prediction of end of century sea levels, it's hard to conclude anything other than that you are an imbecile and that your thoughts and comments are utterly worthless.
Accelerated warming of the IPCC => http://bit.ly/b9eKXz
Uniform warming of skeptics => http://bit.ly/L5FSBg
Warming rate reported by the IPCC is 2.5 (=0.2/0.08) times the actual warming rate reported by skeptics.
Life's too short to bother with Girma, methinks.
Weird. Sceptics we get here tend to say there is no warming and it's all a hoax. They predict cooling and, in extreme cases, an imminent ice age.
You guys should get together and get your story straight so we might take you more seriously.
Can I interest anyone in my petition on AVAAZ, "Tax carbon to create jobs"? Details at http://bkuk.com
Europe should take the advice of Vivid Economics in "The potential of carbon pricing to reduce Europe’s fiscal deficits" or the advice of the Fraser of Allender Institute in "A carbon tax for Scotland".
With less of an academic voice I say:
We need to tax carbon to save the world. The receipts should be used to
1) Pay international debts and
2) Create jobs by taking the tax burden from labour - even subsidising jobs.
So that's full employment and a world saved.
-------------------------------
P.S. I've found an easier way to challenge the deniers:
Which of the "Global Warming & Climate Change Myths" do you believe?
There's a list of 173 here http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.
Can you add a new one?
Nooooooooo! Killfile no longer works with this new style, and I am subjected to Girma and his atrocious W-theory once more.
For me, it is hard to find any positives in the new scienceblogs format.
No KILLFILE
No numbers to allow simple back references.
Cannot see the article count without clicking on the article.
Useful old articles sometimes have formatting broken (URLS no longet hyperlinks), ad of course, disappearance of numbers means that some old discussions make no sense at all.
Girma's comment sums up denialism in a nutshell. Most "skeptics" have never seen "their" graph before but would be quick to agree that it's the right one, even if they have previously said that it hasn't warmed for 15 years, is cooling, etc. Whether it is scientifically sound is irrelevant to them.
Everyone agrees; there are none.
Feel fortunate if the comments you're looking for are even visible.
The deniers enthusiastically endorsing this idiocy bears out my comment.
'Cannot see the article count without clicking on the article'
And trivially for some perhaps, like J Quiggin's blog, comment page numbers are at the bottom of the page, not at the section head for quick reference.
The one thing I will say for the new format is that the blockquote tags now result in something legible if multiple paragraphs are quoted (the homogenous blobbing of everything used to really piss me off.) And you can recess one blockquote inside another - handy when I was quoting Jonathon Holmes the other day, for example.
Oh,
and
now
I
(think I)
can
make
a
list
without having to resort to using multiple paragraph tags!
Other than that - no preview, no capacity for corrections, no permalinks, previous discussions reduced to gibberish: what's to like?
As for Watts' imbecility du jour - slow 'news' day, I figure. The Deniers' constant waving about of the shade of Feynman gets old very quickly, too...
While errors and mistakes get made in climate science all the time (it's a contact sport after all) Amazon, Glaciers etc. What strikes me is the sheer volume of errors, mistakes and more by denialists - there are freaking loads of them and they are on a monumental scale (which is what happens when you remove checks an balances) and dwarf anything by climate scientists. Here's just a few that occurred to me...
A Wegman et al (2006) study purporting to show problems in the nature of collaboration of climate researchers had to be retracted to do plagiarism, poor scholarship and a shady peer review process that took only 5 days (it normally takes months). Doh, Wegman!
McIntyre & McKitrick claimed in an op-ed in the USA Today that Mann had never made his data available for others. He did and it had been there for years. USA Today had to retract the claim. Doh, McIntyre & McKitrick!
In an article by Daniel Grossman, Richard Lindzen claimed the 1999 Hockey Stick study used only tree rings and only from 4 locations. He was wrong. It used ice cores and tree rings and the tree data came from 34 sites based in 12 regions of the planet. Doh, Lindzen!
Craig Loehle published a paper in 2007 in Energy and Environment that purported to show the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as today. Except that he didn't understand that the standard date in tree-ring data of BP (before present) is 1950 and not 2000, so many of his records were 50 years out. Doh, Loehle!
Climate scientist Hans Von Storch resigned as editor of the journal Climate Research because a contentious and flawed study purporting to show warming was not happening (Soon & Baliunas) – this papers peer review process had been murky and the publisher of the journal, Otto Kinne, would not let the editor say so. Doh, Kinne!
Marcel Crok penned a 2005 article in Dutch magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek that claimed the hockey stick, and the Kyoto protocol that was based on it were both wrong. Yet the the Kyoto protocol was adopted in December 1997 – 4 months before the first hockey stick was published in April 1998. Doh, Crok!
Representative Ed Whitfield's also claimed the 1997 Kyoto protocol was based on the 1998 hockey stick. Doh, Whitfield!
Dr. John Christy criticised Mann for lack of scientific openness by not sharing the source code used to generate the hockey stick (though the algorithm and method allowing reconstruction was) yet Christy had also refused to share code with Dr. Frank Wentz when requested to do so. Hypocritical doh, Christy!
Dr. John Christy and Roy Spenser argued in several papers in the 1990s that warming was not happening based on satellite measurements, yet problems with their methods later showed they were wrong and they both had to concede warming was happening. Doh, Christy & Spenser!
Any more?
Changes that irritate me include:
No list of all posts in chronological order. I used to always scan the last 24 hours to see what was new. Now all you get are the last few in each category with duplicates, some that have been there for many days and others that get pushed off the list within hours. There are several blogs I'd occasionally read that I no longer visit because it is harder to see what they are offering.
Broken 'Go to (select blog)' at the top of each page.
The 'Recent Comments' still lists none for the June Open Thread and always seems to be out of date.
And, of course, the lack of comment numbers and preview.
Re: global warming failing, scientists defecting from it, etc.
Yet another denier meme copied from creationists (insert "Evolution" for "AGW").
Oops, I see someone already linked to Morton's site.
Prof. Hansen's new approach to CO2?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/03/shocker-the-hansengiss-team-paper…
Hehe...a bit quick there. ;-)
@Olaus,
Did Watts edit the post or something? He says he edited to make it clearer that this was an old paper, but it smacks of ass covering to me, given how many thought this was news. Mind you, judging by the comments, dimwittery cannot be ruled out. .
The obvious reply to Watts is that it would have been a good thing then but thanks to his kind we blew the chance.
GSW just urged Jonas to post in the open thread. I hope that, if/when the software gets straightened out, Tim permanently bans the lot of these trolls.
Quote of the day:
According to Watts the Hansen paper was "published in 2000, but long since buried"
From the paper (as quoted by Watts)
"If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change."
From the May 18-19, 2012 Camp David Declaration of the G-8 nations
"Recognizing the impact of short-lived climate pollutants on near-term climate change, agricultural productivity, and human health, we support, as a means of promoting increased ambition and complementary to other CO2 and GHG emission reduction efforts, comprehensive actions to reduce these pollutants, which, according to UNEP and others, account for over thirty percent of near-term global warming as well as 2 million premature deaths a year."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/19/camp-david-declar…
As Eli notes, Hansen's hopes for "plausible success in slowing CO2" have been obstructed by among others Watts.
Have * none * of them read and comprehended para. 6 of the summary of the abstract before proseltysing their pointy little heads off, then blaming everyone else?
I mean, seriously; 'buried'? Give me a break!
Once a conspiracist...
Hansen buried it in his publications list at GISS
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html#2000
Petri got sucked in as well
To paraphrase Bastardi "he looks like a fool because he is one".
@chek
If Bastardi, Olaus, and the rest of these morons cannot read and comprehend "2000", you can hardly expect them to read and comprehend any of the rest of it. The patent stupidity of the posters there, from Watts on down, is immense. I'm surprised that Watts allowed Mike's post, that points out what an imbecile Watts is:
Does the new blog format support images in comments?
The answer is no - the tag was stripped out.
"Sceptics" at work.
+1. I'm out till the fix some or all of this. Cheers.
Stop the presses! According to The Australian, when it comes to death threats the real victims aren't climate scientists but aggressive News Ltd attack hounds.
Now, the reason climate scientists get death threats in the first place is because Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair and the entire Australian newspaper rountiely publish blatant falsifications about climate science and regularly smear scientists and their motives with heavily personal, dishonest attacks (does anybody else remember the "Tim Flannery lives on the waterfront, lynch him dead!" fiasco?)
Any admission from these intellectually dishonest hacks that their aggressive stance against reality is to blame for the death threats against scientists? Do they take any responsibility?
Somebody go and tell that scientist whose children were threatened with gang-rape that she needs to "harden up".
I see nothing but tacit approval of those tactics in that article, as if being a highly-paid, highly-charged right-wing ideoligical mouthpiece and researching scientific matters are exactly the same thing. I am against online abuse, but the Bolts and Blairs of the world understand that the position they take will make them enemies.
Scientists, on the other hand, did not sign up for public abuse, and should we really expect to live in a world where death threats against scientists should be considered de rigueur? A part of the job? Becuase this is what Chris Mitchell and The Australian is apparently advocating.
It would be less sick if they weren't denying that threats were being made in the first place.
What is it with the right-wing media and their victimisation complex?
Having failed to prove that it's not happening - a form of abuse in itself, I might add - we now get a combined tu quoque fallacy and 'harden up' rhetoric.
To paraphrase a golden description of Basil Fawlty, there's a whole Psych conference in these guys.
The Australian really is a printed far-Right blog, and it behaves like a far-Right think-tank. Guess which one I'm thinking of...
@Betula, June 1st 4.39pm
Bunkum!
You would not know the difference between a severe storm, the Beaufort Scale or watt even constitutes a Category 1 Hurricane(Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale), even if it rained on your parade and bit you in your posterior.
And the 'Old Duffer', is still busy cherry picking his way, to the room of the smallest number of greatest pretenders, living in denial, in the 21st century, the "Ersatz Alchemy Science Skeptics"..
Sad, for who would have thought, so few people would be scared out of their single mononeuron, by an inconvenient truth..
Re Betula.....it really wan't all that difficult a concept to understand.
But understand it, a denialist cannot.
I think, by and large, taken in the round and with judicial consideration, the new design of this blog is about on par with the pseudo-science that most of its correspondents espouse.
Incidentally, 'Her Majship' is not amused that all that global warming you have been promising for the last 30 years failed - again - to make an appearance.
Sorry, only 'E for Effort' - again!
Booooooooring. Again.
David Duff says we espouse "pseudo-science" because he prefers to get his science from dowsers.
HOT OFF THE PRESS:
More Good/Bad News - oh, hell, I can't keep on explaining, you know what I mean. Anyway, according to the IEA (and, no, I haven't a clue who they are but I know you swots here keep right up to date with all these scientific boondoggles):
“Global carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion reached a record high of 31.6 gigatonnes in 2011.”
Crikey! Not sure what a "gigatonne" is but it sounds like a lot to me. So tell me, folks, when is this blasted global warming going to start? I mean, today, the 5th of June for God's sake, I have had to put my central heating back on! You told us over and over that if we didn't cut CO2 emissions we'd all fry. Anyone who suggested otherwise was, and still is, howled down. So I ask again, where's the heat? And, pur-lease, don't tell me its all sunk down to the bottom of the ocean!
Duffer the puffer complained:
Tell me Duffer, what do you have your thermostat set at, 35 degrees C or what?
I think he is getting ready for the next world where he will find things a lot hotter than his Septic Isle (that's where people who tell lots of lies go, you know).
Here is what has really been happening with temperatures in the UK. Does Duffer live underground where he can't see what is happening or is he just lying as usual?
http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=41009
What you have top make allowances for, Ian F. is that Duffer has the memory (and the concomitant intellect) of a goldfish.
Your (beautiful) satellite image (during which the population of the UK were enjoying outdoor parades and concerts etc.across the entire nation in honour of HRH the Queen Maj's 60th. shindig) was yesterday.
David Duff, being an idiot fool denier and liar, apparently an't remember that far back.
Duff's understanding is that he has been told, over and over again, that every single day in every single part of the world it will get warmer than the day before and so if it's cooler where he is than what it was yesterday, that falsifies global warming.
Duff, if you want to wind people up here you're going to have to try a bit harder than "it's cold where I live!".
Not even you believe that argument. Is this really the best the sceptics have got at the moment? No wonder their belief system is collapsing. Day by day more and more scientists are speaking out about AGW and here's little old Duff insisiting that it's cold!
You might try starting to explain. All of your "explanations" to date have been bullshit.
I was completely swayed by Duff's convincing revelation that global warming doesn't exist because it's cold where he lives until I read about a heatwave in Southern India:
By Duff's reasoning AGW is happening. Case closed!
Linky link.
Ah, but John, as a wise man once said at an ICCC conference -
- so that's alright then.
*So tell me, folks, when is this blasted global warming going to start?*
FYI, Greenland just experienced its warmest ever May day (24.8 C) and Siberia is experiencing a record-setting heatwave, with temperatures in the mid to high 30s. Not that any of this is climate, but it is part of a growing data set showing an increasing trend towards warmer conditions at the poles - exactly as Keeling and Revelle said it would back in the 50s.
The trouble with idiots like the old Duffer is that they look out the back window and generate their 'science' on the basis of this.
Anxious Duff:
"So tell me, folks, when is this blasted global warming going to start?"
Nothing for you to worry about Duff. By the time you die, they'll probably be less than another half a degree of global warming and less than an additional 10 cm of sea level rise. The damage caused by these rises will be relatively insignificant compared with the disasters that will come after you die but for psychopaths such as yourself, those disasters after you die are of absolutely no significance.
So don't worry about it Duff, it's not a problem we expect psychopaths to care about.
To steer the discussion to some more sane topics, and to show that there are sane Australian media outlets, too, see
Putting the wind up us
Indeed. It begs the counter that
Just to put it out there, so that those coolists/coolistæ can determine the relative balance, especially in the future...
Oh those silly liberals....
http://www.punditpress.com/2012/06/liberals-plan-to-kill-scott-walker-i…
None of you seem to realise that I'm on *your* side! I love the thought of global warming - provided it's all around me! I don't care if you live in a desert like the Sahara or Australia, I only care about south west England and as I live miles inland I certainly don't care if the sea rises, in fact, if it washes away some of those ghastly monstrosities of seaside towns which blight our coast, then good riddance.
But my complaint is real - where and when is this warming going to happen? We've had three in a row miserable wet Summers and this looks like another bummer. I know because one of my hobbies is whittling. I carve models of Mann and Jones and Briffa (well, if they can create models why not me?) and then set fire to them to get a little warmth, but the 'Memsahib' will not allow me to do it indoors because of the mess. I haven't done any whittling for three years because its too bloody chilly to sit outside!
So I repeat, where's the warming gone? Where are the calamities, the 'Apocalypse Now' scenarios, the scorched earth? It certainly isn't here and I haven't seen any of it anywhere else exept where it's always been, ie, Sahara and Australia and frankly anyone who actually chooses to live in either deserves all they get!
So when is it going to happen?
Duff, you are not on 'our side'. You dwell in an alternative universe where facts are irrelevant, unless they confirm your desires.
Do you live downwind from a large waste incinerator, perhaps?
Just foer dumb old Duffer:
Record warmth in Greenland:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/04/494641/unprecedented-may-he…
Note that the temperature at the end of May was barely below the warmest recorded in any month of the year. Remarkable. Siberia is also experiencing a record heat wave right now, with temperatures in the mid to upper 30s. Unprecedented.
Of course this is 'only' weather, but it (a) supports predictions by Revelle and Keeling made in the 1950s (that the highest latitudies would be disproportionately warmer relative to normal than lower latitudies), and (b) it is aprt of a larger data set showing many more warm records are being broken than cold records. Is the planet warming? Most definitely. And its the poles that are receiving a large portion of it.
Duffer's 'science' is to look out the window and stick his finger in the wind.
In other words, it ain't science.
Betty - you have cottoned on that this is an Australian blog about climate, haven't you? Walker's recall election is completely irrelevant.
"Walker’s recall election is completely irrelevant"
Oh, no it's not! And if, Bill, you are 'a believer' then you should start worrying because Walker's win presages a Romney win in November and you can kiss goodbye to all that greenery twaddle that Obama threw zillions of dollars at!
Jeff, do pay attention, I couldn't care less about Siberia - a total lavatory of a place, I imagine - and Greenland is frequently warm. Just stick to the point, WHERE ARE THE CATASTROPHES?
@ bill 1:17 pm
"Betty – you have cottoned on that this is an Australian blog about climate, haven’t you? Walker’s recall election is completely irrelevant."
Well it is tangentially linked. The Koch brothers are reputed to have poured a lot of money into Walker's campaign. Must be money saved from Heartland :)
Duff you duff puffer.
You want catastrophes then Google on 'UK floods 2012' for starters. Then drill down to discover the impact on wildlife (much loss in Somerset and in the Fens with some endangered species losing important nesting sites), farming and US (that is as 'WE' not The US) more directly.from disruptions to services including sewage. Fouled beaches should be considered.
Of course such things do not concern those with tiny minds and selfish mores.
Looking further afield it is not to much of s stretch to discover landslides, wildfires and much death from overheat coupled with drought. Of course the suffering of millions in southern India is of little consequence to you, after all it isn't your kids dying.
As for Romney, the only thing he is likely to win is a 'Janus Award' - when you have finished with it that is.
"WHERE ARE THE CATASTROPHES?"
Since you evidently live in a cave... here you go... catastrophes:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/06/495713/extreme-weather-is-t…
“Betty – you have cottoned on that this is an Australian blog about climate, haven’t you?"
Bill, apart from the fact that this is an open thread, there is a political link at the top of the page and politics is catagorized in the right column of the site....C'mon Bill, I think I may be sensing a little leftwing "Death Threat Denial" from you.
"Walker’s recall election is completely irrelevant".
So the people who are put into office have nothing to do with policies, including those that may have to do with global warming? Really? But the left deemed it so important....only now it's irrelevant...heh heh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS0Dqz2P1sk
Now how about that GB, CP has just posted some relating to my Romney remarks.
Soon be game-set-match for old duffer & co.
"So I repeat, where’s the warming gone? Where are the calamities, the ‘Apocalypse Now’ scenarios, the scorched earth? It certainly isn’t here and I haven’t seen any of it anywhere else ..."
Scorched Earth? How hard have you been looking? World wide drought index up 'precipitously' from 1980:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/wet-is-dry-and-dry-is-wet/
A Generation of Texas Farmers and Ranchers, Lost to the Drought
http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/04/06/a-generation-of-texas-farme…
Scorched earth:
http://photos.masslive.com/republican/2011/08/texas_drought_12.html
Worst Russian Drought in 50 Years Threatens Next Crop:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-03/worst-russian-drought-in-50…
Mexico’s drought destroys crops, endangers life, and opens corn market to U.S. farmers:
http://southwestfarmpress.com/grains/mexico-s-drought-destroys-crops-en…
Drought destroys Spanish cereal crop:
http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2012/04/04/drought-destroys-cere…
Severe Drought Destroys Crops in Yunnan:
http://english.cri.cn/6909/2012/02/19/189s681990.htm
Drought in Southern China Destroys Crops, Water Levels Lowest Ever :
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/drought-in-southern-china-de…
Grain fields across Argentina’s Pampas region destroyed by drought:
http://feww.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/drought-destroys-fifth-of-argentin…
That took me 5 minutes of Googling.
Duff, you are one deliberately-misinformed and lazy SOB
Speaking of links between Walker and Heartland...
And Duffer, seeing as you are hovering around again take a load of this for the reality that you try so hard to ignore:
Climate change’s worst enemy is its first victim: The city .
I make that 40-love, IOW game-set-match.
Floods?
What floods?
I've lived long enough to have read about *real* floods in the Uk but most of them were long before you HAFs got so excited - and excitable.
We were supposed to have had a drought according to the weather experts at the Met Office - and do stop giggling, they try their best!
It's liberals who want to kill Obama and have called for the deaths of just about every prominent liberal politician and every judge who didn't decide in their favor?
Everything you post just demonstrates how immensely intellectually dishonest you are, Betula ... you gain nothing by doing so.
