More thread for you.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Dear readers,
With "Dean's Corner" in its third month, I would like to learn about you. Inspired by Ed Yong's thread, I ask that you tell me about yourself, your interest in science and how you got here.
I'm intrigued that readers of this blog are spread far and wide. Here's a…
This morning, I was forced to do something that I rarely do, namely shut down a comment thread and ban a particularly noxious troll for sockpuppetry. The post in question dealt with one Michael J. Dochniak and his ridiculous and scientifically unsupportable notion (I refuse to dignify it by calling…
We have a thread on female genital mutilation, and a few boys are insisting on turning it into a discussion of the damage done to their pee-pees by circumcision. For the record, I agree with you: circumcision is mutilation, too, and it shouldn't be done, and doctors shouldn't be collaborating in…
The recent uptick in troll traffic here and at Orac's place got me thinking. Many of the trolls have been making unsophisticated attacks on the truth without actually stating a hypothesis. And that got me thinking even more. If they could only state their questions properly, there would be some…
I'll Start!
"These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarm…
Oooh! Bettttty! Citing Forbes and James Taylor. You must be becoming desperate to believe another James Taylor BS special. Some mothers do have them.
So Betty, I'll ask again, remind us again what your day job involves?
Come on stop dodging and ducking and diving, changing the subject.
Here you are Betty,
James Taylor Caught Doctoring the '97-Percent Consensus' Claims.
via
Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature.
What a fool you are Betty.
Latest on Dana/deltoid lew scientology:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/01/tol-statistically-deconstructs-th…
:-)
What is it that you know-nothings don't understand about sampling?
And why has Tol foregone publishing his 'criticism' to instead make guest appearances pretending not to understand representative samples at joke blogs like Williwatts?
Questions the numpty brigade will never ask themselves, but whose answers are all too obvious to the rest of us.
On sober reflection, I'd like to withdraw the perjorative 'numpty brigade' from my prebious post, and instead sunstitute 'insane minority political cultists'.
Lionel A...
Let's start with this statement in the article...
"The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action."
The "debunking" does not address the first part of the statement...
"The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless."
"Meaningless".
The "debunking" does however, attempt to address the last part of the statement...
"whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action."
Here's the response....
"One only needs to look to what is happening in the Arctic with our Polar Ice Cap being transformed into a summer time oceanic solar absorption plate" and proceeds to supply a video by Jennifer Francis which concludes...
"We expect to see an increased probability of extremes"
She doesn't expect an increase of extremes, but "expects" an increased "probability" of extremes. Um, ok, fair enough.
Here are the "weather" extremes she mentions that run the gamut and all contradict each other without mention of where these will all occur.....
"Droughts", "flooding" (from the droughts), "heat waves", "cold spells" (from the heat waves) and "prolonged snowfall" (from the droughts and heat waves)
Makes sense to me.
The "debunking" then addresses individuals mentioned in the article by attempting to discrediting them. Examples:
"Craig Idso, has close ties to various contrarian think tanks"
"Nicola Scafetta is a physicist at Duke University who published a 2006 paper claiming the sun was to blame for half the warming since 1900."
Nir Shaviv is...."another example of what I call a practitioner of "science in a vacuum"
"Mörner may be a scientist, but he's also a water douser and some would say even a grave robber among other eccentricities"
"Willie Soon" "is an extreme outlier, who's science gets refuted at every turn."
Yet, somehow, all these scientists were good enough at the time for Cook to include in his "consensus claim".
Shocking!
By the way, the "debunking" article was written by that well known scientist (who carries no ideological bias) known as "Peter"
The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming.
Yes, it's amazing how slippery you idiots are, and how you slime yourselves into whatever position finally becomes undeniable, almost as if you think everybody else can't remember back more than 5 minutes and now believes we have always been at war with Eurasia.
I've only come back to say thank you for today's burst of, er, global warming. They (the Met Office - yeeeees, quite!) tell me that it should last all week. Then it's back to rain and cold - again. Why am I not surprised?
Anyway, knowing as I do your psychological necessity of believing that the end of the world is nigh, let me give you one more chance to jump on a bandwagon with much stronger possibilities than global (non)warming. I did mention this before but received no thanks but I will try again because in a funny (a very funny) way I have become rather fond of you all.
"An asteroid nine times larger than the QE2 has sailed past the Earth - and is so big it even brought along its own moon."
Apparently, "Scientists have calculated that in 2182 there is a one in 1,800 chance of the object colliding with the Earth."
Well, that's a bigger chance than your silly old global warming theories which are freezing over with increased alacrity these days. No, no, don't thank me, I'm always here to help.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2333907/QE2-asteroid-sai…
You desperately love that old Chrissie Booker meme, don't you Duffer. And is there anything sadder than a cod psychology groupie?
# 10 David Duff
Confusion over regional weather and global climate. See the bigger picture.
You also confuse the atmosphere with the climate system. Most of the energy accumulating in the climate system is measurable in terms of ocean heat content.
The red line in the pretty picture is the 3 month mean. Look at it carefully, and consider what you understand by the term "cooling".
Betula
Unless you propose a mechanism you don't have an argument.
Let me improve that.
Unless you have a strongly supported scientific argument, you have nothing.
The Idsos and Scafettas and Shavivs of this world do not provide the strong support necessary, which leaves you in a bit of a pickle.
Duff is the archetypal silly old bugger. Best ignored.
And, Batty, what is it with deniers and their remarkable inability to use blockquotes? It's a persistent feature; you'd think they were all reactionary curmudgeons uncomfortable in the modern world, or something.
<blockquote>blah blah blah</blockquote>
If I wanted to have no idea who was saying what I'd be over at the Rabett's, where the code won't work.
testing learning.
Well, Bill, this "silly old bugger" has no need of "blockquotes", I just stick to English grammar and use inverted commas.
Duffer puffed:
Which does not indent and make a quote specific, this you would know about if you had ever engaged in university level education.
Now WRT your #10 this, in an earlier thread, was aimed squarely at you: <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/05/09/may-2013-open-thread/comment…; my #97 here.
Grrr! HTML snafu.
Now WRT your #10 this, in an earlier thread, was aimed squarely at you: my #97 here.
Now, before the usual suspects come swinging in with their usual unrestrained glee at yet another nail in the 'warmist's coffin' (the use of warmist of course is a term which identifies them as ideologues and thus addicts of bilge that comes from Nova/Card'Puff/WFUWT etc), namely the recent, yawn it's all been debunked before, Qing-Bin Lu CFC-GCR fiasco.
Currently being dissected demolished at:
the Rabett's , Rick Piltz's place and Climate Progress.
Betula at #8
Repeating Taylor's BS does not make it smell any the sweeter. Look what you have done now, dragged it out on your feet.
Anybody know what's going on with Tamino at his "Open Mind" blog? No new posts, comments are turned off. Is he well?
@ Lionel #18
Why am I not surprised that proper English is no longer taught at Universities. And @#19 you see what you get for relying on your silly, modish 'computerese'!
Because you've never gone to university, duffski.
Hence you're unsurprised at anything you think may be going on there, since you'll make any old shit up because you think that is the case.
Meanwhile, look at your complete inability to understand basic English, never mind "proper English".
Indented quoting has got nothing to do with any 'comuterese' you jackass. Furthermore, you jackass, that particular snafu had nothing to do with 'blockquoting' either. But then you never display much ability for critical thinking or grasp of context do you.
Gingerbaker, @ #22
Last I noted was that Tamino was busy on some project, another book I think.
Floods in Europe involving that river described by one of my favourite music pieces Bedřich Smetana: Má Vlast Moldau (Vltava). Another data point for the records.
Doh!
One of my favourite music pieces Bedřich Smetana: Má Vlast Moldau (Vltava). Another data point for the records.
At RealClimate,
Susan Anderson says:
25 May 2013 at 11:26 AM
re Tamino: Barton Paul Levenson
as noted here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/05/unforced-variatio…
“I asked a mutual acquaintance who said:
“working on fighting the proposed East West Corridor project that is supposed to bisect the town with a highway and utility/pipeline corridor that would destroy the town and most of central Maine from Calais to Coburn Gore. A bunch of us have been tasked by the town selectmen to come up with a moratorium proposal as well as strategies to educate the public on the implications of the the project.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/05/unforced-variatio…
Daft old fart: HTML links are 'silly, modish computerese'!
And we use blockquotes because this is gibberish. Even more so than usual.
Tamino is back
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/honesty/
Tree ring update: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/06/yamal-and-polar-u…
Absolutely devastating to the deniers who have been banging on about this for the last half decade. A must read.
Bob.
Not only is it devastating to the denialists' argument, it is damning with respect to their behaviour.
Cue much wailing and gnashing of teeth...
Except that deniers are, by definition, going to deny that that has any effect on their claims.
[Please excuse the cross posting - Rabbet Run's blogger didn't like the length of my post so I'm lodging it here]
Viewer warning: much of this is just a venting, but there are a couple of half-interesting links in the middle...
Willard at 2/6/13 10:19 AM, I missed your post previously. Anyway, fair cop. And the Brides reference was probably so abstract as to be indecipherable.
Having said that... I do find it depressing that this issue has been beat up the way it has, and how it has been mendaciously manipulated the way it has. Whilst I am all for a constructive decontruction of any paper, the resistance to Cook et al shows little of any genuine motivation for understanding the truth, and a lot of dog-whistling and mud-slinging.
I find it depressing too when too many people show no effective understanding of the situation. A few days ago Martin said (at 31/5/13 7:29 AM:
"This blog entry is tantamount [sic] to the uselessness of the paper, if measured against the expressed purpose for which it has been written in the first place. That the question overwhelming the whole discussion is [sic] if the authors did everything exactly right or not shows, in and of itself, its failure."
Cook et al is certainly not "useless" - the whole notion that there is not a professional concensus with respect to the scientific understanding of the climatology has fueled much propaganda in the public domain. In Australia this has been an ongoing phenomenon for at least 6 years, and it has occurred even at the highest level of government - opposition leader Tony Abbott kicked off his leadership with his "climate change is crap" meme, which he has nurtured in one form or another ever since. He pulls a big chunk of his putative votes with this strategy, besides the fact that it aligns with his ideology. Although Abbott is now more guarded in expressing his resistance to the science, many of his senior colleagues are still happy to put their denial directly in the public domain - Cory Bernardi did so only about five hours ago on last night's edition of Q and A on the ABC. I don't have time to find and transcribe his comments now, but essentially he said there is no consensus, that it's all bollocks. And this man will be a part of the next Australia government - which is hell-bent on reversing all pricing of carbon emissions...
It is this willful (or otherwise) ignorance in the highest levels of government and media, and the propaganda that accompanies its, that has to date prevented humanity from commencing any effective move to seriously address carbon emissions. If such people insist on peddling this tripe, their falsehood must be addressed as it is in Cook et a. That some people (who should know better) choose to aid and abet the deniers and the delayers is the galling icing on the cake.
In the end it wouldn't matter if the consensus was only 10% - if the science itself withstands scrutiny (as it does) and all contradicting work fails under testing (as it does) the implications are still exactly the same. The laws of physics don't give a shit whether corporate interests or conservative ideologues don't like the message: the end result for humans and the biosphere will be the same.
So, I find it damnably depressing that our governments and our corporations are rearranging deck chairs whilst the Titanic sinks. I find it even more damnably depressing that an engineer on the ship insists that it was only a small iceberg, because she couldn't see the bit that was under the water, and therefore it can't have been that damaging, and I find it just as damnably depressing that some bloody accountant doesn't want to call in the response staff because the overtime would be onerous. History is replete with sinkings of ships because captains listened to everyone besides their navigators, and it seems that the Good Ship Gaia has the same sort of incompetence at its helm.
And I find it depressing that even as the Tols and Watts who cluck and dog-whistle at Cook et al are shown to have no substantive case, they will have succeeded anyway because a sizable part of the middle-ground public are nevertheless left with the impression that the science is dodgy. If this is what Martin means by "useless" then my depress-o-meter just climbed down into the basement and started digging.
Something's broken in our society's capacity to safeguard its collective future, and more and more I find it difficult not to get snippy with some of the perps. However, having vented I will attempt to keep future comments on this thread focussed on the the Cook et al paper itself.
For those wondering about the context of the above comment, this will probably help to explain.
Fellas, the guys who faked the moon landing are at it again . This must be impossible, regardless of scale!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2327494/Crossing-worlds-terrify…
;-)
Daily fail is called that for a reason, Lappie.
So The Fuckwit Brigade (as represented by Olap above) are crowing that the Arctic is frozen over ... in winter?
Truly, they understand much, much less than you might reasonably think.
Oily could be outwitted by a suet pudding. I heard he was once fleeced by an (admittedly particularly savvy) hamster.
Re Bob #32
They're not sugar-coating it! -
A must-read indeed!
" He pulls a big chunk of his putative votes with this strategy, besides the fact that it aligns with his ideology. "
This is where I get a bit confused. Why do parties have policies that pander to demographics that are always going to support them regardless?
It doesn't matter whether Abbott says "climate change is crap", the kind of idiots who think that are not going to vote ALP anyway.
Same with the ALP - they've lost a huge chunk of the swinging vote by pampering illegal immigrants with $billion$, supporters of which are never going to vote Liberal regardless.
It makes no sense.
Craig:
This is the thing with Abbott's strategy. His disparagement about the veracity of climate science will not put off-side his hardcore supporters, so he's only reinforcing his base there, but it will sway the important swinging voters who may have conservative tendencies, or who are being impacted by factors that are tangential (or even unrelated) to emissions control and who are easily led to confabulation of issues.
And easily led they are. Look at the mileage that Abbott has wrought simply from his "lie" meme.
In late 2009 both the Labor Government and a large chunk of the conservative Liberal [sic] National opposition had negotiated to pass a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bill. At the eleventh hour Abbott used this agreement as a trigger to whip up the ideological antipathy to the science within a section of the coalition, and he ousted Malcolm Turnbull by only one vote. This was enough to eventually give Rudd the heebie-jeebies and he capitulated on bringing in the CPRS, which cost him his Prime Ministership. Julia Gillard came in on the backlash against Rudd's prevarication and said that she would not bring in a carbon price in her next term - a claim on which she reneged, but one that was effectively a bipartisan-supported issue (and a necessity indicated by the hard science) until Abbott's overweening ambition and ideology scuppered the original CPRS.
In the overall scheme of things the eventual manner of introduction of the carbon tax should be a trivial historic footnote. The Coalition itself introduced the "never ever" goods and services tax, and broke countless other "non core promises" so Abbott's hypocrisy is breath-taking, but for the last three years he and his political and media chums only have to mention the words "lie" or "liar" and they evoke impressions of some great calamity of justice and policy. This Pavlovian response in the mind of the uninformed sector of the public has spread from the irrational, hair-trigger but nebulous fear of a carbon price to just about any other subject that Abbott and his dog-whistlers care to label with the hint of a "lie", but it always returns at a visceral level to the fundamental manufactured horror over the carbon tax.
It matters not to Abbott that he has no objective moral high ground in the climate debate. It's his ideological baby, and it works to sucker the voters, and that's all that matters.
And this abject lack of political discernment is a sad indictment of too large a portion of the Australian voting public.
Good morning fellas,
amazing stuff wasn't it? But no worries, the ice free arctic will be a fact this summer. ;-)
I understand Oily also bought a rather nice bridge in New Jersey from a particularly persuasive Gila Monster.
And, yep, I'm with Bernard - what we're about to get is The Stupid coming home to roost. Even some of the senior Libs must seriously doubt they can really ride this tiger. At least, not without ending up like the UK tories pandering to the UKIP crowd...
# 46
The full horror of what is starting to happen in the UK hasn't dawned on most people yet. The (swivel-eyed) lunatics; the asylum etc.
"But no worries, the ice free arctic will be a fact this summer"
So that's your prediction is it?
Well, I predict your prediction will fail, Lappie.
Speaking of crazy Liberal [sic] politicians, for those who missed it Cory Bernardi was in his usual form last Monday. His commentary can be found here:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3759900.htm
Bernardi was countered by Bill McKibben, although I think that McKibben lost the opportunity for a few pithy rebuttals - in part because Bernardi is overly-appreciative of his own voice..
There's a panel to the right of the viewing window that has a direct link to the "Climate conspiracy" segment of the broadcast which starts at 24:20. It goes for about seven and a half minutes.
I'm not sure how long these episodes are kept online, but anyone interested should take the opportunity soon to witness the (lack of) calibre of our next government.
The blog entries attached to that segment are a reiteration of how blinding ignorant are too many Australians. It's a wonder that some of these people can actually post something on the internet...
Oh my. Quote from GWPF's Lord Lawson from a Radio 4 discussion last night:
"my thinktank has some of the world's most eminent climate scientists on its academic advisory board"
Richard Lindzen is the only climate scientist I can see on their 24 man (they are all men) academic advisory board. Obviously Lindzen is eminent in Lawson's eyes only because his views are what Lawson wants to hear.
Jeepers, Bernard, those comment threads made my skin crawl - what a shouty bunch of morons.
On the upside, I did discover a new low in denier-logic: I know Buzz Aldrin's mother's maiden name, so I know more about climate change than you.
Under normal circumstances, I would think that would take some beating. Then again, as long as Karen and GSW are hanging around here, new lows are always in the offing.
Yes johnl at #13, it is good to see Tamino back and drawing out the comedy duo of Goddard and Bastardi again for more, ahem, comedy. The latter cannot even control a spell-checker and then blames it for his mistakes - priceless.
Okay chaps, you've gotta see it to believe it and you heard it here first. Coming hot on the heels of "it's the sun", "an ice age cometh", "scientists no nuffin'", "Greenland ice cores are less than 650 years old" (all in the space of 24 hours) we've got a new culprit:
It's the insects!
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/omg-its-insects-and-more-farce-from-…
Priceless! It's a Logic Pit of Doom...
(Perhaps it's an experiment to see how far you can go and still get published on WUWT. Further yet, I'll wager.)
How many noddies are nodding along to that one?
Of course, those Greenland farmers were using an early version of the Oily Arctic Ice Bus to get around. It's true; a squirrel told him.
Wow, noddies indeed; now they're supporting ID.
What a fine wee circus your peers are running, Oily, Rudolph, Duffer,. Goosey etc.. Shameful, ain't it?
So the Eemian was only 650 years ago? Everything we thought we knew is wrong!
Thank God for WTFUWT keeping science on the straight and narrow.
* * *
Burn if encountered:
Dahl-Jensen et al. (2013). Eemian interglacial reconstructed from a Greenland folded ice core
# 50 L_S
Re Lawson:
That is simply a lie. Lawson is usually more careful to avoid making straightforwardly dishonest statements. I think the surge of media misrepresentations, false balance, dubiously low TCR/ECS estimates etc is making the deniers and the shills and their conservative enablers over-confident.
Meanwhile, "climate disruption" strikes in Europe. Again.
Or he's finding out that he can get away with figurative murder right in front of everyone and that there's no consequence, except that he gets cheered on by the crowd he's fleecing.
I contacted The World Tonight pointing that out and asking them to correct, but suspect my message will be ignored. You can listen to Lawson lie here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qtl3
Given that Williwatts is a double-digit IQ moron run (according to Brer Eli) by Rog the Pielonker, is this the new level of dumbed-down-and-keep-drilling garbage that Corporate America (represented by Heartless) is signing off on now?
You can't get much lower than propagating bestial-level ignorance.
BBD @ 57
"Meanwhile, “climate disruption” strikes in Europe. Again"
That pesky climate always disrupting things...
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/flood-wreaks-havoc-in-europe
Betula, no wonders since the global warming is at its best disrupting mode:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-m…
;-)
@Olaus,
Thanks Olaus! I was looking for the update earlier and it hadn't appeared yet. Whatever happened to Global Warming?
;)
The irony being that it is Abbott who has been caught lying: as recently as last week he was caught making a flat-out lie on the subject of the electoral reform funding bill.
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/opposition-leader-tony-abbott-back…
It's there allright GSW, the famous portentologist Monsieur Bonaparte has even seen the disruption first hand. Science is settled! ;-)
@Olaus,
To be fair Olaus, he now claims he's been misquoted and he didn't witness anything "first hand". Which I'm sure is disappointing to the others here. Good to hear from you Olaus!
;)
GSW, like Dr. Phil says:
“No upward trend…has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried,”
Let the force be with you GSW! ;-)
@Olaus
Yes well again, I think in retrospect even Phil would admit that was a bit of a "Hillary", he wasn't in error, he simply "misspoke".
:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl71Qo25T1I
0- 2000m OHC update to March 2013.
Look at the wiggly red line (3 month mean). Notice the huge jump at the end?
You are unimaginably stupid.
Whatever happened to your brain?
You make a claim about the trend BUT HAVE NOT SHOWN WHAT IT IS.
Betula
1953 was an Atlantic storm and associated surge. This is another extreme precipitation event. Same thing happened in 2002. This is what happens when the hydrological cycle begins to speed up.
@BBD,
Sorry BBD, "Whatever happened to Global Warming?" has become something of a comedy catchphrase response whenever Trenberth's "travesty" crops up in conversation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQlHaGhYoF0
;)
Still lying about Trenberth I see.
I don't do video links, especially not blind ones, so you will need to go to the trouble of actually writing down your point (if you have one).
My point has been made before, but you never acknowledged it so here it is again:
Big increase in 0 – 2000m OHC for JFM 2013. Really big (link at # 69 - just click the blue text... for once).
There’s an absolutely massive amount of energy accumulating in the climate system because of the radiative imbalance caused by the increasing fraction of atmospheric CO2. Something in the order of 25*10^22 joules over the last half-century. At least.
A very slight increase in the rate at which energy mixes down through the upper ocean layer is enough to slow the rate of surface warming for a decade or two.
Everybody with a basic grasp of physical climatology knows that yammering on about short-term variability in the rate of surface warming is a red herring.
Okay, I know you don't understand any of this but that's not the problem here. The problem is that, from a position of ignorance, you vociferously deny science that you don't even understand.
That's obviously silly, so why do you do it? And equally to the point, why do you absolutely refuse to answer this question?
There's something really strange going on here and I think you should explain yourself now.
It's all they've got. And it becomes some weird alternate reality for them when they come to believe their own (self) deceptions.
Yet another rich area for Lewandowsky to investigate sometime.
@BBD,
"There’s something really strange going on here and I think you should explain yourself now."
That's just paranoia BBD. I see you've reverted to your comfort argument, "everyone's a liar"(?), but you've said you never do that, do you?
;)
"I don’t do video links, especially not blind ones, so you will need to go to the trouble of actually writing down your point (if you have one)."
His "point" was that it doesn't matter what the link says, he can claim it says whatever the hell he likes and the rest of the slug horde will just accept it, even if you come back with a detailed list of what it contains (by pretending you're lying about what it contains, that you've missed something, or that it never happened at all).
