Phew, looks the carbon tax has not returned Australia to the Stone Age.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Good news! I'm still able to post -- Australia has not returned to the Stone Age. A few links:
Key points of the carbon price package
Frank Jotzo: popular tax cuts and a carbon price that just might deliver
Roger Jones
John Quiggin
Larvatus Prodeo
Gareth Renowden.
The carbon tax alarmists are now…
Despite carbon tax, Australia is still not in the Stone Age.
Gravity Probe B reports its first results at the APS meeting...
...and the winner is: Albert Einstein.
General Relativity is consistent at the 1% level, at least for geodetic precession...
Phew, that was worth the wait.
Frame dragging measurements are still not confirmed due to unexpected…
Still here. It seems the carbon tax has not destroyed the Australian economy. Phew!
(to the tune of a common Soccer Match chant)
Betty is a Moron.
Betty is a Moron.
Da na naah na.
Da na naah na.
Betty is a Moron.
Betty is a Moron.
(repeat to fade)
A crank is defined as a man who cannot be turned.
- Nature, 8 Nov 1906
One definition of a crank, loosely, is a person who has unreasonable ideas about established science or facts that will not relent in defending their own, often laughable, version of the truth. Central to the crank is the “overvalued idea”. That is some idea they’ve incorporated into their world view that they will not relinquish for any reason.
climate refugees
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kplAkgdarnY&feature=youtu.be
QLD LNP calls on QLD Education Minister to remove the teaching of climate science from schools on the basis that it's "environmental propaganda material" and "post-normal science".
Sounds rather like some of our trolls.
Lotharsson.
I just linked, over at SkS, to the same story:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/07/10/climate-crock-welcome-to-the…
Ah Marano, the pit bull with his brain in his arse along with he who missed his chance to be cast as 'He Who Should Not Be Named' in Harry Potter movies.
Really KrakenMackSpot you are as much a joke as those two goons.
Dang, wrong link at 1:39 pm above.
Take two:
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/false-prophets-queen…
That is fantastic news barnterd :)
At the next election the greens will all lose their seats in parliament anyway, so no doubt the children will then be taught about the brain washing lies that greenies have been forcing upon them.
The greens will have to open a fish & chip shop so they can compete against Pauline Hanson.
ps. I note that Karoly has really got his knickers in a knot over getting busted using dodgy data in the Gergis et al paper, sure looks like that paper is done and dusted, so much for Australian climate science, they really showed themselves to be lying bozo's.
Krakenasleep
I suppose that you have followed these arguments. Didn't think so.
MacI' performs as expected after all he is Laurel to Monckton's Hardy.
Tamino(Grant Foster) has an an interesting link to "Watthasnotalottaofbrains" !
Link: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/question-mark/#more-5355
To cut through Anthony's furphy riddled factually challenged horse hockey "Could this be the coldest July in history for Anchorage?"
Anthony, shows Anchorage temperature high 56F, July 11th,2012.
Now, your average July weather in Anchorage (the peak of the tourist season), runs from a minimum of 11C/52F to a maximum of 18C/64F.
Source : http://www.anchorage.world-guides.com/anchorage_weather.html
Interestingly, Kaktovik(Barter Island PABA elevation 1m) July weather average minimum 37.9F to maximum 46.6F. Measured July temperature range from low 26.6F to 64.4F.
Source : http://www.meoweather.com/history/United%20States/na/70.1319444/-143.62…
Hmm, Anthony appears to be be telling only very little truths, whilst avoiding an inconvenient truth,one could say.
Whilst the foolish mentally and factually challenged mononeurons, such as 'Karemackbettyfruitloops' would fall for Anthony's fallacy propaganda garbage. Your average skeptic punter, would in the real world, look before they leap! It is a given, that they have this worlds entire weather data base, at their finger tips.
For, is there not an old saying, that "Wattnotalootaofbrains" should learn, that goes like this "Fool me once shame on you........................................"
In case anyone wants a break from troll-baiting, the "gift that keeps on giving" continues (and it's nowhere near over, more to come):
Wegman and Said leave Wiley journal...
and
Ed Wegman promised code to Waxman six years ago - where is it?
That's very nice Mr Mashey, now why don't you devote your time to explaining why Mikey Mann depressed the 1930's temperatures in an attempt to make modern temperatures appear to be unprecedented ?
So you're implying that climate sensitivity is higher than generally thought by mainstream climate scientists, and therefore that atmospheric CO2 levels should be even more strongly limited than those scientists say?
Good to know. I guess we can we take your retraction of previous comments that are incompatible with this admission as read, right?
(You realise that leaves practically none of your earlier comments standing, don't you? Oh, wait, that's stupid. It's rather unlikely that you have understood the implications of your claim even though it has been explained to you several times before, and you have no trouble advancing two contradictory claims at the very same time if you think both of them support your position so why should you change now?)
If he takes up your cause, will you take up his? After all, his cause is just and based on the facts, whereas your cause is based on immense stupidity, ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.
But, the reason he does
The United States of KMSPMM said :
Here's an idea - why do you not post an actual précis of the evidence that you have to support your contention? You know... make a case, an empirically-supported case, and one that can be tested for its veracity?
Or do you have nothing to back up your scattergun sniping?
Oh, and for your edification KMSPMM, it's Dr Mashey to you.
Tim L - it would appear that some of 'Karen's' posts have been deleted recently - if so, might I suggest that the one above joins them?
Of course, no-one would lament an outright banning, either...
Karenmackspot, you only recently threw your full, gloating support behind a paper that said exactly that and used Mann as a reference.
I am beginning to suspect you are a troll with no regard for facts or evidence....
Bernard J:
Thanks, but no need ... anyone once KILLFILEd is gone forever :-)
But, if you haven't seen this, you might be amused by a certain Viscount's riff on "Dr",
Richard Littlemore's rejoinder, and then my commentary.
This was the one where the Viscount accused me of the heinous crime of "interfering in an unlawful manner on the blogosphere" and claimed I was under investigation.
Thank you John, an interesting mixed message of total denial the regents post of removing the inconvenient truth from GMU's web of deceit and denial. The "Peter Principle", strikes again!
Spotted, over at Eli's place "Singer's Downfall, a Denialist Parody" (2nd video). ;)
Link: http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/my-second-tiny-godwin-violation-r…
Meanwhile public opinion appears to be shifting in the US.
(Looks like there's still some way to go though - and it's a shame it is probably shifting due to people noticing extreme weather rather than scientific evidence, but at this point I'll applaud it anyway.)
Loth...
"Meanwhile public opinion appears to be shifting in the US"
If you look past the headline, the poll shows opinion is about the same since 2006. It also shows people not falling for wealth redistribution...
54. "If the world’s temperature does rise over the next 100 years and this rise has effects on poor
countries, how much do you think that the United States government should help these countries deal
with the effects of global warming – a great deal, a lot, a moderate amount, a little, or not at all? (IF US
SHOULD PROVIDE ANY HELP) Do you think the U.S. government should provide this help to poor
countries by giving them money, by providing help in other ways, or by both giving money and providing
help in other ways?"
6/21/2012
A great deal.......................... 12
A lot ........................................12
A moderate amount ............37
A little .....................................23
Not at all................................15
Don’t know/Refused.............2
IF HELP: 6/21/2012
By giving them money........................................ 1
By providing help in other ways.........................64
By both giving them money and providing
help in other ways ...............................................34
Don’t know/Refused .......................................... 1
"it’s a shame it is probably shifting due to people noticing extreme weather rather than scientific evidence, but at this point I’ll applaud it anyway.)"
Shorter Loth...
People are stupid enough to believe some extreme weather event is scientific evidence of climate change, but as long as they believe it, I applaud them.
"Is this really how we conduct science — something is unprecedented if people don’t have a memory of when it happened before?"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/07/12/summer-of-the-shark-…
Ooooh, it's all not going well, is it, Betty? So, little Tree Lopper, which way are the heat/cold temp records running, would you say? We know you don't want to...
You have some dreary opinion piece in some dreary Right Wing rag, which just happens to articulate the voices of the 1%, whereas all we have is science and scientists.
It's just not fair, is it, all these nasty bright, articulate people ganging up on all you small-minded, self-centred reactionaries with your self-righteousness, Dunning-Kruger afflictee arrogance, and magical beliefs? ;-)
I mean lookee here, for instance.
It just isn't a great day to be Stupid, is it? How proud you must be to swell the 'Back to the Future' ranks along with Lord 'Birther' Monckton, James 'The Just Aren't Enough Bullets' Delingpole, the KMS SFB collective, Tim '2nd Law' Curtin, etc. ...
Get used to it, Sunshine, because every year is just going to get worse...
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/15/518671/must-see-best-news-r…
ROFL!
It may show people disagreeing with "wealth distribution", but in order to "fall for it" they would have to be duped. It's pretty hard to argue they are being duped when they are being explicitly asked about the option.
Shorter Betula:
I'd rather promote my prejudices than accurately "shorten" Lotharsson so I'm quite happy to verbal him/her instead.
KrakenMackspot
More for you to consider WRT your above nonsense in a post by Albatross at Skeptical Science with MacIntyre's history of abuse catalogued, with links.
Read through the other comments on that article too seems you need your horizons broadened.
More for KrakenMacSpot
Explain this away.>/a>
Note where sea levels could be heading and much sooner than most acknowledge. It was events such this that were anticipated by Hansen et. al. when producing projections for the IPCC.
WTF
More for KrakenMacSpot.
Explain this away.
Note where sea levels could be heading and much sooner than most acknowledge. It was events such this that were anticipated by Hansen et. al. when producing projections for the IPCC.
Bill....
One of the first lines on your "lookee here, for instance" example reads....
"What has happened in detail over the inland ice, which caused this incident, is not yet known, but the fierce heat has certainly been an important player"
So here's what I got from your comment and link...
The cause of this incident is "not yet known" yet they are certain it was fierce heat, and the fierce heat is certainly due to climate change and the climate change is certainly due to "small-minded, self-centred reactionaries" with their "self-righteousness, Dunning-Kruger afflictee arrogance, and magical beliefs".
Bill, that's an awesome deduction....Nobel Peace Prize nomination for you buddy.
"It’s pretty hard to argue they are being duped when they are being explicitly asked about the option"
It's pretty hard to know if the brainwashing is working unless you take a poll. Also, if you actually looked at the poll, you would have noticed the headline is biased and your statement "Meanwhile public opinion appears to be shifting in the US" is skewed.
But as long as your brain is washed, "I applaud you".
"It’s pretty hard to know if the brainwashing is working unless you take a poll."
Nope, it's hard to keep the brainwashing when you tell people about it.
To see if the brainwashing works, you need to see that the actions the brainwashing are to bring about is being undertaken.
Since you're still bitching about it, and since the payments are not being made, but being stymied by the selfish bigots that you idolise, the "brainwashing" hasn't taken hold and the reason for that is that the only brainwashing is the one you've been sucked into like some scientology scam.
You're displaying EXACTLY the actions the libertarian randian neocon brainwashing since the reagan era has taken root in you.
That's not what it says. Try again.
So...apart from Wow's deconstruction, Betula appears to be arguing that decisions of a somewhat ethical nature - e.g. whether the US should help poor countries negatively impacted by climate change caused in significant part by the US - have only one right answer, and that people only give different answers because they have been either "duped" or "brainwashed".
Or maybe Betula is merely maintaining the evidence-free assertion that humans haven't done anything to change the climate, and/or any observed changes simply can't be traced in part or full to human actions - whilst simultaneously denying that Betula is denying the conclusions of mainstream climate science.
"Betula appears to be arguing that decisions of a somewhat ethical nature" "have only one right answer, and that people only give different answers because they have been either “duped” or “brainwashed”.
I never used the word "duped"...that was you. You're quoting yourself in an assumption about yourself. Well played.
The question in the poll is based on an assumption (like everything else in your world). Given this assumption, it doesn't look like redistributing the wealth is a priority at this time with only 2 1/2 years left to meet the goal. Need to step it up a bit...
"whilst simultaneously denying that Betula is denying the conclusions of mainstream climate science"
So i'm denying that I deny the future? Ok.
What, betty is the difference between someone who has been brainwashed and one that has been duped?
OK. What assumption? And how does it support your followon:
You're foolishly trying to tie together some UN goals/deadlines that you are freaked out about with this survey which wasn't done by the UN and didn't mention those timeframes.
Of course you are free to "explain" this by putting on your tin foil hat and saying they're all in it together...if you so choose. But that would mean the conspiracy has spread to Stanford University and the Washington Post.
What a remarkable inability to grok!
You used "falling for" which I said necessitates "being duped". Instead of pointing out exactly how my logic was incorrect, you seize on the different word and fling it around as if it were bonobo excrement.
If you spent half as much energy thinking as you spend "parsing" (in the political spin sense), you might actually get somewhere.
And if I were you, and prone to inaccurately paraphrasing other quotes in order to make them appear to conform to my position, I wouldn't be drawing attention to the fact. See my comment at July 16, 2:07 pm. And this:
In other news, the 36 year old New Orleans built, one step from the breakers yard Drill Ship. The 5i4 foot long, non ice rated "ICE1A" MV Noble Discoverer, broke it's moorings and driven aground on the shore bow first, during a sudden summer storm, in Dutch Harbor, Alaska, Saturday, July 14th..
An official Coast Guard spokesperson, claimed the vessel did not come within 100 yards of the shore line.
link 1: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/shell-offshore-drilling-vessel-no…
link 2: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/16/521391/shell-loses-control-…
They say a picture, is worth a thousand words. Or the local US Coastguard Captain, in Dutch Harbor, badly needs to recalibrate his 300' minimum out of whack "Washington HQ based rose colored range finder"! Or, is it, Washington DC administration one eyed oil and gas industry can do no wrong view, creating the inability to read harbor maritime navigation charts accurately!
Notice the poor visibility colour choice for the hull and super structure of the vessel in question, for operating in adverse visibility Arctic summer weather conditions.
This picture of the grounded MV Noble Discoverer, says it all.
link: http://dutchharbortelegraph.com/
Betty, I know reading is difficult for you - sore lips, and all that - but if you'd struggled on past the first few lines you'd have reached this bit -
- from the local paper. Or even this -
- from a researcher writing for Scientific American (i.e. not you.)
You might even have seen discussion on the dramatic - and unprecedented - albedo decline, etc..
I don't know what it is you imagine you're achieving, but people like you are an absolute blessing for our side of the argument, because only your already Stupid peers could hope to pretend to be impressed by your bad-faith arguments; for everyone else looking on what you are comes shining through.
Make that 'squelching through'.
Don't ever change.
The confusion and conflation on display here is mind-boggling. Apparently Fairfax and SMH need Gina Rinehart to "save" them, and the issue of who does and does not get a seat on the Fairfax board is a free speech issue, and this is somehow bound up with the carbon tax, and everyone's grandkids are going to be paying for it in some fashion.
Who knew?!
I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked! I believed you when you assured me that all those IPCC reports were based on sound scientific methodology by some of the greatest brains in the universe. But now I learn from the Inter Academy Council (IAC) who carried out an independent check on the IPCC reports and how they were compiled:
"The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.
The IAC found that "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors" and "the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents" (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and "do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications" (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.
Tell me it ain't so otherwise I might get the teensy-weensy impression that you lot are a load of loonies!
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_wer…
Yeah the poor grandchildren are either going to be taxed or cooked. Sloth.
Duff
I think that once again you've let yourself be lead by the nose to a trough of excrement. Here is the IAC report:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html
Read what it actually says. You'll find American Stinker has put a massive amount is spin into their account, have very very selectively quoted, and have completely misrepresented the IAC report (of nearly 2 years ago). Look what the conclusion says:
"The Committee concludes that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall and has served society well. The commitment of many thousands of the world’s leading scientists and other experts to the assessment process and to the communication of the nature of our understanding of the changing climate, its impacts, and possible adaptation and mitigation strategies is a considerable achievement in its own right."
I'll add for the benefit of those who can't be arsed to click on Duff's link, the American Stiker article is written by Joe Bast of the Heartland Institute (de)fame. Wildly spinning a 2 year old IAC report is a truly desparate effort from the head of a failing disinformation machine.
Here is a bit more from chapter 5 Lordy
The IPCC should develop and adopt a rigorous conflict-of-interest policy •
that applies to all individuals directly involved in the preparation of IPCC
reports, including senior IPCC leadership (IPCC Chair and Vice Chairs),
authors with responsibilities for report content (i.e., Working Group
Co-chairs, Coordinating Lead Authors, and Lead Authors), Review
Editors, and technical staff directly involved in report preparation (e.g.,
staff of Technical Support Units and the IPCC Secretariat).
and............
Characterizing and communicating uncertainties. IPCC’s guidance for
addressing uncertainties in the Fourth Assessment Report urges authors
to consider the amount of evidence and level of agreement about all
conclusions and to apply subjective probabilities of confidence to conclu-sions when there was ‘high agreement, much evidence.’ However, such
guidance was not always followed, as exemplified by the many statements
in the Working Group II Summary for Policymakers that are assigned
high confidence but are based on little evidence.
Moreover, the apparent
need to include statements of ‘high confidence’ (i.e., an 8 out of 10 chance
of being correct) in the Summary for Policymakers led authors to make
many vaguely defined statements that are difficult to refute, therefore
making them of ‘high confidence.’ Such statements have little value.
Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) should be used to •
describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is
sufficient evidence. Authors should indicate the basis for assigning a
probability to an outcome or event (e.g., based on measurement, expert
judgment, and/or model runs).
Chapter Lead Authors should provide a traceable account of how they •
arrived at their ratings for level of scientific understanding and likeli-hood that an outcome will occur.
Developing an effective communications strategy. The IPCC has come
under severe criticism for the manner in which it has communicated with
the media and public. The lack of an ongoing media-relations capacity and
comprehensive communications strategy has unnecessarily placed the
IPCC’s reputation at risk and contributed to a decline in public trust of
climate science.
The IPCC should make the process and criteria for selecting participants •
for scoping meetings more transparent.
The IPCC should develop and adopt formal qualifications and formally •
articulate the roles and responsibilities for all Bureau members,
including the IPCC Chair, to ensure that they have both the highest
scholarly qualifications and proven leadership skills
Lead Authors should explicitly document that a range of scientific view-•
points has been considered, and Coordinating Lead Authors and Review
Editors should satisfy themselves that due consideration was given to
properly documented alternative views.