The Democrats took control of the Wisconsin State Senate yesterday. And exit polls favored Obama 51 to Romney 44. The biggest reason Walker held on is because 60% of the voters felt that recalls should only be used for malfeasance, not policy differences ... and because the Republicans outspent the Dems 7 to 1, which will indeed have a large impact on the November election.
But none of this changes the fact that AGW is real, it just shows yet again that you're a partisan slug, Betula.
What can it possibly be that drives societal detritus like David Duff to be so unaware of what's happening in their own country. And yet be proud and willing to declare their ignorance?
It's not like these stories aren't carried in The Daily <Sturmer or a local version of The Weekly Cousinfcuker, so it can only be namesake syndrome.
And again you show your combination of stupidity and dishonesty, Betula. Yes it was a very important race for the left, as articulated by leftist Rachel Maddow, especially if Walker had been recalled, and no it doesn't tell us much about the outome of the November presidential race, as articulated by two of centrist President Obama's paid spokespeople.
Any group of people capable of voting for Walker once is quite capable of doing it twice. Big deal.
Colour me astonished that he's to be HI's keynote speaker. Birds of a feather...
Back on track - here's an interesting discussion of the comparison of the dire prognostications of wailing, gnashing of teeth and oceans of tears before bedtime that the Mabo decision was going to spawn - according to its detractors - and the contemporary catastrophist carry-on re the carbon tax.
Don't trouble yourself, Betty - you'll never sort it all out.
The Pacific Institute is pleased to welcome Dr. Peter Gleick back to his position as president of the Institute.
Bill, you forgot to cue the howls of outrage from the Denialati.
What I'm looking forward to now is the response from Heartland, and especially word on the progress of their lawsuit. After all, it's not like Bast's case is falling to pieces or anything, is it?
And then there's the small unanswered matter about where the material came from that was supplied to Gleick...
This is a genuine and serious question. I am interested in real opinions. Since Tim often writes about shitty reporting in Oz, and I live in the US I have no perspective, I thought I would ask here.
There were a bunch of articles written today, and others when it was released, about the Finkelstein Report...
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry
...and its ramifications. Most of the stories I have read are from sites with which I am unfamiliar. I am trying to see if this is internet spin, or if this thing is really has the possibility of seeing the light of day. A journalist friend sent the original link to me which was this.
http://afr.com/p/opinion/finkelstein_report_threatens_to_KuZ3KVqlRRBvxy…
I am very curious to the opinions on the report from those here who live there as I know there are many.
Honest question. Does anyone support this thinking, even if you believe The Australian spouts deception in science--another thing all together and an opinion I don't disagree with from what I have read--keeping in mind that this thing appears to pertain to all discussions, not just scientific issues?
Seems crazy to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate
@bill
Your comment about voters capable of doing it twice is odd, as it doesn't relate to any point made by me or Betula or the people in that video. But on that score, a) people know a lot more about him than when he ran, and the political landscape in Wisconsin has changed dramatically; b) people didn't vote for him, they voted against his recall; that makes a difference when, according to exit polls, 60% voters said that someone should be recalled only for official misconduct, and another 10% opposed all recalls. On top of that, Walker spent $29 million to Barrett's $2.9 million. With those factors, it should not have even been close, but it was because of (a).
There's still the possibility that he'll be removed from office for other reasons.
ianam,
I don't disagree with any of the points you raised. Even I don't find the idea of recall elections all that comfortable - except in cases of genuine malfeasance - because sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and all that. Still, being an Australian that's not an issue... (so far as I know wwe have no such laws)
My response is directed to Betty and the whole 'you're losing the argument because we're more popular' brigade.
Taking too much to heart the results of 'free and fair' elections that are little more than popularity contests where candidates are sold to the electorate by the same people who sell us soap-powder, using the same techniques, is a path to madness.
As is allowing 'corporate persons' to plunge virtually unlimited wodges of cash into an electoral system, of course. But the very media who are supposed to point this out are the chief beneficiaries of the enhanced tonnage of advertising dollars.
Anybody else notice Duff's position has retreated to ignoring all the empirical evidence and postulating "global warming is only real if the effects which are predicted to happen decades and centuries from now effect me personally where I live today"?
This is what the "skeptics" have been reduced to - babbling arguments so lame not even they believe them. Their belief system is collapsing before our eyes.
Betula's statement in re Walker wasn't about that; it was
which is, of course, dishonest, as it refers two different things ... the statement about irrelevance was made by Obama spokepeople, not "the left", about its relevance to the outcome of the Presidential election. Of course they will downplay the idea that Walker retaining his governorship is bad news for Obama in November ... and they happen to be right. At the same time, Rachel Maddow is correct that this was a hugely important election; had Walker lost, it would have had major repercussions, and his not losing will embolden the other right wing governors who are engaged in trying to destroy the remnants of labor unions.
“Super PACs may be bad for America but they're very good for CBS” -- CBS CEO Leslie Moonves
Betula wrote
He's certainly right about that relevance. Regardless of the mechanism by which these people are elected, the results of the elections have significant consequences.
Consequences? Certainly; I'm always in favour of the least-awful candidate. ;-)
(I'm also a paid-up member of my Union.)
I understand that climate wasn't relevant to this election.
And it's little suprise that the party that loses will say the particular dominates over the general, hence it has little to do with the next election, and the party that wins will say the general is dominating over the particular, hence the opposite - that's the law of the by-election. I agree that in this case the losers would appear to be right, though.
Interesting...
On June 6, 1:17 pm, Bill made the comment..."Walker’s recall election is completely irrelevant" He was referring to it's irrelevance as a subject on an open thread on a science blog..
So Bill, why are you discussing it?
Ianam...
"people know a lot more about him than when he ran"
Right...so they voted him back in.
"people didn’t vote for him, they voted against his recall"...
Really? I suppose they didn't vote for him the first time either.
"60% voters said that someone should be recalled only for official misconduct, and another 10% opposed all recalls"
Yet the whiny morons who were mad because Walker did what he said he was going to do, decided to go ahead with a recall anyway...
"On top of that, Walker spent $29 million to Barrett’s $2.9 million."
Try getting your numbers right, whiny moron:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/04/us/politics/money-spent-o…
"With those factors, it should not have even been close, but it was because of (a)"
Just as close as the first time...only less close:
"The race was a rematch of the 2010 race, when Walker beat Barrett by nearly 6 percentage points. Turnout Tuesday was higher than it had been 19 months earlier, and Walker was leading by 7 percentage points with 96% of the vote counted."
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/guvrace06-ku5ld5b-157364555…
Betula thinks the main issue of the recall election was global warming.
I can see Betula's been reading Duff's comments and thinking "I can draw a longer bow than that!"
"I can see Betula’s been reading Duff’s comments and thinking “I can draw a longer bow than that!”
Using John's logic...
John thinks the main issue of the recall election was hunting.
Shorter Betula: I'm a troll and I DEMAND to be taken seriously.
Doesn't seem that's working out too well for you.
The stupidest comment I've seen on the intertubez all week. Very impressive!
You hand someone a lemon and a lime. They say "Thanks for the lemons." You point at the lime and say "That's not a lemon, that's a lime." They say "Really? I suppose the other one isn't a lemon either." You think "Why am I even talking to this nut?"
Betula now denies claiming Walker's policies (or lack of) on AGW won him the election.
Using Betula's logic...
No, I can't, he doesn't use any.
I'm discussing it because ianam - i.e. someone worth discussing things with - responded to the point I was making that a political system that is capable of generating one victory for the likes of Walker is quite capable of generating another.
That Walker is a creature of both the Kochs and Zombie Economics* should surprise no-one. The steps taken along the US elite's ideologically-driven path to economic suicide - e.g. austerity and gutting worker's rights (even electoral disenfranchisement) - should surprise no-one.
And that some blatant moron should opportunistically claim all this has something to do with AGW should also surprise no-one.
Because the kind of stunted intellect that is gleefully triumphant at the rise of the Walkers of this world is precisely the kind of stunted intellect that will gloat over any poll that 'proves' the science deniers are 'winning'.
Talk about Pyrrhic victories! But, being as thick as the proverbial short planks x2, you'll just have to wait for History to rub your nose in that one.
And then you'll just deny it...
*Nothing happened between the WSC of '29 and the ascension of Saints Margaret and Ronnie in '79. Nothing worth us knowing, anyway.
Look at it this way Bill - the deniers are currently so strapped of any of the fake stolen email style outrages they have become addicted to (coupled with the recent heatwaves, humiliation of Heartland, restoration of Gleick and Monckton's new-found birtherism, which even the most hardline denier finds mildly alarming) that the best argument they can put forward is to pretend that a small state election was a referendum on AGW.
Ah ... thanks for connecting those dots.
Ianumb the poll gloater...
"according to exit polls, 60% voters said that someone should be recalled only for official misconduct, and another 10% opposed all recalls"
Who's intellect is called out by Bill...
"the kind of stunted intellect that will gloat over any poll"
Finally sees the light...
"Ah … thanks for connecting those dots."
Classic.
ianumb...
I understand this Walker win really bothers you, sort of like a slap in the face...
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/06/06/barrett-concedes-wisconsin-def…
and now, understandably, you've become a gloating poll clinging denier...
"people didn’t vote for him, they voted against his recall"
Which of course means people didn't vote against him, they voted for his recall....
Brilliant.
In addition, the voting numbers were a duplicate of the first race:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/157378455.html#!page=6&pageSize=10&s…
So what were these same people voting for the first time around ianumb? Oh, I know...perhaps they weren't voting for him, they were voting for a Governor.
What is it called when you keep doing the same thing and expect a different result ianumb?
Ah, more dots connected....
Bill...
"And that some blatant moron should opportunistically claim all this has something to do with AGW should also surprise no-one."
Yet some Moron would think I claimed such a thing but can't back it up....
Here's what I said....."So the people who are put into office have nothing to do with policies, including those that may have to do with global warming?"
I don't see anything about Walker or the recall in that sentence..... only that people vote for someone based on their policies. Do you deny that statement Bill? Are you a policy Denier?
By the way, how does Scott Walker feel about the Global Warming issue?
Oh my!
http://www.scottwalker.org/press-release/2010/04/scott-walker-statement…
Nevermind, it's irrelevant.
That's right, moron, they neither voted for nor against him, they voted for or against his recall.
Snivelly Betula denies claiming the election was a referendum on AGW and then, with requisite weasel wording, goes on to make that very claim.
Logic can be a bit hard for him sometimes.
And yes, it was irrelevant, proven by the fact Betula had to go back to 2010 for a statement on the policy that was apparently so pertinent it won him the election.
Or it could just be Betula is simplifying things to suit his political, anti-science agenda. Who can say?
"Snivelly Betula denies claiming the election was a referendum on AGW"
You read into things the same way you read into future climate change scenarios....you speculate and you believe, but you can't claim it as being true because it hasn't happened. For you, if means is, could means does, might means will, may means did....everything is a big misguided assumption.
A tough and sorry way to go through life....but you wear it well.
"That’s right, moron, they neither voted for nor against him, they voted for or against his recall"
Who's his? Who's him? Did the ballot have names on it or was it a straight yes or no choice next to the word recall?
It doesn't matter, you dishonest anal discharge, because it was a recall election, which affects how people vote. And I didn't gloat over a poll, you dishonest sack of pus, I merely pointed out what the poll indicated ... and exit polls are relevant to why people vote, whereas polls are not relevant to whether there is AGW.
Even Tim Curtin has more intellectual integrity than Betula.
The same could be said of eclipses or Venus traversals before they happen. Of course only stupid and dishonest people use this "it hasn't happened line".
All your posting here does is alert people to the fact that you're a dishonest scumbag, Betula; it does not further your interests in any way.
It's remarkable that a lying evil sack of filth and slime like Betula, gloating over Walker's win, accuses me of gloating over ... what? My loss? I have nothing to gloat over; the election was a disaster for my interests. The demise of public labor unions is a disaster for my interests. The realities of AGW and the politics around it are a disaster for my (and the rest of humanity's) interests. The Citizens United decision was a disaster for my interests. I do not gloat, I despise ... I despise garbage like Betula for what they have done, while they gloat over it.
Here is the sort of non-gloating analysis about Wisconsin that I read, Betula. Go ahead and gloat over your success, you filth.
ianumb...
I knew you were a moron, but wow, such an angry moron...
Yes, you are a gloating poll clinging denier. You seek satisfaction in posting and clinging to a poll as a way to justify what has happened.... you can't except how out of touch you and your union loving progtards are with the rest of society....you're in denial and need to flash a poll for comfort and reassurance.
Sort of like the way you have to convince yourself you're not a moron with the ianam moniker. How's that denial working for you?
Get used to it.
Betty, I think I can safely say nobody cares what you think, or how your thoughts form your 'opinions' - received as they patently are. No, the reason nobody cares what you think is that you have never, ever shown yourself to be capable.
How's that working out for you?
I spend a fair bit of time in the field, Betty, and, returning from expeditions in foetid, swampy locations, I've subsequently discovered more intelligent things than you concealed in my socks.
As I said, the lying hypocritical scum gloats. I know how that's going for him ... it makes him feel so good, because he is evil unscrupulous garbage. Used to it? I am used to it ... remember, I expect the worst.
Betula won't say Walker's anti-science stance won him the election outright because he knows this is wrong. He'd prefer to smugly insinuate this in his weasley, slimy manner, which is exactly the gormless tactic we've all come to expect from hardcore science denialists.
The sad reality is that the majority of the public see climate change policy as a federal issue, and exit polls show alarmist Obama leading 54% (of course his AGW policies would have nothing to do with that, would they Betula?)
As stated before, Walker's anti-science stance in this recall election was completely irrelevant and it is a key act of desperation to pretend otherwise. I don't see much honesty or logic, just ad hom and blind ideoogical obsession.
"Except" it Betula.
Oh dear, Australian climate science appears to have been well and truly 'gergised'(*). Even worse, it has been 'gergised' by that absolute rotter, Steve McIntyre. Oh, the shame! Never mind, er, 'mates' I think you call each other 'down under there', it happens to us all. British climate (non)science was similarly 'gergised' a few years back when we all got to read their naughty little fibs.
Gergise: v., meaning, to pick your favourite proxy data sets to suit your theory.
Boooooring.
I know you are, Bill, and I'm sorry for you but you don't have to keep telling us - it's, er, boooooring!
McIntyre v., trans to feign expertise on a subject one has no knowledge of or education or training in. Used as in the following examples:
(i) The plumber had completely mcintyred the diesel injection system beyond repair.
(ii) The electrician proceeded to mcintyre the computer network, which was subsequently down for days.
(iii) Stevie had mcintyred the entire series in the belief that science was just number crunching.
davidduff n. - an airhead, ass, berk, blockhead, booby, chump, coot, cretin, dickhead, dickwit, dimwit, dipstick, divvy, dork, dunderhead, dwee, fool ,fuckwit, gonzo, halfwit, imbecile, lamebrain, moron, nincompoop, nitwit, numbskull, numpt, oaf, pillock, plonker, schmuck, simpleton, twit, wally. One who hasn't the first clue about a given subject.
Example: The davidduff paid up even though the garage had totally mcintyred his car.
Even though his television was now mcintyred beyond repair, the davidduff considered the bill good value as the technician had been very polite..
.
John...
"Betula won’t say Walker’s anti-science stance won him the election outright because he knows this is wrong."
In other words, Betula never said it....but we like to assume he would, therefore he did.
Well said John, at least I know where your head is...
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/206063-lg.jpg
chek, much as it's a fine list, by his own admission the real thing used to specialise in hawking mcintyred motors to those too daft to see through the faux-genial manner... we're talking something altogether darker than the merely dense here.
Ah sadly, "Old Duffer" and "Betula" , being of unsound delusional mononeurons, locked into the one thought, one track a time mobius loop of denial, are proudly following the clueless traditions of the last King of "Hy-Brasil" ;)
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8IBnfkcrsM
Betula denied claiming the election was a referendum on AGW and now denies denying it. His argument is eating itself.
And McIntyre must be right. After all, Duff believes it and since when has he just gullibly swallowed anything? Well, except for sea rise, cosmic rays, imminent cooling...
DarylDumb believes Erik The Viking was an Al Gore Documentary......the irony alone is funnier than anything in the movie.
John...
I can't argue with your imagination, it's doing a fine job by itself.
To ease your pain, try telling your imagination to copy and paste what it is that's bothering it and then post it so it can prove to itself that it's wrong.
That's about all I can do for you in your unfortunate situation....if you can't do it, the only other suggestion I have is a psychologist.
You're welcome.
This perennial Al Gore thing you all have - deep down you all want him, don't you?
I suspect that Betula has phytothphora.
...for which I counter-recommend a mycologist - Betula's pathology is deeper than could be addressed by his own personal psychologist...
That's a point Bernard!
And how ironic - Betty, despite your anti-PC zealotry you may yet succumb to Pc*. For a start, and it's important that you answer honestly here, do your sweaty feet smell sort of like cheese and off red wine?
mycology - isn't that an I-phone app?
*Phytophthora cinnamomi is usually abbreviated to the initials. Botanist's joke. We need to get out more.
"I suspect that Betula has phytothphora"
Need to do a better job of looking up those big words Bernard...it's spelled phytophthora. Next time ask me first, I'm an Arborist and will be glad to help...
Bill..
"We need to get out more."
That's a big part of your problem....you live in a bubble.
You really, really hope these guys are badly mistaken about the risks - and if so that they're overestimating, not badly underestimating it.
Betty said: you live in a bubble
Yes, y'see Bill you evidently don't live in the real world as helpfully spoonfed to Betty by his preferred crank sources, and are blissfully unaware of the global-scale conspiracies to be found under every rock if you only had the eyes to see, like wot special awakened people like Betty here has.
You couldn't make it up. as they say.
Betty has repeated my own joke back to me. I am, of course, crushed.
An Arborist, eh? Maybe it's cranial borers you've got, mate...
Oh please Betula, are you now trying to argue from authority? Well, I can do that too.
I'm an ecologist, and I've worked (and decontaminated) in phyto-blighted forests. I do actually know how to spell it - but I was too busy changing your name from 'Betual', another mistyping spoonerism that I regularly come up with, to notice the other mistake.
But if muddle-fingered typos are all that you can come up with, keep at it. I notice that you never address anything scientifically-based - ceratinly, when it comes to global warming, you're conspicuous by your absence in posting anything that resembles a coherent and defensible argument.
Bill.
The borer would have starved.
Lotharsson (June 11, 4:35 pm).
As you and other regulars probably know, I am ever more convinced that the planet's already committed to a serious ecological collapse. It's not pessimism - just a familiarity with the numbers.
I'd say that there's about a 75% likelihood that by 2025 human's will have brought the planet to a place where, even if they were all instantaneously teleported away, the biosphere will undergo - or rather, be showing the not-so-early-ish signs of undergoing - profound irreversible reorganisation and simplification.
As I've noted on Open Mind, these signs will be certainly ever more evident at various times after 2025. Note, when I say at Tamino's, "‘Great Extinction’ events", I'm referring to the middle/end of such an occurrance, and not the beginning. We're already into the beginning...
If one were to define a 'tipping point' in terms of the latest time at which humans should have been fully/ and globally engaged in a war-footing program to reverse our biospheric degradation, I reckon that the turn of the millenium - 2000 AD - is a good (if somewhat arbitrary) landmark. Our social/political cultural inertia is such that even if gains could still be made today, by the time we get around to enacting them it'll be over Red Rover.
Cheer up Bernard J. 12:56am. It'll never happen.
There is no tipping point - except perhaps in the feeble mind of "Flannery of the overflow".
Oh Barnterd, you are my qualified hero.
hahaha wot a dunce you are, tea leaves, tarot cards, micheal mann and the great CO2 mythology.
Phd, pluckwit
Well, that was articulate.
Bill:
One expects nothing more coherent from Sunspot, who would be more apply named 'Sunstruck'.
The feller's never once responded with a sensible argument, so he's not likely to start now.
NOTT-202, a promising medium- to long-term material for CO2 capture and storage.
Won't obviate the necessity for minimising CO2 emissions though.
