Even David Cameron believes in climate change

Written By: - Date published: 12:05 pm, January 9th, 2014 - 255 comments
Categories: climate change, Environment, global warming, rodney hide - Tags:

extreme weather United Kingdom waves

The past couple of weeks has seen an orgy of right wing glee claiming that recent weather events provide conclusive proof that climate change is not occurring.

Rodney Hide provided the most striking local example, claiming that an increase of pack sea ice around Antartica was proof that Antarctic land ice is not actually melting.  Actually Rodney the build up is potentially verification that land ice is melting and sliding out to sea.  Whatever the cause Hide seems to think that a short term weather event is conclusive proof that long term changes are not occurring.  He is willing to roll the dice on the planet’s future for short term political gain.

In the United States a blast of polar air has frozen much of the country.  The intrepid reporters at Fox News, backed by that most respected of weather scientists Donald Trump, have claimed that events are conclusive proof that global warming is over.  John Stewart in typical style has rubbished their claims.  For Stewart Fox News’ ongoing stupidity is the gift that keeps on giving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1G0ZWcEPLc

And in the United Kingdom the country is reeling from heavy rain and floods and extreme high tides.

The sceptics will be disappointed that Prime Minister David Cameron has responsibly agreed that extreme weather events occurring there are most likely the result of man induced climate change.  As reported by the Guardian:

To a backdrop of groans from Conservative MPs, Cameron told the Commons he did believe Britain was getting “more abnormal weather events”, which could be linked to climate change.

A number of Tories are sceptical about the science of climate change or the effectiveness of measures to tackle it. Those sceptics include the Conservative environment secretary, Owen Paterson, who has suggested that global warming could be beneficial to the UK.

The prime minister said: “Colleagues across the house can argue about whether that is linked to climate change or not. I very much suspect that it is. The point is that whatever one’s view it makes sense to invest in flood defences … it makes sense to get information out better, and we should do all of those things.”

At least Cameron has the sense to recognise the potential link between climate change and extreme weather events.  And that the instability we are currently witnessing world wide is a reason to be afraid for the future and not a reason to rejoice the end of what may be humanity’s ultimate challenge.

255 comments on “Even David Cameron believes in climate change ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Pete 1
    9 January 2014 at 12:20 pm

    I linked this in another thread yesterday, but I think it’s important.

    When it comes to the calculating the likelihood of catastrophic weather, one group has an obvious and immediate financial stake in the game: the insurance industry. And in recent years, the industry researchers who attempt to determine the annual odds of catastrophic weather-related disasters—including floods and wind storms—say they’re seeing something new.

    “Our business depends on us being neutral. We simply try to make the best possible assessment of risk today, with no vested interest,” says Robert Muir-Wood, the chief scientist of Risk Management Solutions (RMS), a company that creates software models to allow insurance companies to calculate risk. “In the past, when making these assessments, we looked to history. But in fact, we’ve now realized that that’s no longer a safe assumption—we can see, with certain phenomena in certain parts of the world, that the activity today is not simply the average of history.”

  2. Bill 2
    9 January 2014 at 1:10 pm

    I actually don’t believe that the likes of John Key don’t believe that AGW is real and its effects are unfolding right now and right before our eyes. What I think is that no politician of any stripe is in any position to do jack-shit about it (many, many systemic reasons for that). Of course, those who do say that they accept AGW have to explain why they aren’t doing too much of anything, while those who deny the reality of AGW don’t.

    So, maybe that was the reason for the groans or whatever in the UK parliament…Cameron simply made a slip with regards the cover story.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.1
      9 January 2014 at 1:17 pm

      …no politician of any stripe is in any position to do jack-shit about it…

      Apart from mitigate and survive, that is.

      • Bill 2.1.1
        9 January 2014 at 2:28 pm

        You mean that they (the politicians) are in a position to mitigate the possible reaction from the people they are meant to represent and whose interests they are meant to pursue and that they might survive said reaction?

        So y’know, they might (among other things) outlaw various forms of protest and start handing down inordinate sentences to anyone who refuses to sit back and shut up?

        • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.1
          9 January 2014 at 2:32 pm

          Yep. And possibly even allow mass and indiscriminate surveillance of the populace. Whoops.

        • weka 2.1.1.2
          9 January 2014 at 2:59 pm

          That’s one set of politicians Bill. Do you think that applies to all?

          (anyone know what have Labour and the GP said on repealing that piece of legislation?).

          • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.2.1
            9 January 2014 at 3:07 pm

            Worth noting that Australian Labour and UK Labour govts were full participants in the long standing Five Eyes network, helping spy on each others’ citizens and also on supposed allies.

            • weka 2.1.1.2.1.1
              9 January 2014 at 3:26 pm

              I was referring to the anti-protest law.

              • Colonial Viper …
                9 January 2014 at 3:35 pm

                Ahhh right. Sorry. Part of a total package of measures, perhaps.

                • weka …
                  9 January 2014 at 3:38 pm

                  Yes, and there is certainly no reason to extend trust across the board until it it plainly earned.

              • Pasupial …
                10 January 2014 at 9:40 am

                Weka

                As regards that anti-protest law, it’ll be interesting to see what the response will be to the blockade of the Dunedin and/ or Bluff harbours (I’m guessing; “economic terrorism”). As protestors have to stay away from the drilling ships themselves since the “Anadarko Ammendment”, the current strategy seems to be to hinder access to supply bases. It’s unfortunate that this will impact other shipping, and hopefully will be flexible in circumstances of medical emergency.

                As part of the 2013 New Zealand Oil Free Future Conference this weekend there will be a demonstration blockade. So, even if you’re not coming to any of the talks, if you’re in Dunedin and have a sea-worthy vessel (even if just a kayak); float on down to Goat island. Even if you’re a land-lubber like me you can head on down to:

                “The bus stop on the one‐way street outside Countdown Supermarket, Dunedin Central. This is where the bus will leave 12:00pm sharp on Sunday to take people to the HANDS OFF OUR HARBOUR day of action.” http://oilfreefuturesummit.weebly.com/uploads/1/1/4/7/11476177/oil_free_future_summit_programme.pdf

                • weka …
                  10 January 2014 at 11:00 am

                  If you wrote a short piece with details of the summit, one of the authors might put it up as an announement. Stick it in Open Mike and ask and see what happens.

                  • mickysavage …
                    10 January 2014 at 11:07 am

                    Yep happy to run it.

                    • Pasupial …
                      10 January 2014 at 4:07 pm

                      {MS

                      {It seems to make more sense to post this here, rather than over on Open Mike as Weka suggested. These asides in parentheses are not part of the post proper and shouldn’t be reproduced.}

                      Originally planned to coincide with the beginning of Anadarko’s drilling operations off the Otago coast, this weekend Dunedin hosts the; New Zealand Oil Free Future Conference 2014 (the “2013” on the titlepage of the following link is just a minor glitch):

                      http://oilfreefuturesummit.weebly.com/uploads/1/1/4/7/11476177/oil_free_future_summit_programme.pdf

                      The fine work of the Oil Free Seas Flotilla off the coast of Te Ika-o-Maui seems to have delayed the arrival of the Anadarko exploration vessel for some weeks. Which is something to hold in mind when others deride protest action as futile. Now we prepare for that struggle to resume in Te Waipounamu. Aotearoa is watching, climate aware Southerners; here is your chance to represent the cause!