The IPCC should strengthen and enforce its proce-dure for the use of unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature, includ-ing providing more specific guidance on how to evaluate such informa-tion, adding guidelines on what types of literature are unacceptable, and
ensuring that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is appropri-ately flagged in the report.
All of the prior IPCC reports and recommendations need to be completely disregarded and rejected, It is so obvious that the whole process has just been a political stunt to brainwash the mentally challenged.
There should have been only one recommendation.
DISMANTLE THE IPCC
You'll have to excuse karenmackspot; they used to work on Wall St. It seems to have done permanent damage.
As what? The lavvie cleaner?
Basically the report says that the IPCC should do various things to make their excellent work even better.
You have to wonder who Duff, Karen, and Betula intend to persuade with their posts, which just further demonstrate their complete lack of scruples or sense.
God, Betty, the KMS collective, and Duff, card-carrying members of the non-exclusive The Most Stupid People in History club all, all shouting loudly, and now quoting their hero, Joe Bast, misquoting, and chasing their mangy tails about something from 2 years ago he managed to dig up while desperately flailing around searching for a point. Anything to take their puny, shrivelled minds off an ideology that's wilting away to nothing, fruitlessly emptying itself out to sea faster than the Greenland ice-cap.
This is the sound heard in a vacuum. This is the bawling of nothing.
So, imbeciles, hows the weather? Which way are the temp records running, would you say? How is Greenland getting on? Arctic Sea Ice?
Ok, too hard. How many animals and plants in your area are out of sync with the seasons now? No, you don't know, do you, in fact, you've never noticed, have you? Because in a very real sense you're barely alive. Ever notice how those who feel vastly, disdainfully superior to the animals and the natural world have the most stunted, brutish and primitive intelligences?
Perhaps you've noticed how increasingly desperately you have to scrabble around to find some pathetic twig to cling to, then? How many peer reviewed papers published in proper science journals have backed up your argument this year, would you say? No, again, you don't know, do you? I'll give you a hint; new heat to cold records are running 10:1 across the US at the moment, but the ratio of Warmist to 'Skeptic' papers is way higher than that! I mean; have you had any?
Alright then; how sane is Monckton now, would you say? What's the odds you're all sodding Birthers, too? How about sympathisers of the British Freedom Party, then? And he really was the best you lot could ever hope to do, wasn't he?
How breathtakingly pointless you all are! The only way you can get any of the attention you so desperately crave is to gum up the works for real people, because secretly you're all only too aware that in the great ledger of History there's a big, fat zero beside every one of your names.
And you hate the world for it. But, the point is; the problem? It's you.
Compare Joe Bast's
which Duff gullibly swallows, to
which says something very different. And so it goes with denialist scum.
It is clear that the brain processes of the likes of 'The Goon Collective' (Kraken/Mack/Bet/Duffer) and the psychopaths from whom they get mental input have not advanced beyond the neolithic. That is one of the tragedies of the current human condition, the hunter gather mentality still rules when reality demands something quite different if mother Earth is not to shake us off.
How civilized will these people be when they are hit by power outages, lack of shelter and food and water shortage.
Seriously, they will have more to worry about than how bad their sports team of choice is doing.
Which reminds me, playing sports under floodlights is a monstrous waste of resources and I shudder when I think of the carbon footprint of the current Olympic games with its heavy and litigious corporate sponsorship. The Olympics in its current form is a travesty of the original idea. Just as top flight football is where the one-time amateur sport intended for relief of the working poor has morphed into a huge casino and money laundering venture.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/16/525251/glacial-change-aint-…
I'll spare Betula from reading it by providing the only words that would matter to him if he did: "they do not have hard proof".
And more for 'The Goon Collective' to consider.
An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future and note this WRT the much unfairly and ignorantly maligned IPCC:
And adaptation inhibiting events such as Low Water Levels On The Mississippi River A Major Threat To Commerce: ‘This Is Absolutely Not Normal’ will become legion. You bozos of The Goon Collective need an intelligence infusion and quick.
"How civilized will these people be when they are hit by power outages, lack of shelter and food and water shortage."
They'll blame government, lefties and scientists for those.
Here is the statement by the IAC after the IPCC's responses to its report:
"On behalf of the InterAcademy Council and the IAC committee that authored the report reviewing the processes and procedures of the IPCC, we are pleased that so many of our report’s recommendations were adopted today by the IPCC in Abu Dhabi. We are grateful to the U.N. and IPCC for seeking an independent review by the IAC and for acting on our report. We hope our report will continue to inform management of the IPCC as it carries out its Fifth Assessment Report on climate change science.”
That was more than a year ago.
God those denialists are dumb.
hahaha, birdbrain et al brought out their biggest spud guns to try to shoot that report down, lol and chris brought his water pistol, how sweet :)
You people really need to see the shenanigans that have gone on with the IPCC's reports, at some point you will all have to concede to the fact that you all have been had.
Here is the link to the Conclusions, it really is a highly damning report on the IPCC.
Climate Change Assessments, Review of the Processes & Procedures of the IPCC
Chapter 5: Conclusions
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Chapter%205%20-%20Conc…
Here is couple of interesting tidbits
New Paper “Weather And Climate Analyses Using Improved Global Water Vapor Observations” By Vonder Haar Et Al 2012
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/new-paper-weather-and-…
New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homgenization
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/17/new-paper-blames-about-half-of-gl…
Wow; in all honesty, this dreck and the rabble that has coasted along with them will blame scientists - and environmentalists - for not being the kind of people they'd wanted to believe. Seriously. The thing about barely evolved, perennially irresponsible idiots is that they are just that: nothing ever is their fault.
Also, Geniuses, here's some more for you on the state of the Mississippi at the moment.
And that's just the human impact: the thought of all the truly beautiful, intricate, and actually worthwhile, things we're going to lose because of the likes of you truly makes my blood boil.
In case I'm not making myself clear I'll say it plainly. You are absolutely contemptible. Yes, you. Snigger all you like, but the sad fact of your miserable existences is that the world would be a considerably better place had you never been born.
I see that some of you seem to think that a little bit of an over average temperature can melt through hundreds of metre's of ice ?
How do you work that out ?
If a big chunk of ice is going go snap off it needs a bit bit of a shove.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/last_event/world/worl…
sheeeze, one tracked minds. lol
"the world would be a considerably better place had you never been born."
And this is why so many of them are rabid godbotherers. This gives them "meaning" when they have voluntarily squandered meaning in the only life they know they have.
silly billy, nobody I know disputes the the fact that there are many environmental problems that need to be addressed, the problem at this moment in time is that all those problems are being ignored because all of the attention is being focused on a phantom problem, CO2
You can blame yourself for that!
Wow
11:17 am
“How civilized will these people be when they are hit by power outages, lack of shelter and food and water shortage.”
They’ll blame government, lefties and scientists for those."
Yep, that's right wow, we will blame them.
We now have a CO2 tax in Australia and will be paying, what, 400 or 500% more per ton of carbon that any other country on the planet, it is pure extortion to pay for a phantom problem.
Karen says that when people have power outages, lack of shelter and food and water...they'll blame the carbon tax.
Idiot.
"and will be paying, what, 400 or 500% more per ton of carbon that any other country on the planet"
So what?
a) if there's zero paid elsewhere, then you'd pay infinity% more even if you paid 1c per Gt.
Please show your model that shows that the price paid per carbon ton will cause blackouts.
Thanking you in advance.
If a big chunk of ice is going go snap off it needs a bit bit of a shove.
Really, Kaz? Then can you tell us what "bit of a shove" caused 20 billion tons of ice to calve of the Petermann glacier on Sunday - one of the biggest ice islands ever calved in the Arctic? I searched the USGS to see if there was a more recent earthquake than in your link - there wasn't.
So what "shove" do you mean?
Personally I think the fact that this area has been warming at a rate of 0.11 degrees C per year for the last 25 years might be enough on its own.
KrakenTwerp
Ah! Watts playing with himself again.
Playing with data station numbers does not get away from the facts of accelerating ice melt at the poles and glaciers worldwide, obviously rising sea levels, disruption of the hydrological cycle, accelerating inter-species dislocation and thus extinctions and many other happening in plain sight for those with half an intelligence quotient.
Watts is as bad as those who go round removing the batteries from smoke detectors because they don't like the noise. In other words, Watts (and all the others playing the misdirection game of whom Pielke is another and so is Curry and Lindzen, Nova and Bolt, Monckton and Ball - they are all thoughtless clowns) is being at the best irresponsible and at the worst culpable, I have long since decided that he is not simply deluded.
And no, we do not ignore the many other problems facing humankind such as pollution. All this can be brought under control by the same changes in the business model (actually chucking out the current one and starting all over would not be a bad idea) that would assist with reigning in CO2 and other GHG emissions.
We are not like you, myopic and blinkered and only able to see black and white, one thing at a time.
I wanted to believe.
I tried to believe.
You all sounded so, so, convincing - and convinced.
But now:
"[N]ew peer reviewed paper recently presented at the European Geosciences Union meeting.
Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors into account find global warming over the past century was only about one-half [0.42°C] of that claimed by the IPCC [0.7-0.8°C]."
Oh, and it's peer reviewed - for what's that worth!
So, you are all very, very, naughty boys! Now, pass me my gloves and scarf!
Isn't that
a) more than you've said is happening
b) impossible because there's no way of measuring global temperature
c) not yet proven right
?
You're awfully easy to brainwash with a paper if it says something like you want it to say.
"Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors into account ..."
Isn't that manipulating data, you morons?
http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1212/
"Homogenization is necessary to remove errors introduced in climatic time series."
Come on Duff, homogenization is a necessary first step to imposing world socialist government. That's the official line isn't it?
"homogenization is a necessary first step to imposing world socialist government"
Direct quote from the communist party manifesto if I'm not mistaken. More usually applied in reference to the elimination of the bourgeoisie, than climate data though I would have thought. Both a means to an end though.
Nelson links this:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/16/525251/glacial-change-aint-…
With this comment...
"I’ll spare Betula from reading it by providing the only words that would matter to him if he did: “they do not have hard proof”."
I'll do better than that Nelson, the title of your link is "Glacial Change Ain't What It Used To Be". The comment "they do not have hard proof that is what happened in this case." is from a Dr. Box in a linked New York Times Article...
If you read the article, there is this statement that goes with it...."Dr. Box told me that the detachment of this ice shelf appears to be the largest such event for Greenland in the historical record. It is not the largest to have happened in the Arctic, however — an ice-shelf detachment along the northern rim of a Canadian Arctic island in 1962 was bigger"
That goes against the hyped title, which needs to be changed to..... "Glacial Change Ain't What It Used To Be.....Except For 1962."
@Betula,
Who's Nelson?
So, just to be cleat, karen has -no idea- about why her prediction about the carbon tax will come true.
No mosel, no causation, no science.
Just a beleif it will happen .in the future-
That's called a guess, karen.
Oh, there's no question that there are no limits to your stupidity and intellectual dishonesty.
So GSW agrees the paper wuwt is peddling is from the bureau of centre of bureaucracy for the new world order.
Why is wuwt peddling it, then?
It would be a first if you weren't ... but no, no news here.
GSW...
"Who’s Nelson?"
It varies, but Nelson always seems to know who he is....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIrhVo1WA78
Info for Frank
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_cxa1_p.html
Frank you can also download a KML file for google earth from here http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/epic/epic_global.php and that will also show you the other recent seismic activity near Greenland.
I note that there are a few commenter's above, that for some misguided reason, seem to think that the new paper "Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization" was written by Mr Watts ?
I'll straighten that out for you good people, Mr Watts only reported on the paper :)
"We investigate the methods used for the adjustment of inhomogeneities of temperature time series covering the last 100 years. Based on a systematic study of scientific literature, we classify and evaluate the observed inhomogeneities in historical and modern time series, as well as their adjustment methods. It turns out that these methods are mainly statistical, not well justified by experiments and are rarely supported by metadata. In many of the cases studied the proposed corrections are not even statistically significant.
From the global database GHCN-Monthly Version 2, we examine all stations containing both raw and adjusted data that satisfy certain criteria of continuity and distribution over the globe. In the United States of America, because of the large number of available stations, stations were chosen after a suitable sampling. In total we analyzed 181 stations globally. For these stations we calculated the differences between the adjusted and non-adjusted linear 100-year trends. It was found that in the two thirds of the cases, the homogenization procedure increased the positive or decreased the negative temperature trends.
One of the most common homogenization methods, ‘SNHT for single shifts’, was applied to synthetic time series with selected statistical characteristics, occasionally with offsets. The method was satisfactory when applied to independent data normally distributed, but not in data with long-term persistence.
The above results cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4°C and 0.7°C, where these two values are the estimates derived from raw and adjusted data, respectively.
http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1212/"
see also the Presentation http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1212/1/documents/2012EGU_homogenization_1.p…
and here is the Abstract http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1212/2/documents/EGU2012-956-1.pdf
Here is another peer reviewed paper that states that "THE TEMPERATURE WAS 1 deg C HIGHER THAN NOW IN THE PAST"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018212003926
Without the benefit of seasonal resolution, SST averaged from shell time series would be weighted toward the fast-growing summer season, resulting in the conclusion,
quoted out-of-context by a brain-dead denialist:
that the early MCA was warmer than the late 20th century by ~ 1 °C.
The context continues:
This conclusion is broadly true for the summer season, BUT NOT TRUE FOR THE WINTER SEASON.
(emphasis mine) It earlier stated:
"The coldest winter months recorded in the shells averaged 6.0 ± 0.6 °C and the warmest summer months averaged 14.1 ± 0.7 °C. Winter and summer SST during the late 20th century (1961–1990) was 7.77 ± 0.40 °C and 12.42 ± 0.41 °C, respectively."
Is it a law of nature that you have to be dumb to deny climate science? There's plenty of evidence for it.
Exactly what a gullible non-skeptic would say.
I don't recall seeing any - but then, your comprehensions skills are famously lacking.
Hint: "peddling" != "was written by".
And I'm betting, based on copious Karen/Mack/Sunspot/... history that there are even more serious miscomprehensions in your "understanding" of the paper itself.
Like the SST paper you just cited...whose abstract indicates that it relates to two spots on one 12km long island, a fact that you conveniently omitted when you trumpeted "THE TEMPERATURE WAS 1 deg C HIGHER THAN NOW IN THE PAST”.
Funny, Sunspot used to do that all the time on Sunspot's eponymous thread - cherrypick specific local results and imply they were global. (And then deny or completely ignore the fact that a warmer past than previously thought would suggest that climate sensitivity is higher than previously thought. Why, it was almost like (s)he didn't understand (s)he was posting material that undermined his/her own argument.)
Coincidence?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Oh, and Sunspot also used to tout new papers that supported his position...even when they go against a whole load of evidence, and specifically before post-publication peer review kicks in.
Guess what happened to pretty much all of them?
And guess how many of the subsequent demolishments Sunspot picked? And what does that tell you about Sunspot's ability to select gold from dross?
Speaking of Karen's recent cite: oh, wait, lookee here! Some initial brief (and actual) skepticism.
Hmmm...what do you reckon the long term prospects are for the headline claims as interpreted by Watts via Karen?
Heck, given he immediately takes on a model without any access to "the raw data" and the entire email logs of the people writing the paper indicates that his avowed quest to uncoverany possible perfidity in science a sham.
Duffer WRT 'Steirou and Koutsoyiannis...'
You should know that you are on a losing argument when Watts is once again dissected by Tamino.Where’s the Skepticism?
And I like Doug Bostrom's remark, 'How many denskepticons does it take to secure a coffin lid, anyway?'
Denskepticons - nice one, fits you to a T Duffer et. al.
Karen's cherry-pick of one proxy in the North Atlantic is in good agreement with Mann et al. 2009.
Oops!
Info for Karen,
A small tremor 1000 km's away is your smoking gun for why 20 billion tons of ice broke off the Petermann Glacier?
Fuck me, you are beyond desperate. That's lame even by your pathetically low standards...
Norfolk police close 'climategate' investigation; they conclude it was a sophisticated external attack and not a leak, but have been unable to ascertain the identity of the perpetrators.
Note that the break-off point has been visible for eight years.
Actually, it's par for the course.
"A small tremor 1000 km’s away is your smoking gun for why 20 billion tons of ice broke off the Petermann Glacier?"
Where did you get "A small tremor 1000 km’s away" from ?
Between April and June there has been 7 earthquakes just north of Greenland, average distance is about 650klms, and to the east of Greenland there has been 13 in roughly the same time period, one of which was a 6.1
So did the little bit of above average temperature in the area melt through 1000's of mtrs of ice ? You would need medication if you thought that!
Or more likely, vibrations from the nearby earthquakes !
I'm sorry that the earthquakes don't fit the narrative, but narrative's are only story's and fiction's not science.
Karen, if the temperature of an ice block rise 1 single degree from 0C will it melt?
Just one example of the densely wrong in the post you made.
One "Sabretruthtiger" appears to be working their way through ooooooold Monckton threads cutting and pasting a bunch of denialist talking points.
I can't rule out that it is Monckton himself ;-)
Wow 8.02 am.
Just look at what you have written there wow. You are just simply equating the melting of iceblock in the classroom to what we are talking about here in reality... the calving off of a large section of glacial ice. Can you see the distinction. Can you realise that one is what you think and the other is what is happening in reality? To put it more simply is it "melting" or breaking off. Hypothetical or real?
Yes, I was using exactly the same argument you as Karen were using.
As karen, remember, you were saying that not only would it ALL have had to melt for warming to be the cause, but that it is impossible to have a phase change with temperature only rising a little.
No, sorry Wow I'm separate from Karen. Inconveniently.
“While the size is not as spectacular as it was in 2010, the fact that it follows so closely to the 2010 event brings the glacier’s terminus to a location where it has not been for at least 150 years,” Muenchow says."
http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2013/jul/glacier-071612.html
So........now the Peterman Glacier is as short as it was 150 years ago.
Damned earthquakes :)
So it was shorter before then, karen.
Proof of global warming.
Mackmuffin
You clearly have no idea of the dynamics of glaciers and what happens when glacial tongues meet water.
As that water, lacking sea ice cover, warms faster then where it meets the seaward end of a glacial tongue the underside melts and the over-ice tends to accelerate seaward causing a stress fracture somewhere upstream. There is a little more to this process but I will leave that for you as a homework exercise.
KrakenKnutt
Now let us see a bit more from that article, I have emphasised to aid your comprehension (if such a thing is possible), I'll include the bit you quoted:
You really are stupid ain't you to think we would leave it at your cherry picked quote.
Oh Lionel that wasn't a cherry picked quote!!