I think what Karenspot might be trying to articulate is Clarke's third law: ".Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
Which to the Karenspots of this world, most of the already surrounding science and technology might as well be tarot'n'tealeaves as far as they're concerned. The level of understanding is similar.
Some mildly good news: http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/climatesnapshot/2012/06/04/clima…
Haven't heard from John since I asked for a simple cut and paste.... did the psychologist admit him?
I apologise Betula. Your charge that I was inventing the very arguments you yourself made and that I need a psychologist were so personally devestating (and lacking only the killer blows of "seriously, get a life!" and "lol get over yourself loser haha" that surely would have caused me to take my life, and perhaps that of a loved one) that for the past two days I have found myself bedridden and crying uncontrollably.
It's all a bit like being sneered at by yeast, isn't it?
A new Law coming up? Good or bad news fellas?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/12/the-longest-most-high-resolution-…
Ah, Betula June 10, 3:36 pm, thanks for the compliment!
At school, they often called me "Hey Stoopid", now calling me "Dumb", puts me in the schools highest and best class, the "Genius Class".
That being so, even my old summer science school teacher, the late Julius "Why is it so" S-M, helped us all to understand the simplicity of the "Second Law of Thermodynamics".
Many of his surviving lectures, can be found on "youtube", too.
I feel though, given your total lack of understanding of basic physics, from first principles, viewing all his lectures, would in all econometric probability, exceed the maximum storage capacity of your mobius loop mononeuron.
Sadly, it appears the understanding of the basic laws physics and the properties of matter, has so far eluded the limited memory capacity, of your sole flashy mononeuron.
I also believe, Amazon Books, has a number of good books for beginners like your self, such as "Science is Simple; Over 250 Activities for Preschoolers" link: http://www.amazon.com/Science-Simple-Over-Activities-Preschoolers/dp/08…
Booktopia Australia, also sells the same book too. : link http://www.booktopia.com.au/science-is-simple/prod9780876592724.html
Cheers ; )
Undoubtedly good news, as a reading of this thread at Real Climate shows.
Watts and McIntyre seem to be getting increasingly shrill, illogical and desperate since the wheels came off and the Heartland circus rolled into the ditch beyond recovery.
The 'auditor' and his monkey's latest line in stories about their layman science fantasies may impress their stable of equally ignorant foaming numpties who need to be fed every couple of days, but will have no other impact whatsoever in the real world.
That warm feeling that you're currently bragging about Petri is, you may recall, just like you get when you piss your pants, but won't last quite as long.
Seems like the right wingnuts like Olaus live, eat, breathe and exist on WUWT and other anti-enrvironmental anti-regulation blogs for their worldviews. Forget the primary literature; to these dinbgbats it does not exist. Only right wing blogs purveying a bullshit blizzard will do for them.
BTW, just finished reading Merchants of Doubt by Oreskes and Conway and its outstanding. It exposes the climate denial lobby as just another extension of the tobacco lobby, the acid rain denial lobby, the CFC-ozone depletion denial lobby, and the DDT is safe lobby which also links to various think tanks and a fervently libertarian political ideology with roots in the cold war and an irrational fear of communism. Essentially, the same people have played a prominent role in denying a range of environmental threats over more than 30 years, and much of this has been chaneled through the idea that only the market can address policy related issuues. Anyone arguing that regulations limiting corporate activity are needed are derided as communists, watermelons etc. by this sordid lot of crazies. The idea that the market can produce failures - in other words, serious environmental problems - is downplayed or ignored altogether.
Oreskes and Conway have done a meticulous job of explaining the strategies of anti-environmental lobby,the prominent people involved (e.g. Seitz, Singer, Jastrow et al) its political aims and its huge funding sources, in their book. I've read a lot of literarture over the past 10-15 years in this area, and I have presented many lectures on this topic in universities in different countries, but this book might be the best of the lot.
Jeff and chek, why all this anger? :-)
Orseskes is a merchants of fear, like you guys. No wonder you like her. Could she forsee the protocols of Gleick and Conserned Scientist? ;-)
Jeff reminds me of a born again christian ex junkie waving a book about something that can't be seen, measured, or proven.
If it isn't Karen "Agenda 21! Free energy is being supressed!" Bracken and Olaus "It's all a scam!" Petri lecturing us about conspiracy theories!
yawwwnnnn, I see your still hallucinating John, reading up the thread it seems Betula has been trying to get you to see a professional, to no avail.
So Johny do you still think the Arctic will be ice free in 2012 ?
and........HAS ANYONE FOUND THE MISSING HEAT YET ????????
You really have nothing but an incomprehensible mish-mash of greviously uncomprehended talking points floating around trying to catch one of your all-too-rare neurons, dontcha, 'Karen'?
I have to admit watermelon that I do find it amusing addressing the co2 loonies in here as they do others. Actually it is funnier watching you all sook about it.
This is the only website I visit whereby I must lower my IQ to 25 to be on par with you all in order to communicate.
I think I read about this technique in a mag called the Mental Monthly while I was getting a pap smear.
Come now 'Karen', anybody who in all seriousness claims that someone on the rational 'side' ever said that the "Arctic will be ice free in 2012" is either a dishonest bag ofscum and/or is struggling to raise their IQ up to 25, not lower it.
*Orseskes [sic] is a merchants [sic] of fear*
Putrid, until you learn a little more about the ways in which the world works, your comments deserve to end up on the s*** heap. You haven't a clue about the various lobbies and how they have tried to undermine the health and societal risks posed by tobacco, acid rain, ozone depletion, loss of biodiversity, pesticides, various forms of pollution and climate change. The same deniers and think tanks have been relied upon as 'experts' in many of these areas for years. Few if any of them have any relevant qualifications. Like them, you and your freakish brethren (Jonarse, Flatula, Sun-Karenspot, Duffer, Pent-up-axe, et al) are driven by your far right political beliefs which you feebly try to camouflage as 'science'. Oreskes and Conway cover this in detail in MoD. The debate in these diverse scientific areas has never been about scientific accuracy but about the role of government in public policy. You clowns wear your libertarian hearts on your sleeves, and it bleeds through in everything you write. You can't believe that markets ever need to be regulated. Now we have Singer telling Romney to throw his weight behind a fossil-fuel dependent economy. If you bother to get off your butt and read MoD, instead of sniping away at the sidelines, you might learn something. However, you fear information. Knowledge. You are content to stay in the D-K shadows.
By the way, I assume that you mean 'merchant' and not the plural, unless Professor Oreskes has clones. Put it down to your semi-literate musings.
hallelujah brother Jeff, lets all hold hand's and sing a hindcast, or was that a forecast ? or a revelation ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=c7cYGDdXQjg
Whatever the tune your singing Jeff it is really starting look ridiculous, even the carbon markets are something to behold, have you noticed that the charts look a bit like a temperature graph ?
Pfffttt, phloooottt, * gurgle *, splobbb, Phhhwooshhh... - yes, it's another round of spattering, sputtering efforts by Denial's 3 Musketeers - Athos, Pathos and Bathos.
Anyway - back in the real world, those who have read Oreskes and Conway should also consider David Michaels' 'Doubt is Their Product', one of the most shocking books I've read - not least because despite decades of being active in environmental causes it turned out upon reading it I was actually largely blissfully unaware not only of the mind-boggling extent to which 'Product Defense Science' has become normalised, but also of its many, many victories - as exemplified by the fact that, if you're like me, you'll not even have heard of about half the case studies in the book...
I don't know how the sane around here can stomach exchanging blows with those like OP, Karen & Betula who have not yet graduated from that Kindergarten for Brownshirts.
Chek, looks like you fell foul of the link dropper on this board:
Did you mean this one by any chance?
so bill, both you and jeff are into sci fi propaganda books eh.
Save yourself some heartache and see if you arrange a bit of group therapy with johny and jeff
Lionel didn't anyone tell you ? The study by Gergis et al. has been chucked in the bin and is going to be replaced with this http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/12/the-longest-most-high-resolution-…
Thanks Lionel A for re-posting the corrected working link - that's the very one.
One day I'll get used to this new format.
chek
11:11 am
"Come now ‘Karen’, anybody who in all seriousness claims that someone on the rational ‘side’ ever said that the “Arctic will be ice free in 2012″ is either a dishonest bag ofscum and/or is struggling to raise their IQ up to 25, not lower it."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=c7cYGDdXQjg
It was your hero's and leaders of the cult chekie, lol
*Lionel didn’t anyone tell you ? The study by Gergis et al. has been chucked in the bin*
By who? Oh, you mean McIntyre, the same mining enbgineer guy with links to right wing think tanks and who doesn't publish much in the scientific literature. In other words a pseudo. The same guy who mangled PCA in a 2005 E&E screed that made anothjer feeble attempt to discredit the work of Mann and colleages.
Its hard to keep a straight face when Sunspot-Karen and the other libertarian twits here rely on blogs pushing corporate agendas for their 'science'. And note that the blogs don't do any original research - instead all they do is to take existing studies and data sets and f*** around with them to produce the desired results.
Pathetic.
"It was your hero’s (sic) and leaders of the cult chekie, lol
No 'Karen', it was not.
Your first task is to look up the defininition of 'arctic'.
Your second is to ponder your own stupidity.
Jeff Harvey
12:55 pm
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/paper-claiming-hottest-…
I know it hurt's, poor jeffie weffie
"The Arctic is screaming," said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the US government's Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.
And Nasa climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3318239/Arctic-ice-could-be-…
Karen-spot, you utter shmuck, the results of the study will almost certainly stand, a point your right wing hero even admits. And Karoly and the other authors noticed the so-called error before McIntyre did. I wait with baited breath for McIntyre to 'audit' and criticize a denial study that produces results in the other direction. He never will and I think its obvious why.The job of Mc, Watts and their brethrenIMHO is not to audit science but to do everything they can to promote a uni-directional view of climate science.
Moreover, like other twits, you place all of your climate change denial egg sin one basket. You haven't read much science in your miserable life. All you do is surf the denier sites, cut and paste their drivel, and make an idiot of yourself elsewhere. Some contribution.
In response to K-pspots nonsense:
http://blog.ametsoc.org/news/eurasian-cold-snap-a-product-of-arctic-war…
Karen, am I right in reading your recent series as saying you disagree with Zwally?
If that's right, what do you think the future holds for the Arctic - ice-free at some point, or recovering? If the former, when do you think?
your so cute when your angry jeff, lol.
They tried to pump it as good science and knew that they were falsifying the data, it's a common thing in climate science these days and someone has to point it out .
Do you think they should be allowed to get away with it just because it helps to support your biased and irrational views ?
How do you explain this jeff ?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
FrankD I have been through all that with Barnturd J in the March or April open thread, please feel welcome to peruse my views there.
Karenspot
Who pointed out the errors? The authors themselves found them before Climate Fraudit did. And, as I said, don't wait with baited breath for C(F)A to go over the few denial papers that have been published with a fine toothed comb. Its only science that supports AGW they go after. And above all, weblogs with agendas will certainly not do their own science. Heavens forbid, no. Their sole strategy is to hound scientists who produce results that don't fit in with their narrative.
This isn't science. Its an inquisition with a brazenly political agenda.
Skeptics have been looking through the paper, and three weeks after it was published a team at Climate Audit (kudos to Jean S and Nick Stokes) uncovered a problem so significant that the authors announced that this paper is “on hold”. It has been withdrawn from the American Meteorological Society website. Bishop Hill has probably the best summary of what this means, and how it unfolded.
When Steve McIntyre asked for the full data, she refused. Gergis has an activist past which she has recently tried to hide. She was proud to mention in her biography that her data has been requested from 16 nations: So requests from Tunisia, Cuba, and Brazil are OK; but Canada — not so much. Apparently she didn’t appreciate his expertise with statistics and told him to get the data himself from the original authors, and added ” This is commonly referred to as ‘research’. We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter. “
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/300000-dollars-and-three-years-to-prod…
your a denier jeffie
There's Karen manipulating the science again.
Try these:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeser…
and
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/06/Figure2.png
and finally
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Note how Arctic sea ice extent has fallen behind the 2007 low in early June: a result of exceptionally warm (record warm, in fact) conditions through much of May in the Arctic.
Go away spotty. You are a disgrace.
Jeffie, I believe Josh catches the "Gergil-moment" perfectly:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/13/hump-day-hilarity-bringing-in-the…
That said, I find it a bit troublesome that you still haven't shared any proofs confirming the existence of a right wing multi-billion denial machine obstructing climate science. Why not?
Is Gleick still all you got?
Sounds like Karenspot is trying to hide the incline!
For anyone who hasn't seen it, here is Karen's website.
'
When did I say that Karen?
If we are talking about global warming then you have a problem jeff, it's not global
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic…
So you've read Merchants Of Doubt I'd be interested in hearing your criticisms of it at length.
John...
"Your charge that I was inventing the very arguments you yourself made"
Still can't figure out how to cut and paste John?
http://www.psychologyinfo.com/directory/
ohHH my gord, johny
sorry cupcake, i'm an aussie
Also all that political mumbo jumbo that loopy jeff was muttering about me is a good sign of a self inflicted methane overdose causing hallucinatory and fantastical delusions and assumptions.
I have heard of mad scientist's before, is the the club or just a sub branch ?
My mistake! It's hard to tell you ranting conspiracy theorists apart. Next you'll be telling me you're not Sunspot and that you don't believe free energy is being supressed!
Betula, don't you have some YouTube videos to leave comments at?
Lionel A...
"I don’t know how the sane around here can stomach exchanging blows with those like OP, Karen & Betula who have not yet graduated from that Kindergarten for Brownshirts"
Would that be this kindergarten?...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-3aFeBR2ac
Or this High School?...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaX0E5xcXGw
You really are a clueless putz, aren't you...
May I suggest we move, as the Obama campaign slogan states, "FORWARD"... from all of these Nazi references Lionel...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_z_pHUKajc
Jackass.
Oh good, Nazi allusions. Keep this up. This is sure to win the argument and make everyone take you seriously.
Are you a scientist John ?
No, but please, tell me how that invalidates my opinion.
It doesn't invalidate your opinion, although jeff would say it does
John...
"Oh good, Nazi allusions. Keep this up. This is sure to win the argument and make everyone take you seriously"
You see Lionel, even John disagrees with your Nazi reference..."Kindergarten for Brownshirts"
Looks like that psychologist may have helped after all...
.
Karen said:
As anyone who has read any real science knows karen is utterly deluded.
Here is what is happening to the ice sheets in the Antarctic:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Antarctica_Ice_Mass.gif
If karen had done any reading at all of the science of Antarctic sea ice levels she would know that it is well known that sea ice will not decline because of a number of factors, all related to Global warming!
It is always nice to see how the ignorant AGW deniers are so lacking in critical thinking and research skills.
Betula, yes I think Lionel's comment was over the top, however, in Reality Land you generally don't show disagreement with Nazi allusions by making more extreme Nazi allusions. That is worse.
Just sayin' bro.
"It is always nice to see how the ignorant AGW deniers are so lacking in critical thinking and research skills."
ahhahahaha, and Ian offers up a gif, lol
a gif from sceptical science of all places, sheeez your desperate going there Ian,
it has been pleasant in here tonight, no pungent odour from Barnturd J lol
Olaus
Start here you oaf , what do you think Heartland were all about?
And have a perusal of this web of fossil funded deception and the players
Also what do you think Kochtapus means.
So yeah, It is always nice to see how the ignorant AGW deniers are so lacking in critical thinking and research skills.
SkS poses a large problem for deniers, because unlike WUWT which stumbles from meme to meme without rhyme or reason (so sad they've dropped the UHI stuff after Watts was forced to admit he was wrong), SkS collates the science into a large easy to read, user-friendly website with a single, coherent hypothesis. It's no wonder Karen dismisses it out of hand.
Just interestingly, Karenspot - you still believe that the modern warming was caused entirely by sun activity, as per your name and original claims?
OP
Stop being such an FW and Google on Mashey and Kochtapus.
Have a look at this web of fossil fuel funded deceit .
@Karen: I have been through all that with Barnturd J in the March or April open thread, please feel welcome to peruse my views there.
Oh, that's right. That was where you claimed ice around Svalbard hadn't got worse between 1947 and 2012, and then "proved" that by showing that it had got worse between 1947 and 1985 and then that it got worse again between 1985 and 2012. I'd forgotten that marvellous piece of idiocy was you. You deniers all blur into one these days.
But you did not address my questions in your discussions with Bernard, so I'll ask them again: "What do you think the future holds for the Arctic – ice-free at some point, or recovering? If the former, when do you think?"
I wonder, are you still following sea ice as closely as then? Then you would know we are 1/2 a million sq km below the old record, and falling 20% faster than at any time in the last 30 years...
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
"Morer and lesserer" was your evasion in April. So when will we get the morer, Kazza? Go on, make yourself a hostage to fortune...
John...
"Betula, yes I think Lionel’s comment was over the top"
Interesting how I had to go over the top to get you to admit that Lionel was over the top...I never would have heard it from you otherwise, in fact, it wouldn't even have even occurred to you.....bro.
You're welcome.
My comment OT was it, I think not when we see this sort of thing:
Virginia Lawmaker Says ‘Sea Level Rise’ Is A ‘Left Wing Term,’ Excises It From State Report On Coastal Flooding, this being reminiscent of early days in post World War I Germany and which I had in mind when making the post upthread.
I make no apologies I am old enough to have played in bombed out streets, known rationing, know the history of between the wars and have done my time in the front line.
Sunspot/Karen/Mack/(insert sock here) said at 1:59 pm:
The answer is simple - Sunpimple is too stupid to understand the science, and thus doesn't see the explanation that is obvious to anyone who is polyneuronal.
Ian Forrester's already pointed to the reason why the planet's poles exhibit different responses to global warming, but it seems that the pimply one just can not intellectually assimilate the very basic physics involved. And he's been told more than once over the last year or so...
This inability to understand is probably correlated with the less-than-average intelligence quotient under which Sunspot/Karen/Mack/(insert sock here) obviously labours, and which is further illustrated by the fact that he persists with his punctuational tells (spaces before marks) and grammatical confabulations (count the your/you're guffs on this page alone...).
Still, for the sake of completeness, let's repeat an explanation of a significant difference between the two ends of the planet: the Arctic is an ice sheet floating atop an open ocean, and the Antarctic is an ice sheet sitting on a stonking great land mass called a c-o-n-t-i-n-e-n-t.
Can you say that word Spotty? C-o-n-t-i-n-e-n-t... (For bonus points, can you count the syllables in that word?)
Assuming that you managed to answer both previous questions correctly, how about attempting some more? (Don't panic, they're still Level 1...)
Sunspot/Karen/Mack/(insert sock here) - what do you think the minimum September Arctic sea ice extent will be this year? And what about the minimum September Arctic sea ice volume?
And on what understandings of physics and statistics do you base your answers? Extra bonus points and a teddy-bear stamp if you can use the word c-o-n-t-i-n-e-n-t in a sentence in your answer. Appropriately use it, that is.
And it's gratifying to see that I am getting up your goat, maculous one. I especially like 'Barnturd'... you're so clever - that must have taken you all night to think up. Do keep them coming though - I like this game.
Heh, I see that FrankD pre-empted my questions to Mackulus regarding the sea ice figures. Should have refreshed first.
Still, it doesn't hurt to ask more that once - Spotty is recalitrantly unable to hear the question even after multiple repeatings, but he may one day surprise us all with a straight answer.
Some of the abusive and threatening emails sent to Phil Jones have been released (warning, strong stomach required):
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/116404/response/288373/attach/4/A…
Deny that, deniers.
FrankD
"What do you think the future holds for the Arctic – ice-free at some point, or recovering?"
Recovering from what? A given time in your head where the arctic climate remains a constant? How about 10,00 years ago or how about 150 years ago? At which point is it "recovering to"?
"The warmest summers occurred 8–10 kyr ago and the coldest only 150 years ago. The summers over the past 100 years have been the warmest for more than 1,000 years, but are still not as warm as those of the early Holocene."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v343/n6259/abs/343630a0.html
Wait, the arctic climate is suppose to remain what it was the day FrankD was born......someone tell the Arctic.