"The problem is that, from a position of ignorance, you vociferously deny science that you don’t even understand."
Gitters doesn't see that as a problem.
They're a lying sack of crap, you see.
GSW
Read the words.
Especially these:
Now answer the fucking question.
GSW said:
You're a fine one to talk GSW. You are a misrepresenter of the most extreme sort. Remember your last attempt to "summarise" the scientific literature? You screwed that up nicely, spreading conclusions that were at serious odds to the conclusions of the authors and their data.
I suspect that you're too ignorant though understand why this is the case, even after many people have explained it to you. The very act of holding an ill-informed opinion seems to tax your brain to its limit and ensure that it is too full to permit the entry of any scientific understanding.
It's cold comfort that phenotypes such as yours will be soon enough weeded out by natural selection.
Oh, Sou, please tell me somebody archived that Greenland post before Willard Anthony realised it was too stupid to meet even his astonishingly low standards.
Please...?
BTW, here is (presumably the same) silly Hunt beating the same drum from six years ago: http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive113.htm
"In addition, since the Greenland ice caps that they are drilling cores from didn’t exist before the Little Ice Age, how can they believe that they are taking the measure of thousands of years? The oldest ice can be no more than ~600 years old!"
@BBD
You seem to think we've entered into some sort of bizarre relationship where you can issue (in your words) "f**king" demands with some expectation of compliance.
We have not.
;)
"The trend is flat"?
What sort of number is "flat"???
Deniers are mathematically illiterate.
@Bernard
I haven't misrepresented anything bernard. The example you link to is your reponse to the summary of "Co2 fertilization in warm, arid areas", which you claim is wrong because it only applies to warm, arid areas. Well Duh? There's a clue in there somewhere for you ;)
Anyway glad to see you are still on top form with regards to sorting wheat from chaff and arse from elbow.
;)
FrankD: Stoat has archived it; see http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/06/04/too-stupid-even-for-wuwt-event…
Direct link: http://www.webcitation.org/6H83F9g4X
Meanwhile in the good ol' USofA there is another voting scandal afoot The Idiot's Guide to the Voting Rights Act. Anybody who has been following US politics for the last couple of decades will appreciate how Republicans have tried again and again to disenfranchise voters who may vote against them, those who have not explore Palast's site further. I am sorry to have to put things like this but the trends are clear and have been seen many times before elsewhere in the world most notably in Germany between the two big wars of the 20th Century.
At this time where these factors are combining partly in an attempt to avoid having messengers with uncomfortable messages, as if making life uncomfortable for all is preferable, we are also seeing a legislature full of industry place-men, or bought men (and women), scientific ignoramuses and those who purposefully distort the science.
This needs to change for it has been going on far too long.
Do you get that you knuckleheads here (we all know who you are) who try to deny the track record of the deniers and delayers well pinned here starting at about 3:40 in?
"I haven’t misrepresented anything bernard."
Yes you have. He even linked to it, as have several others, but denial of reality is all you have left to cling to, isn't it, gitter?
AT the UAH site the anomaly in January was + 0.504 C, in May it was +.0.074. Eek that means the anomaly dropped 0.43 C in just 4 months. That's over 0.1 C/ month. Surely we'll be in an Ice Age in no time.
Alternatively you might conclude that if you cherrypick, you can come to very stupid conclusions, can't you?
I think the slug horde is now solely about wasting your time, everyone.
Wasting your time on them makes them know they've punished you for your message, even if only a little bit, and taken time away from productive research.
That leaves this site really only for the promotion of their goal, really.
# 82
We both know why you cannot answer me, fuckwit.
You would have to admit that you know nothing and are serially wrong.
The reasons for your illogical denial of the strong scientific consensus will include fear (denial) and perhaps the standard Republican stupidities.
I only ask you because I *know* you cannot answer me honestly and I enjoy showing you up for the dishonest sack of shit you are.
You richly deserve it.
As with this prime example from the GWPF analysed by the redoubtable Tamino, although their nonsense should be recognizable for what it is, ideological propaganda (aka BS), by even the casual student.
And how would you know Duff?
But then your attitude makes clear that you do not know the context for the use of indented quotes.
Bob - Marvellous! Thank you. It's so much more entertaining with the addition of the comments from pseudoreality land.
@BBD
"you up for the dishonest sack of shit you are."
Fair enough BBD, please keep trying. Presumably you'll bear your continued humiliation with same good grace as you've shown to date, repeated accusations of "You're a liar" aside no doubt.
;)
What humiliation? You are projecting. And not answering the essential question:
- why reject science you don't even begin to understand?
Since you cannot find it in yourself to be honest and admit the truth, I will again fill in the blanks. You are a frightened, ill-educated, conservative who cannot cope with reality.
Like I said, the slug horde are now merely trying to waste your time.
Respond to them for cathartic release or if you're relaxing.
But don't put much effort into responding to them since they really REALLY don't care what answers are given, they know what they want to say and they'll damn well say it, come hell or high water (a rather appropriate saying in this case).
GSW, did you or did you not say:
There are two points worth reiterating here.
The first is that the increase in photosynthesis described in Donohue et al does not occur so much from "CO2 as plant food" as it does from the fact that arid region plants appear to be taking the opportunity to close somewhat their stomata (compared to the situation of pre-Industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration), which results in an increased efficiency in the use of water rather than photosynthetic biochemistry being driven primarily by more CO2.
CO2 is not "plant food" in this case so much as a selective shutter. You mischaracterised the paper.
Secondly, your claim of "benefits" is an arbitrary one predicated on merely an inrease in photosynthesis and a non-valuation or arid ecosystems. The ecosystems present on these fringes doesn't simply move elsewhere - there has already been much discussion here about how species can't always just lift up their skirts and follow the climate.
In the same vein, will it be a "benefit" when the integrated action of warming due to carbon emissions melts the Arctic sea ice and the planet's glaciers?
Will it be a "benefit" when the integrated action of warming due to carbon emissions dries the Amazon and turns much of the jungle cover to grassland?
Will it be a "benefit" when the integrated action of warming due to carbon emissions moves rice-production climate to regions where it is not actually possible to grow rice? Will it be a "benefit" when the integrated action of warming due to carbon emissions results in the shifting or the loss of other present-day climatic influences that currently permit much agricultural/horticultural/forestry/fishery activity?
Will it be a "benefit" when the integrated action of warming due to carbon emissions results in more extreme drought and flood events that destroys significant agricultural production at times when there is insufficient surplus to cope successfully? Will it be a "benefit" when these same extreme drought events result in conflict between nations attempting to secure more of their shared and limited water resources for themselves?
Will it be a "benefit" for our children and their children when the integrated action of warming due to carbon emissions results in flooding of densely populated coastal areas?
Will it be a "benefit" when the action of carbon emissions on ocean chemistry acidifies seawater to the extent that corals are lost, and planktonic calcifers are lost, and productive shellfish industries are lost, and whole marine ecosystems degrade and/or are lost?
You seem to be mischaracterising (by omission) the other "benefits" of CO2...
I stand by my comment.
Hell, it would be a "benefit" to plant and animal life if GSW were to be buried under the soil.
Does it think this is a good thing to make happen?
BBD...
"1953 was an Atlantic storm and associated surge. This is another extreme precipitation event. Same thing happened in 2002."
Ah yes, I forgot, there was no climate disruption in 1953, it was just weather back in the old days...
I found this interesting article in the reference section of your 2002 link...
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/news/2002/2002-08-18-wildweather…
It would appear 2002 was just weather as well, according to the reference in your link....
Oh wait, that article is wrong, the 2002 floods were actually the fault of the Americans..
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0912-07.htm
Sorry about that.
Betula you need to consult William Ruddiman starting with this book, as you may find "Earth's Climate: Past and Future" a bit heavy going. That should start clearing your log-jam of ignorance.
Sure Betula. You can pretend that the multitude of extreme weather events over the last decade have nothing whatsoever to do with its being the warmest decade in the instrumental record. It's just denial though.
You can continue to pretend that radiative physics does not work and so GHG forcing does not cause energy to accumulate in the climate system. That is denial too.
You can continue to pretend that *global ocean* OHC has increased by 25*10^22J over the last half-century for no reason at all... That's denial as well.
If you were *really* insane, you could try and deny that emissions over the rest of this century won't cause significant further warming...
But that really would be swivel-eyed lunacy.
Betty doesn't think the climate can change.
After all, it's all weather that has been seen before, therefore it can't be due to changing climate!
Betula, the portentologists of Deltoid know what they talk about, scientology educated as they are. Nostradamus would have envied their skills. ;-)
Little Napoleon can prance around and watch any future disruption there is. In fact, the signs are there for any scare portentologist to interpret. BBD seems to be one of the best... ;-)
@Bernard
You are correct I did say,
"As far as I am I aware, Trenberth’s work does not deal with the benefits of CO2 fertilisation of plants (aka CO2 as plant food), the subject of the paper in this case…"
and the "Co2 as plant food" you didn't take issue with at the time (your #39and #43 posts), it's a new gripe, now you've realised that your previous analysis/criticism was found to be "waaay off the mark" as highlighted above. But I still have to wrong somehow right? ;)
Anyway, we'll live with it. There is no scientific definition of "food" and when I use it, I intend it to mean the same as would be found in a dictionary.
"inorganic substances absorbed by plants in gaseous form or in water solution"
For example C02, If you have a problem with that Bernard, take it up with merriam-webster.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/food
;)
No, it's not a new gripe, but truth or accuracy have never been a consideration, have they, gitter.
The stupid denier meme you are still trying to pretend you weren't pushing is that CO2 fertilisation makes future emissions a net benefit to ecology and humanity alike.
Needless to say, Donohue et al. makes no such claim and should not be used even to imply such a claim might have merit.
You were handed your arse on a plate, first by me, then by Bernard J, and yet here you are, still blethering away, embarrassing yourself and irritating others.
@BBD
I thought we agreed you weren't qualified enough to express a view BBD? (that was your contention at least) And, nobody mentioned a "net benefit" either. Bizarrely you're right about something, Donohue et al make no such claim, the only one who's brought it up (to then disagree with it) is you!
Which must be very humiliating for you.
;)
This is for Teh Olaus. Cutting-edge science...
Weather extremes provoked by trapping of giant waves in the atmosphere
Go on! Read the rest, Olaus.
Learn something.
Still lying, GSW...
Or perhaps you'd like to explain why you spent so much time blethering about Donohue et al.? Because unless it was in service of that tedious, endlessly-debunked stupid denier meme mentioned above (and in the previous discussion featuring prime content from Jeff Harvey) then I'm at a loss to know why you were bothering.
Here's my take: your commentary here is further proof that you are a liar.
If you bothered to read Bernard J's earlier comment, what I did risk saying was in fact correct - and he *is* qualified to express a view.
And he has actually read the paper - unlike you.
@BBD
"and he *is* qualified to express a view."
Unable to grasp what's been claimed though, decided to argue and express a view on a point nobody made (whether it was global or not). How humiliating. Anyway, applaud you for taking the risk and calling everyone a liar, what a star.
;)
Not everyone Griselda, just you. Although your denier confederates are generally no different.
Lionael A @100...
"Betula you need to consult William Ruddiman starting with this book, as you may find “Earth’s Climate: Past and Future” a bit heavy going."
Ruddiman Hypothesises that humans started changing the climate 8,000 years ago with farming. Does this mean that it's not the fault of the Americans?
Could someone please have Mr. Ruddiman contact Lynn Landes ASAP...she needs to be informed immediately.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0912-07.htm
Wow...
"Betty doesn’t think the climate can change"
Actually, it's been changing for billions of years, I'm just surprised that it's still changing. I was hoping we could keep the climate from changing in my lifetime.
BBD, do you deny that you can accurately predict the future?
Just read the words, betula. Your blither isn't interesting at all.
BBD..
"Just read the words, betula. Your blither isn’t interesting at all."
These words?:
"the suggested physical process increases the probability of weather extremes, but additional factors certainly play a role as well, including natural variability.” Also, the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions".
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/weather-extremes-provoked…
I "suggest" you really are embarrassingly thick.
I suggest you are desperately clutching at straws.
Especially as you have tried to skip over every point in my first comment. Here it is again:
You can pretend that the multitude of extreme weather events over the last decade have nothing whatsoever to do with its being the warmest decade in the instrumental record. It’s just denial though.
You can continue to pretend that radiative physics does not work and so GHG forcing does not cause energy to accumulate in the climate system. That is denial too.
You can continue to pretend that *global ocean* OHC has increased by 25*10^22J over the last half-century for no reason at all… That’s denial as well.
If you were *really* insane, you could try and deny that emissions over the rest of this century won’t cause significant further warming…
But that really would be swivel-eyed lunacy.
That is a very selective quote in your #17 Betua. So what is the underlying cause of these waves according to that article? You may have to read it slower as you seem to have missed the main thrust.
I think "denied" or "blocked out" the main thrust might be more accurate Lionel...
Interesting reading in the mustelid's cyberamber: the (obviously self written) bio of Hunt includes Oregon origins and service in US Army Corps of Engineers...Betula, is that you?
Your limited skill in understanding (a verb denoting the ability to comprehend, as opposed to inventing, making up and indulging in flights of fancy) even your own language hasn't really progressed since you were about 10 years old, has it Betty.
Every once in a while, a "bluebird" flies out of the blue unasked and turns out to be useful.
FOIA Facts 5 - Finds Friends Of GWPF is the tale of an email from the Chair of the UK GWPF's Academic Advisory Committee, whose members include folks named Carter and Plimer, email that went to Ed Wegman, who sent it to USA Today's Dan Vergano in response to a FOIA that treally wasn't asking for this.
The list of addressees is interesting all by themselves.
Remember: global warming is a hoax perpetrated by an international cabal of climate scientist watermelons (red on inside, green on outside), plotting to take over the world for UN Agenda 21 and send the black helicopters to abolish Texas' golf courses ... or something like that.
rhwombat: I just caught up with question on Wegman+Said:
1) They founded and ran WIREs:CS, but after many complaints, silently disappeared from the masthead and were later replaced by 2 very credible statisticians.
Said is no longer at GMU.
2) The Said, Wegman, Sharabati, Rigsby paper was retracted May 2011, basically forced by Elsevier over Wegman;'s pleas to be allowed to add a few citations, supported by his old friend and E--i-C Stanley Azen, who'd bypassed peer review and just quickly looked at it an accepted it. Azen recently stepped down as E-i-C.
3) GMU ran an absurd academic misconduct process, then told falsehoods revealed by FOIAs, as covered in the new FOIA Facts series.
Still, although GMU declined to investigate most of the complaints, by Feb 2012, nearly 2 years after first complaint, they agreed there was misconduct, and imposed :"fierce" penalties on Wegman:
a) Reprimand placed in his file.
b) Retract the paper (already retracted ~9 months earlier)
c) Apologize to the journal, i.e. his long-time associate Azen.
4) Of course, by Fall 2012, GMU named Wegman to a 3-year term on the GMU College of Science Promotion and Tenure Committee.
5) Of course, the new material in FOIA Facts has much stronger implications, if you read carefully.
Cat got your tongue, Tim? Is the "Open Threads" copout the best you can do? Sobbing into the pillow now that climate junk science is shafted? What next? The science of fairies at the bottom of the garden? What an infantile scam this massive climate boondoggle has been. Its shameless peddlers, including you, will be a laughing stock for generations.
Lionel A..
"So what is the underlying cause of these waves according to that article? You may have to read it slower as you seem to have missed the main thrust."
the 32 year period is too short for definite conclusions.
Much better.
Wrong place. You want Williwatts blog, where only this week he was having his gaggle of self-basting nutters believe that the Arctic ice sheet was less than 650 years old.
Watt the fuck is up with that?
Actual real science is for smarter people than deniers generally are, you see.
Chek, reality is that you and your likes are a laughing stock, nowadays viewed upon as wacky crystall balling secterists.
:-)
# 23 John Mashey
I'm in the UK, and appreciate that not everybody here will share my interest in the GWPF. Others may not appreciate how efficiently that particular fake educational charity and anti-science lobby group cloaks itself in secrecy. So they won't share my delight in reading your research ;-)
Thanks again!
Non-UK residents can get the flavour from this excerpt:
Paging lord_sidcup.
You're obviously not paying attention to how threadbare your position is Olap, particularly when your representatives like Williwatts are so far off in la-la land they ain't never coming back.
# 25
Still desperately clutching at straws while skipping...
The Eemian was only 650 years ago. Who knew?
:-) :-) :-)
Yet you do not accept that there is any evidence that climate changes.
Do you mean "being raped anally by the violent opponents of science" or do you mean "disproved by the evidence"?
Because if it's the latter, please show this is the case.
"the 32 year period is too short for definite conclusions."
No, betty, 32 is greater than 30.
Basic infant school maths failure from our denier idiots.
That's right Olaus, ignore the fact that your hero Willard Watts is a purveyor of scientific crap, and the fact will magically go away as easily as did the inconvenient post that documented it.
I notice also that you're still purveying a long-discredited piece of crap:
Have you forgotten why this "15/16/17 years of no warming" meme is bogus, or did you never understand it in the first place, or do you actually know but want to pretend that the reality is otherwise?
More interestingly, do you stand by this notion and can you support it with a statistical demonstration of why it is (according to your pseudoscience) correct?
John #23
Nice article John, but no mention of the University of Buckingham?
By the way, there was no statistically significant warming for the 18 years from 1979 to 1997: http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
I guess that means global warming stopped in 1997.
No, it means it stopped in 1979!
Indeed, warming stops after EVERY record temperature!
This is why the deniers find so many times when "warming has stopped".
Scientific study posted by BBD @ 8 pg 1 and reiterated @ 16 pg 2 concludes..
The 32 years is "too short for definite conclusions"
Wow, in his usual state of confusion states...."No, betty, 32 is greater than 30".
So, you disagree with the scientists conclusion on this subject (posted by BBD). Why the denial?
BBD, please explain the conclusion of the article you linked to Wow....the denier.
Betty, 30 years is greater than 20. 32 years is greater than 30.
Do you actually know how the numbering system works in the West?
So you're claiming that the scientists here are saying that 32 is NOT greater than 30???
Because I must have missed where they said that.
Wow @ 32...
"Yet you do not accept that there is any evidence that climate changes"
In realize you have a comprehension problem, evidenced by the fact that you believe you can accurately predict the future, so it is understandable that you would believe I don't think climate changes, based on my statement that climate has been changing for billions of years.
It's Ok, I'm here for you. Just imagine I'm giving you a little pat on the head and a pinch on the cheek....It's the best I can do under these circumstances.
"So you’re claiming that the scientists here are saying that 32 is NOT greater than 30???"
Your the one throwing around claims, I'm simply posting a scientific conclusion...stated by scientists...in their conclusion.
"The 32 years is “too short for definite conclusions"
By the way, thanks BBD for that link, it really opened my eyes to Wow's selective denying.
You are the one with comprehension problems, Betula.
The caveat is that with ~30y of data the conclusions cannot be definite. As usual, you do the denier thing and insist that unless every shred of uncertainty is eliminated and absolute certainty demonstrated then all must be discarded.
Just how infantile you are being is readily illustrated by your refusal to place the extreme weather/climate change linkage in context with other factors.
Yet again you have skipped over my earlier comment where exactly such context is established, thus confirming both your denial and your dishonesty.
Here, yet again, is that context:
You can pretend that the multitude of extreme weather events over the last decade have nothing whatsoever to do with its being the warmest decade in the instrumental record. It’s just denial though.
You can pretend that radiative physics does not work and so GHG forcing does not cause energy to accumulate in the climate system. That is denial too.
You can pretend that *global ocean* OHC has increased by 25*10^22J over the last half-century for no reason at all… That’s denial as well.
If you were *really* insane, you could try and deny that emissions over the rest of this century won’t cause significant further warming…
But that really would be swivel-eyed lunacy.
So you're claiming you've claimed nothing?
I can count 8 out of the 44 posts that show you've spent a hell of a lot of time to make no statements in.
Seems counting isn't your only missing skill...
Oh, no, when it comes to claiming that the CO2 theory has been disproven, Betty is quite fine with completely unproven claims.
It's interesting how in his desperation to deny the link between increasingly extreme weather and AGW Betula has blanked the really important part of the PiK statment:
An emergent non-linear response in extreme weather events to the forced warming trend. Do you understand that, Betula? At all?
See, for example, the "cooling for 15 years" is enough for Betty and her fellow idiots to claim proof of what the climate is doing and how that is fine when 32 years isn't enough to prove climate change.
Betty doesn't think the climate CAN change.
Any evidence toward a changing climate is not accepted as proof of climate change.
And if there's no evidence that can show a change in climate, then Betty is insisting that the climate can't change.
After all, if the climate COULD change, then the change in the weather is PRECISELY how you'd see that. Except that evidence is denied as any proof of a changing climate.
So, like I said, Betty doesn't believe the climate can change.
Except in a nebulous "it did so in the past" way. Betty never asks "If I were looking at the past weather information, how would I tell that the climate is different from today? After all, we've seen weather like that recently..."
Betty, I know you have a denial problem, but you refuse to accept that the climate can change. Any change in climate MUST be evidenced in changing weather. Except all evidence of changing weather is denied as evidence of climate change.
How else do you think you can detect whether the climate has changed if you don't look at the weather?
Therefore you deny the climate CAN change.
"An emergent non-linear response in extreme weather events to the forced warming trend. Do you understand that, Betula? At all?"
Betty doesn't know what a trend is. That point has been obvious for years.
Wow,
That fact you can conclude I believe the climate doesn't change based on this statement...
"Actually, it’s been changing for billions of years, I’m just surprised that it’s still changing. I was hoping we could keep the climate from changing in my lifetime"....proves that you have a comprehension problem.
Are you saying you don't want to keep the climate from changing? Or are you agreeing with me?
Look, no one wants the climate to change, and if arguing with me about what you don't comprehend is going to keep it from changing, then I'm all for it.
"How else do you think you can detect whether the climate has changed if you don’t look at the weather?"
Wow, the scientific conclusion denier, doesn't appear to know the difference between climate and weather.
"An emergent non-linear response in extreme weather events to the forced warming trend"
And the undeniable scientific conclusion of the "suggested" physical process that increases the "probability" is....
"additional factors certainly play a role as well, including natural variability.” Also, the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions"
Ah - I think Betty's suffering under the delusion that there's only ever been the one single 32 year period.
Notice how Betula quotes at #53:
He seems to be reiterating this point over and over.
I wonder then if he thinks that it's possible to say with certainty that "there has been no warming for 15 years"...
The fact that you think that made up assertion was a fact is entirely your problem, Betty.
No, my assertion is based on EVERY WORD YOU'VE SAID.