It was a highlighted quote, what he is saying is that it is as "short as it was 150 years ago,"
But what he didn't tell you is that it was probably shorter 200 years ago and 1000 years ago the Vikings grazed their cattle where the glacier now resides.
That means that the glacier grew during the little ice age and we have warming up a bit since then.
So whats the drama man ?
did you know this ?
Glacial earthquakes are earthquakes as large as magnitude 5.1 that occur in glaciated areas where the glacier moves faster than one kilometer per year.
The number of glacial earthquakes in Greenland shows a peak every year in July, August and September, and the number is increasing over time. In a study using data from January 1993 through October 2005, more events were detected every year since 2002, and twice as many events were recorded in 2005 as there were in any other year. This increase in the numbers of glacial earthquakes in Greenland may be a response to global warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_earthquake
Note: I left the "global warming" prerequisite that must be added unconditionally to anything written about the weather.
I did that just to please you Lionel, :)
Yes KrakenKnutt.
I have heard of isostatic rebound.
Now if you don't get 'the drama' from these events, and those associated all over the globe, you really are as 'thick as two short planks', or mendacious - take your pick.
Oh what a tangled web we weave...
My last was in response to:
lol, mendacious is much closer aligned with Lyen nel.
Now tell me Lyen nel do you think that glacial earthquakes are a new feature of the global warming phenomenon ?
Lyen nel I think you should educate yourself on glaciers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier#Motion
and.................
The implications of the current climate change on ice sheets are difficult to constrain. It is clear that increasing temperatures are resulting in reduced ice volumes globally.[11] (Due to increased precipitation, the mass of parts of the Antarctic ice sheet may currently be increasing, but the total mass balance is unclear.[11])
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_sheet_dynamics
No mention of CO2 there Lyen nel :)
And articles discussing automobile performance metrics generally don't mention fluid dynamics or basic combustion chemistry either.
Perhaps you thought you actually had a point?
@ Karen: What he is saying is that it is as “short as it was 150 years ago,”
Seriously Karen, you need help. Where does he say that? Do you not know the difference between "greater than" and "equals"? No wonder you need you special "Svalbard maths" to claim that Arctic Sea Ice is healthy. You know, the maths where -1 + -1 = 0...
Here's a picture that might help you with your innumeracy: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
Half a million square kilometers below the old record, and accelerating away...
I'll raise you the antarctic frank
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.h…
Alarmist's will be remembered for their environment vandalism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/17/us-geoengineers-spray…
Absolute lunacy.
That's not a raise. It's a transparent bluff.
It's also a complete non-understanding of physics.
USKMSPMM is one of those old raincoat-wearing nutjobs who hides behind bushes and jumps out to expose his inadequacies to the world, thinking that he actually has something worth showing off, and that rational people want to know about.
He's wrong on both counts.
KrakenKnutt
Well over to you for education sunshine
Note this well:
Now what was I saying about glacier dynamics?
PS. I bet you have not yet twigged the meaning under that Knutt tag.
PZ Myers' minions (including a bunch of Aussies) piss off Andrew Bolt by stymieing his own online poll-influencing attempt.
And didn't Bolt spit the dummy?
The shame is, that no matter how anything goes, he'll twist it to his advantage, and sway the zombies his way.
Too many Australians really are that Stupid.
I find it most amusing that some in here are happy that Gillard wasn't asked,
"By how much, measured in degrees Celsius, will the earths temperature be
reduced through the carbon tax ?"
That is very telling and most defiantly demonstrates that you don't believe the CO2 fairytale yourselves, if you did then you all would have voted for her to be asked that question.
This should be remembered as CLIMATE QUESTIONGATE
Lionel A
July 19, 3:47 pm
Did you notice that the two MODIS-Aqua image's at your link clearly demonstrate that the Petermann Glacier now has much more ice now than it did in 2010.
Figure that Lionel, another glacier gaining more mass, thanks :)
Did you now that warming doesn't just mean "above the freezing point of water"?
Short-sighted literally as well as figuratively, or maybe so dumb as to confuse sea ice and an ice island for a glacier.
I was perusing the Norfolk Constabulary webpage announcing the closure of the investigation of the theft of CRU emails. It includes a list of all the FOI requests received:
http://www.norfolk.police.uk/newsevents/newsstories/2012/july/ueadatabr…
The most nutty ones were the requests:
and
Lordy your research is........shallow !
Dear ‘Member of the public’
Freedom of Information Request Reference No
: FOI 192/10/11
I write in connection with your request for information received by the Norfolk Constabulary on the
18th
of July 2010, in which you sought access to the following information:
1. The number of copies of the book The Hockey Stick Illusion, by A.W. Montford (2010), held
by the Constabulary.
2. The number of copies of the book The Hockey Stick Illusion, by A.W. Montford (2010), that
have been charged to the Constabulary's cost code that is allocated for investigating the e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia.
Extent of Searches to Locate Information:
To locate the information relevant to your request, searches were conducted within the Protective
Services Department of the Norfolk Constabulary. A brief description of the work undertaken by
the Protective Services Department is published on our website via the following web-link:
http://www.norfolk.police.uk/aboutus/ourorganisation.aspx
This response will be published on the Norfolk Constabulary’s web-site.
Result of the Searches to Locate Information Relevant to your Request.
In responding to your request; and in accordance with Section 1(1)(a) and Section 1(1)(b) of the
Freedom of Information Act; I can advise that the Norfolk Constabulary does not hold any copies of
the publication referenced in your request. I can also confirm that no recorded expenditure relating
to the purchase of this publication is held in association with the Constabulary’s financial costs
codes concerning the investigation of the publication of emails belonging to members of the
University of East Anglia.
Thanks for bring all those files to my attention Lordy :)
Check this out.........
Freedom of Information Request Reference No
: FOI 69/12/13
I write in connection with your request for information received by the Norfolk Constabulary on the
14th
May 2012 in which you sought access to the following information:
Please provide a breakdown per month, the number of:
A threats to life
B threats of bodily harm
which were reported to Norfolk Constabulary by members of the University of East Anglia
Climatic Research Unit in the period 1st November 2009 to 30th April 2012, inclusive.
Response to your Request
Norfolk Constabulary were made aware of emails that had been received by a member of the staff
at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. No specific complaint or report was made
to the Constabulary and no crimes were recorded detailing threats to life or threats of bodily harm.
This response will be published on the Norfolk Constabulary’s web-site www.norfolk.police.uk
under the Freedom of Information pages at Publication Scheme - Disclosure Logs.
Should you have any further queries concerning this request, please contact me quoting the
reference number shown above.
Are you trying to distract from your latest Petermann Glacier blunder Karen?
And this consoles you?
It's very simple Lordy,
Here is August 2010
http://icyseas.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/petermann2010.png
and here is July 2012
http://icyseas.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/petermann20121.png
The reason that I pointed out large accumulation of ice build up on the Petermann Glacier is that you lot are blaming CO2 for the bit that broke off ?
Now here we have pictorial evidence that the glacier calved naturally, and it did this because it is not melting but growing.
Contrary to Alarmist cultural belief, hot weather does not make ice.
From Icyseas:
From selected imagery, I created a short movie (0.7 MB) which shows (a) the 2010 calving, (b) the advance of the new front in 2011 and early 2012, and (c) the 2012 calving. The glacier has moved at a rate of about 1 km per year (Higgins, 1991) or about 6 miles per decade. After the removal of the 2010 4-Manhattans it increased its speed by about 10-20%, noticeable, but not dramatic. Then, yesterday, a second ice island formed along a large lateral crack that Mauri Pelto described in 2008 and updated in 2011. He correctly predicted the loss of a 150 km^2 sized ice island as a result of that crack. This is exactly what we got yesterday: an ice island forming at precisely this crack which has moved seaward at a rate of 1.0-1.3 km per year for at least the last 6 years.
Using the land masses in the 2 images as a reference point, or maybe the point marked as 81 degrees, any normal human being can see the glacier has retreated.
Maybe side-by-side images from a right-wing media source will help Karen overcome his difficulty with reality:
http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/greenland-glacier-i…
Wow, it is clearly a waste of time arguing with a numbskull, or mendacious git, who always sees black as white and up as down and thinks 2+2 = 5.
Except for the fact that invisible visitors here can see where the duplicity is. So keep up the good work of undermining your credibility (if that is possible with a zero balance to begin with) KrakenKnutt. Hint; Windham and a king - got it yet?
Er, no on multiple counts.
And I'm quite sure you won't be able to work out where your "logic" is wrong. Feel free to try - the entirely novel experience will be good for you.
Lionel, recently Karen has made a number of gaffes and at least had the decency to try to quickly change the subject, which is a close to an admission as a denier can get.
But this thread has me laughing and gaping at the same time. It's like watching
homer simpson play blackjack...
Karen can't even compare two pictures accurately, let alone parse a simple paragraph written in the plainest english. I mean when you correct someone on 2+2 = 5, and their response is "see, I told you it equalled 3!", there really is nowhere to go...I kind of admire that chutzpah, though at the same time I fear for her sanity...
Mauri Pelto predicted Petermann would spit out this ice island this year, but even he was surprised that it went as early as mid-July. He was not expecting it to calve before mid-August. Not ridiculous handwaving about earthquakes, just extraordinary sea temperatures (select the "anomalies" parameter for the full effect...)
(fingers crossed on the link formats working...)
It's nothing to do with their sanity, it's to do with their blind faith in a dogma Frank.
ANYTHING done to stop those REALLY BAD PEOPLE the libertarians, the left, and enviornmentalists is not only acceptable but mandatory.
BTW, a far better question for Gillard on the carbon tax impact would have been something like:
If we want to have a good chance of avoiding dangerous levels of climate change, especially in the light of recent research showing dangerous changes start happening at 1 C rise rather than 2 C, what is the incremental cost of each year of delaying strong action to dramatically reduce our emissions?
A followup could have asked if the Gillard government accepts the IAEA figures (something like $500 billion/year of delay across the globe), and if so, what part of that sum is attributable to Australian inaction?
And that could have led into some really good questions on whether the carbon tax leading to a trading scheme is doing enough, soon enough to meet the goal of avoiding dangerous climate change.
But questions like that would probably demonstrate acceptance of the scientific research in such a strong fashion that Karen's head would explode ;-)
One to watch out for, David Rose of Rosegate fame is apparently doing another hatchet job for the Fail on Sunday this weekend. Expect smears, inneuendo, and some very bad science (h/t Bob Ward).
That should read "innuendo" of course.
Watts went back on his latest "final nail in the coffin" awfully fast. If you look he's removed the references to Muller and BEST.
How embarrassing for him. But its ok Watts, you may forget but I'll be here to remind you.
Good one Frank, hahaha
Your trying to convince yourself that a chunk of ice broke off because the sea surface temperature is ZERO Deg CELCIUS,
Get real Frank, hehehe, also put the time scale back to 30 days you fool, your looking at a change in weather
Double ROFL with a triple somersault hahaha
I see up there Lotty is trying to sell nuclear energy !!!!
I might add that Frank was implying that you all would be tooooo dumb to work out that he was just trying to hype the fear by getting you all to view an anomaly chart !
Why didn't he add, "the ocean temperature is at or below 0 deg C and Greenland is currently in the middle of summer???
If you're rambling is meant to refer to my latest comment, then - as per usual - you are wrong, and using your wrongness to avoid the point.
But I don't have to point that out to anyone who's paid attention to your modus operandi.
Karen is obviously unaware that anomalies are not "hype" but are used to determine departures from normal conditions. The fact that it is 4 degrees above normal in Baffin Bay at the moment is the whole point - "warming" is relative to normal. And that extra heat is enought to double the amount of ice that gets melted. I'd say its a lot more relevant than your ludicrous reaching about earthquakes far away in time and space.
All that warm water that is flowing north into Baffin Bay elevating the temperature 4 degrees above normal, where's that heat going then? Do we think in this area that water temperatures be higher on the surface or 100 m down (ie, around the base of the Peterman Glacier)? Karen seems to labour under the delusion that if its zero at the ice margin it must be zero all the way down...
As Tristan says, it's a sad indictment of Australian politics:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1518#82560
KrakenKnutt (got the Wynd-up yet?)
So you didn't comprehend the importance of this bit of information in my earlier post then:
Hahaha
Hehehe
Kraken nests in a rhubarb tree.
Adapted from a childhood ditty which is about your level.
For 'The Kraken' a couple of timely articles on the effect of GHG induced warming and its effect from ice melt
Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise
Sea Level Rise: It Could Be Worse Than We Think
not that the he/she will understand.
We wish you were right Kraken but that would be like wishing Santa was real.
It seldom fails....
Lionel's link..."Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise" was a presentation of "The Yale Forum On Climate Change And The Media."
The Editor of "The Yale Forum On Climate Change And The Media" happens to be Bud Ward, who in 2007/2008 was "an adviser for the United Nations Development Program's Human Development Report, Climate Change and Human Development"
http://www.davidgibbons.org/id312.html
The "The Yale Forum On Climate Change And The Media" is an initiative of the "Yale Project on Climate Change Communication" directed by Dr. Anthony Leiserowitz
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/aboutus/
It just so happens, Anthony Leiserowitz is also a consultant to the United Nations Development Program.
http://environment.yale.edu/profile/leiserowitz/
Yes, both are advisors to The United Nations Development Programme. Coincidence? Hmm...
And what are UNDP's main goals?
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home.html
And how do they plan on financing the MDG's? Only 2 1/2 years to go....
Hey, it's just an idea, but how about diverting the merest fraction of the massive fossil fuel funded revenue streams currently spent on devising conspiracy theories for f*ckwits of every description?
Betty of course knows where the funding is proposed to come from, but he'd lose his cred with the other moronos if they knew that they - just like he - could use the internets to 'look it up'.
Batty performs the Reactionary Paranoid Hysteric's take on 6 Degrees of Separation...
They really can read your mind, you know. It's not like there's much there to challenge them...
Tim.
Is there any particular reason why the "Recent Comments" list alternates between current comments and the 27th June comment
"ianam on Tim Curtin’s incompetence with basic statistics"
Is this a NG feature or a bug?
Methinks it is even more ludicrous than that. As Betula helpfully points out:
And Betula appears to be expressing paranoia that climate change is going to be used to "finance the MDG's [sic]".
Anyone who (a) has contemplated for more than half a second what it would take to achieve those goals and how long it would take, and (b) has contemplated for more than half a second the maximum velocity of (i) the U.N. and (ii) individual governments passing legislation to implement U.N. resolutions, especially those that divert funds to other countries, and (c) has contemplated for more than half a second the maximum velocity of globally coordinated responses to climate change itself...
...would know there's not a snowball's chance in hell of any significant new funding being turned on in the next "2 1/2 years".
But it is handy that Betula keeps demonstrating Betula's funding fears are unrealistic, and further demonstrating that Betula hasn't got any actual case against mainstream climate science.
Betula shrills:
The are scandalous! From his link:
It begs to be asked - why does Betula hate democracy and self determination?
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.
;-)
MikeH I believe it is a feature. Only if you never clear out the cookies to you get a consistent list from this site.
You need to post to see the site correctly so it sets a cookie.
Thanks Wow. That makes sense (the explanation not the feature). I regularly clear out cookies so it explains why my view suddenly reverts to 26th June.
The deniers have gained a valuable ally in their noble quest - a group of valiant patriots named "Australians Against Chemtrails" have finally broken their silence about the SCAM.
Loth...
" there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of any significant new funding being turned on in the next “2 1/2 years”
So Loth, you're saying there's a good chance.....
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123671588
And even though you're dull, you still have a point....
Even though "progress, including on poverty eradication, is being made despite setbacks, including setbacks caused by the financial and economic crisis"...there is still a "deep concern that it falls far short of what is needed."
But not to fear Lothy! ....."We are convinced that the Millennium Development Goals can be achieved,
including in the poorest countries, with renewed commitment, effective implementation and intensified collective action by all Member States and other
relevant stakeholders at both the domestic and international levels, using national development strategies and appropriate policies and approaches that have proved to be effective" and looking at “innovative financing mechanisms”
Of course, "Addressing climate change will be of key importance in safeguarding and advancing progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals."
http://www.un.org/en/mdg/summit2010/pdf/Draft%20outcome%20document.pdf
But Loth, what kind of conspiratorial redistribution of wealth "innovative financing mechanisms" could they be talking about?.....
"The United Nations on Thursday proposed an international tax, combined with other innovative financing mechanisms, to raise more than 400 billion U. S. dollars annually for development and global challenges such as fighting climate change"
"The report found the necessary resources to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, a set of eight anti-poverty targets to be reached by its deadline 205, and meet other global challenges, such as addressing climate change, will be tough."
"We are suggesting various ways to tap resources through international mechanisms, such as coordinated taxes on carbon emissions, air traffic, and financial and currency transactions"
"other options could be explored but would require further technical elaboration, such as a billionaire's tax, which would consist of a small tax of, say, one percent on individual wealth holdings of 1 billion U.S. dollars or more with the revenues destined to finance internationally agreed global development purposes "
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-07/06/c_123377152.htm
Lothy, it looks like the entire U.N. is wearing tinfoil caps...what gives?
.
Mmhmmm. Betty, do you know that "proposed" is not the same as "implemented"?
$400 billion per year is about $1/week from everybody on the planet. Say 15 US cents a day.
Try to keep a sense of proportion old chap.
I'll never doubt you again!
You have been promising me global warming for years now and all that I know for a definite fact is that I haven't had my BBQ out of the garage for the last three years. But, today, hoorah! The sun shone, the temperature went up, not much but enough, and my rusted-up BBQ was hauled out for operations.
So, 'I believe, I believe', er, despite the unfortunate fact that others seem to be falling by the wayside given the huge drop in the numbers of people Goggling the term 'global warming':
http://tomnelson.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/google-trends-in-us-some-warm-w…
Splitters, all of them!
But Duff, the heatwave in the US is proof it is warming!
Llionel A.....
I was just checking out your link....
http://www.skepticalscience.com/yes-virginia-there-is-sea-level-rise.ht…
I have a few questions....
Since sea level rise appear to effect the east coast of the United States (particularly the Norfolk region) the hardest, when do you think they will be recieving aid from the UNDP?
There was one interesting character in this video...Eli Lehrer from the " R Street Institute" who, when referring to the shorelines of the east coast, said " There is absolutely no reason the government should subsidize people to live in dangerous places"
Lionel, does this include Bangladesh?
Wow...
Do you know that "probable" isn't the same as "actual"?
Er, no. I clearly was not.