Someone calls sea level rise a left wing term and Lionel has visions of brownshirts and flashbacks of bombed out streets......yet kids being indoctrinated with chants of "obey", while others are being forced to chant "yes we can" while basking in the presence of the Presidents personal emblem.... doesn't raise an eyebrow.
Forward Lionel....c'mon, let's get the children to all sing it together....Vorwarts, Vorwarts!
You know something, I think Betty here is actually clinically insane.
Ianumb...
Are you still clinging to those Wisconsin exit polls?
http://tinyurl.com/6gxuc6p
Wow...
I have an excuse. You see, as Lionel's imagination stated, I have "not yet graduated from that Kindergarten for Brownshirts"....
Hey Betula, why do you always ask questions and then just project your own answers? Is it because your own facile responses are easier to refute than real peoples? Is it because you are actually as big a dipshit as you wish everyone else was? See, everything after your first three words is just your own fantasising about what I might have meant.
Your projection is as tedious as it is predictable, and as obviously evasive as it is unoriginal. Go talk to yourself in a mirror, Betula. I was asking Karen.
FrankD...
Ouch...looks like I struck a nerve. What do you think the future holds for our relationship – ice-free at some point, or recovering?
Frank, it's probably that insanity I was noticing earlier.
Lord, the e-mails to Jones are horrific. Do you believe anyone denies that? C'mon!
Existing death threats are shameful, of course, but not imaginary ones (for sceptics that is).
No one, regardless if he's a religious buff or not, should have to endure that kind of crap, including Jeffie.
Can't be long now till Betty and the Wattards' meme de jour is that an ice-free Arctic ocean in summer is just the LIA 'rebound' natural state of things.
.
And they'll buy it too, no questions asked.
Lord, the e-mails to Jones are horrific. Do you believe anyone denies that? C’mon!
The wattards (and his dbs mod) and Pope Montford's flock seem to be doing a fair job of minimising those threats out of existence.
And you can drop the 'sceptic' tag, Petard, as it doesn't fit at all well with your M.O. You're a denier, and like all deniers, you're on the paranoid conspiracy crazy spectrum. Whether you're in the yellow zone or in the red-orange zone like those emailers harassing Phil Jones is only a matter of degree. Your preference for a nonsense narrative puts you there, crocodile tears or no..
Chek, if you stop waggling poor Jeffie's leg (left leg I presume?), you would understand that it I just did the opposite to what you are claiming.
I don't like death threats. Period. Learn to live with it.
And me conspirasist? I'm not the one shouting about a well funded right wing denial machine obstructing climte science, you are. Still no proofs backing it up though, except plenty of foam from Jeffie's big mouth and some scary high-frequency hip movements by you
Your inability to read or indeed recognise previously mentioned documentation is just another characteristic of your brand of denial, Petard.
So what if you bleat here don't 'like' where the logical conclusion of your journey into denierland leads? You do NOTHING to tackle it at its source, because it serves your agenda.
You want death threats on scientists like Phil Jones, Eli Rabett found quite a few.
"Carrick Finds A Mirror" link :- http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/carrick-finds-mirror.html
Time to sit back and watch "Betula" and the "Old Duffer", run like hell away from this sad evil trash.
Sigh :(
Betty is one of the most uninteresting nutters I've ever had the misfortune to encounter. It's like being subjected to some unconvincing Turing Test where a garbled version of what you've just said get's spat back at you by a sneering 14 year-old with BPD.
Why bother?
Then, demonstrating unavoidable cousinship in the necessarily incestuous hotbed of Denial, we have Olaus' persistent, equally garbled attempts to be a smart-arse in a language clearly not his own - i.e. human speech.
Also, why bother?
Re the hate-filled, sociopathic abuse directed at Phil Jones; this is a copy of a comment I jst made over at Eli's.
Have I mentioned how irritating the new format is? Here's that link again...
Preserving comments deleted from Bishop Hill:
This is how dissenters are treated at Bishop Hill, but you won't see any deniers complaining about freedom of speech in this case:
Hmm ... actually, those comments haven't been deleted, at least not yet. I'm not sure which ones were, but the comment count did drop by a couple.
Alriiiiight I need your lights, for I am confused.
Is this site a gigantic Poe, or the biggest blunder/suicide in PR history ever witnessed ?
http://arcticready.com/social
see the results here : http://arcticready.com/social/gallery
Question bratisla.
Why would Shell have a url that doesn't start www.shell...?
Here's a real Shell US Projects and Locations page.
If this was a bank, one might reasonably suspect a phishing exercise is at play.
P. Lewis : that's one of the reasons I am a bit suspicious.
That and some faith left in humanity : someone, even an advertiser, couldn't have done anything so stupid ...
...
...
I forgot the Heartland panels. Advertisers can be *that* dense
But still on this case it looks so exaggerated ...
If it isn't immediately and completely obvious to you that that is fake, then there is something seriously wrong with your evaluative processes.
This page:
http://arcticready.com/kids
Is pretty funny. It took a bit, but it is certainly a Poe.
Aw, but I made an ad...
Some background on the anti-Shell campaign here
http://facingchina.me/2012/06/13/social-media-attack-shell-lets-go-arct…
http://gearsofchange.org/2012/06/08/lets-go-arctic-article-by-shell/
He he.
Hmmm, lets do a quick "Who Is" domain name search first.
ArcticReady.com, first registered April 29th, 2012.
Address P.O. Box 821650 Vancouver WA USA 98682
Look, my lord, it comes!
HAMLET Angels ... And there assume some other horrible form, ... Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. HORATIO.
The problem is, if one clicks on java scripts, one can easily be infested with key loggers, trojans or other malware, quite easily. After all, one presumes people around here, are familiar with the infamous "Facebook virus" infection of 2011?
link:- http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-virus-or-account-hacked-her…
Beware, the Internets, have many honeytraps, designed to trap the unwary. It also provides the necessary tools to disinfect as well, too.
Such is life.
The address just appears to be that of the domain company.
Um, it's the Yes Men. In combination with Greenpeace.
thanks for the links. To Ianam : before the Heartland ad campaign, I would have immediatly thought about the fake. But Heartland proved me people can be *that* dense.
@John 8:11 am Please compare the following.
A who is look up of ArcticReady.com
link ; http://whois.domaintools.com/arcticready.com
A who is look up of Shell.com
link: http://whois.domaintools.com/shell.com
NB the registrant's address is Shell House London, which also contains Shell's own servers!
Now, the telephone number of ArcticReady.com is 1 360 449 5933. If one Google's the number, one finds, it is linked to over 68K domains. In the past the same telephone has been linked to an Ipod scam as well.
Web server address MayFirst.Org NY link: https://mayfirst.org/about-us
A cyber cynic would say, something, be very rotten, in the state of Denmark, Horatio.
Um, Daryl, ArcticReady is a creation of the Yes Men. And Greenpeace.
It's a scam, yes. But not of the type you're describing. In fact, it's a secondary-scam -
I.E.They're using their powers for Good, not Evil:
Trust the French to stick their Gallic oar in!
According to a story in Der Spiegel, all those islands in Oceana are not disappearing under a rising tide of water brought about by, er, global warming - do stop giggling, this is serious! According to some French sceintific swots, it's the other way round, you see, the Islands are sinking rather than the sea rising. Something to do with those tectonic plates shifting around and opening up holes in the sea bed. Or, as you might put it, "How was it for you, dear, did the earth move for you?"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/south-pacific-islands-threate…
By the way I'm still waiting for my share of global warming. It has been non-stop cool and wet since the beginning of May! I should sue you lot under the Trade Descriptions Act!
Bill...
"They’re using their powers for Good, not Evil"
Oh I get it, so in the link provided by Rattus, the angry icebergs are actually good icebergs and it's the oil rigs that are evil? And here I was trying to save the oil rigs....duped yet again.
bratisla...don't you see it now? The angry icebergs are real, only they aren't evil. Don't worry, everything will be ok.... they are just trying to protect their friends the Polar Bears from the evil oil companies that provide you and Bill with the ability to travel, heat your home, use appliances, bring food to your table, purchase merchandise and access those very confusing and "suspicious" sites on your computer...
Cont'd: example: The davidduff couldn't even comprehend the headline in his own link. (Hint for davidduffed readers: the clue is in the 'more than'.
Betty, there is no need to destroy - or even risk destroying - the biosphere or any habitats to achieve any of those results. Now, consider these tow statements:
There will never be enough oil.
Oil is a finite resource.
Now go away and contemplate that for as long as it takes to sink in, because once the irreplaceable is lost, there's no bringing it back. And that's regardless of whatever techno paradise the oil companies are selling you.
What is it about trolls that attracts to them to such a lo-level of the stupid?
This is a completely meaningless statement unless you have some reference point with which to compare your claim. For all we know "non-stop cool and wet" could be quite within the typical climatic envelope for your district.
Contrast your pointless comment with the fact that today was the first day this year that my part of the world had the first (desultory) fog of the year, when by now we usually have had at least a dozen hearty fogs, and ones that start from early April.
And in terms of biological responses, my medlars are usually thoroughly frost-bletted on the trees by mid-May: this year they all fell from the trees mid-June, and half were still as hard as gold balls. None of the old orchardists I know have seen this in the district before.
Added to that, in the last week we have had drosophila over all of the late season fruit, and hovering around the red wine bottles. This is in the southern winter - usually drosophila are completely gone from this area by April - around the same time that the fogs are expected to start.
Everyone here is commenting on the bizarre timings, that have simply not been seen before. We're certainly experiencing warming-related phenonema that are way beyond the typical climatic envelope for our district...
So whom do I sue, Duff?
David: booooooring.
Duff vomited thusly:
Where have you been? Into the volcano perhaps.
Otherwise I call bulldust, as from memory you claim to live in the west country (of UK) somewhere and towards the end of May we had a hot dry spell which happened to break on the day of the London Thames Pageant, June 3.
Whatever, you should take note of this article.
Lionel, when you're a denier, it's only one small step further to deny the evidence of ones own eyes.
Ergo, to dai, there was no heat wave AT ALL since the beginning of May, and any memory or footage produced showing otherwise is the result of the illuminati NWO beaning thought waves into everyone's heads, causing mass hallucinations.
Chek..
"And that’s regardless of whatever techno paradise the oil companies are selling you."
They're selling the same thing to me as they sell to you, only with my frugal lifestyle, you are "most likely" buying more of it than I am...
Note...For those of you new to this site, "most likely" means definitely to alarmists.
Duff..has been non-stop cool and wet since the beginning of May!
Yeah, England had its coldest May since 2010. The coldest May for 2 years! Brrrrrr. The temperature anomaly for the UK was only 0.5 °C above the 1971–2000 average. Brass monkeys!
@ bill 10:48 am
Thanks, for the up, a nice "GotchYa!".
So, the honeytrap, was aimed directly at the next generation of rubes, all freshly graduated from the school of ersatz journalism(political science major 101, is the primary component of the course)aka propaganda .
Cheers :)
So the eco-warior-yet-AGW-denier Betty, despite his self-imposed frugality, hails the move of the oil companies et al into the arctic in order to sustain the unsustainable for half a decade or less. Because subsidising and providing for already obese first worlders in industrial scale consumption is of far greater importance than preserving eco-systems - particularly those that uniquely affect the planet we live on.
Tell me Betty, assuming the energy industry et al succeeeds in getting a foothold in the region, what risks do you find acceptable? A Deepwater/Exxon Valdez/Campeche type incident evey five years? Or every fifty? Or five hundred?
Bearing in mind - as I'm sure you self-professed eco-warrior types always do - that once gone there ain't no getting it back
Note to readers: Despite the charade, Betty here is about as much in touch with terrestrial ecology and our absolute dependency on it as the crew of the Shuttle Endeavou in their highest orbit..
Personally, I generally struggle to discern any content whatsoever resulting from Betty's jabbing at a keyboard.
Thanks for linking to that article Duff. I didn't realise the islands were sinking and the seas were rising at the same time. A double threat! I wonder what is causing the seas to rise and how that can be slowed?
Meanwhile in the real world May 2012 was the second warmest on record.
"The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2012 was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F). This is the second warmest May since records began in 1880, behind only 2010.
"The Northern Hemisphere land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2012 was the all-time warmest May on record, at 0.85°C (1.53°F) above average.
"The globally-averaged land surface temperature for May 2012 was the all-time warmest May on record, at 1.21°C (2.18°F) above average.
"May 2012 also marks the 36th consecutive May and 327th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average.
"According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, there is a 50 percent chance that El Niño conditions will emerge during the second half of 2012.
But it's cold where Duff lives, MikeH. Do stop giggling, this is what he claims to believe!
Let me be the first to identify that Duff is clearly now working for Vantage Weather Services. He may not be as buxom as their preferred 'employees', but he's certainly sufficiently addled.
Chek...
What's to worry about? Big Government needs to approve it and will oversee daily operations to make sure they are compliant with Federal Regulations. What could go wrong?
Isn't this your utopia?
"The Obama administration also previously signed off on Shell's broad drilling blueprints for the region, and the Environmental Protection Agency has issued clean air permits for the flotilla of vessels that will be involved in Shell's operations."
http://www.adn.com/2012/06/15/2506241/regulator-vows-close-watch-on.html
Hope And Change! .....FORWARD!
Sorry about that last comment. I forgot, I'm the problem....
As you know Betty, there is a small - actually no, a large army of K Streeters working tirelessly to hollow out and render Government regulation of industry moot, just as is happening in Harper's regime in Canada. The EPA is itself under threat.
Perhaps you missed this, from your own link? Or more likely decided it didn't comply with your narrative.
"Government auditors warned in a March report that icy conditions, dark days and a lack of infrastructure could hinder efforts to clean up any spill in the region, even if a damaged well were capped swiftly.
What is it with this blog and people like Duff whose entire world encompasses only that which is within a radius of a few miles of his house?
"Meanwhile in the real world May 2012 was the second warmest on record."
This means, I presume, that La Nina is finished and that we can look forward (ha) to yet another warmest 12 month period and then warmest calendar year on record. Denialworld will then regurgitate their "antidotes to warmest year on record" on cue.
Nah.
They'll just hit the reset button on it's-been-cooling-since-.... .
Chris O'Neill.
You presume correctly.
Spotted over at 'Desmogblog', an expose of Chesapeake Energy's latest merchandising of doubt astroturf crass trash mocumentary.
It is , short on facts and long on propaganda. link: http://www.desmogblog.com/fracking-industry-s-answer-gasland-devised-as…
LiesLand mocumentary, is thirty five minutes of short on facts and long on propaganda. Martin Durkin style, errors and easily debunked fictitious claims, from start to finish. Made an interesting use of Chesapeake Energy's paid industry consultants, as expert witnesses, to skew the view.
One youtube user "TXDSGMACH", shows complete ignorance,or even a basic understanding of the geology of "Marcellus Shale" period..
"LiesLand(all lies, no truth or facts) Full Version" link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTJaaeiuzSU
Short fact free version : link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps8hsexFSmo
Looks like Shelly DePue, forgot to take out the trash, from this creative garbage skunk propaganda mocumentary.
EPA: Natural Gas Fracking Linked to Water Contamination
Scientific American link: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fracking-linked-water-…
The myth of ‘clean’ natural gas is contaminating the debate about America’s energy future. link: http://www.desmogblog.com/fracking-the-future/myth.html
Some readers of this blog probably have heard of Margaret Wente a columnist for the Globe and Mail in Toronto.
She seems to be a bit of a denier. Mediaculpapost has some interesting articles about her writings (and borrowings)
Google mediaculpapost wente for some interesting reading.
You mean this Margaret Wente?
@MikeH
Seems a lot like her, now that you mention it.
Margaret Wente
Canada's answer to Melanie Phillips perhaps.
Sorry, but it is obvious to any reasonably intelligent person that ArticReady is a parody. Heartland's ads are irrelevant, not least because, every day, numerous deniers (including, of course, Deltoid's trolls) present stuff far more absurd, and much closer to ArticReady, than Heartland's poor judgment about how their guilt-fallacious ads would be received. Actually, No Pressure is considerably more relevant because it was a form of parody. If you think for a moment that Shell could possibly really be behind ArticReady, then you're also capable of thinking that teachers really will blow up students who don't volunteer to reduce their carbon footprint. Either is a sign of severe mental retardation.
A note on Poe's Law: Like Godwin's Law it is humorously formulated as hyperbole that is literally true. The original formulation is "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing." Note that the qualities that make someone that someone are not positive ones. (And in the case of ArcticReady, there are numerous blatant displays of humor -- again, blatant to anyone with reasonable intelligence.)
I understand that this blog is Australian and so I would like to offer my sympathy to you all. First, for the sheer hell of clinging for life to the extreme edges of a total desert. Second, because on top of all your other travails you have to put up with and pay for another load of incompetent lying liars at your Bureau of Meterology who are the equal of ours at the Met Office.
Apparently their so-called 'High Quality' data is not something under which you would wish to shelter in a rainstorm, it having more holes in it than a Swiss cheese! Under pressure of a threatened audit of their old stats the 'BoM' threw them overboard and started again. According to reports, the new data is as dodgy as one of my old second-hand cars (than which, etc, etc) and contains all the old errors but just mixed up a bit more. Also, this new series was rushed out so fast it has a literacy rating of E for effort!
After due analysis, the critics summed it up, thus:
"1.Like the old HQ series, the Acorn record is also still impossible to replicate.
2.The record is much shorter than 100 years for many sites. It’s supposed to be high quality, but it has many gaps and spurious errors. If volunteers can write code on laptops to check for errors — and find, for example, that one 36.8C was accidentally changed to a 26.8C (and there are many) why can’t the Australian BOM?
3.Like the old series, Acorn’s trends are very different from what the raw data shows. (Why do we bother with thermometers?)
4.Hot and cold extremes have been adjusted, for the most part warming winters and cooling summers, and at some sites new and more extreme records have been set."
You couldn't make it up, er, well, you could if you work at BoM!
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/acorn-sat-a-preliminary-ass…
More anti-science by blog. *Sigh*. Duffer, you deniers never cease to amaze me. The blogs you forever cite never do real science, never publish in the scientific journals, rarely if ever attend the relevant conferences, and instead seem content to sit by the sidelines sniping away at any studies/scientists/institutions you don't like. Do you and the other deniers do anything but sit on your collective butts reading denier blogs? What a sad lot you bunch are.
Deniers never start to amaze me.
I believe it's called Anthropogenic Tectonic Shifting (ATF)...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/south-pacific-islands-threate…
In Australia, if you're a polluter and stinking rich, you can buy a big chunk of the country's remaining relatively democratic print media with the view to controlling its board of directors and the editorial staff, so that you can impose your political and personal views on the output of your new company.
And so it is that Gina Rinehart been able to take what is not currently a good business proposition but which still has clout in public opinion, and turn it from Fairfax Media to Fauxfacts Media in her campaign to halt and then to reverse any and all action against reducing carbon emissions. And if she can have the tax on mining super-profits dumped along the way, all the better.
For some people, being obscenely and insanely rich is not enough...
Speaking of Rinehart and Fairfax...
What's that you say, Skippyduff?
Anthony's got some more clueless Curtin-grade mathwank showing it's all faulty records and a big frawd and the Polar regions are only melting due to Al Gore sending crack teams of greenies there with their de-icer sprays and shovels?
Tell you what Skippyduff, come back and try again when Anthony falls down a well or a disused mineshaft or otherwise does something useful.
I see Jeffie and his hate-minions are on a scientific roll, being stunned by the blogs denialist read. :-) Well for a guy who belives that Himalayan glaciers support 500 millions humans and yetis with fresh water, and consider any ecology scare report on "climate change" (where CAGW is taken for granted) as climate science, and thrives on an illuminati of fossil fuel funden Elders that obstruct climate science....isn't it a bit...ehm...rich? ;-)
God you're boring, David.
Congrats, Olaus, you have achieved a Betty level of incoherence.
They don't even have the guts (or, more likely, knowledge) to visit the other active thread and either defend or criticize Tim Curtin and his idiocy over the notion that N2 and O2 are the real greenhouse gases.
Sorry - link failure. Which idiot thought it would be a good idea to remove 'preview'?