                      This afternoon at Saint Clair beach; climate activists gathered to send a message to Anadarko: “Wish you weren’t here”. {I took a couple of low resolution snaps on my phone, but haven’t been able to download them [it’s old and been banged around a bit but still takes a charge], which I could maybe pxt to you if you emailed me a cell #. It would be a great image to include, but you’d probably be better getting in touch with Gareth Hughes [how; I couldn’t say] and getting a better quality pic through him. Paragraph continues:} This evening the Oil Free Future Summit continues with the OIL ON CANVAS art exhibition at the community gallery, 20 Princes st. Tomorrow sees the conference itself at the Age Concern Building, 9 the Octagon, Dunedin. Register for your seat now!

                      http://oilfreeotago.com/oil-free-future-summit-2014-2/

                      There will be an exhibition of electric vehicles in the Octagon at 1-2pm which is open to all, even if you have missed out on a seat at the conference itself. “After the conference on Saturday, there will be an after-­‐party/gig at Chick’s Hotel in Port Chalmers. Buses from Dunedin will be leaving from the bus stop on the one-­‐way street outside Countdown at 8.30 pm sharp on Saturday 11th Jan, and will be coming back into town at 12.30am.” I will be at home looking after my young child then, so there’s not much I can add to that; except to say that it is my love for him, and need to care for his future, that most inspires my political activism.

                      {I’ve still got to do a paragraph on the Sunday protest blockade, but don’t want to have to retype – so will post what I’ve done so far}

                    • Pasupial …
                      10 January 2014 at 4:32 pm

                      {MS – Post continues:}

                      The final part of the Oil Free Future Summit is a demonstration blockade of the Otago harbour between Goat and Quarantine islands. So, even if you are not coming to any of the conference talks; if you’re in Dunedin and have a sea-worthy vessel (even if just a kayak), float on down to Goat island. If you’re a land-lubber like me you can head on down to:

                      “The bus stop on the one‐way street outside Countdown Supermarket, Dunedin Central. This is where the bus will leave 12:00pm sharp on Sunday to take people to the HANDS OFF OUR HARBOUR day of action.” As we won’t actually yet be blockading any actual drilling-support vessels, this will be a bit of shake-down cruise to practice later tactics in a less confrontational setting than was originally envisioned. I’m told it should be done by 3pm.

                      {The Basupial is stirring from his nap, so I’ll have to leave it there – If you can get this post up today, that would be fantastic! Feel free to edit for length and spelling [especially adding the macron on; Te Ika-a-Māui – should’ve cut&pasted before!]. Thanks a bunch, gotta go.}

                    • Pasupial …
                      11 January 2014 at 7:26 am

                      {MS

                      {I put (slightly) edited version of the above on today’s (11/1) Open Mike, but it’s not displaying. TS is a bit glitchier with lprent away on vacation (not that I begrudge him the time, his efforts here are Herculean – in an Aegean stables way). This may make a seperate announcement post redundent now – but if you do go ahead with it, please feel free to delete the one off Open Mike.}

                  • Pasupial …
                    10 January 2014 at 11:11 am

                    Weka

                    I’m just about to head off to the Gareth Hughes talk down at Saint Clair (at 1pm, but it’s a long ride and a bit gusty – plus I may have to push the bike through bits of the CBD with lunchtime traffic). Hopefully that’ll give me more details to add to a post when I get back.

                    Cheers for the suggestion.

                • Bill …
                  10 January 2014 at 1:25 pm

                  The blockade between Quarantine and Goats Islands….that the same channel that ships are blind on and that necessitates the sounding of horns in order to ensure the way is clear/that smaller craft have time to move away?

                  I guess people have it covered, but my eyebrows did raise at the prospect of blocking a narrow shipping lane at a blind spot.

                  Quick edit to say that I’ll be trying to get along to session 3 on Sat. Maybe see you there 😉

                  • Pasupial …
                    10 January 2014 at 3:21 pm

                    Bill

                    Yes; between Goat and Quarantine island, I imagine that the narrowness of the channel is what makes it susceptible to blockade. Dangerous – quite probably; especially if we have to deal with police &/ or navy boardings, and arrests (which is unlikely on Sunday which is more demonstrative, but increasingly so as it begins to impact drilling operations). More dangerous than standing back and letting unfettered anthropogenic climate change run its course – probably not.

                    Anyway, I’ve got a post to craft. Hope you make it on Saturday – session 3 is my main priority too. Have you registered yet? http://oilfreeotago.com/oil-free-future-summit-2014-2/

          • Bill 2.1.1.2.2
            9 January 2014 at 4:02 pm

            I was thinking of the broad or general direction being taken by governments across (at least) the ‘western’ English speaking world – not just one piece of legislation in one country.

      • weka 2.1.2
        9 January 2014 at 3:02 pm

        I agree about Key, but maybe not for the same reasons. I still think cognitive dissonance etc are major players.

        We could have a cross-party platform to address AGW. Not going to happen until the right get honest.

  3. Craig Glen Eden 3
    9 January 2014 at 2:38 pm

    I have the perfect solution aka the perfect storm. All the right wingers and their corporate MPs can all move to low lying beach front properties not just for the holidays, but for good.

    But seriously you dont have to be a scientist to realise that the weather it is a changing.

    • Intrinsicvalue 3.1
      13 January 2014 at 2:57 pm

      Weather? Do you understand the difference between weather and climate?

    • Paul 3.2
      14 January 2014 at 6:10 pm

      Yes, a very interesting comment. Funny how everybody is fighting to secure beachfront properties now more than ever before! That includes the likes of Cunliffe. That shows you the level of actual belief in the climate scientology religion. People tend to vote with their feet and wallets at the end of the day. Lets do a survey of how many labour and green supporters have beachfront homes and batches shall we? (or would that be invasion of privacy?)

    • mickysavage 4.1
      9 January 2014 at 3:49 pm

      Oh look a hand picked series of self reinforcing articles by the likes of Anthony Watt. So Bob how do you fell about David Cameron acknowledging that climate change is a reality and current extreme weather events are possibly linked?

      • Bob 4.1.1
        9 January 2014 at 4:00 pm

        He is failing in the polls so bowing to public opinion in order to try and win back some votes. Even the IPCC AR5 report states “There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century” http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.nz/2013/10/coverage-of-extreme-events-in-ipcc-ar5.html

        So Mickey, how do you explain the fact that all of the expected Climate Change catastrophies are falling flat on their face (as shown here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/04/2013-was-not-a-good-year-for-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-climate-warming-change-disruption-wierding-ocean-acidification-extreme-weather-etc/), and now EVERY climate model (the last remaining model cited in IPCC ar5 draft that could have been true just missed out on 2013 temperature increase predictions) is now wrong? (as shown here: http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/06/05/social-cost-of-carbon-interagency-group-predictably-predicts-climate-change-worse-than-predicted/).
        And does reality actually fit with David Camerons BS acknowledgment of more extreme weather events? (http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/do-tropical-storms-correlate-with-co2-in-a-word-no/ or a more extensive list can again be found here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/04/2013-was-not-a-good-year-for-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-climate-warming-change-disruption-wierding-ocean-acidification-extreme-weather-etc/)

        • Bob 4.1.1.1
          9 January 2014 at 4:07 pm

          Please come back with a response around ‘heat being trapped deep in the oceans’! I love it when climate alarmist shoot their own arguments in the foot saying ‘the science is setttled’ and then saying no-one had a clue how the whole system works when they actually created the models!