You refuse to acknowledge that any change in the normal weather that we have seen is in any way indication of a changed climate.
That. however, is the only way to ascertain that climate has changed: the weather you expect has changed.
So you deny that climate can change.
AT NO POINT IN HISTORY would you have been able to point to some weather and conclude that this is proof that the climate is changing.
And if it can't be changing at any point, it can't change at all.
You deny climate change can happen.
No, that'd be you, Betty. Unless you can show me where the science has concluded that 32 is not bigger than 30...
You haven't so far, all you've done is meaningless and empty assertions.
Whereas my every assertion has reams of your own converse as its evidence.
Odd, you never seemed to have a problem with that confusion when operated on by Spots, Olap, Duffski, Joan or yourself, all of whom have managed to confuse weather with climate.
Meanwhile evidence of your assertion against me remains 100% unverified accusation.
chek, betty is under the delusion that science has concluded 32 is not greater than 30!
Its problems are far FAR more extensive than merely eXtreme YECing.
"You refuse to acknowledge that any change in the normal weather that we have seen is in any way indication of a changed climate."
Normal weather? Normal to who? Over what scale? In who's lifetime?
You assume weather is normal and change is abnormal. More importantly, you assume to know the results of change, the results of abnormality.
That would be like me stating I know the future results of your abnormality....I don't.
"I wonder then if he thinks that it’s possible to say with certainty that “there has been no warming for 15 years”…
No.
Right Betula, you sly little quote mining cherry picker, from the top:
Now we see the true picture to which this,
is almost a side note.
Now a section without your very selective snipping hacking:
Looks a bit different in full context does it not for it is a statement about their postulated mechanism and not APGW itself which is beyond dispute, well, within the legitimate respected scientific community that is.
That last above provides another marker for how distorted your appraisal was, and is. Furthermore, most climate scientists who know about climate and what effects change are not at all surprised by what has been happening around the world because they understood that responses can be highly non linear. What has surprised some is the timescale over which the changes are happening and from a relatively low, compared to whats coming, level of warming.
Here is a text that you should study in detail (to add to W Ruddiman indicated above), and yes it may hurt what brain you have, after all real science is tough:
Principles of Planetary Climate
You may find a copy of Richard Feynman's three volume 'Lectures on Physics' a good grounding for the basic (Ha) stuff.
Here is another list of books that you need to dip into.
Still I expect you will maintain your sly approach to this and slalom past it by pretending that you have not be roundly challenged.
Precisely: you refuse to accept that climate CAN change because you refuse and deny climate changing could ever be observed.
Would that be "does not think" there, Betty?
Because you've certainly NEVER upbraided Olap or Duffer on their insistence that they can conclude climate change or lack thereof in less than 30 years, nor even in less than 15 (pre 2010).
Therefore you are HAPPY to accept “there has been no warming for 15 years" therefore tacitly DO think it's possible.
And another thing Betty, you seemed irritated that American's were being blamed for the current rates of climate change well yes admittedly we Brits didn't help by accelerating an Industrial Revolution but it has been calculated that the US has produced over its history, more GHG forcing than all the other industrial countries of Europe put together.
And now here is another kicker Americans Throw Out 40 Percent Of Their Food, Which Is Terrible For The Climate. Yes we in Europe have been responsible, with varying degrees of responsibility between nation states, for that awful CAP. No not the Hollander inspiring contraceptive but the Common Agricultural Policy which has skewed taxes as much as it has wasteful food production. Production which has also had a terrible impact on the environment through stress on ecosystems.
Food chuck out is also a huge problem on this side of the Atlantic, propelled in part by those awful immoral 'buy one get one free' or 'three for the price of two' marketing gimmicks and also the move to 'junk food' aka value added, for the producer, crap.
So much rotten in the state of the Earth, a 'where to begun' panic can almost overwhelm us because governments refuse to tackle these issues which are a product of a failed free-market, so called, economy. How many economists can dance on the head of a pin? Answer only one if Richard Tol gets there first as his head is bigger than that of any pin, including a drawing pin at that.
Wow...
"Would that be “does not think” there, Betty?"
Only if you change the wording in the question.... but then it's a different question, which you managed to formulate and answer at the same time.
Busy little brain you have there.
"That last above provides another marker for how distorted your appraisal was, and is"
The appraisal is not mine, it is the scientists conclusion. Why do their words not bother you when they write them, only when I post them?
"Also, the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions"
Perhaps you should contact the scientists and ask that they edit these words out of the paper. I hope you aren't losing sleep over this....
Wow...
" you refuse to accept that climate CAN change because you refuse and deny climate changing could ever be observed."
I'm going to let your brain accept it's own conclusion so it doesn't do any further damage to itself.
Yup, if it hadn't required changing the words, I wouldn't have had to ask the question, Betty.
Not too bright, are you?
Perhaps you should show me where these scientists have disagreed with the idea that 32 is greater than 30, Betty.
Perhaps that's needed first.
In what reality was your reply there connected IN ANY WAY with the statement you were replying to?
You refuse EVERY SINGLE WAY that climate can display the fact of its change.
You're like those creotards who say "Well, yes, we DO believe in evolution, but only WITHIN species" and refuse point-blank to realise that that's not in any way, shape, or form, impossible.
You refuse the facts of a changing climate by going "That's not a change in climate" because you know that you can't claim the climate has NEVER changed, but you're in deep deep DEEP denial about the fact that if you were alive at the time of these changes in climate, you'd be there denying that the climate WAS changing, "it's all weather we've had before!!!".
You cannot accept that your stance is absolutely adamantly that climate change cannot happen.
No, that was your appraisal.
Yours, Betty.
Not theirs. It's easy to tell the difference because their conclusion was a LOT longer than yours.
But reality MUST be denied otherwise you'd have to admit to being wrong. And that is unpossible.
Nice slalom around the truth here oh slippery one, maybe you should stop taking words out of context, or is your comprehension really this bad.
Keep digging your hole, you may join up with Brad K before long.
I finally figured out the Deltoid Syndrome!!
When you see this:
"Also, the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions”
You conclude this:
"32 is greater than 30"
And when you see this:
"Actually, it’s been changing for billions of years, I’m just surprised that it’s still changing. I was hoping we could keep the climate from changing in my lifetime."
You repeat this:
"Betty doesn’t think the climate can change"
And when you read this:
" wonder then if he thinks that it’s possible to say with certainty that “there has been no warming for 15 years”…
You think this:
"Would that be “does not think” there, Betty?”
Anyone see a trend here? I'm assuming you have all had a Deltoid type mindset for at least 32 years..."a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet too short for a definite conclusion."
Still clutching at straws and skipping Betula.
Deny, deny, deny... but the truth won't go away no matter how many hours you spend denying it on the internet.
Difference is, Betty, we already know what the denier mentality is and you've just demonstrated it in spades.
That's an entirely private universe you're talking about there. Over in reality world, where everyone else spends their time, the world looks like this:
Meanwhile, these words you've never ever apparently seen:
But as we've already discussed, you're living in an entirely self-created world and only visit this one because the tea-service is unreliable in happy-happy-dopey-land.
Yup, more fabricated universe from Betty's diseased and non-functional brain.
Because in that world, Betty never said this:
And I never pointed out that it was doing just as I claimed:
In Betty's World (trademark pending), climate only ever changes in the ABSTRACT, never EVER to be seen in any actual phenomenon. NEVER ever can it happen because of human production of CO2 and it MUST NEVER be allowed to see the climate change by looking at the climate and seeing it's changed.
Because in Betty's World, that makes it sad.
The truth looks like this, Betula:
The top line is OHC 0 - 700m. Increasing, increasing, increasing...
The yellow line wibbling along at the bottom is TSI - the sun - not really varying much compared to GHG forcing, which is the dark blue line rising strongly after 1960.
The red line is the total net forcing, with major eruptions showing up as sharply negative excursions.
Here's a more detailed view of OHC down to 2000m, scaled with land, ice and atmospheric heat content so even innumerate trolls can see that >90% of the energy accumulating in the climate system is going into the oceans.
That's why short-term variability of atmospheric temperature is essentially an irrelevance.
And there it is. The big picture. GHG forcing is slowly emerging as the dominant driver of climate.
Okay. Sanity intermission over. Let's get those eyes a-swivelling and back to deny, deny, deny...
Brushing aside all your pitiable attempts at snark and would-be superiority which are unnecessarily confusing things, it seems you're stuck in a weird quantum loop Betty, as Wow has identified where you agree climate changes (although you have zero knowledge of why) yet it can't be observed changing state by anyone (and certainly not by Jeff Harvey, a - God forbid - paid scientist). So you've self-invented the concept 'Schrödinger's climate' to cover all your eventualities. It's an insanity.
You're actually in a schizoid schism that only you can resolve, and which you likely want to do as evidenced by your hanging round here instead of pissing your remaining sanity away at Morano's or Williwatts.
Check out the dross our Senators have to wade through:
https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=9e…
And then several pages of nonsense followed by this:
Thanks, Lawrence A Wilson, I'm sure your unpublishable, anti-science opinions are just what the Senate needs to see in order to discard all the proper expert opinions they have listened to.
Darn you Chek, I was winding up Betula to lead him to the discovery of Schrödinger's climat, but I find that you've pre-empted me whilst I was asleep!
Missed by that much!
So that's what keeps blogs like Anthony Watts' crank blog, WUWT, and Joanne Codling's crank blog, Jo Nova alive: a bunch of 77-year olds who have nothing better to do than to spend all day posting gibberish about a subject they either don't understand or have chosen to misunderstand.
Here's a good submission though. No, an excellent one:
https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=54…
Nice work!
My apologies Bernard after all your (much appreciated) hard work building up to it, but I'm a bit thick on that level. Always wiser post rather than ante the event, but hey-ho, story of my life.
Craig @ #83
Thanks for the link Craig. Although not from a climate scientist, a pretty damn good essay by an intelligent person on a rational response. I'd be well pleased at being able to put together as coherent a case.
He pitches at just the right level: not simplistic, but not lost in detail. A very well-written piece of work. I'm sharing it far and wide.
I'll guess Dr. Spencers latest has been up for debate already?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-obse…
;-)
I wonder what the explanation is for the apparent lack of a solar-warming-caused hotspot?
Anyway, far more entertaining is Dr. Spencer's Time for the Slayers to Put Up or Shut Up. An endless supply of crackpots.
Olaus
Before we get all excited about Christy & Spencer's latest hoopla, I think we need to verify something.
We need to verify that the CMIP5 runs shown in that graph are indeed *mid* tropospheric temperatures. Not surface temperatures or even top-lower-tropospheric temperature (TLT), but the cooler *mid* troposphere.
At present, this is not at all clear, at least to me.
I've just noticed that the CMIP5 runs presented by Christy are forced under RCP 8.5. Those of us who know what RCP 8.5 is will understand what is going on here.
Chek
"where you agree climate changes"... "yet it can’t be observed changing state by anyone (and certainly not by Jeff Harvey, a – God forbid – paid scientist)"
So you believe Hardley did see climate change "first hand" on his Algonquin trip?.
Oh Betty, Betty, Betty, desperately trying to avoid your extensive and immobile faults by asking irrelevant strawman questions.
That pony won't run, retard.
Betty @ #91: when the USDA updates its Plant Hardiness Zone Map which it did in 2009 do you think they're seeing climate change 'first hand' and advising growers accordingly? Or must you believe (as you apparently are desperate to do in Jeff's case) they are making it up?
You're the one in a in a bind Betty.
Chek..
"when the USDA updates its Plant Hardiness Zone Map which it did in 2009 do you think they’re seeing climate change ‘first hand’ and advising growers accordingly"
As far as plant zones, they have been changing since the beginning of time. Does this shock you that we see some changes over a 50 year period? Wouldn't it be more shocking if they never changed over time?
Jeff was in Algonquin for 20 days, so you're comparing that to say 50 years? Apparently you don't understand "scale"....Hardley, please explain this to Chek.
Now, speaking of Hardley, let's not try to avoid the question this time...
Do you believe Hardley saw climate change “first hand” on his Algonquin trip?.
Yet more irrelevant sidetracking.
The question was:
Were you there? You've been on this planet for, what? 12 years now?, and you're comparing that to the age of the universe???
You have to laugh at the sheer ignorance masquerading as insight.
Ok.
By avoiding the question, I guess we can say with "certainty", that Wow believes Jeff actually witnessed climate change "first hand" on a 20 day hike, where the average temperature was -2 C during the day and -10 C at night ...while his partner got frostbite.
Next.
We can also say with "certainty", based on Wow's comment at #96, that Wow believes plant zones have never changed in the past, therefore, climate change has never occurred before and is considered a recent phenomenon.
Next.
Next.
Betty, please don't ever attempt deductive reasoning again. You may have heard of it, but you haven't a clue how it works and even less how to arrive at a sound conclusion.
Chek...
Yes, deductive reasoning.....comparing a 20 day hike in the woods to a slight change in plant zones over a 50 year period.
Brilliant.
Good one Craig @#83 and Betula should grasp the opening statement in the
Betula something else you don't understand about Jeff's '20 days' is that the period in question is well enough time to appreciate how fast climate is changing from comparing now to previous times through the filter of a substantial knowledge base about the systems in the area in question. It is to gain mastery over such fields that scientists spend huge amounts of time and effort in learning the basic physics, chemistry and biology involved and then collecting and analysing fresh data to carry the study forward.
Thus in 20 days one can 'see' much evidence for climate change when compared to much earlier times.
If you looked at a map of Europe today you would be able to instantly appreciate how it has changed since a century ago. Providing of course you knew what it looked like back then. Africa similarly.
To crow as you do you really have to be some kind of ignoramus, one with a brain wiped messily by ideology such that you can hold only one factor in mind at any one time.
Sorry, but you really have become a similar waste of space to his lordship Keyes.
"I guess we can say..."????
Do everyone the favour of allowing them more intelligence than you have, Betty.
And let them say what THEY can say, don't YOU say what YOU want them to be saying.
And this is another fine example of Betty World in action.
In Betty's world, only events personally witnessed by Jeff is evidence of a change.
But when Betty is the one proclaiming evidence, the fact of their nonexistence for most of the period in question is converted by its insanity into "you must be denying the past existed!".
What a loon.
I wonder how Luboš Motl is getting on , or will get on if he tries to return home?
Oh do give it a rest Betula.
Find another topic to make a pig's breakfast out of. Please.
Lionel A....
"Thus in 20 days one can ‘see’ much evidence for climate change when compared to much earlier times."
No doubt. Hey, like finding sharks teeth in Kansas.
Only he didn't see climate change "first hand"...so it was a lie....but I appreciate the fact that you are trying to cover for him.
Harvey, May 4th 2012...
"As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand"
Actually, a lie with an embellishment, because that "warm winter" where his friend got frostbite, averaged -2C during the day and -12C at night.
But Jeff doesn't do anything the rest of the alarmists don't do.... embellish and exaggerate to heighten the importance of the message....I know the game.
BBD...
"Find another topic to make a pig’s breakfast out of."
You must be hungry....given that you believe you can accurately predict the future climate of the world and the resulting scenarios that come with it without question.... or is it that you can just predict the future with some degree of accuracy, is that it?
How many accurate predictions have to fall in place for your accurate predictions to materialize? Do your accurate predictions weigh all scenarios against each other or just certain hand picked scenarios?
If you post a link to make a point, and the link states the following...
"the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions"....
then what does that mean? You posted it. They said it. They printed it. Why did they say it? Are they lying? Why would it upset you that they said it...you linked the articla! Are you embarrassed, is that it? Did I embarrass you because I posted it?
I find it interesting how you seem to deny the mention of uncertainties. You deny the mention of unknowns. You deny the mention of inaccuracies. You deny conclusions that aren't definite. You deny the possibility of beneficial scenarios. You deny the scientists statements in the links you post. You deny that climate has been changing since the beginning of time and will always change. Wake up BBD, you're a denier!
Now, why can't you deny that you have the ability to accurately predict all the complex systems of the earth and solar system and how they will react with each other throughout the earth, based on predicted averages, assuming a myriad of other predictions fall in place, minus the uncertainties, inaccuracies, personal interests, government interests, biases etc. and only based on weighing worst case scenarios?
Open the box.
Groan. So, Brad Keyes it is you slithy tove, go gyre and gimble on your own in the corner.
Yet more examples of Betty's personal own little world where reality is never allowed to intrude.
The question was:
But Betty is back now to Shroedinger's Climate Change.
Thinking is something that happens to other people, isn't it Betty.
Wow @ 9....
"The question was:"....
No. You're confused again Wow, honestly, I don't know how to help you....maybe Ritalin would help.
You really are clueless
Wow...
Hint: 91 comes before 93.
# 7
Unless the laws of physics are plastic and paleoclimate behaviour all faked then increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will cause energy to accumulate in the climate system. Indeed, it is already doing so, as we can readily see from some data*.
Unless the laws of physics are plastic and paleoclimate behaviour all faked, ECS/2xCO2 is very unlikely to be below 2C and probably closer to 3C (Rohling et al. 2012).
What the hell you are on about eludes me.
(*The yellow line wibbling along at the bottom is TSI – the sun – not really varying much compared to GHG forcing, which is the dark blue line rising strongly after 1960.
The red line is the total net forcing, with major eruptions showing up as sharply negative excursions. Exactly like the last time I linked this graph for you.)
* * *
Your next statment is bollocks:
See above: laws of physics; paleoclimate behaviour.
* * *
Once again, you are avoiding the bigger picture. Doubtless because denying it is essentially impossible without standing revealed as insane or profoundly mendacious, or perhaps both.
As is honesty, apparently.
Indeed it does.
Now back to the point:
The question was:
when the USDA updates its Plant Hardiness Zone Map which it did in 2009 do you think they’re seeing climate change ‘first hand’ and advising growers accordingly?
No, I'm not.
The question was:
And rather than answer it, you not-answered it with non-sequiturs.
Such as "you're confused again, Wow".
Well, honesty (hell, answering questions) is devastating to Betty's World, so it avoids doing that and instead flails about insanely as if this somehow means that the response becomes an answer.
'
Paging lord_sidcup
John #23
Nice article John, but no mention of the University of Buckingham?'
I thought about including that, given McKitrick's visit and its other connections, but it seemed peripheral. The challenge with all these folks is that when tracking the social networks, they're all connected, but to write anything manageable, one has to stop following links. I take for granted some kind of internal-UK connections ,but the interesting tidbits in FOIA 5 were the breadth and depth of international connections.
Again, no surprise to those of us who study this, but nice confirmations.
@ 13...
"Unless the laws of physics are plastic and paleoclimate behaviour all faked then increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will cause energy to accumulate in the climate system."
So this means you have the ability to accurately predict all the complex systems of the earth and solar system and how they will react with each other throughout the earth, based on predicted averages, assuming a myriad of other predictions fall in place, minus the uncertainties, inaccuracies, personal interests, government interests, biases etc. and only based on weighing worst case scenarios?
Wow @16..
"No, I’m not"
Actually, you are. I posted a question at 91 on pg 2. The response was a non answer at 93 in the form of the question that you keep posting, In other words, you're confused.
Additionally, I answered the question you keep posting at #94. This would make you confused and retarded.
So this means that unless you have 100% perfect information about everything, you don't know anything?
I guess it's one way for someone who knows fuck all about anything to make themselves feel better, I suppose.
No, actually, I'm not.
# 19
No. It means that paleoclimate behaves in accordance with the laws of physics. Unless the laws of physics are plastic, modern climate will do likewise. Crank up a forcing and the climate system will respond - by warming. Roughly speaking, the equilibrium response looks likely to be 0.75C per W/m^2.
I know this is going to be hard for you to accept, but there really isn't *any* scientific support for the belief that modern CO2-forced warming will be neutral or benign.
@22
How old are you?
"So this means that unless you have 100% perfect information about everything, you don’t know anything?"
Never said that. I asked the question:
"So this means you have the ability to accurately predict all the complex systems of the earth and solar system and how they will react with each other throughout the earth, based on predicted averages, assuming a myriad of other predictions fall in place, minus the uncertainties, inaccuracies, personal interests, government interests, biases etc. and only based on weighing worst case scenarios?"
"there really isn’t *any* scientific support for the belief that modern CO2-forced warming will be neutral or benign."
Anywhere on earth?
Oh FFS.
Betty, how does the age of someone pwning you to hell and back have ANY bearing on reality?
Then there's nothing to answer to your question as stated.
Because there's no need for 100% of all information to be 100% accurate before you can draw a conclusion or plan an action.
You're confused. He never said that. He asked:
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and surmise that you have no evidence or specific examples for those dearly held, think-tank devised, chum-chunk beliefs you nurture.
"You’re confused. He never said that"
That's right, I asked it...and didn't get an answer..
"Because there’s no need for 100% of all information to be 100% accurate before you can draw a conclusion or plan an action."
So you admit you don't have all the information. Then why are you bothered when scientists state:
"the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions"
"Betty, how does the age of someone pwning you to hell and back have ANY bearing on reality?"
You're confused. 91 comes before 93....that's reality.
Betula is just another time wasting buffoon who would rather play word games and who will never admit to the truth here.
No, you did get an answer: "He never said that".
Nope. Wrong.
Yes, correct.
Yes.
Because:
Yes.
Actually, because you're wrong.
I'm not bothered by it at all.
"No, you did get an answer: “He never said that”."
You really are retarded...not that there's anything wrong with that, I just feel sorry for you.
@ 30, you state "He asked" followed by this...
"there really isn’t *any* scientific support for the belief that modern CO2-forced warming will be neutral or benign"
That's not a question, it's a statement, so what do you mean "He asked"?
In response to this "statement" I previously "asked":
"Anywhere on earth"? Which is a legitimate question to anyone sane. CO2 forced warming is an average warming, not equal throughout the earth. Some areas may be colder, some warmer, some the same....exactly where is a question you can't answer.....which obviously is why you avoid the question.
Your non answer just proves my suspicions that you are either severely handicapped, or just a blithering idiot. Either way, I feel sorry for you, honestly, and I'm done trying to sever the loop that you are trapped in.
Anyone with half a brain that can see what I asked at #91 on page 2, followed by a non answer in the form of question @ 93, followed by me answering the non answer @ 94, followed by the continued insanity Wow thereafter....
If you can't follow the words in front of you on a blog, if you can't back up what you say even though the words are there to try and prove me wrong, if you can't read the words in the scientific papers and if you can't comprehend your own words, then it looks like your own personal worst case scenario has come to light. Your future catastrophic scenario is here, and it is you.
Me @33...
"Then why are you bothered when scientists state:"
“the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions”
Wow@ 39...
"Actually, because you’re wrong. I’m not bothered by it at all."
I'm impressed, you're making progress Wow. Did you mitigate some of your own CO2 to lesson the affect of your own worst case scenario...you?