Some exec or manager at National Geographic with delusions of user-experience competence and technical grandeur.
What I don't get is why you'd incorporate perfectly workable blockquote CSS - the old one was shocking, lumping all paras into a congealed mass like that bill you left in your pocket last wash - but then insist on italicizing the contents.
And where, oh where, are the permalinks?
Olaus seems to constantly suggest that I am "hate-fillled'' for some deluded strenage reason.The again,if by 'hate' he means that I loathe the abuse of science by a well-funded coterie of ostensibly right wing ideologues who are compromising the future to promote the short-term agendas of the privileged few, then OK, I 'hate'. Olaus consistenly denies that there is an exceedingly well funded denialati, when there are piles of evidence that, when the collective cash is added up to the following: think tanks, astroturfand other front groups,pundits, the corporate media, books and articles, politicians, including both donations for election campaigns and lobbying, Public Realtions firms ( abillion dolar industry unto itself), and some scientists, the total is immense. Billions of dollars? Over the last decade, most certainly. Sharon Beder, Naomi Oreskes, Andrew Rowell, David Helvarg and others have written extensively over many years about the denial industry, and many other sources are available.
Olaus, like other D-K acolytes, demands that I personally deliver the evidence to his door step, and even then he'll just bin it and call it all a 'vast conspiracy'. People who don't like the message will always shoot the messenger. When it comes to 'science', Olaus and his brainless horde don't give a damn. The evidence re: AGW has been 'in' for the past 10-15 years, yet all he and his free-market absolutists want is to let the markets decide, and the eviscerate the role of the government in the economy.
I suppose disdainfulness can come across as "hate".
Timewasting trolls should be given the ever-decreasing latitude their current and past follies deserve before being treated with thorough disdain (though I'd much rather ignoring their follies altogether with killfile).
" When it comes to science, Olaus and his brainless horde don't give a damn. " Jeff , if you want some science . I'll give it to you.....
http://jennifermarohasy.com/author/nasif-s-nahle/
Just read it you brainless fuckwitt!
(sorry Tim but couldn't resist your cookie)
And on another environmental front here is something else that is unsustainable, Sydney's secret undersea scrapheap .
But I am sure Sydney, or Australia, are not alone in having such a problem.
Packaging of consumer products and the mechanisms for recycling, or disposal, need a major rethink involving producers, sellers and end users. If climate change doesn't get us then this will.
"if you want some science . I’ll give it to you…..
http://jennifermarohasy.com/author/nasif-s-nahle/"
OK, so when are you going to come up with some science?
Massive Nail doesn't have it.
Sod off, 'Mack'.
Mack.... what an ass**** you are. Yesterday I was discussing how idiots like you and other deniers on Deltoid rely on pseudo-scientific bull**** that oozes from a range of far right web logs and think tanks and the like. from people who stay a million miles away from conferences where the real professionals who publish in the real journals discuss and debate the issues.
So what do you do? A piece by Nasif Nahle, who appears to have hardly published a scientific paper in his life, posted up on Marohasy's comic book right wing blog Where is the primary literature? In what journal has Nahle published this tripe? On his contrarian web site?
As I said, you deniers are a bunch of idiots of thr first order. As soon as I see Nahle's shite publiushed in a major scientific journal, I will respond. But not until. Certainly not on a right wing blog. So take my advice: p*** off until you are capable of citing real science published in a high impact journal that appears on the Web of Science.
You twit.
And, Mack, here's some science for you:
http://www.ipcc.ch
Mack's 'science' features an advert for car rental.
Meanwhile, Arctic sea ice hits a record low for this time of year:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/06/sea-ice-tracking-at-record-lo…
On one of the Nasif Nahle threads linked by Mack, a reader (Dave) gushes forth in his praise of Nahle's 'science'.
Nahle then responds: "Thank you very much for your kind words! I’ll keep doing my work adhered to science..."
He forgot to add in the important caveat: ..."but I will ensure that my 'science' is always posted on right wing blogs like this one, and that it is never, ever scrutinized by experts in the field. And above all I will make sure that I do not send it to a scientific journal. I promise you this".
I checked up our old friend Nasif on the Web of Science to see how many of his studies are in there. Guess what. A big, fat zilch. Zero.
Why does this not surprise me? Mack and the other clowns who contaminate Deltoid adhere to the 'only science is libertarian blog science' credo.
Massive Nail has been here before. He was using a RATE of temperature change with a self-selected volume of atmosphere to show that the temperature increase (not a rate) was "explained" by it.
I.e. his incompetence was such that he thought
meters per second (velocity) == meters (distance)
lord_sidcup: "Mack’s ‘science’ features an advert for car rental".
Could have been worse lord_s.
It might have been on a scratchcard.
Jeffie, 10-15 years of AGW-proof "has been in" you say. I believe you mix up the numbers (like merchants of fear always do). I'm sure you are reffering to the hiatus of the warming trend (of 10-15 years) that has "showed up" despite the record levels of Co2?
And still no evidence of the right wing denial machine obstructing climate science? :-)
Authoritarian personalities prosper in hateful and intolerant environments (sic), hence Jeff feel at home at Deltoid where everything is black and white. Why this is the case is no mystery. Self loving authoritarian personalities are drawn into sects where they can boost there egos pointing finger at "others" not listening good enough to the gospel at hand.
When reading Jeffie's posts I see an emperor penguin before me. Why is that? ;-)
Speaking of which:
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/7352/emperor-penguins-threatened-a…
On the other hand:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0033751
Are the emperor penguins about to be "polar beared" in the name of CAGW? ;-)
Jeff, can you please toddle out the confusion?
What's actually interesting Petard is that you have no defence of the quack science propagated by your 'heroes', but you settle for attacking Jeff Harvey, - who like most here treats your preferred crank 'science' with the respect it deserves ( which is none) - and who stood up and scuttled Lomborg's lukewarmer boat circus act. Always a hard one (hehe) for you Lomborg mafosibois to .... er... swallow (hehe).
Petard: - "still no evidence of the right wing denial machine obstructing climate science!
Of course you blind yourself to what is previously documented, but never mind as it of course cuts no ice (as they say) with those capable of reading long words and who know better. As a rule of thumb, the more a dyed-in-the-wool deniertwat denies, the greater the likelihood of the facts being denied being spot on.
You should know by now - Petard, once hoisted as a troll and furthermore a Jonarse N pack-troll, always a simpleton troll. In short, you and your pack are wasting your time - which is fine as every second spent here is a second saved elswhere to whom your crackpot evidenceless kookiness is an as yet unknown quantity.
Chek, you sure are a One hour photo-guy when it comes to Jeff. That level of adoreship can't be healthy. Seek help or Jeff will soon find you crawling around in his bedroom smelling after an odd sock or two to put in your Jeff-shrine. I don't want that to happen to him. He might be a big little Napoleon, but that doesn't mean he deserves being stalked by character of your creepy kind.
When you believers can provide me with something more substantial than hateful conspiracy theories I will gladly listen to you.
In other words: nothing new on the climate threat front.
I repeat - and thanks for verifying - that what’s actually interesting Petard is that you have no defence. Claiming ignorance is no defence - but it's the best you can do.
Ah mack, Betula and old Duffer, watt they are really trying to say from their limited monochromatic factually challenged world of cranks in denial, "The Sky is Pink".
Sad, but true.
I see Olaus attempted something in addition to insults and links to loony blogs; a link to an actual research paper.
Olaus: the 'on the other hand' suggests you never actually read the paper. Try again, but this time, if you can, find research that actually supports your views and try a little harder to keep your insults in check.
Just a quick one to say thank you for those two days of global warming you arranged for me. I really enjoyed them but today it's pissing down again.
Oh, by the way, when does 'weather' become 'climate' exactly? Only this is the fourth wet cool summer in a row.
You know that dreary Uncle at the family Christmas party who considers himself quite the 'character' when he antagonises everyone with the same alleged 'jokes' each year? The one no-one likes?
Meet David Duff. Boring old fart.
Just as one can lead a horse to water, but not be able to make him drink, so can one lead a denialist to knowledge, but not be able to make him learn.
David Duff slakes his thirst for ideological satiation from the hypersaline font of pseudoscientific idiocy. And Olaus Petri baths in it.
As one of my friend's mother always used to say, what God hasn't put there, man cannot improve upon...
What's that, Skippyduff?
You spend most of your time rolling around and wallowing in the ordurous Anthony's site and then wonder why you still have no grasp of even simple concepts like 'weather' and 'climate'?
Well Skippyduff, I'd recommend a two month bracing, cleansing shower over at Real Climate where you might train yourself to recognise actual science as opposed to anthonyquackery.
That is, I *would* do that, but we all know how you hoppity skippity little fellas just love caking yourselves thickly in sh!t and stupidity the whole live-long day.
Richard S, please read the second paper yourself. It says:
"We estimated the breeding population of emperor penguins at each colony during 2009 and provide a population estimate of ~238,000 breeding pairs (compared with the last previously published count of 135,000–175,000 pairs)."
An increase.
The decline you want to understand is stil all about "may" or "will", hence "polarbeared" seems appropriate. So the sentence "understanding the causes of penguin decline will however require additional effort" should be "understanding the causes of a possible penguin decline will however require additional effort", at least when it comes to emperor penguins.
Emperor penguins? There is no confusion.
The Jenouvrier et al. study
whereas Fretwell et al.
.
This is 1 colony versus 46 colonies.
This is a modelling exercise of future population on one well-documented colony versus pinning down more accurate estimates of current population continent-wide.
Both studies acknowledge an undoubted decline in Emperor penguin numbers.
Indeed, between about 1950 and 2000, the Jenouvrier et al. study site is known to have witnessed a 50% drop in Emperor penguin numbers.
I'm feeling a little bit bad about calling you a brainless fuckwitt Jeff and wish to apologise.
As usual, Putrid is out of his depth. The IUCN has recently revised the status of the Emperor Penguin from being a 'species of least concern' to 'near threatened'. And of course penguins are of course not the only example of biodiversity being deleteriously affected by climate change and many other anthropogenic factors. The number of endangered or threatened species on the IUCN lists is larger now than ever, and of course still rapidly growing. We are into the planet's sixth extinction event and the first to be generated by one of its evolved inhabitants - us. Hardly a advertisement for evolutionary success - or one that shows how intelligence can be 'self-extinguishing', as E.O. Wilson recently wrote.
So go ahead and apologise, Mack. Nobody here is stopping you.
Someone is so ignorant of the nature of data, and of their statistics, that he doesn't understand that given the current rate of warming (a touch under 2 degrees celcius per century) and given the existing random noise in the Earth's climate signal (that is, the weather), the planet could warm consistently and continuously for a thousand years, and reach an average global temperature 20 degrees warmer than the present, and always demonstrate a statistically defined hiatus "of the warming trend (of 10-15 years)".
Olaus Petri is either a propagandist, or an idiot.
And as I have noted in the past with similar juxtapositions, these conditions are not mutually exclusive.
"Olaus Petri is either a propagandist, or an idiot."
You give him too much credit. He's both.
Olaus Petri.
If I was demonstrably wrong in calling you "either a propagandist, or an idiot" I would perhaps be "feeling a little bit bad" about it, as seems to be the affliction of some on this thread.
As it stands though, I have no wish to apologise.
As P Lewis clearly showed in his above response, scientists generally try to discover how the universe and its systems work. But to Petard and his ilk, they are either incompetent or unreconstructed Stalinists out to impose an agenda on freedom loving peoples. Either fantasy would fit with the example Petard singularly failed to show with his links above, or with his ongoing 'attack the scientists' vendetta.
The rather more mundane reality that Petard himself is too uneducated in the relevant fields, too unintelligent , too politically motivated and lacks the necessary critical thinking skills to make head or tail of science in any rational way is an inconvenient truth best ignored for the sake of his puffed-up egotism.
True to form, he will ignore being shown to be the idiot he is yet again, and as per the definition of insanity, will try the same tired means again and again and predictably, yet again. Like Duff, he'll never learn.
You're right WOW, Sorry Jeff.
I think any annoyance Jeff had was temporary, Mack.
Now we're calm, Nahle's work is *presented* as if it's scientific. But even if you do something as simple as dimensional analysis (something you should have been taught in High School physics), you find his work falls down.
He has a citation list that LOOKS like the citation list you see at the end of a *real* physics paper, but you find that none (or only a small minority) actually cite any facts he states as if true (the reason why a citation is put in a paper. I.e. if they don't calculate the specific heat capacity with temperature of CO2, then they'll cite a paper that DOES).
Just like a scam artist using official headed notepaper to make you believe just on casual inspection, that the invitation to a new conference is genuine, Nahle's "papers" are constructed to *appear* like a science paper.
But it's no more a factual account than The Sunday Sport (The National Inquirer in the USA would be the equivalent) is a genuine news source.
Judith's crime is to pass them off as genuine because she has peddled the idea that she is competent and honest.
That you fell for the scam is their fault. We're trying to show you that you've been gulled.
Which on an immediate emotional reaction level would make you angry: "you calling be stupid!!!".
PS my post was that you don't have to put many words to an apology. "Sorry Jeff" was completely adequate. Abasement (or Notpology which requires more words to pull off) isn't necessary. Just "Sorry".
>Only this is the fourth wet cool summer in a row.
Shockingly, Duffer is wrong about that. There was above average rain in 2009, 2010 and 2011, but the average temperatures were 0.7 above average, 0.6 above average and 0.4 below average respectively. So that's actually a whole one summer in a row that was below average.
The ludicrousness of proclaiming 2012 wet and cool after the princely total of 21 days speaks for itself.
@Jeff Harvey 10:01 AM:
"We are into the planet’s sixth extinction event and the first to be generated by one of its evolved inhabitants – us."
Technically, I think "first" should go to the cyanobacteria and the oxygenating of the atmosphere. But we do come second.
Fellas, no need to please me with friedly words. The emperor penguins might take a nose dive due to climate change, or maybe not. And it might be an A involeved, or mabe not. The paper Richard S made such a fuzz about showed nothing of a "decline" besides a big If. If sure has incarserated your authoritarian minds. ;-)
That's why you guys can't understand the meaning of words. Pay attention to the "may":
"An accurate assessment of the emperor penguin (Aptenodytes fosteri) population is urgently needed as recent research indicates that numbers may decrease significantly in coming decades [1], [2], [3]. These studies have highlighted the susceptibility of emperor penguins to changes in sea ice distribution."
Now pay attention to the worries of lesser ice, because that also is a concern in Lewis' link (that ended up in an 12 year old paper, mind you). I hope he noticed that the authors blamed the decline of emperor penguins to the loss of ice:
"We show that over the past 50 years, the population of emperor penguins (Aptenodytes forsteri) in Terre Adélie has declined by 50% because of a decrease in adult survival during the late 1970s. At this time there was a prolonged abnormally warm period with reduced sea-ice extent."
But since the ice extent in Antarctica is increasing, not decreasing (given the latest report), and the population of emperor penguins is improving, maybe we should worrie about an increase of penguins to unprecedented levels that, in the end, could harm the delicate ecology of the Antarctic region:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100816-global-warming-a…
I'm just trying to follow your logic. ;-)
I wonder if Duffer, Petard and the other sundry Watts' crew might find Bill Chameides Congressional statement this week to be in terms simple enough for almost anyone to understand?
And in case the clickable link doesn't work.....
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Energy/…
So I wasn't wrong, Frank, I was right, it has been four wet summers in a row. And as for your "average" temperatures, average of what, and who measured them? If your answer is the Met Office please excuse my giggles. And is it raw data or adjusted?
And no-one has answered my question as to when weather becomes climate? Er, 'when it suits us' is not a very compelling answer.
Heartland’s James Taylor hits new low with defamatory false accusations
The NOAA’s National Climate Data Center recently announced that the last 12 months were the warmest on record in the “contiguous” U.S., extending the 2011-12 hot streak that has now eclipsed the previous record in 1999-2000 by a half degree Fahrenheit. Apparently, that was just too much for the Heartland Institute’s James Taylor who used his regular column in Forbes magazine to accuse the NOAA of “doctoring real-world temperature data”. According to Taylor, the “alarmists” at NOAA “simply erase the actual readings and substitute their own desired readings in their place”.
But it turns out that Taylor’s source is none other than hapless climate blogger Steven Goddard, who recently leveled incoherent and unsupported false accusations against James Hansen and NASA’s Gistemp record, as well as NOAA. Goddard also relies on the same reviled NOAA data in his botched attempt to buttress his case that NASA is “hiding” an 80 year cooling trend. Never mind that the U.S. “lower 48″ represents less than 2% of the Earth’s surface area in any event, or that past attempts to show U.S. cooling have been proven utterly wrong.
If Forbes has a shred of integrity, this sorry episode will surely result in an abject retraction and apology to NOAA, along with the banishment of Heartland from the magazine’s pages. And it’s also high time reputable commentators in the mainstream media called out the irresponsible behaviour of Forbes and other right-wing media.
"this is the fourth wet cool summer in a row"
At least we all agree this was made up.
Olaus claims that the paper on emperor penguins he cited documents an increase in their population. Not so. The authors used a completely new survey technique (including satellite imagery) that 'found four new colonies and confirmed the location of three previously suspected sites'. They were attempting to establish a good, reliable baseline for future studies. Olaus: you need to read critically, understanding the experimental procedures and how they may affect the results.
In your imagination! It was you who brought it up and I merely pointed out that it does not show what you think it shows.
Olaus, of curse, doesn't 'think' anything.
Much like the penguin in question, he simply regurgitates half-digested nuggets he's found offshore.
Notice it takes him a while to respond to points raised? That's because he has to wait to see what it is he thinks...
We're a funny old thing us humanz and we all have different perspectives. Perspective is essentially what moulds opinion and when it comes down to this AGW issue there can be only two opinions......whether or not man is changing the global climate.
When I look at the arguement between Nasif Nahle and Neutrino over at Jennifer Marohasy's from my perspective I can see a scientist with the cojones and maths capability to come out and challenge the establishment (what you guys represent). Would an American,Canadian,Uk, NZ, have done this?
As for the climate scientists.... well..."Phyeeseks, we don't need no steenkin' physeeseks" :) :) :)
Really did want some input from people down that way. No takers? Too busy sparring with Duff and Olaus on the same ol' tired topic?...
Posted 6.7.12. Still there...
This is a genuine and serious question. I am interested in real opinions. Since Tim often writes about shitty reporting in Oz, and I live in the US I have no perspective, I thought I would ask here.
There were a bunch of articles written today, and others when it was released, about the Finkelstein Report…
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry
…and its ramifications. Most of the stories I have read are from sites with which I am unfamiliar. I am trying to see if this is internet spin, or if this thing is really has the possibility of seeing the light of day. A journalist friend sent the original link to me which was this.
http://afr.com/p/opinion/finkelstein_report_threatens_to_KuZ3KVqlRRBvxy…
I am very curious to the opinions on the report from those here who live there as I know there are many.
Honest question. Does anyone support this thinking, even if you believe The Australian spouts deception in science–another thing all together and an opinion I don’t disagree with from what I have read–keeping in mind that this thing appears to pertain to all discussions, not just scientific issues?
Seems crazy to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate
Oh sorry...forgot about an Australian scientist . ;)
Dear Richard S, the census in question didn't come up with a decrease. That's the main thing. If anything it showed an increase. I'm sure the results and the methods used can be criticized, no problem with that.
Nothing to add regarding the inverted ice problem that now threatens to make the number of emperor penguins to sky rocket? ;-)
"Perspective is essentially what moulds opinion and when it comes down to this AGW issue there can be only two opinions……whether or not man is changing the global climate."
You misspelt "options".
There are two options. AGW is essentially correct, AGW is essentially false.
That you can have an opinion doesn't change reality.
You may opine that you can fly.
The ground when it meets you at terminal velocity will have a different "opinion".
BPW this subject has been brought up here before, if it is spoken about in here you are labled a whacko conspiracy theorist nutter.
The reason is that if this Finkelstein Report was put into law it would stop information and reporting about the lie's being spewed forth by the AGW minions in here, these idiots in here want it !!!!
Mind you they only want it because of all the information about the IPCC and AGW that is being continuously uncovered is hugely embarrassing to them, and they all are looking more foolish by the day.