          • Paul 4.1.1.1.1
            9 January 2014 at 4:28 pm

            There is absolutely no point in debating with flat earthers like you Bob.
            Whatever evidence is presented is ignored. It’s like debating with a new earth creationist.

            Ridicule is about all opinions based on no evidence are worth.
            And even that’s a waste of energy….

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.1.1.1.2
            9 January 2014 at 4:29 pm

            All models are wrong, Bob. Some are useful.

            Like, for example, when we talk about light, and especially in the context of solar luminosity, we sometime use this simple model:

            L(1-α)=εσT^4

            It’s a simple climate model, Bob. Shall we go through it together?

            • Bob 4.1.1.1.2.1
              10 January 2014 at 8:41 am

              Pasupial, “I must remember to advise friends & family never to undertake an “Earth Science at Waikato University” course of study” perhaps that is part of the issue I have, as my Oceanograpghy lecturer while I studied at Waikato was in a battle with the IPCC to have his name removed from supporting documents to the Kyoto Protocol. He felt the IPCC were mis-representing his work to show man-made global waming was occurring when this was not what his studies actually showed (unless you cherry pick the data of course, both sides of the argument are very adept at this, only one side gets called deniers though…..)

              • Bob …
                10 January 2014 at 8:50 am

                Ignore, this was for Pasupial below.

              • Tracey …
                10 January 2014 at 8:51 am

                HIS/HER NAME?

                • Bob …
                  10 January 2014 at 8:57 am

                  Dr. Willem De Lange

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    10 January 2014 at 9:05 am

                    Poor Dr. Lange, now being described as ignorant by one of his peers.

                    …de Lange does not seem to understand about residence times and mixing. This is surprising because it is about as fundamental a concept you get in environmental chemistry and I would expect a coastal oceanographer to use it on a daily basis…

                    • Bob …
                      10 January 2014 at 9:15 am

                      Quoting a guy who was was once party president to the McGillicuddy Serious Party! Great retort.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      10 January 2014 at 9:18 am

                      Falling into ad hominem argument, unable to argue ocean chemistry or the implications of isotope ratios so resorting to an attack on the author.

                      Fucking feeble, Bob.

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                10 January 2014 at 8:59 am

                Which studies? Which paper(s)? Frankly, I don’t trust anything you say until you come up with chapter and verse, mate. Even if you’re being honest memories are notoriously unreliable. So come on, show me the published work and I’ll make my own mind up.

                • Bob …
                  10 January 2014 at 9:13 am

                  Start here to debunk the model you provided:
                  Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
                  1Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, U. S. A.
                  2Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea
                  Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, 2011 DOI:10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x
                  http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    10 January 2014 at 9:20 am

                    “We demonstrate that our new method does moderately well in distinguishing positive from negative feedbacks ”

                    Moderately well 😆

                    Poor Dr. Lindzen. Oh well, he can always fall back on $2,500 per day consultancy work for Exxon, I guess.

                    • Bob …
                      10 January 2014 at 9:29 am

                      As opposed to the model the IPCC used which “In contrast,
                      we show that simple regression methods used by several existing
                      papers generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show
                      positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative.”, but they agree with the IPCC so they must be right….

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      10 January 2014 at 9:48 am

                      You are mistaken Bob, the IPCC doesn’t conduct model runs. They summarise extant research.

                      Baby steps…

                    • Bob …
                      10 January 2014 at 9:51 am

                      Also OAK, remember what you said earlier “All models are wrong, Bob. Some are useful”, unless they go against your point of view?

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      10 January 2014 at 10:24 am

                      That’s why it’s important to read widely, Bob.

                      I’ve got 24 papers to wade through. Don’t much like the look of your pile, but.

                • Bob …
                  10 January 2014 at 9:20 am

                  Quote from Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”
                  Here are some other happy customers of the IPCC: http://undeceivingourselves.org/I-ipc3.htm

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    10 January 2014 at 9:32 am

                    Let’s pick apart his statement, shall we?

                    Since “runaway catastrophic climate change” has not yet occurred, of course there is no evidence to support the hypothesis.

                    So your great quote says precisely zero, other than to suggest that Dr. de Lange should choose his words more carefully.

                    • Bob …
                      10 January 2014 at 9:47 am

                      I will let him know to stick to Science and leave linguistics to the experts next time I see him.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      10 January 2014 at 9:49 am

                      Tell him OAK says “Get fucked, fraudulent trash.”

                    • mickysavage …
                      13 January 2014 at 7:57 pm

                      So he thought there may be runaway catastrophic climate change due to human activities but was not sure and we are meant to be relieved??

            • Bob 4.1.1.1.2.2
              10 January 2014 at 8:55 am

              Let’s go through this OAK.
              This model is is used to show how conservation of energy requires that radiation be either absorbed, transmitted or reflected. What this model does not take into account (like the temperature models that forgot about the ocean working as a heat sink) is the fact that increased lower atmospheric temperature increases water content through evaporation, which increases cloud cover, this in turn reduces ground and sea temperature via the very model you have provided!
              Have a look into the work of Dr. Richard Lindzen.

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                10 January 2014 at 9:16 am

                Which temperature models “forgot” about the oceans’ capacity to absorb heat, Bob? Be specific. Are there some temperature models that include that capacity? What are they telling us? What are the real world observations from the ocean saying, Bob?

                Models with low climate sensitivity do not produce cloud cover that matches real world observation, Bob. Models with high sensitivity do.

                Lindzen the petrochemical consultant? You’re falling into the trap of fixating on one individual’s work, Bob. Try reading a wider range of published material.

                • Bob …
                  10 January 2014 at 9:34 am

                  “Which temperature models “forgot” about the oceans’ capacity to absorb heat, Bob?” All of them apparently, as NONE of the temperature models the IPCC used for AR5 currently sit within the observed temperature range: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/ Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    10 January 2014 at 9:45 am

                    Spencer relying on data provided by Christie, Bob?

                    The model ensemble that even Watts refused to swallow, Bob?

                    The “horrendous abuse of statistics”, Bob?

                    • Bob …
                      10 January 2014 at 10:18 am

                      “Spencer relying on data provided by Christie, Bob?” Yes, is there a problem with that?

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      10 January 2014 at 11:20 am

                      I don’t know Bob, have either of them a history of consistently being proved wrong on Climate issues time and time again? Has either of them ever given testimony to Congress that even a lay observer can tell approaches perjury?

                      How is their work regarded among their peers? Obviously Anthony Watts published a piece describing it as “horrendous”, but he has no credibility in the field, either.

                    • mickysavage …
                      13 January 2014 at 8:01 pm

                      Bob you seem to fixate on the work of one individual scientist to prove a proposition and ignore the work of hundreds of scientists who think the proposition is bunkum.

                      Are you cherry picking your studies?

                      If so have you ever thought they may be wrong?

                      And do you think the precautionary principle, that if we may wreck the planet if we continue in the way we are currently behaving and we should change our behaviour, is an appropriate way to respond?

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                10 January 2014 at 9:38 am

                Oh, and top marks for recognising that the model I showed you doesn’t have clouds. It also lacks an atmosphere, Bob. Minor detail, I know, but we’re making progress.