When BBD originally linked those words to me under the heading "read the words", there seemed to be some backlash when I actually posted them.
I was getting the feeling from you and others that the scientist's conclusion might be wrong, that you were actually bothered by their own words. It didn't make sense to me that you would be bothered, because BBD linked it and scientists stated it, so I knew it had to be true...
“the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions”
And BBD, just a quick thanks...by linking those words, you helped get Wow started on the road to recovery...
Well Betula, it seems that you cannot even manage the 'half a brain' else you would have learned how to direct to a specific post here at Deltoid like this where Jeff Harvey nails you exactly.
Now, before 'mouthing off' again with more bilge maybe you should read these other posts of Jeff's more slowly and take the time to understand what he is describing. After all, one day even your job may depend upon your understanding of the forces underneath your occupational stomping ground.
There is this one and also this other one, amongst a number of others.
To be sure if Jeff said he saw evidence for climate change then I believe him, after all only those divorced from reality cannot see change happening and faster than at earlier times in their lives and certainly faster than during recorded history.
It is up to you to show that Jeff has erred. Find the evidence behind your accusations.
You are a dishonest buffoon, Betula.
And instead of the usual denialist hyper-focus and misrepresentation, you still need to read the words. All of them. Not *just* the sentence when the scientists say "we're pretty sure about this, but the time period under study is too short to make a definitive statement". Yet.
Lionel...
"It is up to you to show that Jeff has erred. Find the evidence behind your accusations"
What you call "erred", I call lying, and the evidence is easy to see...if you don't have blinders on, or if you can read.
I originally called out Jeff on his seeing climate change "first hand", because in the article, he never followed up on what climate change he saw. After countless attempts by me to get an answer, he responded with this....
"As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand”
So Jeff, when pushed, had to admit he never saw climate change "first hand"...but it sounded good at the time. Is that considered evidence Lionel? Obviously not, because when I showed you this exact statement at #6, you replied with "Groan" at #8.
So, even though Jeff had to admit he didn't see climate change "first hand", you still believe he did......"To be sure if Jeff said he saw evidence for climate change then I believe him".
Genius.
Hmm, completely fake and you still believe. Here Lionel, I have something for you:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.262213-Students-believe-…
BBD...
"And instead of the usual denialist hyper-focus and misrepresentation"
You state I misrepresented something, what? That the scientists say they don't have a definite conclusion? How is that misrepresentation....they said it. I can't help that you don't like it. Live with it.
Betula, you have yammered on about the not-quite-definite conclusion to the absolute exclusion of the rest of the message: the reasonably high confidence that the effect is real and caused by AGW.
You are misrepresenting the PiK study and have done so, insistently and dishonestly, ever since I linked to it.
This hyper-focus on uncertainty is a standard denialist tactic familiar to all.
You may think I am stupid, and even that others here are stupid, but we are not.
The fact that you absolutely refuse even to *acknowledge* my REPEATED comments on the bigger picture is equally obvious - and instructive - to everyone else.
Remember a few things, Betula:
- 2000 - 2010 was the hottest decade in the instrumental record.
- The years since the 1998 El Nino have been characterised by a string of extreme weather events of remarkable severity
- OHC has risen by ~25*10^22J since the mid-C20th
- The laws of physics are well established, and the "greenhouse effect" is real
- Paleoclimate behaviour demonstrates that the climate system is sensitive to radiative perturbation
- Empirical estimates of sensitivity to a change in forcing suggest an equilibrium response of about 0.75C per W/m^2 dF
Forcing from 2xCO2 (~560ppmv) is approximately +3.6W/m^2
Emissions trajectories look almost certain to reach >800ppmv by the end of the century
But... but ... if you take away his selectively mined quote routine, Betty's left with nothing. At all.
Look, betty, just because you didn't get an answer you wanted or could abuse and did not understand does not mean that everyone else in the world is retarded.
The problem is you're an ignorant fuckwit.
Another example of the fake world betty resides in.
No, that never happened.
No Betula that just will not do! What I am after is a citation, I wish to see what Jeff actually wrote in toto and not some rearranged, snipped, hacked or otherwise perverted version that you are trying to peddle. After all, your track record for truthful and honest quoting is in tatters from early on in this thread.
I have been away doing field research in southern Europe and I come back and find our resident libertarian loony still hard at it. Figures. And he claims to have 'called me out' on a web article written by a colleague last year after I crossed Algonquin Park in winter.
With respect to being 'called out', note how Betula quietly moved on after his b* trumpeting the alleged benefits of increased C02 on complex adaptive systems was pointed out, as well as his estimation of healthy ecosystems in his neck of the woods (easter NA) on the basis of three pathetically poor examples. Once I pointed these glaringly simplistic examples out with far better ones, old Betty retreated back to his original hole.
As for the study Karen pasted, the authors of course would go nowhere near the areas suggested by Karen, GSW and Betula. Total biomass in now ay is a measure of fitness in plants or indeed many and perhaps most other organisms. In plant in particular, C is not a limiting nutrient for fitness but P and N most certainly are. And these are of course being shunted out of plant tissues as atmospheric C02 levels increase. Other pertinent areas such as species-specifci responses (e.g. leading to the potential of asymmetric competition), allelochemistry, primary metabolism and interactions with consumers are also ignored by the army of simpletons who parade this C02 is plant food nonsense. Trust the flag-bearers here to be the usual dunce brigade.
Note also the utter hypocrisy of Betula him. With respect to climate forcings, the system is 'too complex' t be able to make verifiable predictions; but when it comes to the effects of C02 on the health and stability of natural systems, which are many times more complex even than the atmosphere, he draws a simple correlation.
This kind of behavior is typical of anti-environmentalists. Hence why I think that Betula and his acolytes are not only well out of their depth in any scientific discussion, but they are a waste of time. The only reason I bothered to counter his two recent examples was because I wanted to make sure that any layman entering this thread would not be drawn in by his verbiage. Both examples stink, to be direct, but those downplaying various threats to the environment will spew any crap if it suits their purpose. Some of it - like the white-talied deer/coyote/wild turkey example comes straight off the top of Betty's head. What they showed is that he clearly does not read the primary scientific literature. Journals like Ecology Letters, Diversity and Distributions, Ecology, Oikos, Oecologia, Journal of Ecology, Global Change Biology, Journal of Animal Ecology, Ecosystems, Conservation Biology, Biological Conservation, and many others are certainly NOT on Betula's reading list. He doesn't think he needs to read scientific literature to be an expert.
BTW Lionel, thanks for your support and for linking to three posts on Deltoid where I countered Betty's appalling nonsense earlier and where does he go? Back to Algonquin Park, that's where. Last refuge of a scoundrel.
"No Betula that just will not do!"
You mean Jeff's own words aren't good enough for you? DENIER!
That was easy...
Anyhow, let's review which words "will not do"...
1. Jeff saying....."In my work as an ecologist I work on shifting zones, and here I could see it in real."
Notice how he never gives an example of a shifting zone he could see "in real"
2. "On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand"
What did he experience first hand ? The cold? It was winter!
3. "It was 12 degrees warmer than average, with around -2 oC during the day and -10 at night"
12 degrees warmer than average? That goes against Jeff's own 70 year temperature compilation for the area!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=345845282134899&set=a.345844975…
And I like how he chose to use a 20 day scale to accurately hypothesize about his embellishment. Nice touch.
4. Harvey on Deltoid... May 4th 2012:
“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand"
A "warm winter" where Mark got frostbite....any warmer and one of them may have lost a digit.
The article - http://www.nioo.knaw.nl/en/node/2137
Now Lionel, instead of accusations, why don't post something I quoted that wasn't truthful. How about you be truthful instead of being a closed minded phony attempting to defend something indefensible....and it bothers you that I know it.
Scene: a moderately well known science blog. Misty daytime.
Cast:
Arthur, King of the Britains - Jeff Harvey.
Patsy, Faithful Servant & coconut clopper - Lionel/ BBD/ Wow/ chek/ et alia.
Black Knight - Betty Bloop
[Arthur is challenged by the Black Knight, disarms (!) him, and kneels to give thanks. 'Armless Black Knight kicks Arthur in the head while he is praying]
BLACK KNIGHT: Come on then.
ARTHUR: What?
BLACK KNIGHT: Have at you!
ARTHUR: You are indeed brave, Sir knight, but the fight is mine.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, had enough, eh?
ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT: Yes I have.
ARTHUR: Look!
BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound.
[Headbutts Arthur in the chest]
ARTHUR: Look, stop that.
BLACK KNIGHT: Chicken! Chicken!
ARTHUR: Look, I'll have your leg. Right! [whop]
BLACK KNIGHT: Right, I'll do you for that!
ARTHUR: You'll what?
BLACK KNIGHT: Come 'ere!
ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible!
ARTHUR: You're a loony.
BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on then.
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's other leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT: All right; we'll call it a draw.
ARTHUR: Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, oh, I see, running away, 'eh? ... You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you.... I'll bite your legs off!
Thanks for the Cliff Notes guide to how your dishonesty works, Betty.
By the way, did you notice on that Facebook graph the coldest dip (around 2008ish) was about level with the mid 1940s average?
I guess you're too blinded by your own stupid to see you just blew your own foot off.
Come on Betula. Let's see you wriggle your way out of your own corner. So you have retreated back to the Algonquin canard. You are a pitiful jerk.
Besides, there's plenty of evidence for climate change on biomes in North America as well as elsewhere. That is, if you bothered to look for it or if you can read. What is obvious is that you never read the primary literature. If you had one ounce of scientific acumen you'd read numerous studies showing climate change related effects on numerous ecological parameters. You are trying vainly to nail me on a web site article. You can try all you like, but since you don't even have a basic understanding of ecology, you will lose every time.
Let's see you put your immense wisdom (snicker) into effect here responding to just a few studies from hundreds published showing clear effects of recent warming on plants, animals and trophic interactions. I have pasted them below. Yes, I know you hate science and don't read scientific journals, but its high time you got off your ass and did. If you want to debate properly you have to be up on the empirical literature. You clearly aren't. You stick your finger to the wind and draw your conclusions that way. Is it any small wonder why its easy to demolish your arguments? And why you have to return to Algonquin Park again and again and again?
http://www.discoverlife.org/pa/or/polistes/pr/2010nsf_macro/references/…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC26486/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21622303
http://www.amjbot.org/content/97/9/1431.full
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0053…
http://www.amjbot.org/content/98/6/935.full
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/51/20645.full
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/1/198.full
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n7002/abs/nature02808.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01193.x/abs…
Oh, and BTW, I can paste up dozens more. Your only recourse now will be to say that these studies are either wrong or else that the response is to warming that is 'natural'. But its warming alright. Nature doesn't lie. It only responds.
Happy reading. I hope that we don't hear back from you for a long time... if ever. Its my guess that these studies will be way over your head.
Oh, and one last thing... our Faceback graph left out the 2012 data, which was the warmest winter ever recorded in the park and surrounds. The 2012 dot would have been higher than all of the others. The temperature in the Park has warmed by about 2 C since the 1940s. I could also give other examples of shifting species in Ontario to zones that were once too cold for them. But Betty has to do some reading first.
Global land surface temperature has risen sharply since the 1970s.
BEST 10yr mean
"Patsy, Faithful Servant & coconut clopper"
The job of coconut clopper sounds intriguing. Can I subscribe to the newsletter?
A recent thesis on the projected effects of climate change on the Algonquin-Adirondack corridor:
http://qspace.library.queensu.ca/bitstream/1974/8053/1/TAVENOR_MES_Proj…
Algonquin Park lies at the boundary of two important biomes. Given that there are significant differences in soil properties of these biomes, as well as in plants and animals, a warming climate will certainly impact them. The problem is that there are very few scientists studying these effects, but that does not mean that there will not be responses and consequences. A colleague at the University of Toronto told me last year that some species of invasive Eurasian plants that are adapted to temperate climates are establishing as far north as along the shore of Hudson's Bay, even though they have been established in North America for over a century and had until recently been restricted to habitats farther south. But the main point is that, whether Betula likes it or not, anthropogenic changes and in particular warming will impact biomes boundaries more than areas at the center of biomes. Given that soils in the Canadian shield differ profoundly from those in the mixed and eastern deciduous forest zone (they are much more acid), it will certain that species adapted to one soil type will not merely shift northwards onto acid soils in the time frames involved. Consumers up the food chain (both vertebrates and invertebrates) are intimately adapted to specific types of ecosystems and vegetation zones - I gave a lecture on this recently at our institute - and their ability to track abiotic conditions and shifts will be impeded by shifts in biomes to which they are adapted. In other words, species have evolved in response to both biotic and abiotic windows, and these are likely to become uncoupled as local climatic conditions rapidly change. There is little doubt that declines in many species are the result of decoupling of biotic and abiotic stressors linked with climate warming. If one reads the primary scientific literature, which I do as part of my job, then one is aware of the various forces at work in a changing world. Betula doesn't clearly read the primary literature and instead goes on his own 'instincts' as a forester in which he thinks he knows as much (or more) than the scientists who are studying processes and mechanisms. This is akin to a fisherman who claims that he knows more about the health of marine fish stocks that the scientists studying them.
Like it or not, climate warming poses a profound threat to many of the world's ecosystems. There is a huge pile of empirical evidence to prove it. I trust this over the 'instincts' and 'intuition' of a forester.
Remember, Betty thinks that climate can change but doesn't thnk that changing weather is proof of climate change, without which, there can be no climate change.
However, betty is too dumb to think that through, but (only just) smart enough not to admit they don't believe climate can change. Hence Shroedinger's Climate.
Maybe you should learn to read Betula because you still are failing to provide a citation (that means a link if you are really that stupid) so I will repeat:
Now do you understand or should I remain suspicious as to why you are evading fulfilling this simple request. It appears, by your own admission, that you know the date of the exchange concerned. It is you throwing out aspersions and thus it is up to you to back them up in an honest fashion.
And here is more Betula, having found a relevant article I know that you are either bullshitting or comprehension challenged, because anyone with integrity and ability will see that Jeff describes that which demonstrated to him 'climate change at first hand' in the clearest terms.
Considering the dangers and discomforts and also the sheer effort that Jeff, and his colleague, put in in the interests of furthering our understanding of the planet I consider that you are being a pedantic, word-shifting jerk not fit to be in the same company.
You do not seem to appreciate that hundreds of scientists or their aids and survival mentors have perished or become disabled through their activities in human hostile places of the world.
Anybody who has traveled on foot over rough terrain with a heavy load, as I have, can appreciate all to easily the immense effort involved. These plucky scientists deserve our respect (on a number of other counts too), It is time for you to clean up your act and cease being a jerk.
But do keep on digging this hole for with every post you make we are able to demonstrate to any lurkers how vacuous your lines of argument are.
The wonders of the deep a place we know all too little about having barely begun to explore the breadth of species therein.
One fascinating creature is almost straight out of fantasy tales here is one very informative video on Video of the Oarfish, Regalecus glesne .
Isn't that wonderful more on the Oarfish here.
How sad that many species are now under threat and note the location of the video clip cited above. And keep in mind a novel that I read whilst a kid 'The Kraken Wakes' ('Out of the Deeps' in the US and I do wish they would not do that - change book titles) by John Wyndham who also wrote 'The Day of the Triffid' and 'The Midwich Cuckoos'.
Here you are Betulant, seeing climate change for real.
Whilst on creatures in the seas, the trend in jellyfish numbers is up around many coasts we in the UK having had plagues of these in recent years. This is partly climate change and partly overfishing and deep sea trawling removing the fish which would have controlled the numbers whilst in the planktonic phase (larval and polyp).
Here is one looming problem as Jellyfish Surge in Mediterranean Threatens Environment.
Check out also the troubles in the Pacific caused by Nomura jellyfish.
I once saw a documentary with video of desperate Japanese trawler men trying to dispose of net fulls by cutting them up and jettisoning the back to the sea not realising that they were making the problem worse because the jellys as they were dying released thousands of eggs and sperm thus laying the foundations for a massive increase in population.
@Lionel A
Wow, 87 degrees Fahrenheit in Finland - North of the Arctic Circle. That can't be normal - well, maybe it is now :(
Betula.
I've "witnessed climate change first hand" in my region, and I've often commented here on those changes.
Do you dispute those changes?
Lionel's answer to Jeff's Algonguin lies and embellishment :
@63... I don't appreciate the discomforts Jeff went through to be able to lie and embellish.
@65...someone else named Jeff wrote in a blog about a 20 day flood occurring in Algonguin .
Sorry,I mean a 100 year flood occurring in Central Europe. I'm sure you can understand the confusion....
Jeffs response to his lies and embellishment in Algonquin:
Deltoid, May 4th 2012:
“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand”
Lionel @ 42...
"To be sure if Jeff said he saw evidence for climate change then I believe him"
Bernard...
"I’ve “witnessed climate change first hand Do you dispute those changes?"
1. I don't know what you have witnessed so how can I dispute it?
2. If you are comparing what you witnessed, to what Jeff witnessed in Algonguin, then Jeff will first have to tell us what climate change he experienced "first hand" and what shifting zones he could "see in real" over a 20 day period....
otherwise, there' nothing to compare to.
3. You may have a hard time comparing what you saw to what Jeff saw because he later admitted "of course I can't describe things first hand"
4. Don't worry Bernard, whatever it is, you will always have Lionel on your side.
Lionel's thoughts about Jeff having to admit he couldn't describe things first hand...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.262213-Students-believe-…
rhwombat @ 55...
Now that's funny.
Well, since you dispute Jeff's experience and statements, that must mean you were with Jeff, then, right?
Or were you just plain avoiding the question, AGAIN, Betty?
Notice how - *yet again* - Betula won't even acknowledge anything written about the big picture?
Like # 47, for example.
Skip, skip, skip...
Meanwhile, it turns out that the extreme flooding currently afflicting parts of Europe was caused by blocking highs - bringing us right back to the Petoukhov et al. study published in February that Betula was desperately trying to bury in FUD.
Looks like they've got a bit more information to add to their time-period now, eh Betula?
More information here.
"Well, since you dispute Jeff’s experience and statements, that must mean you were with Jeff, then, right?"
You're Hopeless Wow. Jeff was forced to admit he couldn't describe thing first hand. Why are you disputing what he said?
Hopeless.
BBD...
Link your sources.
BBD...
Sorry...Link your sources at #47.
BBD @ 77....
"Looks like they’ve got a bit more information to add to their time-period now, eh Betula?"
Actually no. Where is the "more information"? Your link to a blog doesn't give more information, in fact, if you look at the end of the article, it links to Stefan Rahmstorf's blog as a source....and what does Stefan Rahmstorf have to say?
"Not only the amplitude of the waves is particularly large, but the waves remain for a long time are almost stationary. Allowing the same weather conditions last for weeks"
"Does this have anything to do with global warming? This question can not be answered with certainty"
"Current global climate models can not resolve correctly the mechanism of planetary waves because the grids are too coarse"
No more information BBD. Same partial information, computer capacity limited, can't say with certainty. However, I'll give you an "A" for, well.... I'll give you an "A".
Betula is sinking deeper and deeper into the mire. Note how he has not responded once to any of the points I or others have put to him. He is singularly obsessed with one short web article written by a colleague here after I crossed Algonquin Park in winter in 2012 in which it was written that I observed climate change first hand.
I certainly did, if one considers that many inverts were active in January in habitats that should be frozen solid. We also experienced temperatures way above normal, two rainfall events (unheard of in this area Januarys 2 or 3 decades ago) and waters that were unfrozen when they should have had a dense layer of ice. If one observes climate change effects at a given time, they can only look for symptoms, and not the ultimate effects. Moreover, one thing I did was linked a number of studies showing biological responses to warming - a small snippet of a huge and growing data base. And I included one by a Masters student based on the Algonquin-Adirondack corridor.
Betula has no empirical arguments except to suggest that nature in the eastern United States is doing fine on the basis of three piss-poor examples. He has abandoned this and his C02 benefits nature nonsense after these arguments were shredded.
Remember though Betty *says* that climate change can happen, they absolutely 185% believe as stone cold fact that it can't actually do any change whilst anyone is around watching.
And Betty still doesn't know what that means.
I've repeated many times on Deltoid the changes that have occurred in my own area. Perhaps you missed those comments the first, second, and third times around...
Search for comments about snow that fell in the 70s to the extent that it prevented school buses from travelling, where today snow never falls at all*.
Search for comments about chill hours decreasing to the point where fruit set in orchards is jeopardised.
Search for comments about the salmon industry here (with which I have had direct contact) having to consider alternative species because the summer temperatures are approaching the species' upper thermal tolerance limit.
Search for comments about lower latitude species moving south, including the sea urchins that are wiping out the giant kelp forests... Of course, searching for information seems to be something beyond your limited intellectual capacity, so perhaps you could take a short cut and just read:
http://www.climatechange.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/129269/…
http://www.redmap.org.au/news/2012/12/13/tracking-wayward-fish-the-hist…
http://www.redmap.org.au/article/leaving-home-in-a-huff-range-shifts-in…
I've seen these changes directly Betula. I've seen the salmon displaying the early signs of thermal stress. I've seen the novel fish species appearing in nets and dredges. I've seen roads that used to be covered in snow no longer being sprinkled even with frost. I've seen the trees and berry bushes that yield less because the winters have not been sufficiently cold.
Are you going to tell me that I've not "witnessed climate change first hand"?
*Speaking of snow fall, the Australian ski season opened this weekend without any snow. Embarrassing for Accuweather, which predicted otherwise.
Betula also distorts what I said about the temperatures during our Park crossing. Indeed, the temperature was way above normal the entire duration (the average over many years was - 7 C day and - 19 C night, when it was typically -5 to +5 by day and 0 to -15 at night when we were crossing). In the end,.it was the warmest winter ever recorded in the Park. Snow depths and ice thickness were well below normal, and as I said earlier there was plenty of invertebrate activity - spiders, collemboles, caddisflies were all active when just a coupl;e of decades ago this would not have been possible. The winter collemboles are normally observed in late February thru March, so they were active some 4 weeks earlier than normal. These events are exceptional, given that I crossed the Park as a challenge (it had never been done in winter) and not for research purposes, even though I know it would a great area as it lies on the boundary of two major biomes. If I was doing research there, as many studies across the North American continent have reported (see my earlier listing of just a few of them), then of course I would find many examples of biotic responses to warming.
The reason Betula sticks to this topic like glue is because all of his other feeble arguments have been shot down. He began with it over a year ago and its been his running theme ever since. He has ventured into other areas, only to have his arguments categorically debunked, so then he retreats back to a short article written about my Algonquin Park crossing. He's done this repeatedly.
Essentially, given that he has very few allies here (GSW, Olaus and Karen are it), I wonder why he persists. Certainly not out of any chance of winning any kind of debate.His earlier posts on C02 and environmental quality in eastern NA showed clearly how out of his depth he is on those subjects. So its back to me and Algonquin Park. Ad libitum.