If you scroll back up the thread you will see the other side of the coin, Barnturd J.
June 19, 3:36 pm grizzle gutsing about Gina Rinehart who holds different views to him/it, never mind the fact that Barnturd supports the ABC, our government run propaganda machine.
I doubt very much that the current government in this country will remain in power, good riddance to bad rubbish I say, and I have mostly always voted for them.
The future prime minister has recently repeated that he will rescind the carbon tax here, no doubt if the Finkelstein Report, or part there of, is passed in parliament and bought into law it will remain, but what do those in here care ?
They are too thick to understand :)
if Nasif Nahle really has the alleged 'cojones and maths capability to come out and challenge the establishment' let's see him publish something somewhere other than some inconsequential anti-environmentalist blog like Jennifer Marohasy’s.
Simple.
He won't try, of course, because it's rather more fun to be feted as a genius by the rowdies of the far Right than to watch your work shot down in flames by the merely competent.
And, oh, the irony; the friends of the Koch Brothers and Exxon cast themselves as being up against 'the Establishment'! You could not make it up...
'Karen', true to your identity, never let knowledge of an issue stand in the way of being an ignorant Tea Party loudmouth, will you?
After all, it's your raison d'etre.
BPW needs to learn how to present him of herself upon arriving if he wants people to have a reasoned discussion of some matter. Better yet, find a blog where people are actually debating the Finkelstein Report, rather than playing tone/concern troll here with it.
They probably have more to say on the matter at Crooked Timber, Crikey, or even over at John Quiggin's - even the ABC MediaWatch comment threads, come to think of it - I suggest you try. If you're sincere you will.
Rinehart G may well have a different opinion to Bernard J, but Bernard hasn't just demanded three seats on the Fairfax Board. What kind of infantile fantasist do you have to be to not grasp that in our Corporatised Media Landscape some animals are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more equal than others? Servile Pollyannaish BS about Murdoch and Rinehart just having 'opinions that they're entitled to like eveyone else' makes my flesh crawl...
Peterd brayed: "Nothing to add regarding the inverted ice problem that now threatens to make the number of emperor penguins to sky rocket?"
Antarctic sea ice is seasonally variable. The whole polar bear problem (which another of your earlier snide remarks alluded to) in tha arctic is because the extent of the arctic cryosphere is now becoming seasonal, which it wasn't before.
I strongly suspect that neither you nor I know enough about penguin lifestyles to know how the spectacular break up up the ice shelves around the West Antarctic peninsula will impact the region's ecology.
But then I'm not the one pretending to after twenty seconds of googling to make a point informed mainly by ignorance.
bill, please explain your reasoning in labeling me a Tea Party loudmouth, your presumptions are as shoddy as your CO2 conjecture and your other ramblings.
Then explain to me why you are sitting at a monitor and keyboard somewhere "constantly" monitoring dumbtoid ?
Are you paid to do this ?
Or.... are you just an impotent grumpy old fart with no friends ?
Chek, great of you to admit that the "mays" and "ifs" aren't valid anymore because they were based on false premises.
Good for you, bubble boy. Doesn't it feel great when i enlightnen you? ;-)
Karen, the only thing deltoids are consistant with is their faiblesse for making stuff up, including political preferences of their opponents.
They live in a world of conspiracies where the right wingers are all over the place, obstructing justice and promoting evil. Another common demonimator of the deltoids is of coures their hateful intolerance towards anything not like themselves.
Hi Olaus, yes there is some fantastic research material on this blog for a student of psychology.
And what do you have to be, dear 'Karen', to devote your time to haunting the blogs of those you don't agree with specifically in order to antagonise people and clog up any discussion with half-digested nuggets of chum? All the while deploying the Primary School Trump Card - 'I know you are, but what am I?'
Answer of course, is 'Troll'.
Watch out, if you keep at it too long you end up as Olaus. There's no way back from there.
(At least 'faiblesse' now gives us some clear idea what English is a second language to in this case...)
A love match between Olaus and 'Karen'. Ewwww.
Olaus and sunspot,
sitting in a tree.
K. I. S. S. I. N. G.
Petard flaunts his blatant, easily discovered dishonesty as if it truly doesn't bother him. I suppose that's an almighty benefit in the circles he moves in away from here.
BPW,
The report you linked to is in another organ of the Murdoch stable. Bloviation about the end of free speech is entirely predictable. MRDA - "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?"
Further to bill's - http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2012/03/16/finkelstein-scares/ has a nice summary of the brave defence of free speech put up by the mavericks opposing totalitarianism.
I'm glad you raised this. I laughed so hard I peed myself a little when I read Karen's: "I have mostly always voted for them..." Sure, she did. Until she became "concerned" with them...
Just watched Dellingpole on Andrew Neil's Political show on BBC and again he relied on the "statistical significant" meme, completely ignoring that in 2011 it became statistically significant. The guy made me scream at the TV.
Olaus:
A single data point can never show either an increase nor a decrease. I would have thought that would be obvious. The main point is either that you thought it could be quickly passed off as showing an increase, or that you were sufficiently unaware that you really thought it did show an increase.
I gather that in the near future (next 50 years), Antarctic ice is expected to advance in some areas (greater snowfall, don't you know?) and retreat in others. Are you claiming that this won't affect penguin numbers or are you claiming that biologists should not study them? If not, why not?
Hammer and Sickle head @ 9.10am
"anti-environmentalist blog like Jennifer Marohasy's"
Go over there and tell that to Spangled Drongo.
Do you think he'd be at all interested? Why?
I support an Australian media where one of the largest companies is free from the complete control of all content by one very extreme and very rich individual, who is hell-bent on ensuring that the whole country's political landscape is massaged to ensure that she becomes even more wealthy than the wealthiest woman on the planet.
I make no apologies for this stance. You see, I actually believe in a non-propagandised democracy. If you have a different point of view, you're past being right wing, and heading straight past Godwin territory to boot.
I admit to a little chuckle when OP replied. It didn't take him too long to reframe his lack of point.
BTW guys: careful on the land ice/sea ice distinction.
Don't you realise Wow?
All the right-wing neo-feudalist blogs are positively crawling with devoutly observant rabid environmentalists who only object to the infringement of billionaires' rights to dump carbon into the atmosphere.
Objecting to that is what defines us as communists - in dickheadland.
Mind you ,you're going to have to find time to do this between the wanking sessions you have with that picture of Lenin.
Sorry, that made no sense, Mack.
The only thing it seems to supply is that you're obsessed with thinking about people masturbating.
Olaus Petri said on 21 June, at 9:03 pm:
and in doing so demonstrates that he does not understand the language of science.
In this context, "may" doesn't mean the "slight possibility" that Petri wants it to mean, it means "it's very likely so, but because we're scientists we don't make absolute statements, and therefore we're going to frame our assertion conservatively".
The simple facts are:
1) in the long term the warming of the planet will melt ice, even in Antartica, and
2) without ice penguins are stuffed.
Neither statement is controvertial; the former is likely to occur, and the latter is inevitable if and whe the former eventuates.
Olaus Petri's spin is just so much misrepresenting denialist propaganda.
Hi Olaus, yes there is some fantastic research material on this blog for a student of psychology.
Not so fantastic. It's always projection for Karen and Olaus. A symptom of narcissistic personality disorder. Quite ordinary pathology, really.
luminous beauty..
"Not so fantastic. It’s always projection for Karen and Olaus. A symptom of narcissistic personality disorder."
Once again, this come from someone who goes by the name luminous beauty.
"Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include: Fantasizing about....attractiveness"
How rich.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00…
Tim,
You may want to update your McKitrick files if Mosher has it right .
... while Betty defends a fifth rate troll adopting the handle 'Olaus Petri'. Too funny.
Chek..
I didn't realize I was defending anyone, but thanks for the assumption.
So your actions are totally clueless then Betty. Happy to oblige in helping clarify your motivations for you.
But permit me to ask - doesn't it bother you to always be defending wanton idiocy? Or maybe that's just your natural reflex.
Indeed, the ultimate application of a tu quoque fallacy, "You do it too!" is to later deny the "too" part.
Hey 'Mack' - that's inconsequential anti-environmentalist blog. So Wow's right; I don't care.
What's with the onanistic fixation? Creepy...
" Inconsequential" Tell that to Jennifer Marohasy, to Tim Lambert , to in fact every blog owner . Tell it to the internet Billbaby, but most of all tell it to yourself.
Chek attempts to defend lubies blatant hypocrisy by claiming
I was defending wanton idiocy by pointing out the hypocrisy
Hypocrisy begets idiocy begets irony....'
It seems that no form of humour is too subtle for Betula.
Bill at 12:39 am 23 June.
It's appropriate though, given that most anything that KarenMackSunspot comes up with usually follows an Er...
Gawd, you folks could be out-thunk with one hemisphere tied behind the back!
Tim L's blog can hardly be 'inconsequential' in your own opinion, can it? - you're here all the time!
WUWT might safely be called many things, but I wouldn't label it 'inconsequential', sadly.
In this context, 'inconsequential' means of only some interest and only to people like yourself.
Betty draws a remarkably long bow on the basis of - wait for it - an adopted moniker, whereas LB has reams of raving to go by in making an assessment of Olaus and KarenMcSpot's clearly dysfunctional personalities.
You're blinded by ideology Billbaby. I think it's your other picture of Karl Marks.
Hey, just caught up on that Marlowe Johnson link re McK - what's the population density of the Pacific Ocean? What happens if you take the population of the entire US, average it across its area, and then claim that's the population density - and indicative temp-driving affluence - of, say, Cottonwood Falls, Kansas? Kake Alaska? the Mojave Desert?
Oh, and 56 million people in Antarctica? Fun and games if correct!...
Oh, disappearing posts! Anyway, read Marlowe Johnson's McK link - it's rather entertaining. What is the population of Antactica? Or the population-density of Kake, Alaska?
Oh, and Mack - rest assured, I'll cry myself to sleep tonight at the thought of your disdain...
So, who's that guy when he's at home?
And yes, Mosher's pants-ed Ol' Ross good and proper - which should get KarenMackSunspot's blood boiling...
Sometimes I think that there might even be some hope for Steve...
Just came across a link to an article on WUWT.
[Delusion is a big problem with the green crowd](http://www.theprovince.com/technology/Delusion+problem+with+green+crowd…)
(hope the formatting hasn't changed, but no preview, so who knows). It's about the RIO+20 conference and written by someone with a background in pyschology. Like many others, he looks on with some bemusement at this "believer" pantomime.
Anyone here care to champion the event?
Delusion? Like insisting that the world's scientific bodies are fraudulently fabrcating scientific evidence to form a one world government at the behest of the UN?
Good news everyone, Christopher Monckton has been ousted from the UKIP for being a "loose cannon" and "17th century pamphleteer".
The UKIP are the least credible party in England and even they want nothing to do with Monckton. Oh, snap.
poor little johny, so confused he is.
The word ousted does not appear on the entire page so I don't how even a down's syndrome could assume that.
This is interesting, as always :)
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/rio-the-political-freeloaders-hide-but…
barnturd J. 5:41 am
I can't speak for Mack or Sunspot but I would say that I am very disappointed that you, a Phd Fartologist, can't enable your own olfactory system to sniff out and bring to the fore the stench that is disguised as climate science, maybe you need to clean your teeth and gargle with some Harpic, the verbal diarrhea that you spew forth is mere flatus.
Read in between the lines, Karenmackspot. He's quite deliebrately been cut out of the party. You have no problem arguing that a cold day is proof global warming is a UN scam, so I don't know how you fail to make this connection.
Wow, isn't sunspot so mature? So eloquent. So full of crap.
Mack, just because you're a credulous incompetent moron, it doesn't make you a bad person.
Your personality does that.
little johny try to read the words dear, not the spaces, lol
maybe you can read pictures ?
http://www.ukip.org/page/key-party-roles
"lol"
sunspot, you don't read pictures. You read words.
Don't fret, KarenMackSunspot. I can smell the pong of nonsense "disguised as climate science" quite well, and the stink coming from you would make the Great Sphinx gag.
In case it (likely) needs to be explained to you KarenMackSunspot, the Great Sphinx is a pile of rocks with no nose.
And no thought processes...
oh deary me (blush) the big barnturd j has just wafted in. Where are those gumoots ?
I have them on now jj, shall we start with this
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-22/rainfall-south-australia-flooding…
your gods and visionary's told us this was never to be seen again !!
Flatulate forth an explaination please !!
Ok, so you're agreeing that you're a moron, sunspot, since the only person telling us "this was never supposed to be seen again" is you.
Why are you bringing evidence that proves you wrong in the same post as you say that?
and johny seeing that you have a reading disability you can have some fun and watch this
http://media.brisbanetimes.com.au/selections/the-snow-is-coming-in-side…
hahaha, I know it's not really snow, it's frozen CO2
Hmm. Seems sunspot thinks that snow in winter is a miracle.
snow in summer is a miracle
Victoria's white Christmas December 25, 2006 http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/victorias-white-christmas/2006/1…
Snow falls across NSW and Victoria Dec 20 2010 http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8186165/snow-falls-across-nsw-and-v…
Flaky forecasts as state readies for summer snow http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/flaky-forecasts-as-state-r… January 9, 2012
lol, wait till you here barnterds excuse
Thanks for confirming that you think snow in summer is a miracle too.
Hint: Everest.
Hey, Geniuses - if precipitation has increased with the intensified hydrological cycle due to AGW, but it's, um, winter, or you're at a high altitude, what form might that precipitation be likely to take? (Hint, like yourselves, it's flaky.)
Yep, Monckton joining the Birthers in earnest really finished him, at least with everyone who isn't crazy enough to be a troll on Deltoid...
Except that Monckton is out..
Semantics are the last refuge of the dissembler.
In other developments on the Monckton front, the potty Lord seems to be shifting his business plan from AGW denial into Obama birther claims. More notoriety and money to be made on that front in a US election year it seems. A 'member of the House of Lords' who isn't a member of the House of Lords claiming the President isn't the President should backfire nicely.
Karen 8.29 am
I'm guessing you aren't too familiar with UK politics. Being leader of UKIP in Scotland is about as minor a political role as it is possible to have. UKIP polled 0.28% of first preference votes in the 2012 Scottish council elections. Call it a banishment rather than an ousting if you prefer.
This bill genius is trying to tell us that global-warming is causing more snow. or maybe even that snow is not equal to cold.
Aaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
what a fuckwit.
Spoken like a true - and clueless - projectionist.
1) Increased temperatures increase evaporation.
2) Atmospheric humidity is moved around the planet by atmospheric circulation, including from the evaporating tropical regions to the poles.
3) Atmospheric humidity can precipitate out of the gaseous phase when temperatures cool - as they do at the poles.
4) When more-warm-and-humid-than-usual air moves from the poles to the more-warm-than-usual-but-still-colder-than-naught-degrees-celcius, there will be more snow than usual.
If you have a solid grasp of the physics that contradicts this scenario, KarenMackSunspot, please share it with the world.
Argh.
When more-warm-and-humid-than-usual air moves to the more-warm-than-usual-but-still-colder-than-naught-degrees-celcius poles, there will be more snow than usual.
Please, bring back preview.
"snow in summer is a miracle"
Perhaps "Karen" is from one of those redneck states in the north of Australia where they've never heard of cold weather in summer. Heck, even I've been skiing at Mount Buller in April. Bushwalkers in Victoria have complained about white things falling on them in February for a long time, and then there's Tasmania's weather.
"lol, wait till you here barnterds excuse"
bumbling barnturd lol
talk about pulling an old turd outta the thunderbox, hehe
@ Bernerd 11.50am.
Your "scenerio" is not physics but unsubstantiated theoretical AGW constructed climatology. Your 1,2,3,4 fabrication is in reality is just circumlocutious crap .
Very much like everything else you say.
Karenmackspottroll exhibit 1: "This bill genius is trying to tell us that global-warming is causing more snow. or maybe even that snow is not equal to cold."
Karenmackspottroll exhibit 2: "talk about pulling an old turd outta the thunderbox"
Is everything uttered by Karenmackspottroll unwitting (unwitted?) projection?
I see that during my short absence the shaman brigade of Deltoid went full charge. Tents are shaking and the speaking tongues work more than ever like power drills. :-)
Still no reply on the good news that the emperor penguins are doing quite well and that there might be an increase in the future?
And again, the census showed nothing of a decrease. If any conclusion can be made regarding numbers it is that they have gone up. And I don't question that there might be a methodology problem with the article, only that its results, if anything, support an increase.
Therefor any statements of them (jefferor penguins) being threatened can be reckoned as "polarbearing", not the least based on the fact that the articles brought forward (in defense for a decrease) blamed loss of ice as the cause.
In other words they should be deep down in the bin. But in climate scientology there aren't any bins if there is a scare involved, only gloomy crystal balls. ;-)
Again, Geniuses, do you get more snow in relatively warm winters, or relatively cold ones.
I know the world is distressingly not as simple as you are, but that's why there are grown ups.
"This bill genius is trying to tell us that global-warming is causing more snow."
Of course an ignorant buffoon wouldn't be able to understand a chain of causality from one link to the same one, never mind down the chain.
Mack, you're a waste of CO2.
Bill, the problem with the infants infesting here is that don't think, just prattle.
They wouldn't, for example. that warming from -10C doesn't mean you have to be over 0C.
Morons, the lot of them.
hahaha, bird brain bill, AGW is the snow job.
Yes, sunspot, we KNOW you're a moron.
Why do you insist on telling us about it?
In response to the utter bilge being promulgated by Olaus ' pathetic' Petri, who vainly tries to estimate projections of Emperor Penguins in the coming century (an uneducated guess from an uneducated layman, in other words), reflect on Bernard's words. If the IPCC is remotely correct, and ice cover in the Antarctic shrinks at the rate that is currently occurring in the Arctic, the penguins are finito. No if or buts. Area-extinction models, which generally underestimate extinction rates, confirm that.
But let's see how warming is affecting other biota:
CLIMATE CHANGE UNCOUPLES TROPHIC INTERACTIONS IN AN AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM
Monika Winder1,3 and Daniel E. Schindler1,2
1School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Box 355020, Seattle, Washington 98195-5020 USA
2Department of Biology, University of Washington, Box 351800, Seattle, Washington 98195-1800 USA
The largest uncertainty in forecasting the effects of climate change on ecosystems is in understanding how it will affect the nature of interactions among species. Climate change may have unexpected consequences because different species show unique responses to changes in environmental temperatures. Here we show that increasingly warmer springs since 1962 have disrupted the trophic linkages between phytoplankton and zooplankton in a large temperate lake because of differing sensitivity to vernal warming. The timing of thermal stratification and the spring diatom bloom have advanced by more than 20 days during this time period. A long-term decline in Daphnia populations, the keystone herbivore, is associated with an expanding temporal mismatch with the spring diatom bloom and may have severe consequences for resource flow to upper trophic levels.
Climate change and population declines in a long-distance migratory bird (NATURE, 2006)
Christiaan Both1,2, Sandra Bouwhuis1,3, C. M. Lessells1 & Marcel E. Visser1
Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), PO Box 40, 6666ZG Heteren, The Netherlands
Animal Ecology Group, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Studies, University of Groningen, PO Box 14, 9750AA Haren, The Netherlands
Phenological responses to climate change differ across trophic levels1, 2, 3, which may lead to birds failing to breed at the time of maximal food abundance. Here we investigate the population consequences of such mistiming in the migratory pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca4. In a comparison of nine Dutch populations, we find that populations have declined by about 90% over the past two decades in areas where the food for provisioning nestlings peaks early in the season and the birds are currently mistimed. In areas with a late food peak, early-breeding birds still breed at the right time, and there is, at most, a weak population decline. If food phenology advances further, we also predict population declines in areas with a late food peak, as in these areas adjustment to an advanced food peak is insufficient. Mistiming as a result of climate change is probably a widespread phenomenon, and here we provide evidence that it can lead to population declines.
REPEAT ASFTER ME OLAUS: MISTIMING AS A RESULT OF CLIMATE CHANGE IS PROBABLY A WIDESPREAD PHENOMENON.