        • mickysavage 4.1.1.2
          9 January 2014 at 4:08 pm

          how do you explain the fact that all of the expected Climate Change catastrophies are falling flat on their face

          Read the post. They are happening now.

          • Bob 4.1.1.2.1
            9 January 2014 at 4:22 pm

            So this is an abnormal event? Aparently not: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=polar-vortex-chill-fails-to-make-history

            Read the article, not just the name on the link

            • mickysavage 4.1.1.2.1.1
              9 January 2014 at 4:33 pm

              Bob your argument style is strange to say the least. You seem to take phrases and words out of context and then push their meaning to absolute extremes.

              If course the cold snap in the US is abnormal. It is breaking various records.

              Have similar events happened previously? Of course, I never said that it was a unique event.

              And then you take a comment such as OAK’s below as an admission of defeat by him?

              You are just rehashing the same old denialist arguments. And you throw links around not as things to add to the debate but as weapons to close the debate down.

              BTW what are your qualifications?

              • Bob …
                9 January 2014 at 4:52 pm

                OAK is being a troll, not adding to the discussion, so I am treating him like a troll.

                Mickey, the fact is, the reality does not fit with any of the IPCC’s accepted models, and now that they don’t, they just add variables to say this still backs up their assertions (like the temperature now been stored deep in the oceans to show why there has been a statistically significant ‘pause’ in warming http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016263/abstract). Why was this not factored in to the models? I know it’s a dynamic system, but then they say they are 95% sure AGW is occurring? All of your models have failed yet you are 95% certain! This is lunacy.

                You are simply rehashing the same ‘Warmist’ arguments without even considering the fact that the models have failed to show any warming over what the models originally included for natural variation.

                Earth Science at Waikato University 1999-2001.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  9 January 2014 at 10:36 pm

                  How reliable are climate models?

                  So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model.

                  All the models are reasonably accurate and you’re talking out your arse.

                • Pasupial …
                  9 January 2014 at 11:20 pm

                  I must remember to advise friends & family never to undertake an “Earth Science at Waikato University” course of study. It evidently has a negative effect on one’s reasoning abilities if Bob is anything to go by.

                  “OAK is being a troll, not adding to the discussion”; is the cast iron pot calling the stainless steel kettle black!

                  • Bob …
                    10 January 2014 at 8:50 am

                    Pasupial, “I must remember to advise friends & family never to undertake an “Earth Science at Waikato University” course of study” perhaps that is part of the issue I have, as my Oceanograpghy lecturer while I studied at Waikato was in a battle with the IPCC to have his name removed from supporting documents to the Kyoto Protocol. He felt the IPCC were mis-representing his work to show man-made global waming was occurring when this was not what his studies actually showed (unless you cherry pick the data of course, both sides of the argument are very adept at this, only one side gets called deniers though…..)

                    • Pasupial …
                      10 January 2014 at 9:19 am

                      Bob

                      “only one side gets called deniers” because only one side is denying the scientific consensus of anthropogenic climate change. The pie chart from Gareth Renowden’s TDB article nicely illustrates this consensus (and the words themselves are worth reading too): http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/01/08/2014-wont-get-fooled-by-climate-denial-again/

                    • Bob …
                      10 January 2014 at 9:44 am

                      Pasupial, your pie chart only seems to have 24 climate science papers against…..that doesn’t seem to fit with this: http://undeceivingourselves.org/I-ipc3.htm or this:http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      10 January 2014 at 9:56 am

                      They predict a climate sensitivity of between 1.5 and 6 degrees, Bob. That’s some range of disagreement right there. Gosh! Disagreement! The Science isn’t settled! It’s all a hoax!

                      PS: 😆 you’re citing Poptart? 😆

                    • Pasupial …
                      10 January 2014 at 10:01 am

                      Bob

                      Note the “peer-reviewed” in: “13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012, 24 reject global warming”.

                      I’m sure that there have been many nonpeer-reviewed articles in the same time frame, but they could not be said to have contributed to the scientific consensus.

                    • Poptech …
                      10 January 2014 at 8:14 pm

                      Pasupial, thank for showing that you do not understand how to use Web of Science any better than James Powell. Web of Science does not have a peer-reviewed only filter.

                      http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/04/13950-meaningless-search-results.html

                      1. The context of how the “search phrases” were used in all the results was never determined.

                      2. The results are padded by not using the search qualifier “anthropogenic”.

                      3. The 13,950 results cannot be claimed to be peer-reviewed as the Web of Science does not have a peer-reviewed only filter.

                      4. It is a strawman argument that skeptics deny or reject there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age.

                      (3) Peer-Reviewed?

                      In his methods, Powell filtered his results by the ‘articles’ document type which includes content that may not be peer-reviewed depending on the specific journal,

                      Document Type Descriptions (Web of Science)

                      “Article: Reports of research on original works. Includes research papers, features, brief communications, case reports, technical notes, chronology, and full papers that were presented at a symposium or conference.”

                      Thus, all that can be claimed is there were 13,950 meaningless search results not “peer-reviewed scientific articles” for a query of the ‘Web of Science’ database – with 24 chosen by strawman argument.

                    • Poptech …
                      10 January 2014 at 8:19 pm

                      One Anonymous Knucklehead,

                      Any likely criticism you have against the list (outside of childish name calling) has been rebutted in the extensive, “Rebuttals to Criticism” section of the list,

                      http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Rebuttals

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      10 January 2014 at 9:56 pm

                      What about criticism on the grounds of the yawning chasm of your irrelevance, Poptart? I mean, how desperate do you have to be to be trying to get traction for your drivel in a New Zealand political forum, when extra special blog scientists like you should be testifying before congress immediately prior to your induction into the academy?

                      Surely if what you say is true, A Nobel prize is in the offing as opposed to the ridicule and contempt you’ll get from me.

                      Um, who to believe, NASA, or Poptart? The national academies of science of pretty much every nation that has one, or Poptart? The UN, or Poptart?

                      It’s a toughy f’sure.

                    • Poptech …
                      11 January 2014 at 9:28 am

                      Let me know when you can address my actual arguments without simply more childish name calling.

                    • Pasupial …
                      11 January 2014 at 9:39 am

                      Poptech

                      I will; “address [your] actual arguments”, just as soon as you get around to posting something which could bear the weight of that description. That pie chart was linked as an illustration of scientific consensus regarding the reality of anthropogenic climate change. If you’ve got a problem with it, take it up with; Gareth Renowden @ TDB, and stop wasting space here.

                    • Poptech …
                      11 January 2014 at 9:50 am

                      Pasupial, what part of all the results that Powell posted are not peer-reviewed do you not understand? Do you not understand that the Web of Science does NOT have a peer-reviewed filter? If you do not understands these elementary arguments then I suggest you do not get involved in these arguments.

                      I suggest reading my post over and over and over until you do get it,

                      http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/04/13950-meaningless-search-results.html

                    • Pasupial …
                      11 January 2014 at 10:01 am

                      Poptech

                      I don’t intend to waste any more of my time on you or your speciosity.

                    • Poptech …
                      11 January 2014 at 10:11 am

                      Pasupial, you falsely claim I am saying something that is not true. Surely you can support your baseless argument or do you need an education on how the Web of Science works like James Powell?