And your quotes don't support your claims either.
Are you really that poor at comprehension? (That would explain a lot.) Or are you stupid? Or are you deliberately misrepresenting other people's words because you can't "make" your case without doing so?
Inquiring minds want to know.
So, ‘I believe, I believe’, er, despite the unfortunate fact that others seem to be falling by the wayside given the huge drop in the numbers of people Goggling the term ‘global warming’:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/google-trends-in-us-some-warm-w…
Are you sure that it's the absolute number? According to Google the figures shown on Insights is relative to the total number of searches. Perhaps you could find out the source used by your link? Or don't you want to know?
Myself, for instance, who can't recall ever goggling 'global warming', or even googling it for that matter.
What a splitter I am.
Batty Bet drops another turd:
Clearly within the context of what Eli Lehrer said then No!
Lehrer was pointing out that rich celeb's and members of the one percent should not expect help from the public purse if their expensive properties built on coasts subject to a combination resulting in large sea rise are threatened. I particularly liked his throw away line about these people receiving the bill for cost of rescue.
People in Bangladesh didn't have much of a choice. But then if you had bothered to use GeoMapApp as suggested elsewhere you would understand why.
But then knowledge of the world, i.e. context, is never your strong suit is it.
Those damn scientists are trying to prevent us from saving the Polar Bears...
http://www.examiner.com/article/scientific-study-proves-energy-efficien…
Well, Batty is certainly Goggled....
Another blatant false paraphrase from Betula. Whodathunkit?
And this one ties in to the strange US climate denialist fetish for incandescent bulbs. Note that this report only contrasts UV from incandescent bulbs and CFLs. It does not compare other lighting technologies, nor actual daylight levels - anyone want to bet that daylight levels are not much much higher?
This report on the study does at least mention a European study that found that being a mere 20cm away from the bulb meets safety standards for prolonged exposure - and that a simple layer of glass, as found in many light fittings, will nullify the UV risk.
And how, pray tell, does sitting further from CFLs than 20 cm harm polar bears? Enquiring minds want to know.
Presumably, that drop would include 'sceptics' googling to find out what the most recent 'final nail in the AGW coffin' might be. No surprise they lose interest when every final nail turns into another denier dud.
Turby..
"400 billion per year is about $1/week from everybody on the planet. Say 15 US cents a day. Try to keep a sense of proportion old chap."
So the U.N.plans on taking $1 a week from everyone on the planet...regardless of age, income and nationality? Wow, that really does give it in a different perspective. How do they plan on implementing this Turbo?
"And how, pray tell, does sitting further from CFLs than 20 cm harm polar bears? Enquiring minds want to know."
Jeez Chris, are you really that uniformed? If scientists find CFL's to be harmful, more people will stick with incandescent bulbs that use more energy and fossil fuels. This will cause the ice caps to melt, resulting in the demise of the Polar Bear habitat and eventually the Polar Bears themselves...
It appears the scientists are purposely out to get the Polar Bears...they're Polar Bear deniers...this is their war on Polar Bears.....c'mon Chris, I can't be helping you all the time, get with the program!
Nope.
Try reading it again.
Nope.
(It appears you're determined to prove you're a twit - or maybe just consistently wrong.)
Lothy...
"Try reading it again"
Oh, right, sorry...
So the U.N.plans on taking 15 U.S. cents a day from everyone on the planet…regardless of age, income and nationality? Wow, that really does give it in a different perspective. How do they plan on implementing this Turbo?
For Betty re: redistribution of wealth
" All the Property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it." --Benjamin Franklin
Was Franklin a commie?
Never mind Franklin - to the modern, pundit-fed rightista-about-town, Nixon was a raving commie Socialist.
More for Betty. De facto re-distribution of wealth in the US under small government/anti-tax regime:
As reported by the IRS:
--------------------1986-------1999
Top 1%----------11.30------19.51
Top 5%----------24.11------34.04
Top 10%--------35.12------44.89
Top 25%--------59.04------66.46
Top 50%--------83.34------86.75
Bottom 99%---88.70------80.49
Bottom 95%---75.89------65.96
Bottom 90%---64.88------55.11
Bottom 75%---40.96------33.54
Bottom 50%---16.66------13.25
Tu quoque fallacy (basically an admission to Wow's criticism), strawman fallacy, and general stupidity ... one refrains from jumping off a cliff because of the probability of injury, not the "actuality".
This, like everything from Betula, is chock full of stupid. Of course no one said that the U.N. has any such plan, and it is Betula who is raving about the MDG being "implemented" in 2.5 years. And even if the U.N. were well along in its nefarious scheme to transfer the massive accumulated property of arborists to the world's undeserving starving children, this would have no bearing on the facts about sea level rise. Betula appears to have no inkling of how clearly his fallacy-filled "It seldom fails…." post demonstrates what an intellectually dishonest imbecile he is, but it is clear to everyone else.
@luminous beauty
Mark Rosenfelder FTW.
Lumy....
I take it your Benjamin Frankiln quote is meant to justify the redistribution of wealth from rich nations to poor nations. So you agree that using climate change as a tool to redistribute that wealth is justified ....correct?
And why we are on the subject of Ben Franklin:
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin
“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” — Benjamin Franklin
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.” — Benjamin Franklin
How about Thomas Jefferson...
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” — Thomas Jefferson
And Abraham Lincoln...
"That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and, hence, is just encouragement to industry and enterprise."
Abraham Lincoln
And then there's this....
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/ben_franklin_skewers_obamas_jobs…
"In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty".
Nelson...
"Of course no one said that the U.N. has any such plan, and it is Betula who is raving about the MDG being “implemented” in 2.5 years"
The "plan" as stated by the U.N., is to extract 400 billion from "wealthy" nations. It was Turbo who compared it to the equivalent. of 15 U.S. Cents a day from everyone on earth....
The comparison was meant to show the insignificance of that kind of money. Insignificant if shared equally by everyone on earth, which of course it won't be, making Turbo's comparison insignificant.
Thanks Nelson, for pointing out. the insignificance of Turbos comment.
Of course, we all know, based on the U.N's own words, where,how and why they wish to redistibute the money. It's no secret to anyone with a computer half a brain. Well, actually it's still a secret to most on this site.
Notice the technique here? Swoop in, regurgitate a nugget of chum - in this case highlighting the almost insurmountable problem of managing to stay 20cm away from a CFL lightglobe; oh, the humanity! - squawk loudly, swoop out.
And when the little logical worms wiggling about in the astringent mess are pointed out, simply hoik up another gobbet of half-digested pap.
I'm sure we all noticed that 'journalist's' self-stated motivation - her other piece is 'Fear of Fracking not based in scientific evidence'. I'm also sure that even an intellect as seagull-like as Batty's might be able to tell us what the tell-tale sign of UV damaging your skin is, and whether anyone's claiming to have experienced it from exposure to compact fluoros.
And Polar Bears? WTF? Next you'll be claiming the damaging UV in sunlight is an argument against Solar Power...
You don't even rise to the level of idiot, Batty.
"In every political society, parties are unavoidable. A difference of interests, real or supposed, is the most natural and fruitful source of them. The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political equality among all. 2. By withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches. 3. By the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort. 4. By abstaining from measures which operate differently on different interests, and particularly such as favor one interest at the expence of another. 5. By making one party a check on the other, so far as the existence of parties cannot be prevented, nor their views accommodated. If this is not the language of reason, it is that of republicanism."
---James Madison
Betty can't fathom any middle ground. It's either unregulated capitalism or everyone on the dole.
Er...are you still confused by the difference between "proposes" and "plans on"?
Heck, no wonder your claims don't match the evidence.
Note that the second column is 1999. The distribution was a lot more skewed 10+ years later. (Hmmmm, what sorts of policies might have been in place from 2000 onwards...?)
Except that you alone pretend that the impact of climate change is not part of the why and therefore "conclude" that it is an illegitimate "why" being covertly used as a means to a different nefarious end.
And you, out of all the posters here, confuse proposals with plans, and proposals that have no political chance of implementation in the next decade with an actuality that will be achieved in the next year or two.
And you, out of all the posters here, continue to do so despite repeatedly having the fallacies you rely on pointed out to you.
And to illustrate my previous comment:
If you're misguided enough to think climate change, due primarily to actions of the richest countries in the world, doesn't and won't have a strong negative impact on the poorest peoples of the world, including driving them further into poverty, then you might be misguided enough to think that quote relevant.
(But you'd have to also deny the historical and ongoing naked exploitation of the poorest countries by the richest countries/corporations too, which ... oh, wait.)
Also, IIRC, examiner.com is a site where practically anything can be self-published and authors receive revenue based on page view counts. It may look a bit like a reputable journalism site to the uninitiated, but as far as I know there are no fact-checkers or site-wide editorial standards (although admittedly a lot of actual mainstream media have become fairly lax in those departments too).
Then there's American Thinker which has published some fragrant bullshit about climate change, presumably because bullshit is necessary to get to conclusions consistent with their political positions. (Hmm, where have I seen that technique lately?)
Of course, that presumes that those that have acquiredonly "through their own industry".
So...they haven't benefited from anything constructed or maintained or enforced on the taxpayer's dime. Like the national highway system. Or a healthy, educated workforce. Or the rule of law. Or enforcable contracts. Or clean air, clean water, uncontaminated land. (Or military power...which rather helps keep the natives in line if they get uppity about you nakedly exploiting their natural resources.)
Know anyone who actually made their money purely on their own?
No?
Well then, there's more to the situation than a cherry-picked quote would suggest.
And while we're on that quote, it presumes that such acquisition was made fairly.
Would Jefferson have thought that that includes (for example) taking over companies, reducing expenses to temporarily make the books look better - including cutting or offshoring jobs - and using the spruced up books to acquire massive debts, paying oneself large fees and commissions for "services rendered", and walking away to leave the company to its own devices, to either sink or swim under the debt load?
What about wealth made by privatising the profits and socialising the losses (including the global negative impacts of climate change, or dumping pollution into public land/air, or taking on additional financial risk by relying on being an institution deemed "too big to fail" by the government, or ...)?
What about highly profitable oil companies receiving taxpayer-funded subsidies to the tune of billions of dollars?
What about lobbyist-written laws that benefit large companies (including some monopolies or cosy polyopolies) at the expense of current and future competitors, and at the expense of millions of consumers, and at the expense of their own workers?
Yeah, sure, Jefferson was all for that.
Erk, close tag fail :-(
I reckon the choice of this quote in this context is also revealing:
As luminous beauty said, "Betty can’t fathom any middle ground." It's either no levies and taxes (and certainly no compensation for impacts imposed), or it is complete redistribution of wealth so that everyone has exactly the same amount.
Which leads me to what bill said.
Jeez Betula, are you really that dumb? The message is not "use incandescent light bulbs even though they cost more in electricity", the message is "don't stupidly sit within 20 cm of CFLs". Of course, that message won't work on the stupid like you.
Speaking of the gap between rich and poor.
Betty is just your straight-out tebagger libertarian idiot.
At least we know why teh stoopid is so immobile in this one now.
To those teabaggers who insist that you get wealthy from effort only, I have one name to give you:
Paris Hilton.
(and note: Bill Gates WHILE HIS PARENTS WERE ALIVE used their privilege and money to get him a position as one of the two richest men in the world. There was absolutely NO NEED for any inheritence. If your kids haven't made anything of themselves by the time they're 30 with your money, if you're wealthy, they never will. And if they have, they won't need to inherit from you.)
It inherits its insignificance from your blithering tinfoil stupidity.
At least.
Batty Bet quoted, but thought no further than:
That is all very well but when people are made homeless through no fault of their own and with few resources to fall back on, perhaps because their wages were so frugal and being hired and fired by rapacious, capricious and fickle employers they had no recourse to improved conditions, then these people find it difficult, if not impossible to obtain meaningful employment with the prospect of advancement and skills improvement.
Why, because those hiring for such jobs are wary of taking on the homeless. If they are homeless then they must be feckless - right. Doh!
Unfortunately it seems that many find a path through this by being ruthless in gaining advantage at the expense of colleagues, in other words stepping on the heads of others. Often this is how scum gets to the top as we see with the outstanding representatives of the one percent such as those in the news of late e.g. Exxon, Barclays.
Power for powers sake and making money for the sake of it, after all one cannot survive on gold alone, belongs to the dustbin of history, it is so pre-Neanderthal in outlook and will not help humans, and the biota that supports humans, survive into the next century. Maybe society will become similar to that in 'Logan's Run'.
Consider that it is by luck alone that you are not amongst the impoverished and futureless. But as climate changes overtake us the odds on your luck changing are set to shorten. Look around you, yes further than your nose.
Arguing with you and your ilk is like arguing with a dead fish - your arguments are wet, limp and stink to high heaven.
I'm pretty sure Betula hasn't read "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich either. She, as an educated woman, tried to support herself for a relatively short period of time purely via jobs that don't require specialised experience or tertiary education. She found it to be almost impossible. Most people she met in that situation were working more than one job just to make ends meet, and simply did not have the kinds of resources (which mostly comes down to more time and money) to do anything else that could help her get out of that situation.
And she goes into some detail about how the system works against the poor, particularly with "hidden costs". For one thing, you end up paying higher per-unit prices for many goods and services because you never have enough spare cash to stump up for a larger bundle and have to buy the smallest offering each time. This includes people who have to pay higher per-night residence costs to budget hotels because they can't afford the deposit for rented accomodation which would work out to lower per-night costs. For another, the sales taxes in most US States (and Social Security and FICA federally) are generally pretty regressive, and then you simply don't have the opportunity to structure your finances as the rich can in order to lower your average tax rate. You cannot own property and have to pay rent that ultimately enriches someone else, and you are unlikely to have been able to get the capital together to buy a car so you spend a lot of time on public transport. And you may not even have enough money for a fridge (nor any stable enough residence to install one) so you end up paying higher per-meal prices than those who do. And then there's the issue of healthcare. Most low paid jobs in the US don't provide health insurance, and nor do many of them have sick days - so you don't work, you don't get paid. This motivates a lot of people to keep working when even they are very sick (and helps spread contagious diseases more widely than need be).
Oh, and she points out how hard most poor working people are working, in stark contrast to the bullshit stereotypes (indolent layabouts leeching off the "job creators" and middle class) promulgated by your average libertarian or Republican candidate decrying any potential increase in tax rates on those who have benefited enormously from huge tax decreases in the last decade or more. Ehrenreich argues that if anything, those who use the services of the poor are the ones doing the leeching:
Also, Mitt Romney.
Check out how Bain Capital made its money - often taking over firms, using short-term tricks to polish up their accounts (including redundancies and plant closures), using the newly polished accounts to persuade lenders to load them down with large amounts of debt and charging the company large fees out of that debt for the privilege (before the long term success or failure of the debt-based strategy could be ascertained).
Then Mitt and his financial advisers stashed a whole load of cash in various non-US constituencies mostly known for their financial secrecy regulations and low low tax rates, although he does claim that it was all within US law.
"And she goes into some detail about how the system works against the poor, particularly with “hidden costs”. For one thing, you end up paying higher per-unit prices for many goods and services because you never have enough spare cash to stump up for a larger bundle and have to buy the smallest offering each time."
Mortgages.
Poor people pay more to have a home than rich people who either use some other colateral or pay outright (and probably take a tax write-off for the drawdown in income).
And where does that extra money go? To the biggest investors and they're the ones with the most money.
Truckle-UP economics. It's the inevitable consequence of capitalism.
Yep, and (IIRC) in the US mortgage interest charges are tax deductible...
Absolutely right Lotharsson, and to add to that over here in the UK some of the poor can only access electricity through a premium rate meter. If the meter runs out in the middle of cooking a meal - tough. Either risk food poisoning or go without - and that includes, or in many cases absolutely means, the children.
Then their is access to their own money. As many Post Offices have been closed that route for cheap cash access is denied as the nearest 'hole in the wall' may be an unaffordable bus ride away. Even then if it isn't one of the poor friendly ones there will be a transaction charge for collecting their own money. The Sheriff of Nottingham would blush. But then he is now occupying Mitt's shoes I guess.
On his closing companies and making fast bucks, wasn't Bachmann taking tax dollars whilst working people bellow the minimum wage in her companies of interest. Ah! Here we are , not the source I originally discovered this gem on but it is close.
Two more pernicious moves will be the 'cashless society' and phasing out of cheques. Plastic or nought is not a good idea for the poor who would spend a fortune they have not got on trying to sort out bank caused account errors and as for their being subject to fraud - good look with fixing that.
Now as for that 'cheaper bundle' the rash of 'three for the price of two' offers or 'buy one get one free' is an environmental disaster in the making - so much waste. Besides carrying all those offers any distance could be a problem without decent transport.
Once every town and city over here had its collection of streets where you could find just about anything you wanted. In the old 'ironmongers' or 'hardware store' you could buy exactly how many of whatever it was you wanted, often with such as nails, screws, by the LB. Now you have to travel out of town, if you can, and buy a pack of 100 out of which you only want three. They call this progress. Not in my book.
Batty Bet has just opened the floodgates, that is if it doesn't change the subject again having been black knighted on this one now.
Argh! Dreaded link fail again here we are, I hope:
Taxpayers Should Stop Subsidizing Wal-Mart
Drop a quote mark at your peril, link looks good but is dead!
And speaking of those attempting to defend the low tax rates of the rich by cherry-picking some facts...
"As many Post Offices have been closed that route for cheap cash access is denied as the nearest ‘hole in the wall’ may be an unaffordable bus ride away"
And banks want to charge for having a current account if your salary is less than £500 a month into the account (each month).
Whilst the government insist that everyone must have a bank account so that they can "crack down on money laundering funding terrorism".
From the look of the comments, I think we can conclude that the common denominators amongst the alarmists are:
1. Capitalism sucks
2. Climate change is a direct result of the rich
3. The poor are the ones affected by climate change
4. The rich need to pay the poor
5. Climate change has nothing to do with redistributing wealth.
"Know anyone who actually made their money purely on their own?"
How about...no, strike that..
http://didntbuildthat.com/tagged/Shepard-Fairey
The world according to...
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7ixhrx1JM1rbxfido1_1280.jpg
"Whilst the government insist that everyone must have a bank account so that they can “crack down on money laundering funding terrorism”.
C'mon alarmists, all together now....More Government!
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
"So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together."
---Barack Obama
Cherry-picking selective quotations out of context, misrepresenting them and lying about it; a feature not a bug of the Republican Party.