Betula
No. Can't be bothered. You tell me what you are going to try and lie about, and I will rebut your attempt point for point. With references.
And Betula - two 500-year floods in 11 years with a 500-year heat wave in between during the hottest decade in the instrumental record is AGW-induced climate instability starting to emerge. Your stupid denial of the blindingly obvious notwithstanding.
And what a fucking troll you are, Betty.
Harvey...
1. “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand"
2.“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand”
3. "I certainly did, if one considers that many inverts were active in January in habitats that should be frozen solid."
4. "with around -2 oC during the day and -10 at night”
Harvey... with his hand in the cookie jar.
It's ok Jeff, you can have a cookie...
Nitpicking troll.
Modern climate change is mostly human caused. See # 47
Betty, still completely hoping that nobody notices you said fuck all there?
It isn't working, little girl. It isn't working.
Betty is more than a troll. He is a joke. He thinks he's actually cornered me, whilst refusing to respond to any of the debunkings of his own pathetic examples. I've pasted up a number of studies here that clearly show climate change related effects on plants, animals and trophic interactions. There are many times more. Betty of course will ignore them because they totally undermine his arguments that warming is not being demonstrated in natural systems. Given his paucity of expertise in environmental science, which has been amply demonstrated here time and again, there is little left for him to do except to go back to the starting point and to hang onto it like a bulldog. And to reiterate, its proof that he never reads the primary literature.
If this gives him the feeling of securing some kind of intellectual 'victory', then my advice to others here is to pat him on the back for his immense wisdom and then to send him packing. He clearly has nothing to add of value here on the environment, given the crap he's been spewing out earlier about C02 fertilization and Betty-style indicators of environmental health in his neck of the woods.
It is telling that when I and others countered both arguments, he was unable to respond and went back to his Algonquin Park theme. His one and only seeming refuge.
Perhaps Betula should be sent to Algonquin Park for a similar sojourn to yours Jeff and when he is done there go to Greenland for the summer season on the ice with some other scientists.
Heck he could even join up with James Balog and colleagues to witness climate change at first hand. I wonder how courageous he would be when navigating melting ice watching out for crevasses and moulins.
And there is more, he could also link up with Jason Box and discover even more about climate change in your face.
He could also search out E.O.Wilson for more discoveries.
But no, he will just continue playing the silly ignoramus.
Betula at #81, dribbled
Well as we have already shown, Rahmstorf has said a good deal more than that as from The Conversation we have seen:
And yes we know that natural variability is in the mix but that does not change the fact that global temperatures are climbing due to a well understood area of physics which explains why there is an energy budget surplus building up in Earth's systems. The elevator is going up.
Perhaps Betula should be sent to Algonquin Park for a similar sojourn to yours Jeff.
I would love it. And then we can send Jeff to the U.S. Marine Corps for a short spell to see how he handles that.
"So there’s no smoking gun on the table yet – but quite telling fingerprints all over the place."
No smoking gun? DENIER!
More taxing questions evasion from Betty.
Which leaves nobody surprised.
Well, unlike you I am upfront on sources and provide complete quotes including those that relay caveats. Even caveats from a scientist using the renowned scientific understatement and non-committal.
But the honest person sees beyond this and puts such statements in the context of what is happening around the globe. By ignoring that it is you that is the DENIER.
Go on then, go. Do a spell with Box and Balog too we will all be interested in how you get on. Now until you have followed up on this I suggest that you shut up about Algonquin, you were becoming tedious anyway, and much else besides. Don't remain the clueless one with only a wooden line of argument.
Big-picture-denying troll: modern climate change is mostly human caused.
See # 47.
And then we can send Jeff to...
The difference being of course that Jeff actually went to Algonquin Park rather than fantasizes about it.
Whereas your (unrequested) tale of being the hard wurkin' 'murcan ex-muhrine now successful SME owner made to feel like Rosa fucking Parks while working in a millionaire/billionaire Dem-oh-crit ghetto ticks so many GOP victim boxes it's too funny for words.
Betula at #94 on page 3...
Your comment is a complete non sequitur and thus bereft of any point germane to a discussion of climate change.
Remember, logical fallacy is the refuge of the ignorant and the mendacious.
chek...
Try Disulfiram.
Bernard @ 1....
Unless (like Lionel @92) , we are talking about the courageousness of our climate change heroes, the likes of who went and faced the ugly beast of shifting zones in real. Surely, no guaranteed worst case only scenario denier could stand up to experiencing the dreaded climate change first hand!
Algonguin - Where Uncommon Frostbite Was A Common Virtue.
Not to be confused with - The Few, The Proud, The Marine Biologists.
Y'know Betty, you should - and it's in keeping with your beloved would-be macho miltaire thing - make 'Ignore despatches from the front, things are pretty damn good here at HQ forty miles behind the lines' your motto. Although just the first five words make it more pithy.
As your cherry-picked phrases indicate, you've got nothing.
Not even a semblance of a counter.
Another non sequitur Betula.
We're discussing the evidence for climate change.
On which subject, I note that you have yet to challenge any of the indications of warming that I've "witnessed".
On the subject of warming David Duff might be interested to know that the first 11 days of our winter have exhibited day temperatures 3.8° celsius above average, night temperatures 3° celsius above average, with and ocean temperature that is 2° celsius above average.
Oh, and yesterday the snakes were out sun-baking. Usually they disappear by April at the latest.
By David Duff's own logic global warming is roaring along.
Even a Creationist has had enough of the "there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect" kooks:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-s…
"I would love it. And then we can send Jeff to the U.S. Marine Corps for a short spell to see how he handles that"
Ya gotta love this clown. A self-righteous machismo comedian. Well, at least he thinks he is. Besides, give the US marines performance in recent foreign expansionist wars, I don't hold them up to any kind of esteem.
- 2000 – 2010 was the hottest decade in the instrumental record.
Reference: NOAA global, GISTEMP, HadCRUT4
- The years since the 1998 El Nino have been characterised by a string of extreme weather events of remarkable severity
Reference: any extreme weather event index, eg. this one and Hansen, Sato & Ruedi (2012), Public perception of climate change and the new climate dice.
- OHC has risen by ~25*10^22J since the mid-C20th
Reference: Levitus et al. (2012), World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010:
# 9 @ Betula re: # 47 previous page.
- The laws of physics are well established, and the “greenhouse effect” is real
Reference: the entire literature on the physics of the radiating atmosphere... but try Ray Pierrehumbert's primer on radiative physics and planetary temperature in Physics Today for starters. But remember Betty - I can't understand it for you. You have to read it yourself.
- Paleoclimate behaviour demonstrates that the climate system is sensitive to radiative perturbation
Reference: orbitally-triggered deglaciations ~2.75Ma - Holocene; Shakun et al. (2012); *any* decent graduate-level paleoclimate textbook, eg. Ruddiman or Cronin.
- Empirical estimates of sensitivity to a change in forcing suggest an equilibrium response of about 0.75C per W/m^2 dF
Reference: Hansen & Sato (2012); Rohling et al. (2012); Hansen et al. (2013) (in press).
Forcing from 2xCO2 (~560ppmv) is approximately +3.6W/m^2
Reference: IPCC AR4:
- Emissions trajectories look almost certain to reach >800ppmv by the end of the century
Reference: US Global Change Research Program (2009); IEA Emissions Update 2012; IPCC AR4:
Footnote 14:
There you go, Betty.
References for # 47, previous page.
Ugh Mighty Marine beat brainy scientist; me smash'um with big rock! And polesaw...
What a maroon! The decline of the US Empire in cartoon form...
Betula as seen in his #3 is now clearly rambling and not across Algonguin Park. Note also his inability to quote correctly turning his posts into meaningless porridge.
"Oh, and yesterday the snakes were out sun-baking. Usually they disappear by April at the latest."
hehehe, there goes barnturd flapping his puny little wings again, lol wot a nuffie
You don't know much about snakes barnturd, or climate change :)
AAAAARRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr the sky is falling.lol
All you guys in here must get extremely embarrassed when your fellow cultists babble about seeing the ghosts of climate change, huh, never mind go back to praying fellas.
O' almighty Lord of Climate, why dost thou torture us with a pause? Please please bring us the hottest, meanest and mightiest El Nino ever seen and burn burn burn...amen
lol
Bernard...
"We’re discussing the evidence for climate change"
Then maybe you should follow the discussion more closely. While I was on the topic of Jeff's reporting the "evidence for climate change", Lionel et al. seem to be stuck on the perils of exploring climate change and the courage that it takes to protect us from the front lines....I felt a comparison to the Marines was in order, certainly you must agree these people are the Marines of scientists. Have you never heard the slogan......"First To Fright"?
Your selective comprehension of the conversation is a bit puzzling, perhaps you missed a few lines earlier in the thread. Here, let me help you out...
In response to Jeff admitting "of course I can’t describe things first hand":
Lionel @ 64..."Considering the dangers and discomforts and also the sheer effort that Jeff, and his colleague, put in in the interests of furthering our understanding of the planet"
@ 64 again..."You do not seem to appreciate that hundreds of scientists or their aids and survival mentors have perished or become disabled through their activities in human hostile places of the world."
More @ 64..."Anybody who has traveled on foot over rough terrain with a heavy load, as I have, can appreciate all to easily the immense effort involved."
Note...this shows Lionel's "macho" side. Did you catch that chek?
Lionel @ 92...."Perhaps Betula should be sent to Algonquin Park for a similar sojourn"
@ 92... "I wonder how courageous he would be when navigating melting ice watching out for crevasses and moulins."
chek @4..."Ignore despatches from the front, things are pretty damn good here at HQ forty miles behind the lines’ your motto."
Are you still there Bernard?
Anyways, that last line is pretty humorous...could you imagine someone on the front lines reporting back... "I have experienced the enemy first hand" and " I have seen the enemy in real"....only later to admit "of course I can't describe the enemy first hand". Meanwhile, his comrades circle the wagons to try and protect him with comments like..."If he said he experienced the enemy in real than I believe him!"
Bernard, you're a smart guy, please don't become part of the joke.
Yup, the difference being I know for a fact Lionel was in the FAA, whereas every pop-gun blowhard and his dog in the U.S. are 'ex-marines'.
Plus I find it hard to believe even the lowest grade of grunt would be as poor at paraphrasing as you show yourself to be.
But your evasions of Bernard's and BBD's equally salient posts do at least demonstrate you're a deeply committed denier.
See, that's the thing KarenMackSunspot. We almost never see snake out at this time of year because it's too cold. It's not surprising that they come out on warm days, but it is surprising that it was warm enough to lure them out multiple times at this time of year.
That was my point to David Duff who thinks that examples of cold weather are disproof of climate change. It's not surprising though that the significance of the converse sailed right over your head.
And have you decided yet which post on Deltoid is your proudest ever moment?
Are you still there Bernard?
Yes, and I'm wondering why you think that Jeff couldn't cut it at least as well as you (according to your account) in the Marines. After all, do you know what he's able to handle? Do you have his test results?
All the rest is still non sequitur.
Climate change is mainly driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions Betula. It is already beginning to cause climate disruption and this is just the beginning. It will get much, much worse.
The big picture is overwhelmingly convincing. See # 47 previous page and # 9, # 11, #12 and #13 above, referenced for your convenience.
"Sceptics" are either liars or fools or have simply retreated into denial because they can't cope with reality.
Of course, Betty has two email accounts. And can't even keep THEM straight...
Oh dear, the perennially confused, wooden heart Betula, following the deranged, Karen who has awoke from the depths, what a pair of clowns.
Thing is, after hurling insults what have you two got left - nothing, nada, zilch. These are not even emperors without clothes for they have never garbed themselves with knowledge in order to recognize the truth. These Black Knights are too easy for they have no black mail.
More evidence for climate change that you can see for real, note that twentieth century spike Betula as it is about to get you in the butt.
"Bernard, you’re a smart guy"
Yes he is. Too bad Betula that you aren't, as demonstrated by some of the appallingly simple arguments you have posted up here in recent weeks. Trouble is that you think you are clever... but when your arguments are blown to smithereens you constantly shift the goalposts and move elsewhere.
Regarding the marines, please don't make me laugh. US marines aren't exactly feared abroad. And I am not sure that all of them would have been up to hauling 60 kg of stuff behind them over 23 days across Ontario wilderness.... and certainly not at 54 years of age. Turns out I am in pretty good shape for a guy of my age as I work out twice a week at the gym and are planning an 800 km canoe trek from lake Winnipeg to Hudson's Bay as well as a hiking trip across Iceland. Being a scientist does not necessarily mean that one is a shapeless blob. Your marine joke was in keeping with your general demeanor.
What a nerve!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-clima…;
OP groan, you are slow are you not.
@Jeff
"Regarding the marines, please don’t make me laugh. US marines aren’t exactly feared abroad." (?)
Eh.. Not sure if you are playing here or not Jeff, kind of a bizarre statement to make unless you are some kind of Eco-Jihadist (which I'm not going to rule out), but, to continue the Napoleon theme now you've arrived, I'll quote Wellington,
"I don't know if they frighten the enemy, but they scare the hell out of me."
you obviously are made of sterner stuff.
;)
@Olaus,
Thanks for the link. A few choice quotes,
"As unlikely as this may sound, we have lucked out in recent years when it comes to global warming."
"The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists."
"But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested."
At the risk of get all Rumsfeld, "the things we know we don't know and the things we don't."
Article sounds as though it is all very much still up for grabs and definitely not as "settled" as some would have us believe. So, quite fair overall.
;)
"And I am not sure that all of them would have been up to hauling 60 kg of stuff behind them over 23 days across Ontario wilderness"
You're not sure about a lot of things, are you?
"you constantly shift the goalposts and move elsewhere"
No, the goalposts have remained at Algonquin for quite some time...
Lionel @ 25..
"More evidence for climate change"
Honestly? You are comparing a 2000 year ice core record to a 20 day hike in the park? How embarrassing for you.
Note that Betula has gone back to skip, skip, skip mode. As always, when faced with the big picture.
That is rather the problem Betula. You are avoiding any discussion except that of irrelevance, and within your own dishonest framing at that.
We are not stupid, Betula. That's why you are irritating. You are an insult to the intelligence of others.
Given the almost comically aligned double act, I have to wonder if Olaus and GSW aren't aspects of the same mind...
@BBD
No BBD, we are not, we've been thru all that before. It's the paranoia that gets you lot in the end, look at Jeff!
;)
# 30
Settled science = radiative physics; "greenhouse effect"
Questions remain over cause(s) of recent slowdown in rate of *atmospheric* warming.
The energy appears to be going into the ocean - one only has to look at the strong upward trend in 0 - 2000m OHC data to see that. Note the very large jump up Jan - Mar 2013 (3 month mean; red).
The likely mechanism is wind speed change perhaps with some help from the PDO and both anthropogenic and volcanic aerosols.
See also Watanabe et al. (2013), Strengthening of ocean heat uptake efficiency associated with the recent climate hiatus.
Then stop fluffing each other so ardently and obviously. It is repellent to behold.
GSW, all the denialist bullshit in the world cannot get around some very simple facts:
- The difference between the Holocene and the LGM is about 4.5C.
- This difference is maintained by an increase in RF of about 6W/m^2 over the LGM.
- A simple, but inclusive empirical estimate of fast feedback sensitivity to yields 0.75C per W/m^2 dF.
- So if we manage to increase CO2e (including CH4, albedo etc) to ~4W/m^2 (which seems near-certain for a doubling of CO2 280ppmv -> 560ppmv) then dT = ~3C.
BBD: either a split personality or drinking buddies. Their stupidity is in the same neighborhood but of a different flavor.
To wit: GSW is an odd "no I didn't say that stupid thing, let me disappear for a month" duck, while Olaus is more your garden-variety "here's a link I did not read and/or understand" clown.
Oh, no Olap does the "duck for a month" dodge too.
When I asked him how he would detect climate change (since he agrees that the climate DOES change), he just asked a bullshit nonsequitur of someone else and eventually ran off for a few months when the "look! Squirrels!!!" attempt didn't work.
They're pretty much on a dead heat for stupidity.
@stu,
Hi stu, how you? Ego recovered?
;)
"Questions remain over cause(s) of recent slowdown in rate of *atmospheric* warming."
Except that even that requires you go down the up escalator:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
Since there's no statistically significant pause in the trend, there is no pause to explain away.
# 44 trolling.
Let's have something substantive out of you that goes well beyond fluffing Olaus and quote mining shit churnalism.
@BBD
Long story BBD, don't think you were around then. It's all to do with "six years of physics" and what that buys you.
;)
By the way, Betty, you are the most insecure douche I have encountered since... well, since Jonas.
Ah yes, GSW, the guy that felt it was very important to mention that if you do an experiment where a hand is pushing a box, and the box accelerates, the hand has to move faster too.
No, I'm serious. He and Jonas have been arguing that for years now. Well, they switched to claiming they never brought it up at some point I think. Clinical insanity is hard to follow sometimes.
GSW, the dunce so dense that not only the concept of irrelevant variables is too much, that pesky "cause and effect" thing still eludes him.
@stu
I'll take that as a NO.
;)
Remember, the dunderheads are conditioned to expect causeless effects.
God.
Climate.
Movement.
Gitter, you'd take it whichever way you already wanted to take it.
You've never yet let evidence change your tack.
Because you're a brainless moron.
But
there's
no
point
to
this
blog
Wait, what did I miss... *scrolls up*
Oh GSW, you sad little man... if you think my ego is tied up in getting the best of the mentally challenged on the Internet, I'm sorry to disappoint you.
any
more.
What the hell is the point coming here to read a bunch of idiot trolls pratt about and yell "POOPIE HEADS!!!!" because they're ass-raped by the very IDEA that there's something wrong with the way captialism is handling externalities and MAYBE government action is needed.
GSW
This isn't what I asked for. Instead of trolling, engage substantively. If you want examples, see my comments and others' above. Referenced, supported argument.
You can't can you? Quote mining shite churnalism is your limit.
See # 40 GSW? Say something intelligent about that.
"No, the goalposts have remained at Algonquin for quite some time"
B* they have. You have since ventured onto C02 fertilization effects, environmental quality in eastern NA and glacial loss. Only when your simplistic arguments in these areas were debunked did you return to the Algonquin meme. And, as I have repeated here over and over again, you consistently refuse to discuss the primary literature (some of which I have linked hon this thread). Either the results are too much for you to bear, or the science is way over your head.
I opt for both options in your case.
GSW: I suspect that your allegedly vaunted US marines are seen as illegal occupiers in a number of countries by the local populations. On this basis, they aren't feared so much as despised.
@Jeff
Well Jeff, (no offence intended Betula ;) ) the sheer combination of being A) American and B) Heavily Armed is enough to scare the crap out of most people I would have thought. The fact that marines are also trained to use them "effectively" would take it beyond a reasonable doubt in anybodys mind.
Next time you visit the US, you could try it out, demonstrate your lack of fear that is, find a group of heavily armed americans and tell them how much you despise them. Looking forward to the field report on that one.
;)
Words fail to express what a pathetic little man you are -- whether you intended to be sarcastic here or not. Sad, insecure, uninformed, delusional and pathetic.
Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself? Wait, are you just a masochist?
...."the sheer combination of being A) American and B) Heavily Armed is enough to scare the crap out of most people I would have thought"
As Stu said. GSW really scrapes the bottom of the barrel with this comment - the usual chest-pounding machismo of 'how great our nation is and how we like to scare the bejeezus out of nations that don't toe the line'. Or as neocon Michael Ledeen once apparently said, "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." I am sure that numbskulls like GSW think this is a perfectly acceptable remark. Its OK for the powerful to crush the weak whenever they feel the need, and so be it. Utterly pathetic, of course. But then again, this is GSW we are talking about.
Moreover, China for one doesn't seem to be listening. They yawn whenever the us huffs and puffs and pounds the turf. But that is beside the point. That being whatever stupid point Betula was first making to give the impression that the only 'real men' out there are military trainees and certainly not scientists. Stan Goff would probably have something interesting to say about that, he being a former marine himself who loathes US foreign policy agendas. Or Andrew Bacevich, a West Point graduate who similarly decries US expansionist wars. And what about the huge numbers of US marines and military - most culled from the ranks of the poor - sent into harms way abroad to fight economic wars (the rich exempt themselves from military duty) and who return broken men, many of whom are either mentally or physically crippled and never able to integrate into civilian life again and who are often tossed onto the scrap heap? And for what? To support the interests of a privileged few at home?
Really, GSW. You have sunk even lower than Betula with your latest machismo nonsense. Pretty pathetic, really.
"You have sunk even lower than Betula with your latest machismo nonsense"
The Marines originally came into the picture because Lionel brought up how courageous one has to be to witness shifting zones in real....and we all know one is more courageous than Jeff.
If suggesting Jeff join the Marines is considered "machismo nonsense", it would appear Jeff's response proves he's as macho and nonsensical as one can get....he would teach them all a lesson!.
Does it get any better than this?:
"Regarding the marines, please don’t make me laugh. And I am not sure that all of them would have been up to hauling 60 kg of stuff behind them over 23 days across Ontario wilderness…. and certainly not at 54 years of age. Turns out I am in pretty good shape for a guy of my age as I work out twice a week at the gym and are planning an 800 km canoe trek from lake Winnipeg to Hudson’s Bay as well as a hiking trip across Iceland."
Now that's a macho man!
@Jeff
"Turns out I am in pretty good shape for a guy of my age as I work out twice a week at the gym and are planning an 800 km canoe trek from lake Winnipeg to Hudson’s Bay as well as a hiking trip across Iceland."
Thanks for sharing your opinion of you. We'll file it alongside; "I'm a scientist", a guitar hero, on your Kerry King signature series warlock, a "witness" of climate change "first hand" and being a big girl's blouse.
GSW, I'm sure Jeffie's "first hand" is the same one that can move boxes, don't you think? ;-)
You can almost smell the fear of substantive discussion coming off Betula and GSW.
I love it when the deniers start trying to pretend that long sequences of comments simply didn't happen. They look so utterly, wretchedly dishonest and childish.
Betty @ #70
You're getting confused Betty, as most liars eventually do. The marines 'came into the picture' in your bitter, 1000+ word rant at Jeff here.
... not that I'd condemn anybody to bother reading BettyWorld (again).
However what remains is that Betty has zero argument concerning AGW. His absolute best effort is merely to raise a sneer.
barnturd #20
" You don’t know much about snakes barnturd, or climate change
See, that’s the thing KarenMackSunspot. We almost never see snake out at this time of year because it’s too cold."
You would squeal like a child if you seen a snake barnturd, lol
hmmm...now what have here..........