Climate change and evolution: disentangling environmental and genetic responses
P. GIENAPP1, C. TEPLITSKY1, J. S. ALHO1, J. A. MILLS2, J. MERILÄ1
Abstract
Rapid climate change is likely to impose strong selection pressures on traits important for fitness, and therefore, microevolution in response to climate-mediated selection is potentially an important mechanism mitigating negative consequences of climate change. We reviewed the empirical evidence for recent microevolutionary responses to climate change in longitudinal studies emphasizing the following three perspectives emerging from the published data. First, although signatures of climate change are clearly visible in many ecological processes, similar examples of microevolutionary responses in literature are in fact very rare. Second, the quality of evidence for microevolutionary responses to climate change is far from satisfactory as the documented responses are often — if not typically — based on nongenetic data. We reinforce the view that it is as important to make the distinction between genetic (evolutionary) and phenotypic (includes a nongenetic, plastic component) responses clear, as it is to understand the relative roles of plasticity and genetics in adaptation to climate change. Third, in order to illustrate the difficulties and their potential ubiquity in detection of microevolution in response to natural selection, we reviewed the quantitative genetic studies on microevolutionary responses to natural selection in the context of long-term studies of vertebrates. The available evidence points to the overall conclusion that many responses perceived as adaptations to changing environmental conditions could be environmentally induced plastic responses rather than microevolutionary adaptations. Hence, clear-cut evidence indicating a significant role for evolutionary adaptation to ongoing climate warming is conspicuously scarce.
Climate Change, Elevational Range Shifts, and Bird Extinctions (CONSERVATION BIOLOGY)
CAGAN H. SEKERCIOGLU1,*, STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER1, JOHN P. FAY2, SCOTT R. LOARIE2
Abstract: Limitations imposed on species ranges by the climatic, ecological, and physiological effects of elevation are important determinants of extinction risk. We modeled the effects of elevational limits on the extinction risk of landbirds, 87% of all bird species. Elevational limitation of range size explained 97% of the variation in the probability of being in a World Conservation Union category of extinction risk. Our model that combined elevational ranges, four Millennium Assessment habitat-loss scenarios, and an intermediate estimate of surface warming of 2.8° C, projected a best guess of 400–550 landbird extinctions, and that approximately 2150 additional species would be at risk of extinction by 2100. For Western Hemisphere landbirds, intermediate extinction estimates based on climate-induced changes in actual distributions ranged from 1.3% (1.1° C warming) to 30.0% (6.4° C warming) of these species. Worldwide, every degree of warming projected a nonlinear increase in bird extinctions of about 100–500 species. Only 21% of the species predicted to become extinct in our scenarios are currently considered threatened with extinction. Different habitat-loss and surface-warming scenarios predicted substantially different futures for landbird species. To improve the precision of climate-induced extinction estimates, there is an urgent need for high-resolution measurements of shifts in the elevational ranges of species. Given the accelerating influence of climate change on species distributions and conservation, using elevational limits in a tested, standardized, and robust manner can improve conservation assessments of terrestrial species and will help identify species that are most vulnerable to global climate change. Our climate-induced extinction estimates are broadly similar to those of bird species at risk from other factors, but these estimates largely involve different sets of species.
Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change
Warren, M S, Hill, J K, Thomas, J A, Asher, J, Fox, R, Huntley, B, Roy, D B, Telfer, M G, Jeffcoate, S, Harding, P, Jeffcoate, G, Willis, S G, Greatorex-Davies, J N, Moss, D and Thomas, C D (2001) Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature . pp. 65-69. ISSN 0028-0836
Habitat degradation and climate change are thought to be altering the distributions and abundances of animals and plants throughout the world, but their combined impacts have not been assessed for any species assemblage. Here we evaluated changes in the distribution sizes and abundances of 46 species of butterflies that approach their northern climatic range margins in Britain—where changes in climate and habitat are opposing forces. These insects might be expected to have responded positively to climate warming over the past 30 years, yet three-quarters of them declined: negative responses to habitat loss have outweighed positive responses to climate warming. Half of the species that were mobile and habitat generalists increased their distribution sites over this period (consistent with a climate explanation), whereas the other generalists and 89% of the habitat specialists declined in distribution size (consistent with habitat limitation). Changes in population abundances closely matched changes in distributions. The dual forces of habitat modification and climate change are likely to cause specialists to decline, leaving biological communities with reduced numbers of species and dominated by mobile and widespread habitat generalists.
Although it hasn't happened for a few years now, it has been known to snow on Mt Wellington at Christmas. And just so our dense NH trolls don't become confused, that's a southern hemisphere Christmas.
KarenMackSunspot, the Tourette-afflicted numpty who just can't disguise the illiteracy tells common to each of his socks, can you stop with the potty-talk for a moment and explain with which of those four points you take such umbrage?
Olaus Petri.
Amongst many scientists I know, one is a penguin biologist. Operating on the premise that no-one would know better than a penguin biologist, I asked her about the status of Antarctic penguin populations, and she is very concerned for their security in the medium to long term. Very concerned. I won't say what she thinks about your interpretation of the science, beyond noting that KarenMackSunspot has been phrasing the same sentiment, but far less delicately and with rather more fixation on the post-digestive functions of the alimentary canal...
Looks like we have a few more "bombshells" from the Global Warming Guru ....
"it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect."
- "blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion"
- "The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”
- "about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”
l
The amazing thing is, the Deltoid geniuses don't know that they don't know it.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel
Looks like we have Betty joining in the tag team of stupid.
“it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.”
Except they haven't been shown incorrect. Not even remotely.
“blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion”
OK, so he's a whining little shite. This doesn't prove anything about AGW other than he's unable to think about it rationally.
“The greens use guilt."
So does the courts. I guess you'd want child rapists to get away free because you can't abide with guilt being used, huh?
“about claims “the science is settled” on global warming:"
... is that it's made up by the idiots who don't do science and don't understand it.
"you iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”
Except you, the tag team and this barnpot seem to iterate away from it. An eppy-cycle if you will.
"green-drivel"
Yeah, with a title like that, you know it's going to be biased and unthinking knee-jerking.
Wow's idol turns, so in response, Wow resorts to the subject of child rapists. Fascinating how that works...
As and example of how brain-dead that idiot there is, in his "opinion" piece, he claims quotes "recently from msnbc", then Guardian and goes to give the apparent quotes from it thereafter. But the entire guardian interview is available here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock
And the items claimed to have been said were not.
The MSNBC piece wasn't an interview with MSNBC but them reporting what he'd said to the Independent.
All in all, this guy has just written whatever turned up on WTFUWT and Betty swallowed the load.
Oh, are you trying to use GUILT on me, Betty????
Surely that proves you're WRONG!
Good grief! This is old news for this year, this Canadian article seeming like a rehash of this.
And Lovelock's earlier "nonsense" was called out here, ooh, 6 years ago!
Oops! Missed Wow's reference to MSNBC. No matter.
That toronto rag piece was so confused about what it was talking about, its entirely possible that lots of those mined quotes were from 6 years ago.
Like I said, it had MSNBC but then talked about the Guardian (two years ago), but in neither place did he talk about "settled science". That was Times piece, not mentioned AT ALL on that piece of vapid crap.
Seriously, that lunatic was all over the place.
Trust old Betula to wade through the sewage of the tabloid media and cite a screed from another right wing pundit(mis)quoting a 92 year old scientist. There isn't a rock in existence under which the denialists will not look for something - anything - to give the impression that common sense and science are on their side. The latest bete noire has been to saturate the internet with interviews from James Lovelock, ever since he slightly moderated his views on climate change. Once this miniscule shift weas detected by the denialosphere, they swooped on him like a pack of rabid hounds, desperate to saturate the media with the notion of a ' warmist who has seen the light'. This shows how utterly desperate the liars and deceivers in the denial camp are. Expect Lovelock to crop up a few thousand more times in the coming months in interviews with the right wing punditocracy, in a desperate attempt to give the impression that the scientific community writ large is coming around to his way of thinking, or that those who don't (meaning 99.9% of researchers in the environmental sciences, like myself) are out on a limb.
Its pathetic, but par for the course. Michael mann correctly refers to this as the 'Serengeti strategy' in his recent book, but this is a different approach. In their attacks on climate science, the deniers have, like predators in the Serengeti that single out prey on the edge of a herd, singled out a few scientists to smear, under the impression that if they can effectively bring down the reputations of these scientists then the entire foundation of science underpinning the warming will collapse. Now, using Lovelock, they are using a reverse strategy: singling out well-known scientists who once strongly supported the evidence behind AGW but, allegedly, who have had a rethink in recent years and have reconsidered their opinion. Lovelock fits the bill. So he gets splashed all over the right wing corporate media as if he is some sort of world renowed expert who must, by definition, be correct, because he has apparently become more sceptical. Remeber how the right wing media did the same thing with Bjorn Lomborg: the allegedly left-leaning greenie who re-evaluated the evidence and ended up promoting a world-view strongly aligned with corporate/libertarian agendas. Nothing makes a better story than a horse changing mid-stream, and the deniers have honed the art of making mountains out of veritable molehills out of this. That Lomborg probably hasn't got the foggiest clue about anything he writes about in his book doesn't matter: his message resonates with the interests of the privileged few and is heavily promoted. Heck, his book covers a wide diversity of exceedingly complex fields that take decades to master, and he writes it in 15 months? And the media didn't smell a rat? Now Lovelock is suddenly the flavor of the month in denial circles.
As for poor old simpletons like Olaus, I could cite dozens of srudies in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which already provide strong evidence of warming-related effects of multi-trophic interactions and that are almost certainly culpable for recent population declines of various taxa. Pied flycatchers, summer tanagers, Yellow-Billed Cuckoos, Daphnia, caribou, oligophagous insects, and many other diverse animal (and plant) taxa are being negatively affected by warming. The problem is, that when your entire world is Watts Up with That, or Jennifer Maharosy, or Climate Audit, as is the case with the deniers here, then this science does not register with you.
Betty finds a re-heated pile of dross posted over on Anthony "UHI" Watts' site and bounds over here without researching any part of it whatsoever.
Like the equally brainless Skippyduff, he just falls head over heels in unquestioning love with the cut of the proverbial jib
.Fascinating how that works…
It turns out Monckton has been ostracised for inviting former British Freedom Party members (i.e. fascists) to join the UKIP, despite a long-standing ban.
It's sad what's happening to the deniers. Watts is growing ever more shrill, with a new nail-in-the-coffin-stickied-post-that-definitely-proves-the-scam-this-time every week, Monckton following the extreme right wing publicity-and-cash-machine into irrelevancy, a record low in arctic ice and a planet that just just refuses to cool, no matter how many times angry commenters predicted it.
This must be very frustrating, especially in light of the coming El Nino.
Shades of Anthony Flew -- reviled by Christians when an atheist, embraced by Christians when he abandoned atheism (because he had been convinced, wrongly, that the arguments of Intelligent Design proponents could not be answered) -- despite the fact that he still completely rejected Christianity. Such is the way of intellectual dishonesty.
"intellectual dishonesty" :) :) Yeah ,you guys here have honed that down to a fine art . But were dealing with brainwashed teaching dickheads like bernerd and Jeff .here.
Karenmackspot, if you want to accuse others of intellectual dishonesty perhaps it's best not to be using multiple sockpuppets while claiming cold weather proves something or other.
Really?
I note that you still haven't pointed out the apparently scandalous scientific "intellectual dishonesty" that you claimed I engaged in at 11:50 am on 23 June.
You make a lot of noise about how scientists are liars and frauds, but you never seem to put forward any evidence, even after I have noted this point on numerous occasions.
Why is this, I wonder...?
[*And seriously, work on your poor punctuation - you only present as an uneducated ass when you comment.
Oh, that's right...]
Yeah you're a real educator Bernerd but I'm not one of the adulating imbeciles you have in this classroom.
Heaven forbid that you should ever darken the doorway of a classroom, a lecture theatre, or a laboratory - the latter two being way beyond your league. If you had done so beyond the minimum legislated educational requirement, you might actually put forward an evidenced argument, rather than the mere completely unsubstantiated ideological rants to which you are prone.
As it stands, you have never advanced an argument that was structured, referenced, and/or defensible. You're just a drive-around-the-block shooter of tabloid garbage claims, hoping that you might suck some poor unsuspecting innocent into your anti-scientific world of paranoia and conspiracy.
Your mother must be so proud.
*but I’m not one of the adulating imbeciles you have in this classroom*
No, instead you're one of the scientifically illiterate imbeciles who is outside the classroom.
Note how Karensmackspot didn't attempt to rebut a word I said above - par for the course. Just the usual last resort to ad homs. Well done, you sad little person.
As for GSWs link, well there you have it. A corporate psychologist wades into areas well outside of his competence and adds his two cents worth. He might have mentioned that the 1992 summit on biodiversity in Rio was a flop because it was effectively hijacked by a coterie of transnational corporations who were more concerned over who had the patent rights to biodiversity than with protecting it. And in spite of what our corporate psychologist says, the planet's biota are a lot worse off now they were back in '92. The number of species that are at risk, threatened or endangered on the IUCNs list has markedly increased since then. At the same time, the planet's distribution of wealth has been increasingly concentrated towards the privileged few. Africa's share of the global economy has shrunk from a miniscule 4% to an even more miniscule 1.3% (Bond, 2006), suggesting that the powerful elites who run the show are not remotely concerned with either protecting the planet's decreasing genetic diversity nor reducing poverty.
All in all, what makes the posts of the deniers here even more utterly pathetic is the fact that none of them probably are part of the tiny self-centered elite sector of society. And yet, here they are batting for those who would gladly throw them to the dogs. It shows one how the power of manipulative propaganda is aimed not at the politically converted, but at the masses who, as Walter Lippmann once explained, must be managed like sheep.
I see Jeff quoting Karl Marx and Walter Lippmann, why don't you throw in Edward Bernays ?
Your beloved UN is well aware of these three devil's and no doubt use's a mixture of tricks from the later two, they most likely also have plans to implement the formers financial armageddon across the globe.
Even though you know this, will you speak up against it ?
I admire the way Karenmackspot is using her multiple personalities to tagteam commenters here. Isn't a shame that there are so overwhelmingly few fake sceptics left that they have to fake identities in order to beef up their numbers.
This basically parrots the sad little website Karen claims doesn't belong to her.
Kooky stuff. The remaining fake sceptics are becoming such fringe nutcases that they are driving every sane, rational person away from their cause.
Sorry, "cause ?"
So who decided that if you quote Marx that this is proof you're wrong?
Is that REALLY the best "proof" you have sunspot?
What a couple of toffee nosed teaching wankers you both are. Your intelligence stretches no further than the textbook in front of your nose. And this Jeff tit says the "masses... must be managed like sheep" ...Yeah control freak. Tossers like you used to let loose with cane back in my day.
Isn't it weird that Karen and Mack agree with each other but never actually speak to one another?
Mack I'm not to sure about them being toffee nosed.
Brown nose's, yeah
You're such a control freak you think that man can control the climate. Yeah ....You're that looney.
For the benefit of the Geniuses.
Here's some more - the falling differential of temp between the equator and the poles allows the jet-stream to do some very weird things indeed, including dragging masses of sub-arctic air south into Europe and North America. and all the while, temperatures continue to rise, and, on the other side of the meandering stream, new heat records are set. (Warning - some danger of learning something from video. Probably best avoided, eh?)
One of the first books I read that discussed climate change - apart form McKibben's End of Nature - was Gleick's Chaos (James, not Peter, don't get into a lather), which reinforced to me that when you shove non-linear systems out-of-whack they will swing crazily before reaching a new equilibrium. If they reach a new equilibrium at all. Well, they will, in the long run, but, to quote Karl Marks 'in the long run we are all dead'*.
So, sorry, the moronic world-view that holds that AGW must mean that everywhere in the world must warm monotonically, and that heavy precipitation in the form of snow does not count as heavy-precipitation because, it's, y'know, cold, and all - is just that; moronic.
Sorry to break it to you guys, but you are where you are because, when push comes to shove, you really are not very smart. You might have all the technical proficiency in the world in some limited sphere - or might imagine that you do (read the ongoing Curtin thread train-wreck) - but when it comes to being an alleged sentient operating in a complex biosphere that must remain healthy and vibrant for the benefit of us all, you could not possibly be any dumber.
And whole armies of you swarming about and endlessly shouting congratulations at each other about how f'in' brilliant you all are - WUWT, BH etc. - is just thick en-masse, not proof that you have a point.
The fact is, the world is complex, and tricky, frequently counter-intuitive, and in order to understand it you must have at least some ability to switch off your eternal desperate search for ego reinforcement and not just automatically reach for the closest prejudice to hand - AKA what you and the rest of your dreary reactionary cronies think of as 'common sense'.
You argue like children because you reason like children. Period. Scary children. Lord of the Flies children.
Seriously.
*Actually, this is Lord Keynes, but 1: you didn't know that, did you? ('Marks' indeed!) and 2: you could scarcely hope to distinguish between them anyway.
lol, bird brain is back.
Was that little diatribe directed at whacky wow & little johny ?
Looks like it
A "looney"? Karenmackspot, I am hurt you could ever think such a thing about a humble chap such as myself!
You're right, I do believe man can affect the climate. As does Monckton, Singer, Cristy, Spencer, and Lindzen. Would you describe them as "loonies"?
I've always thought that "looney" was more used to refer to conspiracy theorists who troll websites with multiple identities in order to push their fringe beliefs that the UN is conducting scientific fraud to install a one world government! Silly old me!
Mack, you're such a moron you can't even understand what the difference is between controlling and affecting.
You don't think we can affect the climate? Or is this something Curry has told you to say and you're of so little willpower and self-motivation that you just believe and parrot the ridiculous claims?
I remember that somewhere in a not to distant thread that Jeff was alarmanising that the jet stream was going stop !
ARRRrrrrrrrr IT"S BREAKING DOWN he was screaming !!!!
hahahahaha poor dear jeff
It defies logic when I read nutty remarks like this: "Your beloved UN is well aware of these three devil’s"
Talk about paranoid delusion. The UN hasn't had any teeth for years, not since it was co-opted by the US-UKisNato axis.
As fore Mack, you must be proud swallowing the volumes of corporate mainstream media propaganda you've been fed in dollops over the years. You certainly are a part of Lippmann's ' mindless herd'. James Madison, one of the early Presidents of the United States, claimed that the country needed to be be in the control of a 'better set of men', meaning those from the rich privileged class. This 'better set of men' - is well represented by people from groups like the Council on Foreign Relations, an elite Ivy-League group set up in 1919 (and which formulated the 'Grand-Area Strategy' as a metaphor for controlling the flow of capital from the poor to the rich nations, focusing on the Middle-East and Caucasus region. What is happening now as the planet's resource base is sucked dry to support the short-term agendas of the privileged few (Michael Klare's latest expose details this as do earlier tomes from Greg Grandin, Tom Athanasiou and Patrick Bond) is that the denial industry has upped the ante in order to keep the 'mindless herd' - well represented by the Mack's, the Karen's, and the Sunspot's -(or all three packaged into one) in their place as useful idiots. Whenever their wafer-thin intellectual positions are challenged, out come the ad homs or the latest Fox-News derived rants detailing evil UN or communist agendas. Don't argue with facts of statistics because they don't know any. All they are left with is the detritus from some right wing blogs or the corporate media.
This buch of idiots couldn't debate their way out of a soaking wet paper bag. They need to learn a little about the way the world works - foreign policy agendas, resource depletion, the declining health of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems - and put two and two together and to stop rehashing drivel from the few myopic sources that they do read.
Heh heh.
KarenMackSunspot descends into a paroxysm of juvenile pretense that he is a conversing "they", not at all concerned that it's rather odd that they are suddenly both online as soon as John points out that they have previously not spoken to each other.
KMS, if you're going to start talking to yourself, one-sentence exchanges will tend to support those of us who can see your transparent sock-puppettry. Get a clue.
And still no structured argument I note, Foulspot.
And dude, it's great to see that Jeff, myself, and others are living rent-free in your mind. Rail against it as hard as you might, small man, but you aren't fooling anyone with an IQ over 75 - you're all sound and fury, but you don't actually have a case.