“You Olympians, however, know you didn’t get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We’ve already cheered the Olympians, let’s also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities. All right!”
---Mitt Romney
Romney knows he's lying. Betty is too stupid to know it.
Nope, got it wrong again, betty.
Some government.
Not none, like you whinge about.
People like you are why wall street had to produce a laughable piece trying to explsin that government didn't do anything to create the internet: because idiots like you insist as a central facet of your faith, that government can't do anything, only private companies can do anything good.
Like a four year old's fairy story. The 'bad guy' has absolutely nogood in them. Completely one-dimensional characters.
Thing is, most kids grow out of needing such simple stories about the world.
You haven't.
Come on Batty with that Snfoil hat on shouldn't you be writing 'Gubmint' or something?
Betty,
1. Capitalism sucks (as it is currently organized, yes. That doesn't mean eliminating, privately owned capital property, entrepreneurship or allowing market dynamics to function within reasonable ethical parameters.)
2. Climate change is a direct result of the rich (of wealth creation as it is currently pursued through the means of burning fossil fuel and rape of the natural environment, yes.)
3. The poor are the ones affected by climate change (negatively affected, yes. The wealthy, as the system is currently constructed, will always make a profit off the suffering of others.)
4. The rich need to pay the poor (a guaranteed living wage for meaningful work, yes.)
5. Climate change has nothing to do with redistributing wealth. (No, but an equitable distribution of wealth has a great deal to do with both mitigation and adaption concerning climate change.)
Not more government ... better government.
Batty,
Here you go, look at how oil companies cream of billions in tax dollars whilst paying their CEOs huge sums along with the wealthy, and powerful share holders and see what they spend huge sums on. Hint, fooling idiots, or mendacious twerps, like you.
You want to be seen as aiding and abetting these crimes against the US and larger humanity? Your choice.
Lionel et al,
The moment any of you here railing against oil companies roll up to the petrol station and pour that precious liquid into your tank immediately makes you a mouthing hypocrite.
@Mack
Complete and utter logic fail, you wretched dishonest garbage. Only an extremely stupid person would think that is so, and only a very dishonest one would use that argument. And even if we all truly were hypocrites ... that wouldn't change the fact that AGW is occurring.
The thing about mentally deranged right wing garbage like Betula is that no matter how hyperbolic or stupid their contrived caricatures are, they will act just as if they were entirely factual.
We can always conclude that you are stupid, wrong, and dishonest.
Luminous Beauty said on 24 July, at 7:44 pm:
LB is absolutely correct about the problems of the organisation of contemporary Western capitalism... and specifically about its inequitable and unsustainable aspect.
At its most fundamental, the issue is that capitalism by its very nature is based on the systemic expectation of growth in wealth/profit, and as Australia's very successful and rational businessman Dick Smith noted, this is not a sustainable paradigm over the long term, nor is it one that business or government wants to discuss.
.
Whole books have been written on why this is so, but implicit in all considerations is the fact that at some point in an economy's expansion* the resource limits of the system put the brakes on further growth, after which the wheels begin to fall off the wagon. This senescence is one of the factors driving the present state of many Western economies: in Europe it has been exacerbated in countries where government/business corruption has tried to pile more wealth on the already-rich side of town, and in the USA it will be hastened by the nationally-characterising propensity (amongst others) to tax the poor disproportionately compared to the rich.
In most of the big Asian 'tiger' countries the current economies started from very low bases, so the growth momentum of the last few decades is still there, although even in these tiger economies the signs of impending senescence are clear to anyone with the vision to see. And then there is Australia: a First World economy that has the blessing of having comparatively huge primary (largely quarry) resource industries compared to its overall GDP, and which are being sucked up by the Asian tiger momentum, which has in turn helped to buffer Australia from the senescence that will inevitably visit a growth model of economy.
However, as many have noted, societies from the wide-ranging and sophisticated Roman Empire through to the relatively simple community of Easter Island all eventually outgrow their resources. It's the inevitable fate of a growth economy and, as noted above, captialism as we practise it is all about perpetual growth...
There is only one, inevitable outcome.
If Betula or any of his compadrés beg to differ, all they need to do is to explain how the laws of thermodynamics contradicts what I've said above.
[*Nota bene, in an expanding economy it's still trivially simple for a rich minority to become richer, and for a poor majority to become poorer, which rather invalidates the necessity for a growth-model economy in the first place.]
I don't drive, and even if I did over here in the UK we pay a price more commensurate with its true cost. Perhaps you should try that some time. Besides as a UK citizen I would probably drive something more fuel efficient than the still average US gas guzzler, drive only when necessary and take up cleaner technologies as they become available.
But then your small mind would not be able to comprehend all that now would it.
Another dead fish lands at our feet.
And WRT that Greenland Ice cap things suddenly look a whole lot more dangerous.
Question for you deniers.
If that surface melt proceeds at a pace out-striping any isostatic rebound (probable) why would melt continue more rapidly? Hint what happens to the ablation zone?
This may already be a factor.
Another feature of summer ice melt is
For context search out 'Surface Melt-Induced Acceleration of Greenland Ice-Sheet Flow', Zwally et. al. (2002) Science, or in 'The Warming Papers' edited by David Archer & Ray Pierrehumbert.
Betula, thank you for showing us that your denial of science is based on your political ideology, not on facts, evidence or logic.
It's telling that nutters like Betula find it easier convincing themselves of grand conspiracies involving the UN (who can't force nobody to do nuthin') than accepting the evidence.
What's so ball-bouncingly amusing about this effort is Betula believes he's exposed the real purpose of the global warming scam - to raise the third world out of poverty!
Shock!
What next? Eradicating AIDS?
Nope! That's there too! This conspiracy goes all the way to the middle!
What a sad, hateful little man Betula is.
"the issue is that capitalism by its very nature is based on the systemic expectation of growth in wealth/profit"
I would say the problem is far more endemic.
In capitalism, money is power and the single allowed source of it. Therefore if you're rich, you're not wealthy, you're powerful.
The difference being that with wealth you buy things. And that is how trickle-down economics is supposed to happen.
Except in a capitalist system, that money is power, therefore if you spend it, you lose power. And it becomes a losers game: someone richer than you can impose their will on you. So therefore it's only your wealth relative to those near you that counts, not what you can spend it on.
And that's why the wealthy hoards.
Because if someone loses (e.g. spends) money and you don't, you have gained power compared to them.
As long as you keep the wealth, you can express power again and again, it's an inexhaustible resource.
Lumy...
You need Obama to tell you how bridges and roads are built? How fire Departments work? Are you smarter now for it?
Gee, I never would have thought that people worked together to build things, this changes my whole attitude about success. If I work 6 days a week and pay my bills, I should also pay the bills of my lazy neighbor who sits on his porch drinking beer while he lives on welfare....because I didn't become successful from my hard work, I became successful because there's a road to get me to work.
My neighbor will drink to that.
But wait, don't my taxes pay for the roads? Don't my taxes pay for the Fire department? Don't my taxes pay for the police deparment?
The money line from Obama's little lecture is this...
"If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."
Who is the somebody else? Me and people like me, who work and pay taxes? Who takes the risk on starting a business? Who takes the risk on hiring and buying equiptment?
Where does the "somebody else made that happen" logic stop? I guess a lot of people with businesses need to thank James Madison for supervising the Louisiana Purchase, yet James Madison never would have "made it happen" if his mother didn't wipe his ass as a child...
Thank you Mrs. Madison for my success, I owe you everything.
Are you enlightened Lumy?
"Nope, got it wrong again, betty. Some government. Not none, like you whinge about."
Wow, you have a selective reading disability. Show me where I ever said No Government. I was in the Marine Corps for crying out loud...you putz.
Now, show me where I said No Government.
Waiting...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wi8Fv0AJA4
Waiting...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj0ChLVTpaA
Wow...
Still waiting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlbpwhVfbJM
John..
"It’s telling that nutters like Betula find it easier convincing themselves of grand conspiracies involving the UN (who can’t force nobody to do nuthin’) than accepting the evidence"
Um, John, The IPCC is the U.N.
Carry on...
Well, Batty, you're certainly afflicted with the hysteria characteristic of your nation... yep, you are John Galt.
Betty,
"I should also pay the bills of my lazy neighbor who sits on his porch drinking beer while he lives on welfare..."
This neighbor you fantasize. He only exists as a projection of the dissatisfaction produced by clinging to the illusion of a distinct and separate self.
Letting go of that illusion is the beginning of enlightenment.
"We're all in this together" is the money quote.
Um, no.
The IPCC was set up by two UN organisations, but it is not the UN. It's science is conducted and compiled by professional scientists, completely independent of the IPCC.
Further, each participating country can input as it sees fit to 'dumbing-down' the text of the IPCC reports, in the face of the import of the science, separate from any UN consensus, and according to the conservatism of their own national policies. Hardly a UN-sponsored process, that...
The only conspiracy here is that individual nations can (and do) scuttle the effectiveness of response to global warming by inculcating their own agendas into the way that climate science is reported via the IPCC.
Er, no, it's not.
The context makes it clear when he says "you didn't build that" he's talking about roads, bridges and all sorts of other things that are used by business.
But you already know this as it has been explained to you before.
And still you repeat the lie.
There you go again - lying that your detractors are engaging in all-or-nothing thinking.
Or maybe you're just not smart enough to grok the difference between all-or-nothing thinking and a discussion about the appropriate point on a continuum.
Or more likely, you can't make your case without blatant dishonesty.
Meanwhile, speaking of the Romney campaign to dishonestly quote-mine Obama's riff about roads, bridges and businesses and get useful idiots to repeat it as gospel (see above)...seems like their poster boy business was built with the aid of a good chunk of government assistance.
Reminds me of the Tea Party protesters complaining about other people on government welfare...whilst accessing Social Security payments, benefiting from Medicare programs and riding on government-supplied disability scooters.
Not to mention their idolised Ayn Rand. Now anybody who names a child , male or female, after her like with Rand Paul deserves to be taken with a big pinch of salt..
OK Batty, look where some of your tax dollars are going .
You served to enable this, now who is the putz (whatever that is)?
"Show me where I ever said No Government."
Show us where the UN have said it's all a scam, betty.
"I was in the Marine Corps for crying out loud"
Rather explains why the last war you won was when you were part of the UK...
Shorter Betty;
Taxes to protect international business interests by keeping the world's poor subservient ... GOOD!
Taxes to lead the world's poor out of poverty ... BAD!
Here is an idea Batty, dig out a copy of Noam Chomski's How the World Works as you don't seem to appreciate much of the history in which you took part.
If Wow were honest....
Betula, I realize you were talking about less government, but I assumed you meant no government because I'm angry and I let my ideologies get in the way of reality. Don't take it personally, I do this all the time...
For example, when someone is talking about illegal immigration, i take it that they hate all immigrants, and when someone is talking about muslim extremists, I take it that they hate all Muslims. I assume a lot of things and assign labels to the people i'm making assumtions about because.it makes me feel smart. In other words, I need to mask reality, it helps me get through the day.
Sure, I assume a lot about the future, climate change and funding.... and I label people that point out that I am just assuming, but never let it be said, when it comes to my assumptions, that I'm not honest about admitting they are just assumptions and not based on facts. This letter is proof of that.
Respectfully,
Wow.
And now, back to reality....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO_YErq1M-M
Lionel A.
How the world works...
Noam Chomsky: Obama is a man of absolutely no principles. He has two constituencies. One of them is the popular constituency, the people who voted for him. For them he is doing essentially nothing. He has another constituency: the people who financed his campaign, the financial institutions. And they are getting rewarded.
http://europeancourier.org/test/2011/03/13/noam-chomsky-on-obamas-presi…
Gee, Batty, what does Chomsky have to say about the Tea Party, Romney and the COP, contemporary Capitalism, or the global role of your beloved US Military?
That Obama is not a man of the calibre of FDR - or even Johnson or Carter - is obvious. That Chomsky's opinion of his cynical opportunism should somehow 'prove' your claim that he's a quasi-Socialist anti-Capitalist ideologue is, on the other hand, merely hilarious.
You. Are. An. Idiot.
Bah - GOP.
Now I see the genius behind Betula's repeated dishonest re-interpretation of other people's words - it's all been an elaborate setup for this piece of comedy gold in the Pot. Kettle. Black. tradition!
Well played, sir/madam, well played!
Speaking about dishonest misrepresentations of Obama's words, here's a story about someone else doing the very same thing. (And read the last substantive paragraph and see if you can figure out which person it means when it points out that they accessed the publicly financed benefits that helped them get where they are today.)
If you're organising a campaign based on false interpretations of Obama's words about how businesses generally benefit from publicly financed resources, it's not a particularly good look to showcase examples of businesses that benefited from taxpayer-funded expenditure.
Unless, of course, you don't care if you're lying and are seeking to recruit people to uncritically repeat the lies.
(And this doesn't even start to analyse the benefits of publicly financed roads and bridges and other infrastructure to those businesses - you know, what Obama was actually talking about.)
From Loth's link -
Gold!
I also thoroughly recommend Pierce's Idiot America, particularly to Batty. ('America's always been a great place to be crazy. It just used to be harder to make a living that way.')
No, our taxes pay for those things, moron ... which was exactly Obama's point.
So Betula quotes Chomsky complaining that Obama is as pro-capitalism as Betula is? As I've said before, there is no bottom to Betula's stupidity.
I think we need a companion to the Gish Gallop:
The Betula Boogie?
Betty, you've never BEEN to reality. Heck, you haben't even got directions.
What are you waiting for, betty?
Today I learned a new word for the fools: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis
Zoot - the Batty Boop?
"No, our taxes pay for those things, moron … which was exactly Obama’s point"
That's a fascinating point by Obama, our taxes pay for things. Pure genius.
Of course, the exception to this would be anyone with a business, their taxes don't pay for these things...isn't that right ianumb?
Well, it was a point you seem to have missed for decades, Betty.
SUCCESS!
http://www.infowars.com/100-million-poor-people-in-america-and-39-other…
You're a sad, deluded little toy, aren't you, Buzz, I mean, Betty.
Er, no.
And no-one argued otherwise. Except maybe the phantoms in your head.
Interesting that you can't seem to dispatch anything but strawmen.
Betty - the international man of sophistry
'course Betty's "go-to" answer for people who demonstrate what his ravings mean that demonstrate how illogical and nutty they are will be to demand "Where did I say these exact words", where the words
a) aren't ones he's accused of saying
b) are ones that have the same meaning as the ones he says
But, like all good little deniers, will never bother to show where some exact words were said. For him, meanings that he's extracted are fine.
But not for the "lesser people" who don't believe in his nutcase theories.
Funny, people here are talking about Betula and his conspiracy nuttery, and out he goes proving that by referring us to a website run by Alex Jones...
I think that Betula has Frightophthora taxmannii.
he can't be frightened, Bernard, he's been in the Marines! Honest! He wouldn't tell porkies!
How come these nutcases were all in the marines?
And I can't help wondering if they "left" because they didn't want to work for a black man...
Ah yes. Alex Jones, wing--nutt or agent provacateur which I wonder. Of course we all know about that other wing-nutt that Jones talked up James Delingpole on Alex Jones Tv 1/5: After Climategate, Pachaurigate, Glaciergate, Amazongate with more here .
Batty just has not understood the depth of the garbage coming from such sources.
Jones in flood, '...Delingpole...has a blog in The Daily Telegraph [not any more it seems] which he uses to disprove man made climate change...'
Oh! The stupid, it hurts, 'nuff said.
Of course, the exception to this would be anyone with a business, their taxes don’t pay for these things…
Slotherson...."Er, no. And no-one argued otherwise. Except maybe the phantoms in your head"
Well, apparently they don't pay enough taxes for these things.... these things that they benefit from and Elizabeth Warren states "the rest of us paid for".
"She follows with a list of the things that society did to facilitate this accomplishment: the factory owner moved his goods on roads the rest of us paid for, he hires workers the rest of us paid to educate, he was safe because of the police and firefighters the rest of us paid for, and he didn't have to worry about marauding bands seizing his factory because of the work that the rest of us did."
"By her reasoning, a successful factory owner owes more to society because he, apparently, derives more benefit from the contract"
"However, even if we were to embrace without reservation the notion of the social contract and that taxes are part of the contract, then Warren still failed to make an argument to support higher taxes for the factory owner. In her example, the factory owner received the benefit of roads and police and stable government. However, what she failed to note or to realize is that everyone in the society enjoys these benefits. They were not put into place to benefit only people who build factories. Each and every one of us enjoys the protection of the police and our military and a (crumbling) road system".
"Warren also failed to point out that the factory, once built, will provide significant revenue to the community that it inhabits. It will pay property taxes; it will pay for electricity (a big revenue-generator); it will pay the salaries of a large number of workers, from whose salaries will be deducted more taxes. These employees will also spend the money that they earn, and this will be reflected in higher sales tax revenues and greater prosperity for the merchants of the town. These people will also be able to purchase nicer homes, which will be reflected in higher property tax revenues."
"In short, not only is the factory owner a contributor to the society, but he is actually a super-contributor -- and, if we were truly to follow the social contract theory, he would be entitled to significantly more consideration from the government."
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/elizabeth_warren_a_harsh_mistres…
Indeed. See the marked difference in your earlier caricature, and this more accurate interpretation?
Perhaps she failed to do so, because it is (a) already understood by everyone with a few brain cells to rub together, and (b) not especially relevant to the argument. (The same applies to the "she failed to point out the revenue" line.)
The argument is a response to Republican claims that (a) the rich should be taxed less, preferably a lot less, and (b) doing so is good for everyone who is not rich. And that argument response is based on the observation that those who are advantaged much more by these benefits should generally pay much more, but instead generally manage to pay a lot less. Heck, "user pays" used to be a favourite conservative meme - but generally only when it was wheeled out to suggest people of low to moderate incomes pay much more for services. Apparently it does not apply to those people with large incomes (much like subsidies for highly profitable oil companies are just dandy, but are entirely immoral for other sectors of society...)
The "less tax, especially for the rich" zealots are remarkable for attempting to avoid the debate on the distribution of the total tax take across various sectors of US society, and that distribution's fairly remarkable change over the last few decades. They will pull all sorts of rhetorical tricks to achieve this. They will pretend that the only tax that counts is federal income tax. They will assert claims that have been roundly refuted by evidence (e.g. "trickle-down economics", the implication that poor/rich people all deserve to be poor/rich, the claim that lower taxes on the rich will lead the economy to boom and the total tax take to increase, and the like). And they will cover their ears and shout "La, la, la, la" rather than have to face the fact that most rich people pay a lower total percentage of income in taxes than the poor people they employ. The shouting just gets louder when one points out the ways that the very rich have bought influence in order to skew the system even more in their favour.