                      Maybe you have not read this article enough,

                      http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/04/13950-meaningless-search-results.html

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      11 January 2014 at 2:10 pm

                      What “arguments”, Poptart? You haven’t got any, no more than you have any credibility, or relevance.

                      I’m using the baloney detection kit, you see::

                      Question 1.: How reliable is the source of the claim? Not reliable at all.

                      and 2. Does the source often make similar claims? Um, yep.

                      3. Have the claims been verified by another source? 😆 Yeah, Google is my friend on that one. And just look at Poptart’s endorsements.

                      4. Does the claim fit with how we know the world works? Nope: cf: NASA.

                      5. Has Poptart sought to disprove his monomania? 😆

                      6. Preponderance of evidence? Six out of six so far Poptart, you’re not very good at this are you?

                      7. yep, you fail points seven through ten too.

                      Now, you pointless, mendacious piece of trash, that’s an insult. You see the difference?

                    • Poptech …
                      11 January 2014 at 3:24 pm

                      One Anonymous Knucklehead, more meaningless rhetoric and childish name calling, yet not a single valid argument.

                      Surely you can formulate an actual argument and not continue to embarrass yourself here like this.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      11 January 2014 at 5:19 pm

                      Oh, did you not notice the argument, Poptart. OK, I’ll spell it out.

                      As a lay observer with a reasonable understanding of quantum mechanics and conservation of energy principles, I am ill-qualified to argue the details of Climatology with learned professors. On the other hand, a lay understanding of Callendar’s work isn’t that hard, nor that of Arrhenius. I get that we’re adding more energy to the system.

                      It has to go somewhere. The conspiracy theory narrative doesn’t move me. The low climate sensitivity narrative has few adherents, and they keep on messing themselves by supporting new-age Creationism or big tobacco, and they all seem to have links to petrochemical companies (apart from you – you’re unemployable).

                      So I fall back on the info provided by science academies and the people who actually put people on the Moon rather than just harassing Buzz Aldrin while he’s trying to have dinner.

                      Oh, and the fact that you’re using me for peer review enhances your credibility so very much it’s just ultra-spiffy! Let’s collaborate!

                  • Poptech …
                    11 January 2014 at 5:32 pm

                    You failed to make a valid argument to notice and instead continue with childish name calling and dishonest ad hominems.

                    The only conspiracy theories are yours, including your smears relating to “creationism”, “big tobacco”, and “links to petrochemical companies”.

                    Like I said all your nonsense is debunked in the “Rebuttals to Criticism” section of the list,

                    Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?

                    I am actually employed in the IT industry and have been for over 20 years.

                    Funny you should mention Buzz Aldrin, who is actually a skeptic,

                    “I think the climate has been changing for billions of years. If it’s warming now, it may cool off later. I’m not in favour of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today. I’m not necessarily of the school that we are causing it all, I think the world is causing it.” – Buzz Aldrin

                    I am only using you as an example of those who cannot formulate a valid argument.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      11 January 2014 at 5:40 pm

                      And I’m only using you as an example of irrelevant nitwits with zero credibility. You’re arguing with anonymous knuckleheads when you should be testifying to Congress, man! Lift your game, you tragic gimp.

                    • Poptech …
                      11 January 2014 at 5:42 pm

                      This is a great collection of childish name calling and dishonest ad hominems.

                      Thanks, I use these are examples for others.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      12 January 2014 at 7:35 am

                      You do that. Show Congress during your testimony.

                    • Poptech …
                      12 January 2014 at 11:56 am

                      I will, thanks.

                    • mickysavage …
                      13 January 2014 at 8:45 pm

                      Is that you Lord Monckton?

                      [lprent: It does have that powerful aura of pompous stupidity about itself. All it ever did was to put up copy-pasted arguments, ignore other peoples arguments, attack them instead for daring to question its bullshit, and failed to engage. Either paid or has a severe erectile dysfunction that it was over compensating for. ]

        • Paul 4.1.1.3
          9 January 2014 at 4:09 pm

          So you have adapted your argument to say that telling the public about climate change is a popular policy!
          Interesting show you flat earthers change your story as you go along.
          You lot are just making it up.

          • Bob 4.1.1.3.1
            9 January 2014 at 4:24 pm

            Haha, I love the flat-earthers argument too, a small group of scientists say the world is round ‘scientific consensus’ says it’s flat…..where have I heard that before?

            • Paul 4.1.1.3.1.1
              9 January 2014 at 4:29 pm

              Confused….

            • Intrinsicvalue 4.1.1.3.1.2
              13 January 2014 at 2:42 pm

              All across the climate alarmist landscape. Honestly it’s hilarious how quickly the wheels are falling off this lunacy, and after the collapse of the peak oil hysteria it is going to be interesting to see what greenies come up with next to justify their research grants and nanny statism.

              • mickysavage …
                13 January 2014 at 8:49 pm

                Yep one cold week in New York and everyone in the world can ignore the signs of warming despite the overwhelming data in support …

                • Bob …
                  14 January 2014 at 3:19 pm

                  It doesn’t hurt that we are coming out of a little ice age so we get headlines like ‘3rd warmist year on record’ does it? Pretty easy to say ‘its man-made global warming’ until the models fail to show anything but slow, steady, NATURAL warming. Whoops, that’s what is happening at the moment!

                  • mickysavage …
                    14 January 2014 at 3:49 pm

                    Why Bob do you cling so carefully to some scientific data but rule out completely other scientific data?

                    • Bob …
                      14 January 2014 at 4:03 pm

                      I could ask the same of you MS.
                      The historical temperature records show that the current rate of warming isn’t ‘unprecidented’ or even unusual. The ‘Climate Change’ temperature models show that they significantly overstate the rate of warming. So it is warming, but not fast enough to be anthropogenic, hmm what does that leave?

            • mickysavage 4.1.1.3.1.3
              13 January 2014 at 8:47 pm

              Comparing your petroleum industry funded denialism to Galileo is an insult.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.1.1.4
          9 January 2014 at 4:10 pm

          Bob’s credibility is at an all time high this afternoon. Gosh, this means all those science academies and professors must be wrong. The satellites must be all out of kilter. The global temperature record really doesn’t show any significant warming for the last 18 17 years and if you close your eyes you can’t see the figures before 1998 anyway.

          Furthermore, all that video evidence of melting glaciers and polar ice caps is photoshopped and the people who remember much longer glaciers are all hallucinating. Or in the pay of Al Gore.

          We know this now, all thanks to Bob. All hail Bob, our redeemer. His IQ’s a bit low, granted, but he’s the man.

          Thank you forever Bob.

          • Paul 4.1.1.4.1
            9 January 2014 at 4:17 pm

            Unbelievable, some people.

          • Bob 4.1.1.4.2
            9 January 2014 at 4:26 pm

            Thank you for admiting defeat OAK, once you cannot give reasoned replies the argument turns to ‘play the man not the ball.’ Classic.
            By the way, I have given a scientific reason for 17 years being significant below. You’re welcome.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.1.1.4.2.1
              9 January 2014 at 4:39 pm

              Didn’t you notice the reasoned reply? Significant: it doesn’t mean what you think it does. Let’s start with some quantum mechanics, eh?

              Why is Earth not a ball of ice?