"Luckily, we only have 3 varieties of snake here (officially):
Tasmania Tiger Snake - these come in a range of colours, and are often mistaken for mainland black snakes. Tassie tiger snakes can be black, black with yellow bellies, striped, and possibly other colours also. They have smaller fangs than the mainland version and seem to be less agressive also. Due to their smaller fangs they find it hard to penetrate thick materials. Gaiters and boots will usually protect you from these guys.
Copperhead - Nasty little buggers! These are more agressive and will attack if cornered. These are also known to be out and about in winter, something not normally seen on the mainland.
White Lipped Whip Snake - A small snake, only a couple of feet long and rather thin. Again, these will come out on sunny winter days."
http://www.realtasmania.com/topic/321-snakes/
oh, barnturd all 3 varieties like to be patted and handled :) did you know that you only have pussy snakes in Tazzie, lol and obviously you don't know much about them, your more the herb gardener type of guy.
Get real. "Effectively" and "US Military" are not concepts that coincide. The US military is renowned for its indiscipline, poor training, poor morale, fractured esprit de corps, and for the low average qualities of its individual soldiers, especially in the two areas that are most important to the most competent military forces: personal initiative and teamwork.
The US Marines have a long history of being equipped with proportionately higher firepower than other formations, and for taking exceptionally high losses in action due to the primitive tactics they employ.
Lionel....
Which one of the following sentences do you believe?
1. “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand”
2.“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand”
Bernard....
Which of the following sentences do you believe?
1. “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand”
2.“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand”
Wow...
Which of the following sentences do you believe?
1. “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand”
2.“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand”
BBD....
Which one of the following sentences might you believe?
1. “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand”
2.“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand”
Hi Bill..
I was just wondering, which one of the following sentences do you believe?
1. “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand”
2.“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand”
Hardley...
Which one of your own sentences do you believe?
1. “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand”
2.“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand”
While we are off on a tangent Craig, I read an interesting bit in the book of essays: "ANZACs Dirty Dozen" which I am currently working through.
The author of one of the essays (Karl James) puts forward the idea that MacArthur more or less excluded the Australian troops from the more high profile areas of the Pacific war due to wanting to keep the spotlight on the US forces. James even gives some evidence that Blamey considered he could do with 5 battalions what the US was using 3 brigades to achieve (ie about 1/3 of the men) and that was why MacArthur, after promising to include the Australian forces in the invasion of the Philippines eventually excluded them. (Didn't want to be shown up)
I don't have a huge interest in the second war generally or the Pacific particularly, but James produced, what appeared to me, to be some very reasonable arguments.
A us marine's view of amerikan foreign policy:
"There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism."
Smedley Darlington Butler was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps, an outspoken critic of U.S. military adventurism, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.
Without wishing to invoke by naming one of the grottier manifestations of Troll taxonomy, stephenk, but I think that the very issue (the relatively abysmal performance of the US Marines in the early PNG campaigns) was what initially attracted the pathetically psychopathic lil' mike to Deltoid. Those US Repiglican denialists are very insecure about their "victories".
So, Batty, you concede you have no point to make about AGW - unsurprisingly - so are reduced to out-of-context nitpicking of someone who clearly really threatens you, you great big macho ex-marine tree-pruner, you. Your sense of intellectual inadequacy is showing.
There is an ongoing effort at WUWT to calm all the deniers who are 'freaking out' or as likely to give them a reason to not freak out.
The latest is an article about how species are adapting to climate change. Eg some tiny Arctic birds have to fly longer and further for food, which is apparently a good thing (but only if you are a Pollyanna and not a bird looking for food).
The subject matter is unusual for WUWT and the writer assumes AGW from the look of it. So it will be interesting to see how the discussion pans out. So far it's not looking too good or surprising. Comments encompass 'she'll be right' through to "species die out is all part of nature" through to 'It's all good".
I haven't seen a comment referring to any of the mass extinctions yet. I did see one that claimed that Australian greenie types are opposed to getting rid of exotic pests. I have no idea where he got that idea from. You have to build a straw man if you want to knock it down I suppose.
Some Animal Lib types are opposed to the control of feral animal species. You even get the occasional Hippy nutter who applies the 'it's all natural, man' logic to feral plant pests. Seeing the necessity for extrirpating pests - whether cute or otherwise - is one of the defining features that marks the distinction between Greenies and these types.
KarenMackSunspot.
Congratulations on missing the point yet again.
I have 16 acres of wet forest and sphagnum grassland, and whip snakes and copperheads do not occur in my area. Tiger snakes are thick on the ground though, in both senses of the word. From late October to early March it's typical to see at least one and often multiple individuals daily. For another 6-8 weeks either side there are occasional appearances, but I simply do not see them in winter. In my part of the world it is usually too cold and wet on the ground, even on a typical 'warm' winter's day.
That this winter has been so much balmier than usual is the reason why they are making winter appearances in a part of the state where they usually do not, and that is my bloody point Einstein. That the weather has been conspicuously and unseasonably warm.
And nice ad hominem potty-mouth. Trouble is that you're as wrong about that as you are about science. If you're ever over here drop me a line and I'll show you how to handle them - you can choose to squeal or not...
What can you say about the kind of complete dipstick who uses the term 'pussy snake'? And thinks tigers and copperheads are examples of this idiot genre?
Dreck.
Yes, Bill, I do recall that there are some nutters who profess to be green. The commenter described them not as greenies but as: "...the same people who advocate reducing consumption of fossil fuels, ". Which is probably why I didn't twig that that might be what he meant.
We have lots of browns, tigers and red-bellied black snakes and probably others, but they are the ones I see. I don't attempt to catch them, just watch where I walk. What I have noticed is a change in the bird population. We seem to have some permanent residents that I don't recall being here twenty years ago.
The other thing is that Bogong Moths seem to have been few and far between the last few years. I can't blame them with the extreme weather of the past few years, which may have messed up their flight plans. Does anyone know someone who studies them?
Betula is getting more and more desperate which each post. Its actually funny watching him desperately (and futilely) try and make my Algonquin Park comments into some BIG thing, whilst avoiding the discussion of biotic proxies and climate change, or the other embarrassing gaffes he has posted up here. He is also so desperate that he has to depend on his ignoranti mob consisting of GSW, Olaus and Karen to throw in the odd smear. Its strange how these guys operate - Betula makes a comment about scientists, or lat least me, not being 'real men' like US marines, I respond by saying that he doesn't know anything about me or my physical shape which as it turns out for a guy of 55 is pretty good I would think, then GSW chimes in with nonsense about marines kicking my butt and then moves onto suggesting that I am boasting, with an additional vacuous jibe from Olaus. Hilarious all this really. This bunch of idiots hasn't got anything left in the way of empirical arguments, so all they can do is try to smear scientists like myself. I am certainly used to this kind of thing, as I am sure many others are. In the case of Betula, he is resorting to utter desperation now: I posted a bunch of articles a few days ago highlighting the biotic responses to warming, and he hasn't touched a single one. That's because, as I said earlier, he doesn't do science, doesn't read the primary literature and wouldn't understand the methods of these studies even if he did. Note also that his acolytes have not commented on a single one of these studies. Instead, expect Olaus to post up some crap from WUWY any time now,. Like Betula (and GSW) these jokers don't read the primary scientific literature. I will say that Karen doesn't either, but he/she/it does constantly distort the findings and conclusions of empirical studies.
So there we have it: in 4 idiot deniers who contribute to this thread, we have 3 who never read published scientific studies and one who distorts the conclusions of the odd one. What a bunch of luminaries. And, with their ignorance laid bare, all they can resort to are smears and insults.
BTW GSW, don't belittle the talents of Kerry King - although I tend to like shredders like David Shankle and Joe Stump more.
Stephenk, " puts forward the idea that MacArthur more or less excluded the Australian troops from the more high profile areas of the Pacific war due to wanting to keep the spotlight on the US forces. "
That was also my understanding.
The US history of Buna-Gona and the Australian one differ significantly due to Macarthur's revisionist accounts of what really happened there, his first opportunity to throw US troops into action where his leadership was inept and uninformed.
His embarrassment after those actions was probably what led him to try to sideline the Australian troops thereafter. Later, he tried to get as many of them killed as possible by having them sent into a campaign in Borneo that had no strategic justification.
# 81 Betula
I don't care.
The *reality* of AGW has exactly nothing to do with Jeff's observations or your desperate attempt at hyper-focus on perceived inconsistencies in wording of same. As I said above, your framing and avoidance tactics are transparent, dishonest and childish.
And they don't work with me.
What about my detailed provision of the references YOU asked for (# 9 - # 14)? What about that? You haven't even mentioned those comments since. What about # 39 and # 40?
Let's have a substantive discussion. Except you can't do that, can you? As this and every other page of every thread you appear on proves, beyond doubt.
You are a pathetic, dishonest, cowardly idiot hiding in denial like a rat in a rotten log. Either come out and engage in good faith like an adult or fuck off.
# 93
I never had you down as a shreddie-merchant Jeff ;-)
Nothing like a bit of fretboard lunacy (with hammer-ons, of course) to bring a smile to the face.
OT and perhaps not to everyone's taste, but Prof. Shred (aka Guthrie Govan) is worth checking out if AFW (Anthropogenic Fretboard Warming) is a preferred measure of sanity.
Very tidy! If you like that, try Alan Holdsworth. Original, and best ;-)
Indeed, I recall an incendiary AH gig at the Bridge House in Canning Town many years ago when I lived in London.
Something a little more substantive, perhaps. An SkS analysis of a recent opinion piece by Myles Allen, suggesting that his knowledge of policy and economics is quite some way behind his knowledge of climate science.
IIRC that article was cited by various denialists. I suspect most or all of the reasons it was cited for survive the analysis - as was evident to many people at the time ;-)
I guess it's too much to ask that the Australian Opposition take on board the information underlying this analysis, given that their policy position relies on some level of outright denialism.
Tar sands increase climate change and Climate change meets Tar Sands.
Lionel..
Is flooding the new term for climate change?. Just curious because I don't see the words "climate change" in the article. Additionally, I don't see where flooding has met the tar sands.
Oh wait, I get it. This is one of those embellishing things like Jeff does to bring attention to the message... Ok, I'm with you (wink wink.)
Rain increases flooding and flooding doesn't reach Tar Sands....
http://www.xe.com/news/2013-06-12%2016:26:00.0/3392757.htm
Yes, but It just doesn't have same ring to it.
The message from Betty is the worst is over, and it can only get better from here on in.
Unfortunately, that's because he understands nothing that has been presented to him.
"The message from Betty is the worst is over, and it can only get better from here on in"
Actually, the message was this: "Rain increases flooding and flooding doesn’t reach Tar Sands"...and it was a message from Thomson Reuters, you know, the link at # 3.....just before your comment at # 4. If you went to # 2 you went too far, though it is a lovely little post and I would highly recommend reading it.
Anyhow, glad I could clear that up for you chek.
http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/land/oseroi.php
http://independentreport.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/tar-sands-too-ineffici…
Another non-solution to our energy needs devised by those who are desperately trying to keep us saddled with 20th century technologies.
http://altenergysources.webs.com/oilshaletarsands.htm
BBD @ 95
"I don’t care"
Of course you don't, I already knew that. If someone lies or embellishes, it's ok with you as long as their message is the same as yours.
Look, we all know it would be very difficult for someone to come back from a 20 day trek (supposedly to research climate change) and say to the world... "all I got out of it was frostbite".
Jeff had to resort to embellishment and lies to make getting frostbite seem worthwhile, to heighten the importance of the his trip, to have an excuse for another trip, to boost his ego and to gain attention..
Does anyone here actually believe "macho man" Jeff, who is tougher than the average Marine, and probably most UFC fighters, doesn't require attention?
I would imagine this happens occasionally in the science world, where, because a lot of time and money is spent on research, results are necessary to prove the funding worthwhile. Embellishing on the results of the work and the potential consequences ensures further study (and funding) is needed. It also gives a boost to the ego.
Projection. Boring. Next.
Bill.
Exactly.
And Betula's persistent ad hominem doesn't change the laws of physics - at least, the last time I checked those laws didn't give a shit if some grunt from a falling empire had a Very Big Gun.
"Does anyone here actually believe “macho man” Jeff, who is tougher than the average Marine, and probably most UFC fighters, doesn’t require attention?"
Good grief, Betula is in serious need of medical attention. The guy is becoming seriously unhinged. That's what happens when your arguments are summarily debunked. He's now resorting to this kind of crap.
Finally, to put this sucker to bed, the Algonquin trip wasn't for research - I was on vacation. I paid for it myself.
Betula has a serious affliction. After showing his earlier C02 and coyote/white tailed deer arguments to be hilarious oversimplifications, he's returned to his Algonquin meme in full force. Heck, I even tried to educate the sad sack by linking to studies showing biotic effects of climate change, but he won't go there, because he knows he's out of his depth. So Algonquin it is. Boring. Boring. Boring.
Betty @ #5
The only thing you cleared up is that your denial is still going strong. You gloat that the flooding didn't "reach the Tar Sands", although what you meant to add was 'this time'.
The future however doesn't look so good as your denial would have you believe.
Those more informed say this:
"Northern areas are projected to become wetter, especially in the winter and spring. Southern areas, especially in the West, are projected to become drier.
Heavy precipitation events will likely be more frequent. Heavy downpours that currently occur about once every 20 years are projected to occur about every four to 15 years by 2100, depending on location.
More precipitation is expected to fall as rain rather than snow, particularly in some northern areas".
"Heavy downpours that currently occur about once every 20 years are projected to occur about every four to 15 years by 2100, depending on location."
That is already, in 2013, underestimated.
Anyway, let's confuse the hollow earthers again: same locations will ALSO suffer more intense droughts (hollow earthers believe, among other nonsense, that water comes from nowhere as needed and goes to nowhere too).
Hey Deltoids!
Don't waste my valuable time much, any more, on you creep-out, hive-bozo booger-brains, but I see droppin' in here was worth my while for once:
Hey rhombat!
So rhombat, you doofus, fuck-up, you're now an "expert" on the "abysmal performance of U. S. Marines in the early PNG campaign" (yr. no. 86 on the previous page). Do tell? A couple of things or two in that regard, rhombat, ol' sport, if you don't mind:
-First off, rhombat, I have a conspiracy-theory "ideation" about you. Namely, my "theory" of you, rhombat, ol' buddy, is that you're actually not a lizard, after all, but rather you're really just a noisome, loud-mouth, loutish, shape-shifting, mutant cockroach. That, and I harbor a further "ideation" that only in a country afflicted with "socialized medicine" would a patent retard, like you, be entrusted with the health care of its citizenry.
-Secondly, would you be so kind, my dear rhombat, to be a little more specific about this "abysmal performance" claim of yours, with regards to Marines in "PNG" (you love slinging the shit and gettin' off on makin' like you know what you're talkin' about, don't you rhombat--you little, insufferable-prick fake). You know, rhombat, like maybe you could cite some specific , Marine actions in PNG that could be characterized as "abysmal performance" (and please do include the unit designations for those Marine units that have failed your performance evaluation).
-In the meantime, I'll pleasurably anticipate the deliciousness of your discovery that there was no Marine presence, of any consequence, in PNG in 1942--Marines were employed in the Solomons in 1942 (Guadalcanal, specifically, and their performance there is not usually characterized as "abysmal"). And the best part of this whole deal, rhombat, is imagining how you--everyone's favorite, can-never-admit-he's-wrong, know-it-all, war-historian-wannabe, tough-talkin', hipster phoney--are going to try and weasel out of your predicament when you realize what a fool you've made of yourself. Believe me, rhombat, I'm sitting back and enjoying the show!
-Finally, guy, I've noticed, of late, a real effort, for obvious reasons, by you lefties to target the USMC with your agit-prop bull-shit. And especially noteworthy, in that respect, has been the effort by you greenshirts to undermine the profound bond, that was forged between Australian and American comrades-in-arms, in WWII. Obviously, the historic, fellow-feeling shared by Australians and Americans interferes with some one or another of the hive's incessant frauds, hustles, con-jobs, bait-and-switches, and false-flags. But which ones, exactly, rhombat?--care to spill the beans on this one?
Hey Jeff!
You know, Jeff, I didn't think it possible to top rhombat in the clown-act department, but you managed the seemingly impossible with your utterly preposterous macho-man pretensions that litter the previous page (and appear to be spilling over onto this page).
I mean, like, Jeff, you don't just give "male-posturing" a bad name--no! rather, you actually reduce "male-posturing" to a laughingstock, freak-show comedy-routine. Bravo, Jeff!
O. K. guys, the clothes-pin on my nose is beginning to chafe, so time for me to take a "powder" from this here "porta-potty" of history you sinker-toid and floater-toid, loose-stool, Deltoid excreta call home.
Mkie, Betula, Jonas, Olaus, et al. all the same bunch of losers.
Here's their strategy: Bait and then riducle. Examplë 1:
I was harangued over and over again by Jonas and otrhers that I am not a 'real scientist'. So, to prove I am, I gave a brief olverview of my CV including publications, citations, h-factor, etc. Thereafter I am constantly accused of 'waving my CV'. That continues to this day.
Then, earlier in this thread, Betula writes some flippant comment intimating that scientists are wimps and goes on the claim that I wouldn't last even a tiny stint in the marines (like him, presumably). I respond that, for a 55 year old guy, I keep myself in pretty good shape. Then I am accused by Betty (and now Mike) of being a macho-man and other such nonsense.
You see, this is how the shit-for-brain denier mindset works. Bait their opponents with bullshit, and then, then their opponents respond, make up all kinds of garbage about them. The two major points from my own examples are that none of the climate change deniers here has any relevant qualifications in Earth or environmental science, and that it was Betty who was intimitating that he is Mr. Macho by making a stupid comment about the marines in the first place.
Now another of our illiterate idiots (Mike) wades in with his tuppence of wisdom. Anyone visiting Deltoid can see that the intellectual level of the deniers is somewhat below that of a procaryotic bacterium. And perhaps that is being too kind. They don't do science; they are simply baiters and switchers. As well as a sad bunch of losers. Mike fits well into both categories.
"the Algonquin trip wasn’t for research"
Right, it was for "exploring the effects of climate change" and frostbite.
chek...
"You gloat that the flooding didn’t “reach the Tar Sands”, although what you meant to add was ‘this time’"
Reality check chek....What I "meant" is the flooding didn't reach the tar sands, because it didn't, what Lionel "meant", is that it did, even though it didn't.
Lionel @1...."Climate change meets Tar Sands."
It must be difficult being you.
Still not a single iota of substantive argument Betual. You have - yet again - skip, skip, skipped over all my previous *substantive*, reference and supported arguments.
Mental illness or sickening dishonesty?
Harvey @16..
"Here’s their strategy"
Let's put a face on your idea of "their strategy"..
1. In response to me exposing Jeff's lie, Lionel emphasizes the need to appreciate the courageousness of Jeff and others, including himself.
@ 64 again…”You do not seem to appreciate that hundreds of scientists or their aids and survival mentors have perished or become disabled through their activities in human hostile places of the world.”
More @ 64…”Anybody who has traveled on foot over rough terrain with a heavy load, as I have, can appreciate all to easily the immense effort involved.”
Note "macho" Lionel's arrival on the scene.
2. Lionel suggest I be sent to Algonguin, wondering aloud if I were as courageous as he, Jeff and other recipients of The Climate Change Medal Of Horror and other declarations.
Lionel @ 92….”Perhaps Betula should be sent to Algonquin Park for a similar sojourn”
@ 92… “I wonder how courageous he would be when navigating melting ice watching out for crevasses and moulins
3. I state "I would love it" and in turn, suggest Jeff should be sent to the Marine Corps, where men of such courage are surely needed.
Note the "in turn".
4. Jeff laughs at the mere idea and suggests many Marines couldn't handle what he did:
Jeff @ 26, pg 4..."Regarding the marines, please don’t make me laugh. US marines aren’t exactly feared abroad. And I am not sure that all of them would have been up to hauling 60 kg of stuff behind them over 23 days across Ontario wilderness"
Then Jeff, feeling a need to prove he's tougher and certainly more courageous than many Marines, explains his reasoning by stating he works out twice a week and is going canoeing:
@ 26..."Turns out I am in pretty good shape for a guy of my age as I work out twice a week at the gym and are planning an 800 km canoe trek from lake Winnipeg to Hudson’s Bay"
Yes folks, there it is. The stench of "Macho" mixed with ego, delusion and cluelessness seeping through your computer to the point your eyes water......many U.S.Marines probably couldn't keep up Jeff, because he works out twice a week.
Give it up Jeff. You've been exposed in more ways than one.... and frostbite is the least of your problems.
Yes Betty, it's already established you're both stupid and dishonest. You don't have to keep giving examples.
Yack, yack, yack.
- 2000 – 2010 was the hottest decade in the instrumental record.
- The years since the 1998 El Nino have been characterised by a string of extreme weather events of remarkable severity
- OHC has risen by ~25*10^22J since the mid-C20th
- The laws of physics are well established, and the “greenhouse effect” is real
- Paleoclimate behaviour demonstrates that the climate system is sensitive to radiative perturbation
- Empirical estimates of sensitivity indicate an equilibrium response of about 0.75C per W/m^2 change in forcing
- Forcing from 2xCO2 (~560ppmv) is approximately +3.7W/m^2
- Unabated emissions and global industrialisation could drive CO2e to >800ppmv by the end of the century
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/pmod_v_acrim.gif
That's baffled 'em, Wow.
BBD @ 19...
"You have – yet again – skip, skip, skipped over all my previous *substantive*, reference and supported arguments."
"Mental illness or sickening dishonesty?"
1. No. I can't be bothered. (BBD at 86 page 3)
2. I don't care. (BBD at 95, page 4)
It must suck to be frustrated by your own responses.
It looks like our Betula has been infected by something that has sapped the sense out of him, maybe a dose of Piptoporus betulinus when he was in the US Marines. All he can do now is keep presenting as the clown. What a tedious, boring twerp he has become. Her is his theme tune, probably learned whilst doing that jogging thing singing songs that the US Marines do.
Here you are birch, climate change in your face.
# 25
Everything you do to avoid engaging substantively simply proves my point.
- Empirical estimates of sensitivity indicate an equilibrium response of about 0.75C per W/m^2 change in forcing
Reference:
Hansen & Sato (2012) Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change
Rohling et al. (2012) Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity
Hansen et al. (2013) (in press)
- Forcing from 2xCO2 (~560ppmv) is approximately +3.7W/m^2
Reference: IPCC AR4:
# 27 Lionel A
Wildfires. More all the time. One might suppose that the fact that 2000 - 2010 was the warmest decade in the instrumental record had something to do with this.
A staunch sceptic like Betula might want further evidence that climate was changing in ways that would increase the likelihood of wildfires.
Instead of models, Betula would request analysis of historic observational data.
And here it is.