In the end they are fairly sophisticated apologists serving the rich by filling the media with justifications for the rich being rich, up to and including faux moral arguments that rely on bullshit premises. It is astonishing that a lot of non-rich people have bought their bullshit...
Here is an idea Batty, dig out a copy of Noam Chomski’s How the World Works as you don’t seem to appreciate much of the history in which you took part.
While you are at it have a look at Greg Palast's Vultures' Picnic: In Pursuit of Petroleum Pigs, Power Pirates, and High-Finance Carnivores
Now don't come back until you have broadened your horizons. Serving in uniform, as I have too, can restrict your vision and stunt your cognitive growth unless you grow out of all that bull afterwards.
Sloth...
"the fact that most rich people pay a lower total percentage of income in taxes than the poor people they employ"
"faux moral arguments that rely on bullshit premises"
Seems you have been buying some bullshit slothy..
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/fact-check-the-richtheir-s…
CONTEST:
How many assumptions can you find in the following statement regarding former Marines...
"And I can’t help wondering if they “left” because they didn’t want to work for a black man"...
Winner gets to assume what the prize is.
None.
It was wondering about those who PRETEND to be ex-Marines.
Because you never find an internet troll rightwingnut who was merely part of the normal standing army, or navy or airforce. Always Marines.
And for it to have been assumptions about marines, you would have to say you assume all marines have resigned from their employment.
Again, no bottom to Betula's stupidity. He cannot comprehend the difference between "I paid for this" and "we paid for this", and thinks that pointing it out means that I'm saying "you aren't among those that paid for this".
"It was wondering about those who PRETEND to be ex-Marines"
That's one. So far Wow is in the lead.
Pure stupidity on your part, Betula. The point is the part of it you omitted: "No". As in, "No, you didn't pay for these things, we (including you) paid for these things". The point was that no one becomes successful alone. But you knew that, which makes it clear to everyone what a cowardly piece of shit you are because you don't dare attempt any sort of honest argument, knowing you will lose.
"And for it to have been assumptions about marines, you would have to say you assume all marines have resigned from their employment."
Thats three for Wow. Wow, I gave you two assumptions for this one since you were the one who used the words "these" and "they" at 1:51 pm. This means you are assuming about your own assumption, so it's worth two. Very clever.
That’s a fascinating point by Obama, our taxes pay for things. Pure genius
"Pure stupidity on your part, Betula. The point is the part of it you omitted: “No”. As in, “No, you didn’t pay for these things, we (including you) paid for these things”."
I notice you ignored the "our" part of the comment which is beyond stupidity on your part.
But I have to be honest, I think each individual in the United
States believed they were the only ones paying taxes for these things until Obama set them straight. He is truly a wonder.
Obama...
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive."
An unbelievable American system we have that allows people to thrive? Hey, I have an idea, let's change it!
I have an idea. Let's change it back to when the highest tax rate was 75% and 35% of the workforce was represented by collective bargaining agreements. That's when the American people were really thriving. That's when an expanding middle class was the wonder of the world.
Now, thanks to 30 years of trickle-down Reaganomics and the evisceration of Labor, the US is rapidly turning to shit.
Anyway, if betty was in the KP corps of the marines, his pay wastaxpayer pay. Anything he paid for was taxpayer paid.
He didn't pay a damn thing!
Betty said:"An unbelievable American system we have that allows people to thrive? Hey, I have an idea, let’s change it!" - which is presumably exactly what Betty's referenced intellectual big guns (American Wanker and Alex Jones) are trying to do.
Tell me, my fierce, hedge-trimming marine: what's your story on the moon landings? Another NASA hoax like AGW?
"Hey, I have an idea, let’s change it!” – "which is presumably exactly what Betty’s referenced intellectual big guns (American Wanker and Alex Jones) are trying to do".
Hope and Change Nelson, Hope and Change....
Wow...
Seriously, have you ever been right about anything? Is every waking thought a guess?
"the US is rapidly turning to shit.'
On this we agree. How's that Hopey Changey working out?
From the outside the bizarre and characteristic zealotry so many of you indulge in regarding your ever-more-grotesquely-unequal and dysfunctional society is equal parts mystifying, disturbing, and pathetic.
To make a religion of your State, while simultaneously undermining its validity in all arenas except making endless War, funneling largesse to the already rich, and punishing the poor is truly a recipe for collapse in the medium to long term.
I used to be genuinely puzzled as to why Empires collapse, but observing you lot since Reagan has been an object lesson.
Rule one: don't start believing your own BS...
Good News Week!
Ignorant denialati clowns, who have finally crossed the "Rubicon Demarcation Bridge" This bridge, is the one that defines the actual limits of "Free Speech" and moved directly into the land of denial, lies, deformation, libel and slander.
Professor Michael Mann sends out legal notice of a pending Deformation action, against the National Review, for knowingly and maliciously publishing lies, in the State of New York.
link : http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/22/1112727/-Climatologist-Michael…
It goes without saying, a wise man, would review the State of New Yorks Defamation Laws, including the US Supreme Court rulings as well too on the subject, before making ignorant comments, all driven by one's head in the sand of denial and cognitive dissonance on the subject!
In other news, Professor Michael Mann's Canadian Defamation case against Dr Tim Ball, which has been off the "Internet Radar" since March, 2011, has produced some surprising new results.
link: http://climatecrocks.com/2012/07/25/mike-mann-defamation-update-the-unb…
Ouch, a truly sad case of a very few simple fools being fleeced of their money by charlatans!
Who'd have thought the denialati, all of whom, like KBMSOD, deeply mired in their own pool of self created horse hockey, just can't help themselves, in heaping the same old, same old, amongst themselves.
"Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
And there you have an absolutely beautiful example of what I said earlier - the "taxes always need to be lower, especially for the rich" zealots pretend that only federal taxes count.
(Mind you, the very article Betula links to points out the "carried interest" exception which allows a bunch of rich people to pay much lower rates than most on a large amount of income.)
And yet earlier you posted a link claiming more than 100 million people in the US are below the poverty line?
Make your mind up!
(Feel free to go look up the research on how it is getting harder in the US for people to move from the lower class to the middle class, and how it's become a lot easier to move the other way. A system that allows some to thrive is not necessarily a system that gives everyone that opportunity. I'm still betting you haven't read Nickel and Dimed.)
And what luminous beauty and bill said.
Jeez Betty, you're getting creamed.
Must be time to change the subject.
Betty, unlike Bush, the dems wpn't abuse the rights of the presidency, therefore reps (the party of NO!) have fillibustered every hope of change because they dare not let a black guy have any success in care the rest of them get ideas above their station.
The "our" was MY word, MY point. There is NO BOTTOM to your stupidity.
Followed immediately by a falsehood, of course.
It's not what you assholes believe, it's what you argue. Pointing out that it's a societal effort is a rebuttal, a concept you're too stupid to understand. The rebuttal only works if it is accepted, which is why you assholes repeatedly deny the obvious.
But why do I even bother? Betula is slime, garbage, a genuinely evil person, and not even a banal evil like Eichmann who was "just doing his job". A truly sickening diseased organism that I should just let stew in its own juices.
Juices which have no bottom...
Unlike Betty who's a complete arse.
And here's a story of another deeply dishonest quote-mine of Obama by the Republicans re: tax rates and the like.
I wouldn't go that far. Obama has expanded presidential power in apparent conflict with the rule of law just about as aggressively as the W administration did, courtesy of (e.g.) still further support for warrantless wiretapping, aggressive campaigns against whistleblowers, etc., and by arrogating the right to play judge, jury and executioner by declaring certain people terrorists through secret deliberations and dispatching drones to kill them.
Ironically the furore in the US (to the extent that there was one, and very few Democrats have been part of it) has been about this being done to US citizens without due process - no-one much complained about it being done to foreigners.
This, however, I think is spot on.
Republicans run a scam worthy of the Mafiosi. When they're not in the majority they do their utmost to obstruct the practice of actual governance. (They've successfully destroyed the collegial norms that meant that "filibusters" used to be reserved for a small number of key issues and actual filibustering was required, to the point where "filibustering" is treated as (a) a formality that doesn't require actual filibustering, and (b) happens way way way more frequently than any time in the past.)
After doing this they go out to their constituencies and - without any apparent embarassment - argue either of both that (a) Democrats are useless in government, and (b) government itself is inefficient and ineffective so there should be "less" of it.
It's astonishing how many people fall for this simple little con. But fall they do. And how passionately!
"Obama has expanded presidential power in apparent conflict with the rule of law just about as aggressively as the W administration did"
Not really.
Only where progressive policy was the only casualty. I.e. the pushing through of more draconian copyright laws. Ones, basically, where he would not get called out for exercising executive privilege either by the media or the rightwing.
Just look at how the Dems freely vilify any progressive in their ranks or media, and how s*t scared they are off the rightwingnuts in the media (to the extent of firing a highly competent politician because of a faked up edited slam at them for being "racist").
Once again Sloth....
You stated: "the fact that most rich people pay a lower total percentage of income in taxes than the poor people they employ”
Just because you buy bullshit by the truckload, doesn't mean we have to buy it from you...
The link states:
"For the most part, the wealthy pay a significantly higher percentage of their income in taxes than middle-income workers."
Your response:
"Mind you, the very article Betula links to points out the “carried interest” exception which allows a bunch of rich people to pay much lower rates than most on a large amount of income.)"
So here's the question Sloth...is it "most" rich people or a "bunch" of rich people? And how many in a bunch?
You were wrong and can't admit it....yet it's all right in front of everyone to see, barring the ideological blinders handed out by Deltoid.
And who's handing out the blinders? Why it's no other than Zoot...."Jeez Betty, you’re getting creamed.Must be time to change the subject"
What's the matter zoot...running low on blinders?
“For the most part, the wealthy pay a significantly higher percentage of their income in taxes than middle-income workers.”
This is absolutely incorrect.
Because taxes include income tax, capital gains tax, sales tax and many, many more.
But your link only counts one small segment as taxes.
You're wrong and you dare not admit it.
Here you go Batty start your mind expanding here:
What Uncle Sam Really Wants
The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many
I''ll leave you to find the texts under the part headings of 'Secrets, Lies and Democracy' and 'The Common Good'.
Will you feel so sure of your cognitive framework after exposure to the acid of reality? I doubt it, if you have any humanity that is.
Is the average American prospering? Do those at the top care? Discover the truth if you dare about the Third World America, we have similar in UK and doubtless Gina Rinehart will help provide for Australia in due course. Ironic that Rinehart has 'Hope' as a second Christian name.
And for an Australian's perspective then John Pilger is worth reading. In other Pilger works you will discover more about the US led, and Australian assisted, atrocities in East Timor.
I feel anger that Diego Garcia was enabled with British connivance, a disgrace, but then the US had an economic gun to our heads.
ianumb...
“No, our taxes pay for those things, moron … which was exactly Obama’s point”
Me...
"That’s a fascinating point by Obama, our taxes pay for things. Pure genius"
Ianumb...
"The “our” was MY word, MY point. There is NO BOTTOM to your stupidity"
So was it your point yaam or Obama's point? I'll send a line down to the bottom so you can respond...
Wow...
"This is absolutely incorrect. Because taxes include income tax, capital gains tax, sales tax and many, many more". "But your link only counts one small segment as taxes.You’re wrong and you dare not admit it."
Like I said before Wow....have you ever been right about anything? Now go back and read the link:
"The vast majority of those earning over $1 million a year pay at a higher rate, which is why the average tax rate for this group, according to the Tax Foundation, is 29.1 percent of taxable income. And, yes, this number includes income taxes, payroll taxes and capital gains taxes."
Now, what was that you were saying?...."You’re wrong and you dare not admit it."
"the average tax rate for this group, according to the Tax Foundation, is 29.1 percent of taxable income."
And they don't pay that.
Did you ever think, or did you just take someone's word for it if they had a big, thick ... wallet ... they waved in your face?
Something is going to be announced on WUWT over the weekend.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/27/wuwt-publishing-suspended-major-a…
Kenji elected to NAS( ;) ) a bit over-dramatic perhaps, but worth keeping an eye on, who knows.
Most of your fellow fuckwitted 'droids are simply hoping for CGIII - but that only makes me wonder how the other 109 sank without trace faster than the first two non-events .
I( must admit GSW, it has been a very instructive evening viewing what your brethren are actively wishing for. It's like a hi-contrast filter on your collective gullibility. Including Anthony.
I just love the way you've all been hounding him about Muleer's response to his last bout of hastily and expediently edited lunacy. Not.
You really should read the currently up to three pages of comments at Pope Montford's Religious Delicatassen (except - I don't link to denier trash, sorry!). It's like Chritmas turkeys hoping for a nice sauce. They don't even realise what their dearest wishes entail.
Luckily global warming is a myth and it's going to start cooling any moment now and anyway we don't know what will happen in the future and also warming is beneficial:
Correct link
Sadly, it looks like the deniers' continued allegations of fraud against Mann are about to go to court, and they may find that the US legal system is also biased towards the UN's MDGs or Al Gore or WHITEWASH!!!! or whatever it is you people believe this week.
I must say, the thought of Mann's "trick" being tested in court does fill me with girlish glee.
But... but John. Don't you realise that St Anthony- yes the (long, long ago) ex-TV weather poppet. (In the UK, think of an even more slimy Alan Partridge character with a bad moustache) - is widely expected to annouce the death of CAGW before lunchtime prayers on Sunday (PST)(sic) This is confirmed by appearing on the the Bishop's site.. Presumably this Earth-shattering event is expected to dismiss AGW for once and for all.
Then on Monday morning, finally free of this catastrophic albatross, the US Congress can sit down and cogitate on extreme drought in some regions and excess flooding in others, and the meaning of it all in the face of a visibly melting Arctic
Perhaps some of the smarter ones will propose a Committee to investigate if the whole shebang could be explained by a theory that might provide an insight into how to deal with the core issues rather than flap about chasing symptoms.
Perhaps an international .body should be set up to collate the best scientific advice.... oh wait...
Anthony's been going in for a lot of this lately. Remember his 'Hail the Messiah' response to the last Svensmark paper? ('People will remember where they were on this day', um, NOT, as the young folk do say.)
He really does appear to be hunkering ever further down in the bunker, while simultaneously repeatedly announcing that the latest super-weapon's arrival will shortly turn the tide of the war...
That trick never works.
He's going to start telling the truth?
Also, Chek, don't you think he's almost uncannily like the villainous run-down amusement-park owner in every Scooby Doo cartoon, right down to the jaunty blazer and moustache?
And he would have got away with it, too, if it wasn't for those meddling AGW kids...
Ooh, lookee - I think we may have found the source of The Weatherman's need to lockdown...
WUWT has been a long running covert psychological experiment that was extended way beyond the original plans due to the astonishing data streaming in, and the peer-reviewed paper with the results and analysis is to about to be published in Nature?
Conspiracist ideation (and perhaps even radical libertarianism) appears to contribute to climate (and other science) denialism.
The abstract of the paper that was written about in my last link:
Copy-and-paste from the PDF left out some characters (seemingly all "fi" sequences) which I have tried to correct, but I may not have caught them all.
And of course, if you have a propensity for conspiracist ideation, there are machines that really really want to feed you pre-digested material...
From Bill's link:
Oh dear.
Cos Watts sort of said that he'd accept whatever they published, even if it proved him wrong, didn't he? I see he'll be doing everything in his power to present a new FNITC to distract from this.
How glorious.
Still no futher info on the "Big announcement" heralded on WUWT. Whilst trawling Anthonys site though I came across an intriguing banner/link with the words "Only 1 month to go".
It's a link to a NASA prediction that by the end of summer 2012 nearly all the summer Arctic Ice will be gone. Video link (below) showing how this is ultimately communicated by factions in the alarmist community.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=c7cYGDdXQjg.
If you CAGW lot aren't embarrassed by this then there is no hope for you. Everyone else has given up on this nonsense.
I'm sure "the Science says..." mantra will continue in your cubby holes under the stairs , but to the rest of us it's all just bollocks pushed by "differently oriented" extremists.
Enjoy!
;)
Still no futher info on the "Big announcement" heralded on WUWT. Whilst trawling Anthonys site though I came across an intriguing banner/link with the words "Only 1 month to go".
It's a link to a NASA prediction that by the end of summer 2012 nearly all the summer Arctic Ice will be gone. Video link (below) showing how this is ultimately communicated by factions in the alarmist community.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=c7cYGDdXQjg.
If you CAGW lot aren't embarrassed by this then there is no hope for you. Everyone else has given up on this nonsense.
I'm sure "the Science says..." mantra will continue in your cubby holes under the stairs , but to the rest of us it's all just bollocks pushed by "differently oriented" extremists.
Enjoy!
;)
Apologies all. Server error first time so resubmitted.
'Sfunny. Despite you saying NASA says this, you can't link to NASA saying it.
Forgot to add, from National Geographic News.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.h…
"This week, after reviewing his own new data, 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."
Well that was authoritative. That's the best link you clowns have for this 'prediction', I gather?
If this is Watts' 'ta da' he's completely lost it, and fully deserves the ignominy that will be forever associated with his name.
Pa. Thet. Ic.
If you can't distinguish between the BEST results proving the exact opposite of what the Denialati said an 'independent' assessment would prove, and one alleged comment by one researcher that was out by a few years as blown out by one news report, then there's no hope for you.
But we knew that already.
In your little cupboard under the stairs this might seem like some sort of counter to an entire 'skeptical' team's research project tearing up all your 'it's really cooling' ''its all station siting ' it's all fraud' BS, but in the real world you have taken a hammering from which you will never recover.
I'd suggest those of you who are still anonymous bail out while you can, because the rest of you are going to endure as a byword for the most dire and venal stupidity...
Enjoy. Tossers.
Were you born this stupid, or have you had to work at it? Do you really think anyone watching Greenland, the Arctic, the US, Chinees rainfall etc. right now is going to be impressed by some mouthbreathing squawking that 'ha ha, the ice isn't gone already'?
What an extraordinary fool you are.
GSW hangs his hat on a particular speculation not coming true, to the exclusion of all the other evidence. I guess that's a strong suggestion that GSW doesn't have much support for his position.
There's no point pointing out to GSW that it wasn't a prediction that the ice will be gone - it was a speculation that "at this rate it could be nearly gone". I guess it takes a bit of extra intelligence to understand the distinction between that statement and how GSW has represented it. Or an interpreter to tell you how to parse it.