          • Bob 4.1.1.4.3
            9 January 2014 at 5:07 pm

            Sorry I missed a point here “Furthermore, all that video evidence of melting glaciers and polar ice caps is photoshopped and the people who remember much longer glaciers are all hallucinating. Or in the pay of Al Gore.” is this the video evidence sent back by the ‘scientists’ stuck in ice in Antarctica, in summer, where there was no ice 100 years ago? The ‘scientists’ who’s models told them there would be no ice so the went on their merry way? The ‘scientists’ who took media along with them to tell the world about how Climate Change was causing a massive loss of sea ice and then got trapped in the very thing their models told them wasn’t there? Very trustworthy these climate ‘scientists’.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.1.1.4.3.1
              9 January 2014 at 5:31 pm

              Glaciers, Bob. Comprende Englese, Bob? Plural, Bob, Glaciers, not glacier. Global, Not local. Well, local too.

              There now is an ice-melt lake
              That didn’t exist just a shake
              Of a lamb’s tale ago
              And Bob he says No!
              But most of us think Bob’s a fake.

            • mickysavage 4.1.1.4.3.2
              9 January 2014 at 7:09 pm

              It aint a glacier Bob. It is sea ice that may represent ice sliding off the Antarctic continent Bob.

              • Intrinsicvalue …
                13 January 2014 at 2:45 pm

                And that shows just how desperate you are to keep this fairy tale alive. Antarctic sea ice is at record levels, 15% above recent ‘norms’, and the IPCC have admitted they cannot explain this.

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  13 January 2014 at 7:37 pm

                  What’s happening to the land ice, Intrinsicvalue? You’re such an experty expert on the subject you’re sure to know.

                • mickysavage …
                  13 January 2014 at 8:55 pm

                  Yep IV apparently if in one small part of the world an increase of some data suggests that this particular area may be cooling is evidence that the whole world is cooling …

                  Quite weird really …

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.2
      9 January 2014 at 4:00 pm

      Quick! Tell David Cameron. Tell John Key. They’re sure to respect your gargantuan levels of credibility and superior knowledge. Really. Truly. Seriously. Honest.

      • Bob 4.2.1
        9 January 2014 at 4:03 pm

        As I have just replied to Mickeysavage, even the IPCC doesn’t agree with David Cameron!
        Mind you, after the last 17 years, they’re sure to garner gargantuan levels of credibility……

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.2.1.1
          9 January 2014 at 4:10 pm

          Why not eighteen years Bob? Gosh! Is it OK to ask questions? Sorry!

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.2.1.1.1
            9 January 2014 at 4:19 pm

            PS: I know there’s no global warming, Bob, especially not any caused by the Greenhouse Effect, and especially not any caused by anything you or I may (or may not, my lawyers insist) have done, but I just have one more question.

            Why are average temperatures at the North Pole 2° (that’s two degrees, Bob) higher than they were in 1960?

            I await your awesomely credible response.

          • Bob 4.2.1.1.2
            9 January 2014 at 4:20 pm

            Sure, ask away, here is your answer, straight from the American Geophysical Union http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016263/abstract

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.2.1.1.2.1
              9 January 2014 at 4:34 pm

              Ah, so has Earth warmed in the last thirty years, Bob, since scales are so important? How about the last 150 (one hundred and fifty, Bob)?

              How about: have any of the predictions made by Svante Arrhenius’s 1896 climate model come true, and if so, which ones?

              Is it:

              a. Nights have warmed more than days?
              b. Winter has warmed more than summer?
              c. The poles have warmed more than the equatorial regions?
              d. The Northern Hemisphere has warmed more than the Southern Hemisphere?

              Don’t forget, Bob, all models are wrong, remember?

            • Puddleglum 4.2.1.1.2.2
              9 January 2014 at 8:12 pm

              Bob,

              From your link (Note: S/N refers to signal to noise ratio, the ‘signal’ being anthropogenic climate change and the ‘noise’ being normal climate variability):

              “[50] Because of the large effect of year-to-year variability on decadal trends, roughly 10% of the 10-year TLT trends in the 20CEN/A1B runs are less than zero (Figure 4a). This result shows that anthropogenically forced models can replicate the recent muted warming of the surface [Easterling and Wehner, 2009; Knight et al., 2009] and the lower troposphere. Claims that minimal warming over a single decade undermine findings of a slowly-evolving externally-forced warming signal (e.g., as in Investor’s Business Daily [2008] and W. Happer, Testimony on climate science in the political arena, Hearing before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, House of Representatives, 111th Congress, May 20, 2010, http://globalwarming.house.gov/files/HRG/052010SciencePolicy/happer.pdf) are simply incorrect.

              [51] Our estimated signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios for global-scale TLT changes were less than 1.0 on the 10-year timescale (Figure 6c). On the 32-year timescale, however, S/N exceeded 3.9 in all three observational TLT data sets. The latter result shows that natural internal variability, as simulated by current climate models, is a highly unlikely explanation for the observed lower tropospheric warming over the satellite era (Figure 6d). Comparisons between simulated and observed low-frequency TLT variability suggest that our estimates of S/N ratios on 5–20 year timescales are conservative (Figures 9 and 10). The strong timescale dependence of S/N ratios arises primarily because of the large decrease in noise amplitude as the period used for trend fitting increases (Figure 6b).

              [52] On all timescales examined here, the TLT trends in the observational satellite data sets are not statistically unusual relative to model-based distributions of externally forced TLT trends (Figure 6e).” [Note: ‘externally forced’ refers to anthropogenic climate change}

              And;

              “In summary, because of the effects of natural internal climate variability, we do not expect each year to be inexorably warmer than the preceding year, or each decade to be warmer than the last decade, even in the presence of strong anthropogenic forcing of the climate system. The clear message from our signal-to-noise analysis is that multi-decadal records are required for identifying human effects on tropospheric temperature. Minimal warming over a single decade does not disprove the existence of a slowly-evolving anthropogenic warming signal.”

              A good link, Bob. Very useful evidence that we are right to be concerned about the ‘signal’ nature is sending us.

  5. (not)BM 5
    9 January 2014 at 3:28 pm

    this is just the left wing scaremongering , let me make myself clear their is no climate change ,their is no poverty

    [To avoid confusion can you change your handle – MS]

    • Zorr 5.1
      9 January 2014 at 3:33 pm

      I literally cannot tell if this is intended as satire or not…

      On one hand, it is BM…
      On the other hand, it only makes *any* sense if it is satire…

    • weka 5.2
      9 January 2014 at 3:34 pm

      Is that really BM? Different avatar suggests new email. That and the change in posting style….

    • Tracey 5.3
      9 January 2014 at 3:35 pm

      But there IS a hairdresser in the uk who got an OBE for just doing the PM’s hair, and you think the world’s not in trouble.

      • QoT 5.3.1
        9 January 2014 at 5:14 pm

        More leftwing lies!!! You just hate business and success!!! Politics of envy!!!

        It was an MBE. Checkmate, liberals!

    • BM 5.4
      9 January 2014 at 3:45 pm

      Who are you?