Sorry it's not very big, but then it doesn't really need to be, does it?
Reference:
Hansen, Sato & Ruedi (2012), Public perception of climate change and the new climate dice.
re #15. Flush.
re re #15:
Oh dear, I am undone. Lil' mike is absolutely correct. It wasn't the USMC that was responsible for the general contempt that many (? most) Australians hold for US MacArtherism. The Philippine-American war, Buna-Gona, My Lai & the abuse that seems so seminal in mike's world view were US Army, not USMC, operations, so he is absolutely correct in his castigation of all things Left, such as the myths of climate change, socialised medicine, Psych majors who won't put out (which changes in meaning in a military context), and real scientists who won't concede defeat at the nimble mind of manly ex USMC engineering officers like John Birch. Keep on inseminating the cestode, mike.
Mike's spittle-flecked rant includes this gem:
Actually, it was 1943, and if I have time later today I will dust off my copy of Osmar White's "Green Armour" and regale you with snippets of his description of the impotent cafuffling of the Marines who landed at Viru and Mendova.
What Mike and so many of his compatriots have fallen for is their own legend. The US Marines are renowned for taking high casualties as a substitute for being inventive and/or effective.
If li'l mikey spent more time imbibing his medication, rather than quaffing the Patriotard Kool-Aid by the litre, we'd all be better off.
BBD,
I'll throw a bone into your cage of confusion.
What exactly do you think your links prove? That the average temperature of the earth has warmed over time? I have never said it hasn't. That there are "extreme weather events"?....I never said there weren't. That climate changes?...of course it does dimwit, you wouldn't be here if it didn't....if only we could have stopped it from changing earlier.
The links you posted, for the most part, are used to make predictions about worst case scenarios. The problem is, by their own words, they are mostly estimates, predictions and assumptions filled with words
like "if''", "might", "may", "could", "depends", "unknowns", "uncertainties" and "possibilities". .
Here are just a few from your links:
1.."if warming continues unabated"... "Models are imperfect and we will never be sure that they include all important processes"...."It is assumed that, to a useful approximation"..."If the CO2 amount in the air is doubled"..."Climate variability at other frequencies in the observational data is expected, because orbital changes are more complex than three discrete time scales and because the dating of observed climate variations is imprecise" etc...
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.0968.pdf
2.. "The precise magnitude of the resulting warming depends on the fairly well-known amount of amplification by water-vapor feedbacks and on the less-known amount of cloud feedback. There are indeed uncertainties in the magnitude and impact of anthropogenic global warming"
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
3 "These uncertainties notwithstanding, we suggest "... "although we do not account for analytical uncertainties or uncertainties related to lack of global coverage and spatial bias in the data set"..."To simulate uncertainties in the model"..."which
could have initiated the reduction"..."that may have ultimately
caused the increase"...etc.
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/shakun-et-al.pdf
4. "Climate models, numerical climate simulations, provide one way to estimate climate response to forcings, but it is difficult to include realistically all real-world processes. Earth's paleoclimate history allows empirical assessment of climate sensitivity, but the data have large uncertainties."
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1211/1211.4846.pdf
So, obviously this isn't an exact science, yet you treat the predicted future worst case scenarios, derived from predicted climate sensitivity, which is derived from incomplete data, mixed with facts and filled with assumptions and uncertainties, as all fact.
And isn't it a bit curious that the only future scenarios are worst case scenarios , without hardly a mention of any possible positive scenarios or biological interactions or how they weigh against the possible negatives at any given location on earth, at any time, whether it be above, below or at predicted GAT?
Now, throw into the mix, human greed, ego's, politicians, the need for funding, rich vs. poor, the U.N, the hatred of Capitalism, power grabs, hypocrisies, lies, biases, distortions, agendas, embellishments and delusions, and you begin to realize that.....wait, I'm describing you.
"The US Marines are renowned for taking high casualties as a substitute for being inventive and/or effective"
High casualties compared to their adversary? Examples? How do you define effective. Examples?
Shorter Bircher - 'if I pour salt into this aquarium I demand that you recognise that something may benefit.'
Betula
June 14, 2013
Betula, stupidly, asks,
No, high casualties as a substitute for being inventive and/or effective.
I am under no illusion that telling you this twice will discourage you from additional strawmen, tangents, and/or red herrings.
What we see here is a perfect example of Betula's inability to participate in a discussion due to her deafening internal voice that tells her what to think.
Betula says:
No-one said it was. If you dispute this, please link.
More to the point, and what do you think statistics are for? Do you understand what "signal" is, and what "noise" (not your sort) is?
The data are derived from best available estimates. Spin it however you want to, it won't change the fact that the professional experts are much better at the science than are you or any of the contrarians you trumpet. Again, if you believe otherwise, you have only to link to your best example that contradicts me.
That aside, when we are talking about changes that have the potential to effectively dismantle human civilisation several generations hence, and to cause species extinction on the same scale as occurred with super-vuclanism and with major asteroids strikes, one should be looking at the high-end risks. Especially when those risks are not on the order of one in a million or one in a thousand, but of one in one hundred - or greater*.
And the upper tail of the probability distribution aside, even the certain "business-as-usual"scenarios are sufficiently grave as to result in severe consequences. The major difference is largely of a few decades/centuries to reach the various end-points. That might be reassuring to amoral ignoramuses such as yourself, but those of us with consciences and functional ethical frameworks have rather more concern for the generations and the species that don't have a voice in the mad burn to sustain indulgent Western-style consumerism and egocentric ideology.
[*That's greater risk, not greater denominator, in case your innumeracy continues to disable you.]
@ Craig Thomas
Yr. No. 32
What is it about your basic, Deltoid, geek-ball dork, Craig, that compels him to play the phoney-baloney, know-it-all military "expert", as a part of his comically inept, macho-man posturings?. Perhaps you can't speak for all Deltoids, Craig, ol' sport, but you can certainly speak for yourself, right, guy? What gives with improbable, wimp-toid weirdos, like you, Craig, anyways?
So let's see now, Craig, you seem to think that Marines fought in Guadalcanal in 1943, not 1942. I, on the other hand, hold the view that Marines fought on Guadalcanal, as the allies' main force, in 1942 not 1943. I'm right and you're wrong. Simple as that. Yes, the battle of Guadalcanal slopped over into the first two months of 1943, but the fighting at that time was, in the main, conducted by U. S. Army forces, not Marine forces, with the fighting, at that point, limited to a mopping up of a Japanese rear guard by the allies while the Japanese desperately attempted to evacuate what forces they could.
Mendova? Perhaps you mean Rendova? A walk-over landing ( less the casualties caused by an air-raid). And, oh by the way, Craig, Rendova was taken by U. S. Army troops, not Marines. Viru? A neat little victory by Marine Raiders in difficult jungle terrain which not only gained the objective but did so with small loss to the Marines and a considerably larger loss to an enemy fighting with the advantage of the defense. You know, Craig, it really sounds like you have rhwombat's doofus, fuck-up tendency to sling around a bunch of bullshit you know nothing about, but in a way that makes you sound like Mr. In-The-Know, among the uncritical, clueless, momma's-boy, hive-bozo, brainwashed cretins whose company you keep.
Now, Craig, as far as the business about Marines, high-casualties, and your big-talk allegations that Marines lack "inventiveness" and "effectiveness", some comment.
-After the debacle at Gallipoli--with ineptly led ANZACS perishing by the thousands in a failed amphibious landing--virtually all military establishments "wrote off" amphibious assaults as a viable tactical evolution. Except the Marines, that is, who quite "inventively" and "effectively" found solutions to all of the problems posed by amphibious operations, as events in WWII showed.
-And as far as "high" Marine casualties go, amphibious assaults on the narrow frontage of small, entrenched islands in the Pacific sometimes inevitably produced high casualties. Similarly, in 1944/45, when the Japanese adopted new tactics that ceded the beachhead in favor of protracted, fight-to-the-last-man, interior defenses, high, attritional casualties did, indeed, ensue. But perhaps you could have done better, Craig? Let's hear your "inventive" and "effective" solution to Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
-On the other hand, a number of the Marines' WWII landings, especially those conducted on large islands that provided room for maneuver, were successfully executed with limited casualties--the landings at Bougainville, Cape Gloucester, the Marshall Islands, Guam, and Saipan, for example. Of course, a million or so Japanese were also by-passed by Marine amphibious operations and left to starve on various islands with no Marine casualties.
-Marines also pioneered "vertical envelopments" and "close air support" (still the best in the business).
-Having said all that, there was an internal critique in the Corps with respect to tactics in the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam war and there was a thorough over-haul of Marine tactics and the "operational art" under the general rubric of "maneuver warfare." The low casualty, brilliant victories the Corps subsequently achieved in Kuwait and the assault on Baghdad speak for themselves in terms of the success of that "re-think" of Marine tactics.
-So, Craig, your little tin-pot-master-tactician, cheap-shot, arm-chair-general critique of the Corps is a silly-assed "canard", in the main. At the same time, there is indeed a "fog" of war that attends battle; likewise, no plan survives the line of departure; and, if you ransack the military history of any organization or nation, you'll find a military debacle or two. Though, in the case of Marines you'll find precious few.
-And, of course, no one has fully gotten a handle on insurgency warfare. But, Craig, without going into detail, you might wonder why you don't see reports anymore of Marine sniper casualties. Ditto Marine mortar casualties. And IED casualties have been greatly reduced. All that a product of the Marine Corps' "inventiveness" and "effectiveness."
As I discussed with rhwombat, Craig, you lefties are all huffin' n' puffin' overtime, here lately, in a quixotic, whiny-fault-finding quest to discredit the Marine Corps' hard-earned and well-earned reputation for fighting prowess. Obviously, the Corps is seen as an obstacle to the success of some one or another of the hive's incessant scams, hustles, rip-offs, bait-and-switches, con-jobs, false-flags, agit-prop memes, and various other, assorted greenshirt duplicities and intrigues. That much is clear. But which ones, Craig? C'mon, be a good sport and tell us all which ones, specifically.
A little anecdote, Craig, in closing. The provisions of the Korean War armistice, at the insistence of Kim Il Sung, himself (at least, that's the story--and a credible one), forbade establishment of permanent Marine Corps bases on the Korean peninsula. It seems that NK's "Glorious/Great Leader", having been on the receiving end of the USMC's showing in the defense of the Pusan perimeter and subsequent Inchon landing, was hard-over determined, big-time, not to get his butt kicked again by those darn, ole, "ineffective" (as you would have it) Marines. Interesting anecdote--no?
Wow, what a wrist!
"The US Marines are renowned for taking high casualties as a substitute for being inventive and/or effective."
Arrogant, too.
One major reason for the US heavy casualties in the normandy landings was due to the USA's refusal of Naval bombardment cover. They thought they didn't need help.
Ah, Mike is back, with coprolalia as florid as ever.
Mike, the ANZACs were a damned brave, resilient and modest bunch of men who were cavalierly used as cannon fodder by Winston Churchill in a campaign that was always doomed to fail. Your piss-poor reframing of history to try to improve the appearance of the Marines is a disgrace.
I reckon that if the ANZACs had the benefit of the Marines' modern training and equipment, the ANZACs from a 100 years ago would shit on half of today's Marines and wipe their arses on a good chunk of the rest.
Wow (Wow is Mom; Mom is Wow).
Yr: "Arrogant, too"
I really don't want to crush your little "zinger" like a bug, there wow, knowing how sensitive you are and all. But, except in ship's detachments offshore, there were no Marines to speak of in Normandy. Again, U. S. Army, not Marines.
And, oh by the way, wow, the USMC pioneered the use of naval gunfire, in a highly controlled manner (trained spotters ashore and aloft in radio contact with their fire-support ship), in support of its amphibious operations. And believe me, wow, Marines don't refuse naval gunfire in support of their landings. Join Deltoid's bullshitter ranks, wow--oops! I see you were already there. Oh never mind.
This is amazing! Marines are the target of Deltoid's standard-issue, tag-team, bad-mouth, razzle-dazzle, horse-shit roll-out routine, but every specific "complaint" lodged against Marines, by Deltoid's finest, turns out to be a U. S. Army deal.
I mean, like, about this time ol' Craig Thomas is flippin' through his books and discovering that the New Georgia campaign was mostly a U. S. Army affair and the "problems" with that enterprise (a division commander was relieved), had nothing to do with Marines.
C'mon hive-bozos--sharpen up your agit-prop! I mean, like, you're not makin' mummy proud, you know, Deltoids, with your latest, dumb-ass smear-campaign, directed at the Corps. Jeez...I'm embarrassed for you guys (especially you wow--you little, "me-too!" shit!).
# 34 Betula
Once again, a weak attempt at obscuring the big picture with FUD. You say nothing substantive. If you disagree with the *substance* of a paper you need to point to the problem and produce a referenced counter-argument.
You have not done so. Not once, in all your long, waffling comment.
Try again, with more content and less FUD. FUD is just denialist noise. It's what you do when you haven't got a coherent scientific counter-argument.
If you cannot mount a coherent and reference counter-argument to specifics (below) then the consensus stands and you are revealed to be profoundly misguided.
So let's see some substance, or an admission that you have *nothing* of substance to support your denialism.
* * *
- Empirical estimates of sensitivity indicate an equilibrium response of about 0.75C per W/m^2 change in forcing
Reference:
Hansen & Sato (2012) Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change
Rohling et al. (2012) Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity
Hansen et al. (2013) (in press) Climate Sensitivity, Sea Level, and Atmospheric CO2
- Forcing from 2xCO2 (~560ppmv) is approximately +3.7W/m^2
Reference: IPCC AR4:
I was talking to grown ups, mike.
Not wannabe adults.
BJ's no. 42,
You now, BJ, you don't have to lecture me on ANZAC's exceptional personal qualities as soldiers. Such qualities were noted in Gallipoli veterans and in their sons of WWII and their descendants in the uniform of their countries to this day (not many Deltoids in their ranks though, we can be sure, right guys?). I'm well aware of all that, BJ, and admire ANZAC troops unreservedly (though even they had their ups and downs--e. g. Singapore 1941/42, but haven't we all).
But praising ANZACS was not really the point of your comment was it, BJ? Rather, your comment was a nasty, manipulative, nice-try effort to put words in my mouth--make out that I held ANZACS in contempt, which I do not and none of my previous words suggest any such thing.
And why would you want to pull a slicko, little, greenshirt trick like that, BJ? Well, I think the answer is pretty clear there BJ, my ol' buddy. Your sleaze-ball, agit-prop objective is to divide Americans and ANZACS and destroy the close, comrades-in-arms, fellow-feeling that developed between Americans and ANZACS during the last century. Right, BJ?
I mean, like, as I think about this whole improbable chit-chat session I'm having with you Deltoid shittoids, the more mind-reeling the whole thing becomes. I mean, like, you preposterous, mummy's-little-obnoxious-spoiled-brat-weenie-bubber-bubber, milquetoast weirdos have set as your propaganda goal a smear of the USMC as an organization that it really isn't that tough, you know. Good luck with that one, hive-bozos!
Yes, let's avoid discussing the denialist lies and misrepresentations of climate science at all costs...
I mean anything's better than focussing on the unpalatable truth.
Another in your face example of a warming world from Antarctica this time.
Which coupled with the loss of Arctic Sea ice - established fact, and increasing loss of ice fro Greenland - another established fact - should shout a warning to even the most die hard (like the US Marines and Bruce Willis) ACC denier.
Jesus wept, it there an adult in this room at all?
Mike (sadly) is mostly right that many of the disparaging remarks about the USMC are pretty much horseshit. What a shame that he is too busy making "booger-flicking, hive-mind" zingers to maintain any grounding in reality. The Marines weren't incompetants, but they weren't supermen either.
Lets consider a few aspects:
"high casualties as a substitute for being inventive and/or effective". The one generalisation I'd be happy to make is that I don't like generalisations. However, I can certainly point to one crystal clear example where the Marines took this line. Though not a conventional marine action, Belleau Wood, in 1918 (now known as "Bois de la Brigade de Marine") is legendary in Marine annals - books stuffed with Marine myth abound, they named a landing ship after it, the brigade of marines was led by "the greatest of all leathernecks" John Lejeune. Sadly, the reality does not live up to the myth - having spent nine months ignoring the training they were getting from the French (I know, right, what could the cheese-eating surrender monkeys have learned about trench warfare in four years of experiencing it?), the Marines were put into the front line to "save Paris" (which is also a fiction). The Marines did take the wood, but from hungry, undermanned and battle-weary troops wracked by Spanish flu, and with such straight-ahead, stupid tactics resembling the 1916 attack on the Somme took vastly heavier casualties than they should and achieved less than they should. The French troops on either side fought through similar country against similar troops with weaker forces and achieved as much or more. When you get right down to it, all the myth making about Belleau Wood is how willing the Marines were to die, not how effective they were. But to quote (Army) General George Patton, no one ever won a war by dying for their country, they won it by making the other dumb bastard die for his.
While I'm not sure about Craigs comment in general, I can say it is a sentiment shared by many of the ADF members I work with. Its not like I breathlessly ask every one what they think of the USMC, but those opinions which have been expressed have generally not been too favourable about the average level of competance. That might be unfair - perhaps the Corps has a perception management problem.... :)
Mikes ridiculous assertion that "virtually all military establishments “wrote off” amphibious assaults as a viable tactical evolution" simply shows the degree of his ignorance of events after Gallipoli. The planning of Operation Hush (which never went ahead) and Operation Albion (which did) alone prove this claim to be nonsense.
"the USMC pioneered the use of naval gunfire". One of my uncles ran small boats under the nose of the Japanese to land the US survey parties and artillery spotters that made this possible, so my natural instinct would be to say "Oo-rah!"...if it wasn't utter tat. They might have improved it (or not, WW2 does not really lie within my domain knowledge), but they certainly did not "pioneer" it. Naval gunfire has been used with varying degrees of skill going back to the Romans. Get real.
One last thought - The ANZACs weren't incompetants (nor were their leaders, mostly), but they sure as hell weren't supermen either. A few relos and some others I met before the last of them pegged out - once you went a bit deeper than the "warries", few had much hesitation admitting that they were shit-scared the entire time and just wanted to get back home. Their combat results were very good (after Gallipoli), but not - as the advertising suggests - off the scale. There were probably 50 divisions of equal calibre to the five Australian divisions serving at the same time, counting all colours of uniforms.
Now can we leave the whole "my dad could beat up your dad" malarkey and get back to the denier meme du jour? I kind of tuned out Betula's stalker-like obsession with Jeff's Algonquin trip which really only relates to his inability to grok simple American-English, so I think the last sensible conversation was probably about Willard Anthony posting that the Greenland icecap is only 650 years old...
mike. It's ANZAC not ANZACS you cheeto-stained, basement-dwelling war-wanker. My grandfather was a light-horseman (Gallipoli and Palestine). My great uncle was in M Special Unit (look it up). I'm a reservist (1CDO), and have deployed. I have a fair idea of how Australians in general, and ADF members in particular, regard pathetic wanabes like you. Go back to drooling over your posable jarhead dolls.
And let's also avoid mentioning that the USMC - as characterised by Smedley Butler are but one arm of US corporate gangsterism ensuring that 4.52% of ther global population consume 25 % of the coal, 26 % of the oil, and 27 % of the world’s natural gas, and 40% of other resources whilst an estimated 65 % of U.S. adults are overweight or obese.
Note that the direct descendants of Butler's corporate gangsters and fascist plotters are those now running the tooth and nail opposition to curbing CO2 emissions, and turning it into a partisan issue for the benefit of simple-minded oiks like li'll mike and betty..
FrankD
Yes. You will note that I have made exactly no disparaging remarks about the USMC.
And those disparaging remarks exist WHERE?
It's interesting in a far-too-much-cosmetic-surgery type of way to see that the "marines are better than you and yours" argument was introduced and maintained in order to distract from the fact that Betula, GSW, KMS, Mike and other attendants simply cannot make a case against the simple fact that human carbon emissions are responsible for most (and likely more than all) of the warming that the planet is demonstrating.
It does show however the propensity of denialists to indulge in false equivalence. It's futile comparing contemporary marines to other cohorts of men because their backgrounds are conpletely different. Just as their pseudoscience is inconmparable to the actual science of cliamte change.
Perhaps we can try for the thousandth time to wangle from this denying rabble exactly why it is that they are right and the professionals are wrong. Or as Brere Eli pointed out today it might be best to just drop the stick...
BBD..
"If you disagree with the *substance* of a paper"
I disagree that there is enough presentable information to be able to claim only future worst case scenarios as fact.
I disagree there are no biases presented in predicting only future worst scenarios.
I disagree that the "substance" of your papers aren't surrounded by assumptions.
I disagree people like Jeff don't lie and embellish.
I disagree that you can control all the interactions of the environment and obtain the results you desire.
I disagree that funding for research plays no role in guiding desired estimates and predictions.
I disagree you are sincere and open minded.
I disagree that the U.N. does not play a major role in influencing the redistribution of money's from rich nations to poor nations.
I disagree that any Polar Bears have been directly affected by climate change
I disagree that every extreme weather event can be linked to climate change.
I disagree that there isn't a campaign to exaggerate claims to shape opinion.
I disagree that there are 2500 scientists on the IPCC
I disagree that Al Gore et al aren't hypocrites.
I disagree you aren't blinded by ideology.
I disagree that I will be discussing this with you again.
Agreed?
Yup that's Betty - all wind, piss and disagreeable disagreement.
Just no actual evidence apart from his carefully clown formed and drip-fed beliefs.
Just as with most ranting street-corner nutters.
For long time Deltoid fans who might recall Tim's jousts with Benny Peiser, the Executive Director of GWPF:
Lord Lawson's climate-change think tank risks being stripped of charitable status.
Whether Charities Commission is strong enough to do something is unclear, but we'll see. I've updated FOIA Facts 5 with that and some other new thinktank information.
Now, are there any :"charities" in Oz that shouldn't be?
The benevolence of the public purse when it comes to these third-rate grifters, liars and shysters working against the public interest is a mystery, so good luck to Bob Ward.
Having said that, an overly sympathetic (IMHO) judge saved them after a previous challenge to reveal their funders by declaring them not "influential enough."
@ BJ's overwrought, despairing, world-weary, ass-hole-in-a-funk no. 54.
"Perhaps we can try for the thousandth time to wangle from this denying rabble [good stuff, BJ! "denying rabble"--has that sort of superior, Philosopher King, feudal-lord, hive-master wannabee quality to it us "rabble" so admire in our betters] exactly why it is that they are right and the professionals are wrong."
First off, BJ, reading between the lines of the above:
-You really mean--why hasn't the hive's agit-prop worked more effectively to manipulate us despised "little-guy" peons, serfs, helots, and peasants into accepting the Agenda-21 compliant, rabbit-hutch, low-carbon, reduced-lifestyle hell our betters have planned for us?