As a challenge, if you do have a case, can you enunciate it in 100 words or less? Go on, you know that you want to...
"I remember that somewhere in a not to distant thread that Jeff was alarmanising that the jet stream was going stop !"
Yes, sunspot, we KNOW you hallucinate. There's no need to keep telling us about it.
*I remember that somewhere in a not to distant thread that Jeff was alarmanising that the jet stream was going stop!*
Given that I am a senior scientist with 120 publications on the Web of Science since 1993, Karen, I would never, ever make up such an absurd remark. You, schmuck, are a liar. A brazen liar. Incapable of discussing anything remotely scientific here, you have to resort to blatant lies and then to joke about them. This suggests that you are some kind of wing-nut.
If you want to engage in Kindergarten level science, do it somewhere else. I note that you and your alter egos have failed to discuss a single scientific fact on this thread. When they are thrown at you, then you come back with infantile smears and lies. The latest takes the cake. Making things up actually makes you look more of an idiot than you already are, which is considerable.
Oh, yes, and Monckton. And there we see one of the Greats of Denial.
Oooh, isn't that just cringeworthy?
Get used to it, kids.
Oh yes you did Jeffery.
IT'S BREAKING DOWN !!
IT'S BREAKING DOWN !!
In ten years time you will be denying that you believed in CO2 induced climate climate change, lol
Deary me, 'Karen', I think your brain has melted in the heat of your desperation.
What's the betting 'Karen' can't distinguish between the Jet Stream and the Gulf Stream? ;-)
sunspot can't distinguish between her mental programming and reality.
Really. He's like a scientologist or Moonie.
Huh? Aren't they the same thing?
How humiliating for Karenmackspot Bracken.
Ever eager to help you beleaguered few, I bring you news of the very latest change in 'terminalogical inexactitudes' so that you can be bang up to date with your fibs. ooops, sorry, I mean PR-speak:
"One leader at a meeting related to the Rio +20 conference this week, noting that because conservatives reject the notion global warming, “We don’t use the term climate change anymore. It’s sustainable development.”
"Sustainable development" - got that? No more 'global cooling', no more 'global warming', no more 'climate change', from now on it's 'sustainable development'.
Right, all together now, after me . . .
OK, so what makes you think that everyone here is part of the Conservative Party, duffski?
And what the hell does it have to do with what climate change is?
David these are only the die hard flat earther type O' warmers left in here. I suppose that you also have noticed that this once warmer flushing blog only harbours the most deluded now, all the others have changed their monikers and gone over to WUWT or Bishop Hill.
CO2 hardly gets a mention since they changed to the CC meme
You're right, Karen, they are an endangered species here and so one must treasure them and constantly hold them up to our children as an example of what happens if you swallow nonsense wholesale!
By the way, you fight the good fight!
Oh dear, Oh dear I made another typo !!!
barnterd will try to tease me about it.
I was supposed to type
"that this once warmer flushing bog only"
sorry barnturd
David I enjoy your jolly jibes also :)
hahaha watch the nutters now
I was, like Ramsdorff' s research, referring to the Gulf Stream as a result of the massive inflow of fresh water from the melting Arctic ice. Trust 'Karen' to confabulate the Gulf Stream and the Jet Stream. How insidiously stupid can one be? These deniers take the cake.
Then there is this:
"You’re right, Karen, they are an endangered species here and so one must treasure them and constantly hold them up to our children as an example of what happens if you swallow nonsense wholesale! By the way, you fight the good fight!"
Duffer means "fight the no-fight or fight the vapid fight"", because the truth is that Karen/Mack/Spot have not once discussed actual science anywhere in any thread. Sure, they've cut and pasted snippets from right wing blogs, but these are usually rants from deniers and nothing within a light year of a scientific journal.
The Rio 1992 summit was about biodiversity and various threats to it. The evidence is that, since 1992, the health of all of the world's ecosystems - every single one - has continued to decline. Every ecological indicator is negative, and there is a wealth of data to show this to be the case. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) was the latest. Economically critical ecosystem services - from nutrient cycling to pollination to water purification - have been reduced in their capacity and efficiency. Marine fisheries are on the brink of collapse, as marine food webs have been depleted down the food chain. Deserts are expanding, the Aral Sea isn't, species and genetically distinct populations are decreasing exponentially, 50% of the world'as tropical wet forests are gone, and plant/animal invasions are homogenizing the biosphere. But of course, our resident idiots know nothing about the science underlying the MEE and have not read a page of it. In their true wisdom, expect them to dismiss it out of hand without having even glanced through it, certainly not understanding what it says, and then to dismiss it as part of a global left-wing/socialist/communist conspiracy. How predictable.
Then Duffer comes up with the howler of suggesting that Karen is 'fighting a good fight' when she/he/it isn't fighting anything at all: just parading ignorance. You clowns don't want a discussion of science, but to just further illustrate that their are no boundaries to stupidity.
The "leader" was Huxley Lawler, an obscure employee of an obscure Australian local council. No wonder you didn't name him. He's a nobody. Everybody knows that we receive our directives straight from the desk of secret UN chief and cult leader Al Gore.
Try a bit harder Duff. Your jolly old man persona is beginning to wear thin. It's what, three years now since you claimed that the AGW theory was "over" (whatever that means!) only to be faced with the warmest year on record.
It must fill you with seething rage that year after year your pathetic predictions (no sea level rise! global cooling!) fail to pan out.
Duff, you unhappy, miserable old sod, I suggest you cheer up, go outside and enjoy your twilight years instead of sitting at the computer railing against science and that Kenyan Obama! You're not getting any younger! :)
Well, with both Skippyduff and Karenmackspot resorting to their blustering versions of 'final nail in the coffin' just above, that's the idiot contingent fresh out of "arguments". Again.
The public and media are no longer listening to the deniers. Watts and co. have been wrong so often, with every "bombshell" and "final nail in the coffin" such a fizzer that the public have completely turned their backs on them. Even worse, no matter how shrill and insisent Watts becomes, the media now ignores him having been burned so often in the past.
There was a great article published in Popular Science that contains un unfortunate section on one of the actual thought leaders in the denial movement:
It's over Duff. The deniers have lost.
We're going to have to simplify things for the residual loonies here Karen. They're obviously still obtoosly confused . I'm from NZ. but you;re going to cop this carbon tax that the" intelligensia" (but not you Bill) will have inflicted upon you?
Listen you imbecile, you haven't said a damn thing. Apart from demonstrate the onanistic orgies of the denial crowd.
To be fair, (s)he may merely be transcribing the different voices in her/his head...
It's true, isn't it, Karen? You really did mix up the Gulf Stream and the Jet Stream.
No wonder you're having a love-in with Duffer...
Mack, Jooliar is gunna get the boot, and when the mad monk gets in he reckons he is giving it the chop !
Mind you he will most likely just change it's name to an environment levy, and I don't really mind that so much so long as it is used for "our" environment, not to feather the nest's of the NWO.
did you like that last little bit wet checky ?
Mack, Jooliar is gunna get the boot, and when the mad monk gets in he reckons he is giving it the chop !
Mind you he will most likely just change it's name to an environment levy, and I don't really mind that so much so long as it is used for "our" environment, not to feather the nest's of the NWO.
did you like that last little bit wet checky ?
Have you seen this Mr birdbrain ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream
I noted their ignorance of each other knowing that Karen would immedately start talking to herself and dropping pointless details to prove Mack "real". She couldn't have fallen for a more obvious trap.
So Mack is a Kiwi. Perhaps he/she/it could give us an update on the damage their carbon price did to the New Zealand economy.
No, probably not.
Oh Johny you're such a sleuth, lol
Have you seen this ?
http://www.naturalnews.com/036258_cholesterol_brain_repair_Alzheimers.h…
Typos? Pffft. Everyone makes typos.
What you characteristically do is to repeat the same idiosyncratic mispunctuations over and over, and hilariously you did it yet again as both 'Karen' and 'Mack' after I pointed out your deficiency once more, back at 8:16 am 24 June.
Poor education, pathetic subtlety, prurient excuse for understanding of science...
And you wonder why we don't treat you with anything like respect.
Karen, mine was funnier.
Denier favourite Judith Curry agrees that declining arctic ice caused by global warming is "[playing] a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters", essentially what Bernard claimed earlier.
Somehow I don't think Watts will be pushing that study, but I'm sure an amateur has fitted out some polynomials that show a nice downward curve on tree ring proxies from an obscure reigon of Mongolia dating from 1880-1910 that definitely prove the scam this time, for realz.
John...
"The deniers have lost"
Congratulations on a good win. When do we get to see the trophy?
The signal to noise ratio on this blog is dropping dangerously low. As a relative outsider I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Wow, Bernard J, Lotharsson, chek, bill, ianam, Jeff Harvey and several others for providing a robust defence against the river of shit that has been polluting the blog since pretty much its inception. Your efforts are not unnoticed. Furthermore, I'd like to extend a big "fuck you" to the small group of sad individuals on the other side of this "debate" - you know who you are, you bunch of losers. Toodles!
Betty: "When do we get to see the trophy?"
With this week's crop - Stevie boy blogging on Muir Russell, Pope Montford b(f)logging a Christopher Booker 'story' (yes, really!) and Anthony 'UHI' Watts agreeing with North Carolina's revisionist approach to research - it seems we're already seeing denialism atrophy.
John...
"Denier favourite Judith Curry agrees that declining arctic ice caused by global warming is “[playing] a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters“.
Oh I see....once this miniscule shift by Curry was detected by the alarmosphere, so now they swoop in on her like a pack of rabid hounds, desperate to saturate the media with the notion of a ‘ denier who has seen the light’. This shows how utterly desperate the liars and deceivers in the alarmistcamp are.
Just kidding John, that was me paraphrasing Jeff Harvey from his June 23rd rant....only I forgot to mention how great I am. Fits rather well don't you think?
So John, with Judith Curry as your new go to authority, I'm glad we can finally agree that articles such as the one below are bunk. You're finally coming around...
http://www.articlesbase.com/nature-articles/how-global-warming-is-affec…
Chek...
Here's your trophy:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/06/21/peter-foster-the-rio-future…
bill says...
"BPW needs to learn how to present him of herself upon arriving if he wants people to have a reasoned discussion of some matter. Better yet, find a blog where people are actually debating the Finkelstein Report, rather than playing tone/concern troll here with it."
So let me get this straight. I need to learn how to present myself? On a blog? On THIS blog? Interesting. Not sure what it means, but it's interesting. Seems you have quite the high opinion of yourself.
bill, here's a thought. I live in the US. I don't frequent, or frankly know, many Aussie blogs. I know that there are many Aussies here. The topic was brought to my attention by a journalist friend, so I asked here. God forbid I get a straight answer. After all, the topic of how the Australian press handles science and other matters is NEVER discussed here. And to ask on an open thread? The horror!
As for concern/tone troll, I have little respect or use for those terms. Weak rhetoric. I would be concerned if the US government was considering entering the business of moderating the press directly. And as for tone, I don't much care. But some should, because it matters more than you think. But snark away and continue the head-scratching back and forth with the usual suspects as it sure seems productive.
Now, had you left off the above and simply pointed me in another direction, that would have been fine, and appreciated. And since I am genuinely interested, I will go take a look.
FrankD, thanks for your more reasoned response.
I will say the other reason I asked here was my interest in the responses from the locals. The lack of response, to what was a very genuine question, is telling. And that people here would rather continue the back and forth with the regular antagonists on topics which are simply tired and lack any focus on issues which actually matter and can, and should, be addressed is telling as well.
But keep on keepin' on if it suits you. It's solid entertainment. In the meantime I'll head elsewhere for an answer to my questions. Frankly, I guess I should have known better than to expect a reasoned response here.
Betty - from your link: "That the politically motivated Enviro-Marxists are losing their hopeless war on the harmless trace gas CO2 and that their plans for world socialist domination have been derailed."
With intellectual powerhouses and a depth of understanding like that to point to, 10:10 should reframe their campaign as Dignitas Direct.
Unfortunately for you and me, crowing punditry and deluded commenters do not influence the events the science tells us are in train.
"Unfortunately for you and me, crowing punditry and deluded commenters do not influence the events the science tells us are in train"
I disagree, I think more Karl Marx quotes from Jeff and Bill would be of great influence....
BPW,
You write, "And that people here would rather continue the back and forth with the regular antagonists on topics which are simply tired and lack any focus on issues which actually matter and can, and should, be addressed is telling as well."
Sp please perchance, tell me in your opinion what topics merit discussion? Growing evidence that our global ecological life support systems are under threat don't merit discussion, in spite of the fact that our civilization depends on a range of services that emerge from them? I'd also like to point out that the US media, if not wholly owned by powerful multinational corporations, is utterly beholden to them. The whole political system is a sham, a plutocracy in which a very small but wealthy and powerful minority ensure that the system reflects their interests. Herman and Chomsky's 'Propaganda Model' was obviously written with the US media in mind; given their incessant cheerleading for expansionist wars abroad, my take is that the US media isn't that far removed from Pravda in the former Soviet Union in terms of content and bias. The only real alternative are books and some media sites (i.e. Fair, Common Dreams, Z-Net, Counterpunch, Democracy Now!) on the internet; the US mainstream corporate media's record, especially on foreign policy and environmental issues, is shameful. Not that its much better over here, in Europe, mind you.
As for Betula, Mack, Karen, and Duffer, whats utterly amazing is that this bunch of high school dropouts is trying to give impression of the scientific high ground with respect to the scientific evidence behind AGW (and other environmental issues), irrespective of the empirical evidence, and, more importantly, the views of the vast majority of experts in the relevant fields. Now that takes remarkable hubris. Lacking any scientific underpinning, they then have to resort to the usual comedic arguments relating to global UN agendas, communism, etc. ad nauseum. Its tiresome, particularly since the UN hasn't had any teeth since the late 1940s, and has been largely co-oped by the United States and its proxies. Which country has vetoed more UN resolutions - including those advocating food, health and security for all of the world's people, and global protection of the planet's ecosystems (true, if one can stomach it) - than all of the other members of the so-called Security Council combined? Of course, the US. One just has to look through some of the resolutions in which the US has stood alone from the rest of the General Assembly to realize that promotion of democracy, freedom and human rights is not a priority of US foreign policy.
Anyway, I am more than willing to take on any of the moronic deniers here in debating the condition of the planet's ecosystems and the consequences for ecosystem services, but since the brainless brigade appear to have never set foot inside a science class, what is the point? Instead, expect more vacuous smears and jibes.
You know, what is even more sad, is that Betula's day job is apparently to prune vegetation. Seriously. He does not benefit from the current political economic system which is driving our ecological systems to hell in a handbasket. Yet, his views reflect those of the wealthy few. I am sure the think tanks and their paymasters love to see average Joe's like Betula bolstering their agendas. Talk about being useful idiots.
My guess is that Mack and Karen are also middle or lower range income earners. I say this on the basis of their utter stupidity with respect to scientific arguments (heck, Karen can't tell the jet stream and Gulf Stream apart, and has to defend her/its/his smear with a WIKI entry but no links to me saying that the jet streram would cease because of course I never made such an absurd remark), and their inability to write proper English. So why does this lot worry about UN agendas and world government (the only chance of that was soon after WW II when the US became an imperium, but since the 1950s its global reach has dissipated profoundly). To be honest, I have rarely read such utterly puerile nonsense re: global socialist/communist agendas, but this lot of average schmucks actually appears to believe it. If they were corporate CEOs, I would understand their desperate desire to maintain the status quo, but these people are clearly not members of the elite 1%.
Jeff,
I've already proved you to be an embellishing egotistical liar for the cause. You're ramblings are insignificant to everyone but yourself.
Now, type something to make yourself
feel better....
This new format sucks...
Never mind Betty, your championing of the brand of ideological sewage that requires support from abject ignorance still comes across with absolute clarity.
Great to see dear that Richard S takes his time to investigate. :-) He goes on a walkabout and ask his friend about the penguins and was told that she was concerned, very concerned. Well did you ask her if she was concerned about the increasing ice mass as well? Because, you know, the worrisome part was loss of ice, remember? And now it isn't a problem anymore. :-) What does that tell you about the quality of the research wrt jefferor penguins?
Be happy that climate scientology not even can base their scares on proper presumptions. ;-)
I suggest you roll over belly up on this one Richie.
And the Ming penguin himself is true to form: he starts barking about something completely different. Why, is beyond me. I have told Jeffie numerous times that I do not doubt that nature responds to climate change, an he still goes on about it. What's wrong with him?
Why can't he stay on topic and stop making out with his straw men?
Petard, it's all-too-obvious that you oh-so-want your take-home message to be 'there's nothing to worry about'. And yet you hang round here like a spare dildo at an orgy because, existentially, you realise it's not.
The solution is obvious - stop filling your head with the trash you currently consume, and educate yourself. Real Climate and Skeptical Science may, with sufficient diligence on your part, alert you to what's happening.
Can't you get anything right? There are no penguin experts amongst my friends and I never claimed there were.
I see that after your failed attempt to produce a research paper to back your claims, you are descending once more into insults. At least, you don't need to read for comprehension to produce them, do you?
Chek, I'm sure there are lot of things to worry about, but loss of ice in the antarctic region seems not to be one of them, hence the scares regarding jefferor penguins were based on a wrong understanding.
I'm sure you can agree with me on that one. ;-)
Sorry Richie, it was Bernie that took his time to make a canossa walkabout to penguin land. Please try forgive me my friend. Either way I was the one presenting a paper that showed an increase of emperor penguins, if anything.
You and your fellow believers came up with articles that claimed otherwise based on the conviction that loss of ice was a problem. Well it wasn't. Consequently all the "mays" and "ifs" were crap.
Deal with it and be happy.
Petard, all that I can see we can agree on is you're a myopic dunce
.
Regardless of whatever trash you've read about (seasonal) sea ice, the western ice shelves are currently disintegrating due to to .... 'warming'. And then - given the topography - what stops the land bourne ice slipping into the sea?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17803693
Don't worry, it's a rhetorical question. I don't expect intellectual fruitflies like you to think that far ahead. You can go cuddle up to sleep with your favourte anti-science memes.
Well chek, if the winds are changing I guess it must be the CO2 doing it? ;-)
Oh, I forgot. I agree. You did the right thing stop talking about the penguins chek. ;-)
That's because you know nothing about them, and since your raddled, second-hand misunderstandings have already been exposed, there's nothing to predicate continuing discussion of them.
One could be forgiven for suspecting that OP is concentrating very hard on penguins and the Antarctic because he doesn't want to factor this into his reality.
You know, it is difficult to mock someone who is stupid to the point that they are incapable of comprehending their own stupidity. Truly our Trolls inhabit a world beyond satire...
Speaking of which, the other issue that's being carefully avoided is Monckton's complete wig-out, calling the (doubtlessly-smartly-uniformed!) boys from the British Freedom Party into the UKIP fold, much to the alarm of even this redoubt of the lunar-Right...
And let us never forget that this buffoon has been one of the chief spokespeople of your movement, Deniers.
I suspect that this revealed politics probably resonates with a substantial segment of Denial itself, though most aren't yet daft enough to actually say it out loud.
Instead they gaily project away. You know, we're the democracy-hating intolerant conspiracists, who are simultaneously trying to hand all their hard-earned wealth over to the undeserving Third-World poor so they can frivolously eat a bit more and maliciously install wind-turbines, while all-the-while genocidally exterminating the tragic poor of the Third-World by denying them nourishing coal-fired power-stations...
( I know it doesn't make sense, but not much in Denial does!)
If Teh Stoopid institutionalised insists on giving us a Great Depression to cap its existing generous gift of a Great Recession, as seems likely, I fear we will have to watch these strident, hysterical and reactionary forces coalesce into something very ugly indeed - and perhaps much less discreet.
Viz.
That this appalling Denier rabble is so monumentally self-righteous, and routinely claims victim status for itself, should surprise no-one with any knowledge of History.
The above from Popular Science - here's a version that's (currently) readable here in the Antipodes.
Lothar, sorry to tell you, but running away to the arctic will not change tha fact that the foundation of the penguine scare was bogus. ;-)