    • Pasupial 5.5
      9 January 2014 at 11:35 pm

      Their is no depression in New Zealand
      Their are no sheep on our farms
      Their is no depression in New Zealand
      We can all keep perfectly calm
      …
      We have no dole queues
      We have no drug addicts
      We have no racism
      We have no sexism
      No:
      Their is no depression in New Zealand
      Their are no teeth in our heads
      Their is no depression in New Zealand
      We sleep in well made beds
      …
      We have no SIS
      We have no secrets
      We have no rebellion
      We have no valium

      • Matthew Hooton 5.5.1
        10 January 2014 at 7:54 am

        Is your use of “their” rather than “there” an error or is it meant to be poetic in some way?

        • Pasupial 5.5.1.1
          10 January 2014 at 8:57 am

          MH

          It’s a response to “BM” [at 5], but with TS nesting comments ended all the way down here; where it is easy to miss the joke. Also, there were only a couple of comments [up to 5.2?] visible when I typed that out last night. With the intermittent Reply buttons and long moderation times , I assume TS tech support is still in holiday mode.

          • karol 5.5.1.1.1
            10 January 2014 at 9:24 am

            11.30pm, Pas? Maybe the “tech support” was just sleeping.

            • Pasupial 5.5.1.1.1.1
              10 January 2014 at 9:55 am

              Karol

              Yeah, it was late (and I was getting worse at suppressing my doesn’t-play-well-with-others side; so should probably make a rule not to comment after 11pm). However the comments 5.3 – 5.4 were all from the afternoon but not displaying for me. I probably would have slotted this in at 5.2.1 if I’d seen it.

          • Matthew Hooton 5.5.1.1.2
            10 January 2014 at 12:17 pm

            got it now

  6. Paul 6
    9 January 2014 at 4:22 pm

    Certainly no AGW on that planet.
    BM should sell up and buy beachside properties for his grandchildren to enjoy.

    • Will@Welly 6.1
      9 January 2014 at 4:38 pm

      Eunuchs don’t have children or grandchildren. He’s already settled on his beachside resort, soaking up the sun, watching the waves roll in, not noticing that each day the sea level just gets that little bit higher, nor has he noticed that his drinking water just gets a little bit salter each day.
      Still, I guess you can’t have brains and everything else. Whoops, I just realized they left the first part out of B.M. Still, that’s part of the charm of Planet Key, wandering round, clueless.

  7. feijoa 7
    9 January 2014 at 4:51 pm

    The terminology used around climate change is interesting
    A believer, or, a non believer
    Like it’s a religion or something
    It must have been like this for Capernicus and Gallileo
    Somehow science is being treated like a religion rather than true science
    Is there some human weakness that does this?

    • burt 7.1
      9 January 2014 at 5:20 pm

      Indeed there is a human weakness that does this, greed. Access to other people’s money for research, advertising, self promotion.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.1.1
        10 January 2014 at 8:15 am

        Arctic cruises in luxury research vessels, drilling for ice cores in sub zero temperatures, receiving death threats from National Party supporters…

        What a swell time.

        And then the fucking editor goes and gives your paper to a bunch of your bloody rivals so they can pick holes in it – and they do – so that by the time you get published all that’s left is a bad taste in your mouth and you’ve still got to get up at 7am and warm up the drilling equipment.

        What a life it must be for those greedy scientists.

  8. burt 8
    9 January 2014 at 4:58 pm

    If you look at the pattern in the ice core samples it’s pretty obvious that one of two things is true;

    AGW is real and has/will break the long established pattern of warming and cooling with runaway warming.

    Or

    We are about to tip into ice age some time in the next 100-1000 years

    Winter is coming ….

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 8.1
      9 January 2014 at 5:04 pm

      Runaway warming (boiling off the oceans) is more or less impossible at this distance from the sun. Or perhaps the climate models are wrong, and runaway warming is possible on Earth.

    • Ad 8.2
      9 January 2014 at 5:42 pm

      I prefer the winter styles; all the woollies, the coats, the St Petersburg gangster-oligopolist look.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 8.2.1
        9 January 2014 at 5:51 pm

        And Eastern European accents. Just don’t give me that tovarisch baloney.

    • Macro 8.3
      11 January 2014 at 9:57 pm

      If you look at the pattern in the ice core samples it’s pretty obvious that one of two things is true;

      wow you have done this have you burt! Tell us more.

      Didn’t know you were a climatologist.

  9. Tracey 9
    9 January 2014 at 5:53 pm

    ” More leftwing lies!!! You just hate business and success!!! Politics of envy!!!

    It was an MBE. Checkmate, liberals!”

    Major chuckling here.

  10. johnm 10
    9 January 2014 at 6:07 pm

    ” GENEVA—With the implementation of tighter carbon emissions caps and more responsible household energy use, it is not too late to reverse the dire course of global warming, a panel of scientists who know full well that it is far too late and we are all doomed told reporters today. “If we all do our part right now to design and enforce more responsible business and environmental practices, there’s still a good chance we can avoid the calamitous consequences of worldwide climate change,” said climatologist Dr. Kevin Little, a man who, deep in his heart, knows all too acutely that it’s over, there’s not a damned thing we can do, and so we might as well just start preparing now for what is certain to be the unprecedented destruction of human civilization at the hands of a ravaged ecosystem. “It will take massive investment and cooperation on a global scale, but I’m optimistic we can be in good shape by around 2030 or so.” The researchers who awake each morning with the grim realization that they are bearing witness to mankind’s sad, inevitable endgame also suggested there is still very much a chance of stabilizing the rapid loss of Arctic sea ice.”

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/its-not-too-late-to-reverse-the-alarming-trend-of,34896/

  11. Morrissey 11
    9 January 2014 at 6:26 pm

    Mickey, you need to stop dignifying these irrational, unhinged science-deniers by labeling them, misleadingly, as “sceptics”, which is a term the deniers have bestowed on themselves. The likes of Rodney the Perk-taker, the Papal Knight Rupert Murdoch, Donald Trump, Screaming Lord Monckton, Jordan Williams and Leighton Smith are not sceptics, they are no more than ideologically driven crackpots and bloody-minded mischief-makers.

    Please be careful and precise when you use language. It’s very important. The deniers know that, which is why they will be very pleased to see people like you using their own dishonest language to describe them.

    • jaymam 11.1
      9 January 2014 at 8:01 pm

      Morrissey, perhaps you can help me here. As a sceptic, I have asked many times for a short name for “believers in catastrophic anthropogenic climate change”, because that’s a bit long and clumsy, and they don’t seem to like the term “warmists”.
      Can I have some suggestions?

      • Colonial Viper 11.1.1
        9 January 2014 at 8:05 pm

        Climate catastrophists.

        No charge mate.

        • jaymam 11.1.1.1
          9 January 2014 at 8:12 pm

          The name has to be acceptable to a warmist, since I don’t wish to call people names they don’t like. “Climate alarmist” is a good description.

          OK it’s been 15 minutes. Climate Alarmist it is!

          • Paul 11.1.1.1.1
            9 January 2014 at 8:42 pm

            From that comment, I’d infer you’re a flat earther

          • Paul 11.1.1.1.2
            9 January 2014 at 9:06 pm

            It is really quite scary to see how ignorant some people are about Science.
            People like Jayman and BM clutter this thread with wish thinking.

            • Anne 11.1.1.1.2.1
              9 January 2014 at 9:31 pm

              It is really quite scary to see how ignorant some people are about Science.

              Indeed it is Paul. I’m still trying to figure out why these people are in such deep denial.

              1) Is it because they perceive it as a political issue? How tragic if that is true.