And as others have pointed out, you have to be particularly stupid or in outright denial to be impressed by this particular cherry-pick whilst excluding the rest of the data.
Come on, buffoon. That's really the best you can do?
Admit it, you're squirming inside.
@bill
It's the way "alarming" stories have been reported bill. I certainly agree the "gone in five years" is ridiculous, it was back in 2007 as well. So why do a two page spread on the story? and in National Geographic no less.
It just feeds the credulous Numpties with info of no scientific merit whatsoever. The Nasa label, and it is paraded quite prominently, Hansen doing his doom and gloom tipping point catastrophy a bit later, is used to excuse these excesses.
At one point you could forgive people for not understanding the difference between what Nasa people say and the "Science". The mantra continues however "The Science says....." no matter how ridiculous the claims.
Based on its current rate of decline, when you expect the arctic to be ice free GSW? Or do you deny the extent is declining?
Trumpeting the failure of a cautious statement peppered with qualifying words like "could" seems like a remarkably dim short term strategy to me, especially in the face of record arctic ice loss. But what would I know. I'm sure it will begin cooling any day now. You had some cold winters a few years ago! Didn't that prove it was all a scam or something?
Speaking of things people have said, here's a great one by Anthony "Pants On Fire" Watts:
I personally look forward to Watts' revelation, as no matter what it is it will massively contradict most of his comments past views on the subjects and, happily, no-one will care!
GSW, given your slavish devotion to angrily hitting F5 at WUWT at the expense of, oh, I don't know, catching some of those record heatwave rays, what is your view of the BEST debacle? I'd hate to think you are a hypocrite here. Are you willing to accept whatever BEST produce? Or are you going to chuck a sobbing wobbly of denial like Watts so I can laugh at you (well, more)?
GSW's not so keen on promoting this statement:
Guess we found out the answer this year!
It gets better:
what drought amirite
Did National Geographic suddenly become Science or something?
Seriously, some conditional speculation, clearly labelled as such, from 2 NASA employees, in 2007, the record year (for now), at least for area. (Had any thoughts about volume lately? Didn't think so.)
As against the BEST results. Talk about no contest.
Let me guess, if you get your head buzzing loudly enough with this dross the nasty science might go away, eh? And you're all going to assist dear old Uncle Anthony in his pitiably transparent attempt to assuage his own cognitive dissonance, aren't you?
Well, I suppose it's your cognitive dissonance, too, isn't it, Sunshine?
Where's the cooling, incidentally?
Anyway GSW, I'm a bit thick. Could you link to where NASA officially made this statement - perhaps in the peer-reviewed literature - as opposed to speculation qualified with the word "could" by a man who was merely employed by NASA?
After all, you say it's a "NASA prediction" but shockingly NASA seem to have made no such official prediction.
It couldn't be that you are lying, could it GSW? Telling us little porky pies? Exaggerating your little story because, well, it's no so impressive when it's the unofficial opinion of one man that the arctic might be ice free by 2012? Gotta lie to build up your story do you, chump?
Shame shame shame.
@John
I'm not lying about anything John, it is what it is. There's a track record of reporting "exaggerations", the meaningful context/caveats or balance being omitted. Think Polar Bears, Frogs, Sea Ice, Himalayas, Climate Refugee's, Sea level rise, we've been thru them all many times. Nobody in their right mind takes Hansens or Nasa's "media pronouncements" seriously, it's all become a bit of joke I'm afraid.
Given that you apparently can't distinguish between a speculation and a prediction, or between an outlier or a middle of the pack prediction, or between a highly certain prediction and a much less certain one, or between a cherry-picked point and the whole of the evidence, or between the validity of an a priori probability as it relates to the realisation of that probability, and perhaps even between the actual science and the reporting of it, you'll forgive me if I don't assume your judgement on that point is anwhere near valid.
And that's without even pointing out the strong track record of the media under-reporting the level of various risks inferred from the evidence.
The statement Zwally made is correct within the context/caveats in which Zwally made it, and those context/caveats are clear even in the third-hand NG article linked to.
So what extactly is the problem, GSW? Apart from you comprehension skills, I mean....
@FrankD
As I said, it's all become a bit of a joke. The justification for printing "much faster than previous predictions" or "worse than we thought" statements has always been more for "alarm" than credence. National Geographic is on a par with the National Enquirer when it comes to reporting climate stories IMO, there's a certain rigour lacking there and in other publications on the matter.
Oh, so now the National Geographic is a joke? So anything published in it hardly merits the fuss you're trying to make about it then?
So, let's recap; you have one anachronistic reference on an um, obscure news-channel based on a qualified contemporary speculation from a NASA employee in a publication (and out host, I might add) that you're now comparing to the National Enquirer?
Well, that's consistent with your ClimateGate standards, then! You know something, I'm not secretly quaking in my boots about this; this is the kind of pathetic counter-argument that only succeds in making me feel like I'm up against complete idiots!
Your argument appears to be unravelling pretty damn fast, don't you think? In fact, it's much worse than we thought.
Seriously, this is your Great Big New Text? Don't you feel daft trying to peddle this pap?
And all this you think can anaesthetise the pain of BEST? Pretty soon you'll be lost to The Stupid forever, you know...
PS Climate Refugee's what?
@bill
There's no point having a go at me bill, National Geographic printed the story, I didn't make them do it. They chose to print to it, no matter how absurd it appeared then, and even more absurd now I'm sure you will agree ;) .
Like you, I take NASA employees comments with a pinch of salt. Much quoted on Deltoid and RC as being the guardians of a scientific truth, but lacking even a glimer of credibility vis a vis "pronouncements" of impending doom.
The Climate Refugee's relates to a UN prediction there would be 50million of them by 2010. It's a stock denier "giggle at the loonies" conversation piece , you goldfish have bad memories.
Griselda, you need to link to a reliable sources when making claims. Merely repeating all the reconstructed denier memes you unconditionally believe in impresses nobody. You're about as far from reliable as it gets.
@chek
For goodness sake chek, you should know by now I don't tell porkies. It's all over the web, you could find them yourself.
"UN Embarrassed by Forecast on Climate Refugees"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/feared-migration-hasn-t-happe…
Also, UN statement from 2008;
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/ga10725.doc.htm
"SRGJAN KERIM, President of the General Assembly, opened the discussion by saying that 11 of the last 12 years had ranked among the 12 warmest since the keeping of global temperature records had begun in 1850. Two points were significant: that climate change was inherently a sustainable-development challenge; and that more efforts than ever before must be exerted to enable poor countries to prepare for impacts because it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010."
Goldfish! it's a conspiracy!
;)
Another lie from a lying liar! It starts off with one and they just snowball with you lot. You said NASA were making false predictions. NASA didn't make an official prediction nor did anybody say what you claim they did.
So let's briefly summarise what we know, shall we? Making up a false statement and then falsely attributing it to a scientific body seems like a pretty big lie to me.
Your attempts to weasel out by blaming the National Geographic are exceedingly lame.
And you still haven't addressed the elephant in the room - the arctic sea ice extent is now alarmingly low for a planet which is meant to be not warming/cooling (please pick whichever is the popular meme this week).
So based on current trends, when do you expect it to be ice-free by?
Also it's worth noting GSW's argument chain here:
1. Watts is gonna reveal the final coffin in the nail. Oh wait, rumour is BEST is about to tear him a new one? Well...
2. Look over here! NASA said ice free summer by 2012! Oh, they didn't? Then...um...
3. CLIMATE REFUGEES!!!11!! CONSPIRACY!!11!
"Another lie from a lying liar!"
Yeah I know, "pants on fire". Again, it is what it is. The statements are made, reported, and the gullible (that means you) buy into this stuff, when it's all clearly bollocks!
Gawd, this recalls my challenges to Jonas N, as well as the numpties on this thread.
As I recall, only one ever tried to respond, and that effort was so underwhelming I can't recall enough to be able to put a name to the attempt.
Perhaps you'll have better luck, John.
A 'Curtin' perhaps?
Seriously, these deniers cannot stand the heat when, 'reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled', as Richard Feynman wrote at the end of hisChallenger Disaster report.
Time soon when Watts, Cardinal Puff, Nova and the sorry bag of supporting one time or would be scientists that aid them will really start throwing their toys around. It will not be pretty judging by what we have seen so far.
Leo Hickman tweets:
Significant climate-related news will be breaking on Guardian website in next 24-36 hours.
Guess this is the same thing Watts is on about.
GSW,
At the bottom of your press release from an "Informal Meeting on Climate Change and Most Vulnerable Countries", are these very pertinent words:
For information media • not an official record
Because some Macedonian diplomat makes an unsupported speculation or some Taiwanese mystic exaggerates a NASA scientist's very qualified statement, does not mean that everyone who is concerned about the very real risks of climate change buys into their nonsense.
That is the domain of group-think Watts-bots suffering from pathological psychological denial such as yourself.
Can you say, "projection"? Say it with me.
"I, GSW, am projecting my own cognitive inadequacies on others in order to feel better about my powerlessness in a threatening world I can't understand."
There. Doesn't that feel better?
Great Stupid Wanker:
Hope you're holding your breath. You wouldn't want to miss it.
@LB
"does not mean that everyone who is concerned about the very real risks of climate change buys into their nonsense."
I think there is some acceptance there, post the fact, that National Geographic and UN/UNEP were talking, to use your word, "nonsense". Obvious to the rest of us at the time. Takes a little longer to filter thru to the dark, under stairs world of the Deltoids it would seem, the truth will out in the end.
;)
"Great Stupid Wanker"
Ah the intellectuals have arrived!
;)
Certainly it will, and already is, but will you be able to stand the bright light? No. You will all be scuttling and trying to hide under that same little rock with the likes of Watts (not the brightest spark given his name) and the other 'roaches.
@Loth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typographic_ligature
We know that you do nothing but, as when you lying claimed that NASA made a prediction.
Meanwhile, the volume of Arctic ice continues to shrink an alarming rate.
Another question for the liar that he won't answer is what the lowest extent of Arctic sea ice will be this summer and how close it will be to Zwally's speculation. Zero isn't a special value here, other than psychologically; the current low level of sea ice has significant impacts.
There are some claims around that this,
http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/28/new-global-temperature-data-reanlysis…
Muller Op/Ed in the NYT is what all the fuss is about.
"I think there is some acceptance there, post the fact, that National Geographic and UN/UNEP were talking, to use your word, “nonsense”. Obvious to the rest of us at the time"
You're still projecting. National Geographic didn't exaggerate Jay Zwally's qualified statement. You and the rest of you, which apparently on the authority of some crackpot who likely enough is your personal guru, exaggerated his qualified statement into some kind of oracular pronouncement.
Likewise, you are falsely attributing the poorly supported and unofficial opinion of Macedonian economist and diplomat as the official stance of the UN. Much less the UNEP to which it has utterly no connection other than UNEP making it clear, in the Der Spiegel article to which you link, that his opinion has no standing with UNEP.
I know you can't be that stupid. What do you think might be causing you to identify with such nonsense. It couldn't be ideological blinders, could it?
In short Griselda, the sewers of denier tripe that you choose to dip your brains in tend, on the whole, to make you what you are.
At some stage you - probably - could have been rational, but you chose not to be and instead hooked up wth Tony'n'Andy'n'Stevie and the fuckwit circus..
And now you're merely a warning to kids everywhere.
Another question for the silly little man - how many climate refugees are there?
I mean, seriously, you strident arseclowns claim 'it's obvious' - it's always 'obvious' to tiny minds, that's one of their defining features - how many there haven't been; but how many have their been?
From the UNHCR.
You're going to say 'none', are you? Phhht - what are you, 12? That's as pathetic as claiming 'it's cooling' or that the temps are only a result of bad station siting or fraud. And I do mean pathetic - even you must have a glimmer of how infantile your arguments are
I know part of the joy of being a noisy wrecker is never having to do any hard work, but where's your theory on the impact of climate on refugee numbers? Your concept of attribution?
I'm reading Christian Parenti's Tropic of Chaos at the moment - you need not bother; your response, to save you the trouble of having dial out for it, as usual, is 'sneer' and 'hurr hurr' - where he travels the globe and talk to climate refugees and visits people in areas suffering from resource conflicts exacerbated by climate, particularly drought. There's a hell of a lot of both, and just as the arctic ice will steadily approach the zero point you're vapidly playing straw-man with, so will the figure of refugees.
And then exceed it. Let's spend some time with the grown-ups again, shall we?
Seriously - how stupid are you? Don't you feel any shame to be associated with such intellectual bankruptcy?
Not to mention such blatant misanthropy. You and your fellow-travellers will be the first and loudest among the rabble to demand that the very refugees whose crises you've denied be excluded, incarcerated, or simply shot.
Just to avoid any opportunity for playing at semantics rather the facing the issues, the sentence at the end of para 7 should read 'and just as the arctic ice will steadily approach the predicted zero point you’re vapidly playing straw-man with, so will the figure of refugees approach the predicted number.'
Read it and weep, little man.
GSW, fellow clowns - you know that dream where you're walking down the main street and you suddenly realise you're not wearing pants? And everyone is pointing and laughing?
You're not asleep.
Over at BisHill the cannon fodder is working itself into a lather about why WWWT has closed the shutters.
It's a bit disconcerting to see how many apparently adult humans are capable of epic excursions including climbing the peaks of towering, forbidding Conspiratoria, and thence into Deepest Darkest Dunning-Krugeria.
Guess who's one of the star adventurers...
As responsible adults, they are naturally concerned to see you here all lost and alone without you mother.
Bishop Hill's readers are having a meltdown over Muller since none of them know what the official line is yet.
The opinions oscillate from "so what" to "big deal" to "who cares" to "the warming in the last forty years has probably all been fraudulently adjusted anyway".
These "skeptics" are fast exposing themselves as hypocrites. Poor old Bishop Hill heralded the initial announcement of BEST with a slavish post that culminated with the endorsement "Exciting times, I would say" while his erstwhile commenters rubbed themselves raw at the prospect of the edifice crumbling at long last.
Now expect a long stream of posts about how BEST is corrupt and wrong simply because the results of the evidence don't align with the deniers' ideological opinions on how the climate should act and anyway, isn't it cold outside?
And what a day this is turning out to be.
Yep, here's some thorough documenting of the routine doctoring of those controversial Hockey Stick Graphs.
What's that Skippdyduff, GooSeW, the Scandies, Batty, and the KarenCollective? You're saying, well, hang on a minute, can't quite hear... no, still not getting it... hang on... I see...um... nothing?
It's all *crickets* from you, then?
Notice that until the central repositories of neural outsourcing have established their opinion, they don't have one? You'd almost think that the volume and arrogance was inversely proportionate to their actual intellectual capacity, wouldn't you? [smiles sweetly]
"My total turnaround,in such a short time, is the result of careful and OBJECTIVE analysis by the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with MY DAUGHTER Elizabeth.
Nice to see dad doesn't argue with his daughter :) Aahahahaha. Say no more. Yeah, and we don't need to bother to read past that.
USKMSPMM.
What's your point? Is there something fundamentally, scientifically wrong with the BEST analysis?
Bizarre.
My response to USKMSPMM appears to have apparated before Spotty's initial comment.
Well, we already knew that 'Mack' is a full-time, intractable, ineducable, intransigent, unrepentant, rusted-on idiot.
What about the rest of you - who's going to bail, and who's going to fail?
Because that's your choice.
So dad and daughter are in the same business, amd karen thimks this is somehow proof that BEST is wrong?
Or maybe he thinks that women are just too dumb?
Common Bernerd, are those young twins of yours girls.? Are you looking forward to the time of your life with them? Will you want to be a dad that your daughters look up to? Why are you spending so much of your valuable time here arguing, you should be babysitting.
The latest meme seems to be his daughter is an "alarmist" so the results must be incorrect.
No, really.
So, USKMSPMM, you have no relevant reply, and just gutter bilge.
Why am I not surprised.
Another story about the BEST thing and Muller's NYT op-ed.
(I'll be looking forward to GSW complaining that most of the previous press coverage of climate science has been based on the IPCC reports which have clearly been too conservative, as has always been obvious for clear-eyed people like himself. And Anthony Watts will agree with his former self that BEST's results will be the gold standard, and proclaim he is now convinced we have a real problem on our hands. And the anticipated porcine aeronautical maneuvers should be most enjoyable ;-)
"So dad and daughter are in the same business, amd karen thimks this is somehow proof that BEST is wrong?"
Muller clearly never would have agreed with the conclusions of the research he initiated, participated in and published, had his daughter not been on the board of directors.
it's obvious if you think about it (and are suffering from recent and severe cranial trauma).
So if anyone cares (and why would you) Watts' big announcement is a pre-release of a paper to distract from Muller. You know, after Watts bitched about Muller doing just that.
Anyway, be kind to Watts. He suspended his blog to write the thing and it took him all weekend!
Yea verily, for greater love hath no denier supertwat for his own colouring crayon version of contemporary science than he that shutteth down hisown blog (that beith 100% full of meaningless, worthless drivel at the besteth of times) for the whole weekend on account tof Tony telliing us all that he is sure his announcement: "will attract a broad global interest due to its controversial and unprecedented nature". . And then proceedeth to advanceth science not one single ten billionth of one iota.
I think that sound in the distance is Drama Queen Watts'(file under: self-important jerkoff)'s name being erased from 10,000 media contact databases.
Wrong again, GSW. It was never even remotely plausible that Watts would close up shop because of a Muller editorial. Watts' best strategy is to ignore Muller and pretend that he never said he would abide by his results. (My "He’s going to start telling the truth?" comment was, of course, sarcastic.)
How much more naked than naked can one become?
I don't think that Mack is Karen, just that he is equally as stupid.
Wow, this really did shut them up, didn't it?
And, ho ho - Anthony 'we never said it isn't warming' Watts' 'paper'* is.... yet another tired variation on the 'it's all station siting and fraud' - i.e. 'it's not warming' - theme! Who the f*ck cares?
God, you people are ridiculous. Truly History's Most Stupid.
*in the 'train your kitten' sense.
Quote of the week.
As usual, Joe Romm knows exactly how to play this politically. I've been a bit bemused by the number of people on our own side who can't seem to quite get that this is a very hefty stick indeed with which to beat the Deniers... Muller's residual strawmen, quibbling about method, his arrogance, and the fact that we knew it all already are not the point. The point is to start whacking the opposition!
They're hanging out over at Stoat.