-You know, like, why won't us utterly inconsequential, useless eater, hoi-polloi just doff our caps and tug at our forelocks whenever one of the hive's Platonic, pompous asses comes strutting by. And, most especially, why won't us same, filthy, riff-raff nobodies do the right thing and acknowledge our betters' natural right to an eco-hypocrite, pig-out, in-your-face, CO2-spew, bunga-bunga, party-time, high-carbon lifestyle, that our betters would deny us?
-In other words what's wrong with us, technically human, cattle our betters are trying so hard to herd? That's what really has you all up-tight, and your sphincter under max compression and all, isn't it, BJ?
O. K., BJ, with all that out of the way, I'm now going to reveal to you how to really "sell" your little BS, rip-off, greenshirt agenda. The only way really. Got your attention?! Good! Here's the keys to the kingdom, BJ: PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH!--LEAD FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE!
But one thing's for sure, BJ, you hive-heroes have no intention to PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH AND LEAD FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE!--right, BJ. So I guess we're all gonna fry since our betters prefer to feed their demon-carbon addictions rather than set the carbon-reduction example and save the world. Too bad, so sad. No wonder you're in such a bummer, bad-mood, BJ.
# 58 chek
Yes, I recall that vividly. There is, as they say, no justice.
"denying rabble"--has that sort of superior, Philosopher King, feudal-lord, hive-master wannabee quality to it us "rabble" so admire in our betters]
And we all know who the King of Deltoid is. The man who has witnessed first hand the horrors of climate change, the man who has faced shifting zones for real, the man who scoffs at Marines and dares them to match his unearthly canoeing abilities, the man who Sir Rhwombat himself compared to the legendary King Arthur....bow my fellow peasants to the all knowing high priest of himself.... King Hardley.
# 55 Betula
Unsupported, content-free rant. You demonstrated nothing except your inability to mount a scientific counter-argument so you lose.
We have established that ECS/2xCO2 is in the range ~2.5 - 3C.
Which argument would you like to lose next?
Mike, I can confirm that since you took your leave, nobody has graced comments here with the word "milquetoast".
... and anyway, what sort of milquetoast uses a word like "milquetoast"?
He said "poetaster" once, you know.
John Mashey at #57 given the amount of material that the GWPF have produced in recent years which give the lie to Peiser's claim
one such being the recent 'GWPF Background Paper' which has Peiser's name under the title on the front page then this organisation should not be able to withstand scrutiny..
In a world the right way up the GWPF would not be able to slip from under Ward's accusations and should be put under considerably scrutiny with an official inquiry.
It is monstrous that those who support this den of deception should be able to claim tax benefits for gifts to charity without complete transparency into their affairs.
I note the 'roaches at work in the comments below that article.
# 57 John Mashey
GWPF closed down? I'll believe it when I see it. Lawson is plugged firmly into the heart of the Establishment (see previous court ruling) and I very much fear that nothing will be done. Despite the egregious lies.
In case some have missed it Tamino had a recent take apart of Peiser's bumff. Over there there is also a most useful link to a Tamino archive at Skeptical Science.
You think the Greens run the world? As opposed to corporate money? You are more of an idealist than any Green I have ever met :-)
Come on, Mike. I know you aren't stupid. You don't really deny the laws of physics and known paleoclimate behaviour. You aren't stupid.
So what is this all about?
Ex-television weather "expert" and "expert" weather blogger Anthony Watts says "it's been two years of La Nina" and mocks people suffering drought.
What an idiot. What compassion, not! Some expert he is!
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/callous-amusement-and-display-of.html
We have established that ECS/2xCO2 is in the range ~2.5 – 3C.
Which argument would you like to lose next?
You have an established estimate...not a fact.
You are arguing with yourself, that is a fact.
You are a loser...no argument.
.
BBD,
We've had some good-fun zinger-exchanges in the past and you may even be the only real, live human being there is amongst (remember "amongst", BJ?) the Deltoids (FrankD might be one too--if not, he's a very convincing replicant). The rest of the hive is, of course, either pure, booger-phage arthropod or electronic, hive-bot.
I must say, BBD, that I'm thoroughly "bored out of my gourd" with Deltoidland's "attractions" at the moment, but since it is you that has asked for a response, I'll oblige. But, please, just this one comment--I need a break!
I can't be sure what the real "science" of Climate Science is, in fact. However, I strongly suspect that the science has been politicized and the Climate Science consensus "rigged", at least to some extent. But maybe not. And I don't have the G2 to personally sort all that out. So I live with a cloud over that whole aspect of the issue.
Further, I harbor even stronger suspicions that the probable kernel of "science", such as it might be, in Climate Science has been hi-jacked by "the hive" and deployed as a hyped, scare-mongering, CAGW bogey-man, intended to promote this, that, and another of my betters' make-a-green-washed-buck/make-a-gulag grand designs. But maybe not. And, in that regard, if I really must make sacrifices "for the kids" and to "save the planet" then I'm up for those sacrifices, if I become convinced they are truly needed and will actually make a difference for the good.
So, BBD, given the very uncomfortable "feeling" I have about the whole CAGW rigamarole (indeed, I've noticed that the odor of rat is very strong in my nostrils whenever the subject comes up--curious, don't you think, BBD, given that the hive is 99%+ insectoid), but, at the same time, wanting to do the "right thing", I apply the "analytical tool" to the problem that us "little guys" have historically employed with great success to sort out these sort of quandries.
Namely, BBD, I look for basic, bullshit-detector "tells" to evaluate the merits of those trying to sell me something and their products. You know, BBD, just a basic, common-sense sorting out of the wheat-from-the-chaff amidst the hype, puffery, agit-prop flim-flam, and the like offered up by those nice people, interested only in what's best for me, hawking "things" like magic beans; Brooklyn Bridges; Nigerian e-mail scams; and, even, carbon-taxes with a complimentary, matching Agenda 21 compliant, carbon-austere, rabbit-hutch, hive-hell life-style thrown-in to sweeten the deal (assuming I survive the cull, that is).
And here's what I see when I examine the CAGW business (and, please, BBD, absent the putative "C" in CAGW, the whole discipline of Climate Science would attract about as much general interest (maybe even less) as Hamburgerology ):
I see those seemingly most convinced and alarmed by the carbon-peril--the alpha, lecturing, worry-wart pests, themselves--nearly everyone, living piggish, in-your-face, high-carbon lifestyles--some even ostentatiously taking their "jaunts" about the globe in gas-guzzling private jets, or bullet-proof limousines or yachts and living in multiple rambling mansions, even. Again, these conspicuous consumers of demon-carbon being the very same pestering me non-stop with their carbon-austerity and carbon-taxes-now! message.
And in that regard, BBD, I also see greenshirt apocalypse-mongers throwing off obscene quantities of carbon-spew as they incessantly flit from one eco-confab to another--conferences that could be easily video-conferenced with vast savings in carbon and taxpayer dollars.
That sort of thing, BBD. And I mean, like, don't you catch the scent of "rat", too, BBD, when you see that sort of thing?
I dunno, BBD, but my little bullshit-detector grades "Climate Science" and the whole baggage that goes with it as considerably more hinky than the magic-beans and Brooklyn bridge investment opportunities I'm thinking of putting the major portion of my life-savings into, and on par with the Nigerian e-mail scam that I'm thinking I'll take a pass on.
But my whole view of matters would change dramatically, BBD, if I were to see my betters, en masse, suddenly begin to PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH and offer to guide us "little guys" to the carbon-austere promised land through LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE! But my little, trusty bullshit-detector says that just ain't gonna happen.
P. S. And since you asked, BBD, my conspiracy-theory "ideation" with regards to the hive's pecking-order has the hive's ditzy, randy, obnoxious, snot-nosed, brain-washed kid-recruits at the bottom; the hive's "useful idiots" like wow, check, and that repellant cockroach, rhwombat, one rung up from the zit-popper crowd; the hive's "useful idiot savants" next atop the party-line, hive-hack group-thinkers, old enough to know better; the hive's money-bags next; and at the very tippy-top of the hive-pyramid, the hive's really nasty, master-mind string-pullers--think a small group of little-runt, insufferable-prick control-freaks like Mayor Bloomberg, but worse--much worse.
Just kidding!
While we're on that topic, there's an interesting topic right next door. The US military and government agencies have spent some time planning to turn their powers against US citizens if they feel the need to, perhaps due to citizen responses to various potential disasters, and in part due to corporate pressure. That kind of thing tends to get the average American more worked up than applying military powers to foreigners who have desirable resources, but then half of the citizenry can be persuaded to cheer for it if the Americans on the receiving end are characterised as protesters, environmentalists, extremists and what not - despite the fact that (e.g.) the kinds of protesters targeted so far have been peaceful.
The article also covers similar territory in the UK. It would be foolish not to speculate about the extent to which this applies to Australia.
Go read the whole thing. And the links.
This appears to illustrate the root of many of Betula's problems. When it suits him, Betula won't acknowledge what scientific knowledge is - and that scientific facts are almost always expressed as ranges of values complete with confidence intervals or uncertainty measures. To counter such inconvenient findings he will inconsistently vacillate between:
a) citing the very presence of those intervals/measures as reasons to reject the fact ("...[y]ou have an established estimate...").
b) pretending that the distribution of values was not provided, claiming instead that only the extreme value of the range was presented ("...[you] claim only future worst case scenarios as fact...").
I would bet good money he's not even aware that his own (a) is arguing with his own (b), and that every time he adds another (a) or (b) he undermines his own argument.
BBD said at #44 to Betula:
to which Betula responded with his signature train-wreck-of-logical-fallacy.
Let us dissect...
Logical fallacy. False dichotomy.
Where in the scientific literature discussing the future is only a worst-case scenario presented, especially in the context of being the only scenario? References desirable, especially with due consideration of probability distributions.
Logical fallacy. Bulverism. Argumentum ad nauseam. Onus probandi.
Again, where in the scientific literature are only worst-case scenarios predicted? And where is your evidence demonstrating that there is a particular bias in so presenting? And where such biases may occur, where is your evidence that they are not taken as a response to reasonable, statistically-justifiable risk-assessment?
Logical fallacy. Straw man.
Much of scientific work incorporates assumptions of one sort or another, but you present no evidence that these are incorrect, inappropriate or are of sufficient magnitude to substantially affect the conclusions arising.
Logical fallacy. Ad hominem. Red herring - Ignoratio elenchi.
Logical fallacy. Red herring again. Thought-terminating cliché . Faulty generalization.
The import of the science is independent of human response to understanding it. Also, there is a difference between "can" and "will"...
Logical fallacy. Argumentum ad odium. Argumentum ad lazarum. Misleading vividness.
Where is your evidence to demonstrate that the science underpinning climate change has been affected in its conculsions by source-of-funding?
Logical fallacy. Ad hominem. Red herring - Ignoratio elenchi.
Ad hominem. Red herring - Ignoratio elenchi. Argumentum ad odium. Argumentum ad lazarum. Misleading vividness.
Logical fallacy. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Logical fallacy. Straw man.
Logical fallacy. Red herring. Faulty generalization. Misleading vividness.
Logical fallacy. Straw man.
No-one says that there are "2500 scientists on the IPCC". In fact it is well-known that the IPCC is a body intended to summarise theresearch of thousands of scientists who work outside of the IPCC.
Where in the scientific literature or even in the lay discussion is a case made based on the claim that there are "2500 scientists on the IPCC"?
Logical fallacy. Straw man. Ad hominem.
Logical fallacy. Straw man. Ad hominem. Argumentum e silentio.
Logical fallacy. Or rather, self-contradiction.
With one such as you who is so prone to logical fallacy, it is difficult to agree on much at all.
BBD@#69: mike's quite bright, but is terrified of adults.
Since he lives in the 'land of the free', but is of modest means and achievement, his psychopathology has few outlets other than to manifest as on line adolescent tantrums when he sees his name or any of his fetish objects (which, oddly seem to include the USMC and private medicine) crop up on sites he recognises as being read by intelligent adults. Hence the constant projection of hive and hierarchy at others whom he knows full well live rich and responsible lives. I suspect he doesn't get out much, and has few real relationships , but that doesn't necessarily mean that he is a 200Kg basement-dweller, oiling his Bushmaster with bacon fat.
Either way, engaging with him is as fruitful as head butting a banana tree, hoping for coconuts, but this goes for most of the Troll Collective - particularly John Birch, the Repiglican gardener. I apologise to all and sundry for summoning him at P4#86.
More indications of the effects of a warming world see Barrier closures and incidents here. More information on each 'incident' can be found from Page 19 in this PDF Thames Barrier Project Pack 2012.
Betula
And you have nothing, so you lose the argument. Read the words, Betty.
Speaking of which, you should read # 74 and # 75 with close attention. They flense your lies and empty rhetoric with gusto and precision, sparing me the trouble.
Thanks to Lotharsson and Bernard J. for their due diligence.
Now, which argument would you like to lose next, or shall I pick one from the original list for you?
Either way, you are going to get skinned alive.
Mike
Well, what can I say? Except that physics doesn't give a shit and perhaps it would help if you focussed on the implacable reality of a radiating atmosphere rather than the sociology and politics of climate change. Read up on paleoclimate behaviour for context and illustrations of how the climate system actually works. Forget the hive-bozos. Even if they existed, they would be an irrelevance.
You are a smart enough chap - so *think*.
#57
Even if Bob Ward's complaint fails it is worthwhile keeping the spotlight on the GWPF's lies. I've recently had an interesting email from a news programme editor regarding Lawson's claim that there are many prominent climatologists on the GWPFs advisory panel. Complaining about Lawson's misleading statements doesn't always lead to a retraction or clarification, but it can prompt the media to re-think how they handle panel discussions, and who they invite to take part.
# 76 rhwombat
Without doubt, sentence of the week.
and you also win second place with this.
Still sniggering.
# 80 They replied! Good. I recall you saying you were going to object to Lawson's specific - and egregious - lie.
I think you are correct. Nobody likes to be conned, and that realisation - that Lawson *lied on air on their program* - may discourage a further invitation to appear.
Can you give the gist of the response? Did they accept that Lawson had lied or did they waffle and burble?
Hey Deltoids!--back from my break!
@ rhwombat no. 76
So rhwombat you're back with another attempt at a psychological profile of me. As I recall from your previous, utter failure in that department, you claim a professional expertise in matters psychological. So let's "score" your latest "professional quality" work effort:
-Basement? Nope, don't have a basement.
-Bushmaster? Nope, don't own one.
-Weight? Hmm--let me put matters, rhwombat, in terms of one of my "fetishes", I'm within Marine Corps height and weight standards.
-Life achievements? Well, I'm satisfied, rhwombat, with those accomplishments of mine, on balance, I've managed in my little journey through this "vale of tears", as I view them from the perspective of my "Golden Years". Even proud of a couple. Certainly, I have nothing left to "prove" to myself. But if you want to characterize my achievements as "modest", please, be my guest. Indeed, I could care less and, if I did care, would probably agree.
So I'll be a pal and give you that one, rhwombat, since it seems to matter so much to you.
-Adolescent tantrums? If you mean by that, rhwombat, I take a certain, "guilty" pleasure in pushing hive-bozo buttons, I must confess you have me there, guy.
-Modest means? A curious attempt to disparage me there, rhwombat, that I think reveals more about the shallowness of your own miserable, money-grubbing, cockroach existence than anything else. But, yes, my means are modest, but so are my requirements. So both are well matched. And I like it that way. I've always liked traveling light and I neither need nor want much. Some sort of residual hippie-freak streak in me, I suppose.
-Few real relationships? Again, a pot-shot that reveals more about you than me, rhwombat. Imagine this, if you can, rhwombat: I don't need, like you, constant antennae feel-ups from and a non-stop release of pheromones by a mass of fellow hive-creeps in order to get myself oriented in the world. That's your deal, rhwombat. And that's why you are ensnared in that little, greenshirt, collectivist cult of yours, that relieves you of the burden of doing your own thinking and even provides you with a mommie-dearest, mummy-substitute Gaia-"fetish, you can call your own. I understand that, rhwombat.
But, again, your way is not mine, rhwombat. You are right I have only a few "real relationships". And I like it that way. Three pals of many years I can literally count on to have my back in a life-or-death situation, and the woman of my dreams at my side with whom I fell in love at first sight decades ago and with whom I am still madly in love (though I can't help but notice her ardor has cooled just a little over the years (though, in compensation, her tolerance of my foibles has gotten better)). And believe it or not, rhwombat, that's just the right number of "real relationships" for me, "few" though they be. But, then, outside of the hive--you really don't get outside the hive much, do you, rhwombat?--there's quite a few folks like me--we're called "normal people", rhwombat.
So, rhwombat, while you're still a doofus, fuck-up incompetent, when all is said and done, in your area of professional endeavor, this last defective attempt of yours at a psychological profile of me is, nevertheless, a vast improvement over your first. But, still, I thank the Good Lord that my own health care is not in the hands of some hive-hack like you who obviously can't make it in private practice.
@ BBD's no. 79
So BBD, if it's all just physics, like you say, then why haven't you been able to convince those hive-master Philosopher-Kings of yours, whose strutting rumps you make such a point to regularly smooch, to stop, already, with their extravagant, carbon-piggie lifestyles--that spew CO2 like a lefty vegan rips off methane--and get themselves right with Gaia?
Please don't tell me our senior-most-cadre betters are just self-indulgent, party-time, sociopathic, rip-off artists with a pervert's need to have their butts dutifully kissed by toady, well-rewarded enablers--not you, of course, BBD--but don't give a shit, really, about all this radiative physics and saving-the-planet crapola 'cuz, for our uber-mensch betters it's all about power and control and makin' a buck and any ol' cynical hustle will do.
I mean, like, please don't tell me that, BBD, because with my heart condition, I don't think I could survive the traumatic experience, if you did.
And, oh by the way, thank you BBD and rhwombat for assuring me how "bright" and "smart" I am. The interest you two hive-retards take in my G2 is so very, very important to me.
Mike.
It's good that you appear to have a nice life.
It's not so good that you have a potty mouth and a propensity for the common denialist affliction of logically-fallacious thinking that so often accompanies an inability to understand the relatively basic science that underpins climate change.
Li'llmike our milquetoast marine has lots of attempted macho framing that he desperately wants to share with us.
Which a pity for him, because 1) nobody's buying it and 2) it illustrates how disconnected from his own made-up 'reality' he is. The deadly force wing of the military-industrial complex certainly doesn't share his uninformed view.
"Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment. Although they produce distinct types of challenges, climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked. The actions that the Department takes now can prepare us to respond effectively to these challenges in the near term and in the
future. Climate change will affect DoD in two broad ways. First, climate change will shape the operating
environment, roles, and missions that we undertake. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, composed of 13 federal agencies, reported in 2009 that climate-related changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters. Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly
retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows".
Still confusing makes-no-difference (eg scientific conference travel) with the makes-all-the-difference (eg decarbonisation of electricity generation; electrification of personal transport etc).
Maybe not so smart, after all. I say this because I distinctly recall going over this very distinction with you several months ago.
Is your mind going, Mike?
I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm, publicly, my enormous respect and admiration for Dr Hansen and his colleagues at NASA GISS.
:-)
Mini-14?
Obviously it is, or you'd stop whining. What an insecure little muppet you are, mike.
Met Office holds emergency meeting to discuss Britain's increasingly unpredictable weather patterns with more on this here Human Climate Change Is Wrecking the Jet Stream; UK Met Office Calls Emergency Meeting.
More in your face climate change, seen enough yet birch-head?
The fun thing, all my denialist chums, is that the signal is only just beginning to emerge from the noise. This is - forgive me - only the warm-up. The best is yet to come.
Betula
Graphs can help. Really :-)
Please, be curious and actually look at the two links. First you see the global average temperature response to an increase in net forcings - literally the bigger picture, and sadly, rarely shown. All we normally see are temperature time series on their own. The context is helpful. Note that the forcings are scaled coherently. Look at TSI vs well-mixed GHGs.
Next you can see what climate models do when forced with and without anthropogenic GHGs.
Meh, climate models, you might say, but it's solidly backed up by paleoclimate behaviour, as you would have discovered if you had actually <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/06/01/june-2013-open-thread/commen… the first three links at the time. Or even on previous occasions. They are all full pdfs, not just abstracts.
Whoops.
[...] but it’s solidly backed up by paleoclimate behaviour, as you would have discovered if you had actually read the first three links at the time. Or even on previous occasions. They are all full pdfs, not just abstracts.
Lionel @ 90..
"More in your face climate change, seen enough yet birch-head?"
Hard to imagine, but you are just as retarded as BBD. Read your links Ftard:
1." in a bid to determine if the they represent a fundamental shift as a result of climate change or simply come down to variable weather"
2.
Lionel..
More...
2. “This may be nothing more than a run of natural variability, but there may be other factors impacting our weather"
3. "For example, there is emerging research which suggests there is a link between declining Arctic sea ice and European climate – but exactly how this process might work, and how important it may be among a host of other factors, remains unclear"
IT REMAINS UNCLEAR FTARD!.
Lionel...
Additionally, you link to a leftist blogger who conflates a title to make it appear as though the reason the Met office is meeting is because "Human Climate Change Is Wrecking the Jet Stream"...
Besides being unsubstantiated, they never mention this once!
Really, just how retarded are you?
And it would seem your leftist friend intentionally left out this comment in the Mail Online (I thought that was taboo) article he links to:
"Dr Slingo is concerned that shrinking sea ice in the Arctic could be responsible"
Could be? This from Britain's "leading climate change expert"? Could be?
BBD:
GWPF closed down?
I have no clear insight into the Charities Commission, although a few years ago a UK friend pointed me at cases where they had indeed shut down charities. I know a lot more about specific IRS rules, but that doesn't help.
Hopefully, at some point, there might be one against IEA, and if enough fuss gets raised, perhaps there will be more stringent enforcement of the rules. Unlike GWPF, but lik many American thinktanks, IEA has the strong tobacco connection, and it is hard to explain how that is in the public interest.
Round up of some interesting media developments of late;
Revkin and Roberts going all lukewarm on CO2 alarm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM7oxrdoaRM
and also from Judith Curry,
" Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 yr ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002 (note: I am receiving inquiries about this from journalists)"
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/14/week-in-review-3/#more-11910
GSW immediately above.
Why don't you quote the whole paragraph:
Judith Curry seems to be predicting cooling to 2023-25. If this is how she now conducts her analyses, her scientific colleagues are going to start asking her to not stand so close.
Is this really Curry's professional opinion?! If it is, I have a wager to put to her...
@BJ
Entirely happy with whole paragraph Bernard. It's longer for sure and I'd say it was wrong to attribute her comments as having the full "rigour" of an "analysis" as you seem to do. But then you're an ecologist right?
;)