So that suggests that Watts is asserting - if only by implication - that his analysis methodology is better than BEST? Interesting. No doubt his "we're all scientific here" minions will be calling on him to demonstrate that...
...any minute now.
Any minute.
Watts' paper is effectively a last-ditch attempt to stay relevant. He's put it out to try to counter Muller, and probably to try to get into AR5 (submissions close Tuesday) - and if it doesn't make it in, then he has a conspiracy to milk.
The trouble for him is that he's now put all of his cards on the table, as it were. The 'draft' is going to be mercilessly picked to pieces, and the remains of the carcass are not likely to find a grave in anything better than a vanity publication such as E@E or TWSJ.
Still, in anticipation of that, he can always claim that he's being ostracised by the world's professional scientists, and any lack of publication, plus omission from AR5, might fuel his project for years to come.
The rats will follow the piper out of town. It's just a shame that they still get to vote in town decisions...
The ABC reported today on Muller's latest paper.
Unfortunately one of the reporters, Simon Lauder, tried to be cute at the end of the interview and said:
which came across as implying that scepticism of climatology is desirable. Way to keep a false equivalency alive...
Bernard, you can also read it differently: there IS room for true skeptics in science, contrary to what many pseudoskeptics claim.
Manipulating data is FRAUD unless Watts does it.
Watts can flail all he likes. He's lost. The debate, credibility, momentum, control of the narrative, the lot; and this ridiculous little piece of theatre surrounding his risible, bathetic re-hash of a three-time losing case ain't going to get any of it back. The Mighty Oz of Denial is, of course, just a pantomime clown behind a curtain...
Even his slack-jawed acolytes know it, which is why this is the most prolonged period of silence we've ever had from them.
You've lost, fools, and even you can't hide from it, not really, even if you choose to double-down on the crazy - which, being true fanatics, most of you most likely will.
But the strident, dishonest rampage through a credulous media of 2009 was your hey-day, and, like the Arctic Ice you've all done your little bit to lose for us, it's never going to come back to what it was.
Watts will never lose because he and his fanbase will deny he's lost.
"A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds that sea surface temperatures [SSTs] in the Southern Okinawa Trough off the coast of China were warmer than the present during the Minoan Warm Period 2700 years ago, the Roman Warm Period 2000 years ago, and the Sui-Tang dynasty Warm Period 1400 years ago. According to the authors, "Despite an increase since 1850 AD, the mean [sea surface temperature] in the 20th century is still within the range of natural variability during the past 2700 years." In addition, the paper shows the rate of warming in the Minoan, Roman, Medieval, and Sui-Tang dynasty warm periods was much faster than in the current warming period since the Little Ice Age. The paper finds "A close correlation of SST in Southern Okinawa Trough with air temperature in East China, intensity of East Asian monsoon and the El-Niño Southern Oscillation index has been attributed to the fluctuations in solar output and oceanic-atmospheric circulation," which corroborates other papers demonstrating that the climate is highly sensitive to tiny changes in solar activity. "
Link, www.birdbrainbillwilltellyou.com
Popped up over at Sceptical Science is news of a new video: Peter Hadfield takes on the MWP.
Well worth a watch but I would like to point to the specifically a reply by John Mashey citing William Ruddiman which is on a line of thinking I have been on myself for awhile having read amongst others Jared Diamond.
Thank you John but I consider that humans have affected climate indirectly since before the take up of widespread agriculture. Our hunter gatherer ancestors are plausibly considered to be behind the wipe out of large herds of huge herbivores - this would surely have had an impact on the dynamics of plant colonisation and thus the balance of atmospheric gases.
That's what I just love about you AGW clowns. You can't even figure out or decide for yourselves when abouts all this man-made global warming began. When did it start? Well you just don't know do you. One bunch of you will say it began at the start of last century or the Industrial Revolution.and produce graphs and figures to that effect ,then another lot will say it was about the time of agriculture land clearances and then we have old wackos like Lionel blaming the caveman. All based on sound settled science you understand.
Aahahahahahahahahaha.
I guess we should be grateful the "skeptics" have a single coherent theory that puts our grab-bag of whatever-we-feel-like-saying-today to shame.
True Marco, and I'm sure that's what Lauder meant, but as I said it had an unfortunately equivocal, bet-each-way tone that will certainly stir the denialist segment of society.
Meanwhile, PZ's minions weigh in on Muller. Many aren't exactly impressed by the weak foundations of his earlier non-acceptance, and many more aren't impressed by his vaguely mealy-mouthed and somewhat denialist-pandering current acceptance.
@Karen: "...which corroborates other papers demonstrating that the climate is highly sensitive to tiny changes in solar activity".
Karen believes in high climate sensitivity! Interesting...another denier wanting to come in from the cold?
So...given that insolation levels have been slightly declining the last few decades, that should mean the highly sensitive climate has been noticably cooling, right?
And since it's noticably warming instead, something else must be strongly overcoming the solar-sensitivity-induced cooling.
What the heck could be doing that, Karen?
"You can’t even figure out or decide for yourselves when abouts all this man-made global warming began. When did it star?"
And when does a baby start being alive?
Only the infantile insist that there is a hard and fast line where something "becomes".
Common fallacy amongst the religious, since it aids enormously in denying any contrary evidence.
LionelA - There is one thing Potholer neglects in his coverage of the mystery "schematic" covered from 10:00 onwards which has long bugged me.
The Y-axis is not labelled "temperature" or "temperature anomaly", but "temperature change". The peak of the "MWP" line is not when the temperature was warmest, but when it was warming the fastest. After that peak, it continues to warm until the temperature change line crosses zero (starts cooling). So the peak of the MWP as reflected on this schematic is not 1200, but around 1375. The LIA is the same (but upside down), and according to this schematic doesn't really start to warm from its nadir until 1900 (cross the axis into positive change again).
This means that quite apart from the issues Hadfield raises about globality and severity, the way this schematic is used offsets the MWP and LIA by several hundred years. The Ickes and Moncktons and whoever else use it don't even know what it shows, and are oblivious to the fact (or conceal) that the timings are way off.
In the case of the MWP as shown here, the peak of warming is so late that it is closer to when Greenland civilisation collapsed that it is to when it was founded. And therefore probably has nothing to do with any MWP regardless of its globality and severity. And the LIA as show here is so far off the instrumental record for the late 19th century that it can pretty much be dismissed as rubbish...
karen, have you actually read the Wu et al 2012 paper to which you refer? If so, you'll find that there is nothing - and I mean nothing - in it that supports the denialist perspective. The paper details how sea surface temperatures in this area are heavily influenced by regional processes associated with the East Asian Monsoon. The authors also state that: "However, we acknowledge that if the SST in the SOT keeps increasing at the current rate ... the 21st century warmth will be indeed unprecedented in the context of the past 2700 years". Incidentally, they also note that MWP was weak in this area, which of course undermines another denialist meme.
Hint: you might actually want to read the research before you trumpet it?
Mack vomited thusly:
You stupid boy. Your comprehension skills are poor and your perception is worse because you are an ignoramus.
Go back and read what I wrote carefully, with a thinking head on and after studying the many topics required to arrive at the postulate I made.
Hint the last key phrase (emboldened to help you further) that I used here:
Did I suggest that the results was a warming influence? No.
However, your response is so typical of the knee jerk reactions from such as you who cannot hold more than one concept in mind at a time.
Consider that the rise of human society and agriculture could have given any natural variability in temperature an upward nudge to which was added a bigger nudge by massive deforestation for land structures and ship-building and the production of charcoal as smelting spread through civilization. You are aware that working in iron started long before the generally recognised start of the industrial revolution (IR), before which there was the agrarian revolution (AR) which caused massive changes in land use.
Are you aware of the vast areas of timber that were felled for building warships, and also the increased use of iron in cannon and structure, across the centuries and all over europe? All this began before the IR and would have provided another upward nudge.
So, an old wacko am I?
Have you read Jared Diamond or any other worthwhile texts?
Mack, seems to be your signature tune Aahahahahahahahahaha.
It's 'cos 'e's mad, sir.
Mack: "there's lumos of it 'round the back"
Oh, well Anthony Watts, flog a dead horse earthquake announcement of the new improved "Watts MythGate 2.0", caused hardly any ripple in the big Internet pond. Well, it was built on the pitiful few scant remains of the well carpet bombed "Watts MythGate 1.0"!
In other news, poor old Rick Muller's latest muse, earns Ross McKittrick's endorsement of infantile "Peter Principle" silliness. Ah, the smell of burning "BS", hangs heavily over Ross's place of work.
Now, watt did "Honest Abe" say about funny numbers again? Ah, yes; "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."!
As, they say in the real world, choose your experts wisely, and keep all the denialati charlatans and carbon pollution industry funded propaganda writers at arm's length.
I think you're both missing the implication of the quote, which is that scientists (especially the climate science community) lack skepticism and that it takes a *real* skeptic like Richard Muller to keep them honest. That's certainly Muller's highly inflated view of himself.
Mack, that modern humans and monkeys share a common ancestor is settled science. Exactly when the divergence occurred, and why, is not settled. Only a moron would think that the latter undermines the former ... a moron like you.
Lionel, I always rather liked the Lard (Jello Biafra / Ministry) version. We should be so lucky that anyone would have the courtesy to take him away!
(Actually, I think I've found footage of Mack.)
And so Denial was reduced to its core constituents; the mouthbreather circus troop...
Sorry, I've not been keeping up with Deltoid, but I wonder if Tim has seen this, especially as the authors are Australian?
Basically, climate change deniers have a lot in common with CT nuts. Some surprise!
So, my link disappeared. Again,
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/Lskyeta…
Lumos? Tons that was meant to be.
Maybe my dictionary was set to greek...
Blog review of Watts' latest opus.
Latest from Climate Crocks.
Lest we forget that the contemptible, shopworn idiocies peddled by stupid little people have real consequences.
(PS: one whole month of the GBNT and Australia still not back in the Stone Age! Well, except that the alarming numbers of scarred-knuckle troglodytes appear to believe they own the place...)
Blog review of Watts' latest opus.
From the comments, apparently quoting Pielke (although I have not verified the quote):
I suspect those words will turn out to be wish-fulfillment-marketing-effort (a.k.a. hype the press release before the paper is dismantled and shown to not support the hype) rather than an accurate analysis...but that's usually enough to convince a whole bunch of people.
The blog analysis points out that Watts' trends in homogenised data are very similar to earlier work, which suggests that Watts' et al have largely reiterated existing understanding.
There are other comments suggesting serious deficiencies in Watts' analysis, including one that begins:
This comment considers it to be
And goes on to wonder why it shows temperature trends to three decimal places with no error estimation. The same commenter has another pertinent question at the bottom of the page.
Bill t 1:55 am, 31 July.
I reckon that the GBNT can be put in the same basket as the GGWS.
Lionel,
You suffer from the same affliction as everybody else here ie. a total loss of perspective. Start from the fact that the earths surface is covered in 71% ocean.and work from there....
Billbaby,
Oh here we go again with the poor droning sad-assed voice of Peter Sinclair and his weekly message of doom. This guy is guaranteed to cheer you up no end. The whole thing seemed remotely plausible there for a second until ol' Travesty made his appearance (again?) Now that"s one kiwi I'm really proud of ...he's right up there with Salinger but slightly more sophisticated.
Great Stupid Wanker:
<blockquote"Ah the intellectuals have arrived!"
Oh, the irony.
Remember the Galelio Movement? No, neither did I. Incredibly and unpredictably they remain unmoved by the BEST results, as they know the root of the scam - Jews:
The comments from the Watts faithful make for extraordinary reading. Watts has "turned climate science on its head". Hubris piled upon exaggeration, piled upon more hubris. Ex-sceptic Muller re-invents the wheel and in response Watts orchestrates a circus and his fleas obligingly jump. Has ACC scepticism ever been less credible?
That should read:
Has ACC "scepticism" ever been less credible?
I disagree with you slightly there. I think most deniers have been distinctly underwhelmed by Watts' new paper. It contains nothing new and features all the data manipulation that they've been railing against for years. Even to them it stinks of a cheap distraction. It's rushed and looks every bit something thrown together when it became clear BEST wasn't going to go his way.
Meanwhile the BEST results have blown up in the media all over the world, reflecting horribly on the "skeptics" who'd previously announced their approval of Muller and his methods. They don't understand the science and the biggest non-scientific gripe they can manage is it's, gasp, co-authored with his daughter.
John, what we need is a word for the kind of self-cancelling nomenclature that has such a group labeling itself as 'The Galileo Movement'. 'Carbondioxymoron' doesn't quite fit. 'Jonesing' in honour of their esteemed patron?
And, oh, I smell the LaRouchies / CEC...
And the relevance of that is because...? Come on that demands more explanation.
I'll ask you a question. What proportion of the Earth's total matter is salt water? Perhaps you should really start there.
You might need to dig out a book on, perhaps, Oceanography to find out. I can give you a reference if needs be.
Now WRT Peter Sinclair's messages of doom you need to pay attention and I can say that all of us here wishes the future did not look so bleak and looking all the bleaker because mutts like you help delay progress on ameliorating the situation.
It seems that you are too ignorant to realise how ignorant you are, like most of your ilk.
Speaking of delayers, there was an interesting piece on Late Night Live earlier this week:
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/climate2c-sc…
I actually disagree with Mirowski on a number of points, but his overall summation is interesting.
Mack said:"Start from the fact that the earths surface is covered in 71% ocean.and work from there"
Start from the fact that the U.S.A. is only <2% of the Earth's surface and work from there to figure out how Tony Wassup woz going to upturn the whole global AGW applecart, for a short period last weekend. Only to find - as he will soon when mosher'n'mcintyres'n'pielke's corrections are hastily incorporated - that NOAA et al have been correct all along.
Tony Wassup could launch a new range of fireworks that come pre-soaked in brine and positively soggy which could be expected to be far more spectacular and have much more impact than his 'we-already-knew-that' "unprecedented" paper.
I don't expect we'll see ol' Skippyduff et al around here for a while until this all blows over. But then the web never forgets.
Have you heard about the explosive new paper from Anthony Watts?
Apparently it exploded.
FTW.
:-)
Sounds like popcorn may need to be ordered for the saga of Watts' latest "draft".
McIntyre, who apparently was asked for last minute assistance with statistics has now noticed that Watts' paper ignores TOB issues in the raw data (although it does state that the factor needs more investigation). Mosher has called the statistics work "hurried and sloppy".
An "Anonymous" defends the paper on the grounds of the note that it needs more investigation, to which the blog author responds:
I suspect we're getting a pretty good sense of the answer to that last question.
The Rabbett takes a quick look at Watts' paper, particularly regarding TOB - and why you have to fix TOB before you can assess UHI.
The Stoat on Why Watts' new paper is doomed to fail review:
And the first comment is gold ;-)
From the serious comments:
And dhogaza has some speculation on the reason for hurrying the draft on to the web [ellipses are in the original comment]:
Zeke has some initial thoughts on Watts' draft.
Indeed. Dhogaza deserves an Oscar for Best One-liner.
I doubt that a professional comedian could have scripted a better first comment.
"mutts like you help delay progress on ameliorating the situation" Now you say this "situation" began at the time of the caveman...(these cavemen should have extracted their digits to "ameliorate the situation" in the first place eh Lionel)...and this "situation" you must agree has been going on for many millenia ,Why then hasn't the "situation" reached ,shall we say, a crescendo. We should all be literally cooking by now, shouldn't we Lionel? Maybe there's no "situation" . Maybe the situation only exists in your brainwashed mutthead. .
"Now you say this “situation” began at the time of the caveman…"
The prosecution would like to point out this evidence of insanity in the testament of the defendant.
Wow,
" ....testament of the defendant" Wrong wowbaby I'm not the defendant...you are. You're the one trying to defend your quack CO2 warming the planet theory.
The prosecution is glad of the extra evidence of mental instability provided by the defendant for the illumination of the court.
Macktheyack:
Well it is becoming abundantly clear that your brains are cooked, not surprising really as you must have your head in the ever getting hotter sand..
So, not answering my question eh? Now where have we seen this before.
It seems that you still have a comprehension fail WRT my comments about hunter gatherers.
Has it ever occurred to you, 'Mack', that you really are quite extraordinarily dense?
It's notable that after the BEST/Wattsgate fiasco most Warmist blogs are now down to about one abrasive cretin each - Global Village Idiots, if you will - who still yabbers and gloats away because he (it usually is) is truly too stupid to understand what just happened.
Just to make it clear, that's you, 'Mack'. If ignorance is bliss you must be the happiest man in creation...
And yet another link to "Think Progress" a newspaper with a climate section. What an astounding fount of knowledge . But how is your progress at being able to think Linoleum.?
We should all be literally cooking by now, shouldn’t we Lionel?
[peer reviewed citation needed]
And again we have another slice of evidence of the maniacal nature of Mack/Karen/Spots.
There isn't any newspaper I can think of that doesn't have a section on astrology or cartoons.
What is supposed to be drawn from a newspaper having a section on any subject? Are some things just taboo for you? Very authoritarian. Very Maoist.
MackYack
Better than yours judging by your failure to qualify this statement of yours, 'Start from the fact that the earths surface is covered in 71% ocean.and work from there….'
And answering MY follow up question.
Waiting. Waiting. Waiting.
You'll be waiting a long time.
Prepare for a nonsequitur.
On the Watts et al draft thread at The Stoat, dhogaza confirms that Christy relied on Watts' draft in his Senate testimony, which does rather give the impression that Watts was on notice to have the draft out in time for this specific event...
I reckon that was indeed the target, Loth. Classic 'splash across the font page; retract at leisure with a single column para on page 26' strategy. One hopes the Senate ain't daft enough to fall for it...
Dana and Kevin tackle the 'paper' at SkS.
Er, make that:
Tamino on the latest from Watts and Muller.
And he explains why, including that (as Mann quipped) Muller's relatively simple analysis has finally caught up to the climate science as it was in 1980 or thereabouts because Muller is doing relatively simple regressions that many others have done (and quite a few have done more complex versions).
bill Aug 1 11.42am.
..."the happiest man in creation" Creation? Slip of the tongue there Billbaby.
Golly; you've got to admire a guy who can assemble such a stinging retort in less than 24 hours.
Well, he has to wait for instruction, remember.
And if anybody is unsure as to which way John Christy is punting then KR at SkS has the nugget. But here is another link to Christy's written testimony avoiding WUWT.
To use Joe Romm's favourite metaphor, it would appear that the whole of Denial has just jumped the shark. They might as well each hold up a sign that reads 'we're desperate'.