              2) Is it because they don’t understand the science behind it but can’t admit as much so have to convince themselves it isn’t true in order to save face?

              3) Is it because they are doing nicely thank-you in our current money obsessed consumerist lifestyle and they don’t want anything to change? In other words: can’t see beyond their own noses?

              4) A mix of all of the above?

          • Anne 11.1.1.1.3
            9 January 2014 at 9:34 pm

            @ jayman
            They’re called Climate scientists. Or if you like Meteorologists. But that’s quite hard to spell so we’ll stick with the first one.

            • jaymam 11.1.1.1.3.1
              10 January 2014 at 12:21 am

              Most climate alarmists have no science qualifications, so they can’t be called scientists.

              • Paul …
                10 January 2014 at 7:00 am

                Unbelievable.
                Have you read any of the links provided ..of course not…
                This is just a cheap political topic for you…tragic really.

                • Tracey …
                  10 January 2014 at 8:49 am

                  terminal deniers dont need evidence for what they say. It comes from someone they agree with and so it must be true?

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                10 January 2014 at 7:42 am

                So only people with science qualifications should be listened to on the subject?

                Nah: any individual opinion is suspect: confirmation bias and all that.

                What you are thinking of is peer-reviewed papers published in reputable science journals, Jaymam. Like Mann 2008. Or Hansen & Sato 2011. Or Arrhenius 1896, or Callendar 1938.

                Even a focus on one individual paper can lead you down false trails. Look at all the negative attention directed at Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999, for example, as though it were the only hockey stick. Fixation on this one paper just makes all the deniers look ignorant at best. You made the mistake of thinking that Mann’s bristlecone pines were the only paleo-evidence available.

                • jaymam …
                  11 January 2014 at 8:36 pm

                  “So only people with science qualifications should be listened to on the subject?”
                  No of course I am not saying that. The only thing I am discussing here is what to call the people who are not scientists who are warmists, i.e. probably people like you. They cannot be called Climate Scientists because they don’t have a science degree.

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    12 January 2014 at 5:22 pm

                    Call them whatever you like; after all, it couldn’t possibly be more childish or inane than your faith that you are in a position to second-guess NASA, or Nature, or mainstream Climatology.

      • Te Reo Putake 11.1.2
        9 January 2014 at 8:54 pm

        Try ‘climate realists’ Jayman. It’s both accurate and respectful.

        • fender 11.1.2.1
          9 January 2014 at 11:34 pm

          This one has called itself jaymam, and there’s no bearded dude..(?)

        • jaymam 11.1.2.2
          10 January 2014 at 12:23 am

          I’m a climate realist. I don’t trust the IPCC or Michael Mann.

          • Paul 11.1.2.2.1
            10 January 2014 at 6:53 am

            Or Science.
            What a a Joke.

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 11.1.2.2.2
            10 January 2014 at 7:10 am

            You’re a credulous dupe, Jaymam. Do you think the Mann’s hockey stick is the only one out there? What about Richard Muller’s hockey stick? Or Wahl-Amman’s hockey stick? Or Huang’s hockey stick? Or Smith’s? Or Oerlemans?

            I’ll make you the same offer I made that idiot, Bob: would you like to start with some quantum mechanics and a simple climate model?

          • Morrissey 11.1.2.2.3
            10 January 2014 at 7:52 am

            I’m a climate realist.
            As a realist who operates on common sense, you’ll no doubt be sceptical of the scientific establishment’s crazed insistence that the earth is not flat.

            I don’t trust the IPCC or Michael Mann.
            Translation: “I deny the findings of scientists—what do they know? I’m in the camp of such advanced thinkers as Donald Trump, Senator John McCain, the guys at Fox News, Rodney the Perk-taker Hide and Screaming Lord Monckton.”

      • Morrissey 11.1.3
        10 January 2014 at 7:47 am

        Flat-earthers. ACT voters. Leighton Smith listeners. Morons.

        • Paul 11.1.3.1
          12 January 2014 at 5:50 pm

          +100

        • jaymam 11.1.3.2
          12 January 2014 at 7:35 pm

          You and others who think that climate sceptics are all right-wing, are wrong. As you should know if you have been paying attention, I’ve devoted much time trying to get rid of ACT and National. I loathe Leighton Smith and ACT supporters. All my friends are lefties and none believe in catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. But carry on in your beliefs if you must, but you are fighting the wrong people.

          • Te Reo Putake 11.1.3.2.1
            12 January 2014 at 7:58 pm

            We’re all complicated individuals, jayman. and the fact that you have a conservative viewpoint on one issue doesn’t make you a righty overall. However, while you may not be right, you are definitely wrong on climate change.

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 11.1.3.2.2
            13 January 2014 at 11:10 am

            That pin-head is getting smaller. Now it’s catastrophic AGW you’re “skeptical” (what a facile conceit that is) about, eh?

            My pick is that you have further self-defined “catastrophic” as “it must be a mass extinction event by 2050 or it doesn’t count”.

            Feet of clay dancing on a tiny and rapidly diminishing pin-head.

  12. MrSmith 12
    9 January 2014 at 9:12 pm

    After much deliberation I think CLimate Change is nothing but another red herring/distraction for the left, like the retirement age.

    Some of-course are quiet happy for us to chase these down the rabbit hole! Knowing if we ever catch them we then have little or no hope of ever arguing we then know what the future holds, so around and around we go, they have us sitting around wringing our hands on a merry go round worrying about the future engaged in a futuristic argument we can never win or predict accurately.

    Forget Climate change, Forget the (Brighter) Future! First we need Control, then we can talk about the future.

    Some will be content to have us run around chasing the Rights rabbits, but really we should concentrate on the Rabbits we can catch, the fights we can win, here in the present.

    • Paul 12.1
      9 January 2014 at 9:14 pm

      Climate change….a distraction?!
      Probably the biggest issue facing humanity…a distraction.
      You are kidding, right?

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 12.1.1
        10 January 2014 at 7:11 am

        I think “dribbling” is a better description.

        • Paul 12.1.1.1
          10 January 2014 at 7:23 am

          There seem to be quite a few idiots out on this site.
          They are impossible to discuss issues with as they ignore all evidence.
          It’s like talking to someone with a deep religious faith.
          But worse, as I sense these people only hold these views for political reasons..
          Hope their grandchildren appreciate their contribution.

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 12.1.1.1.1
            10 January 2014 at 7:32 am

            John Key’s visit to my hometown was met with great excitement among the local Knuts. They were so disappointed when he said AGW is real.

          • MrSmith 12.1.1.1.2
            10 January 2014 at 9:13 am

            Yes the idiots are everywhere it seems, especially the ones that can’t read passed the first line, having made up there minds in advance.

  13. philj 13
    10 January 2014 at 7:30 am

    Climate change. And the population ceiling? Can we make it? Sure We Can! 😉

  14. tricledrown 14
    10 January 2014 at 11:19 am

    BBC world Now using Hudson institute for independent advice on climate change.
    Another right wing political propaganda company.

  15. captain hook 15
    10 January 2014 at 11:56 am

    The climate will change in November when this government uses up their ‘turn’ and we have a government of rational people viz, the NZLP.

  17. johnm 17
    10 January 2014 at 6:55 pm

    I have to echo AFEWWHOKNOWTHETRUTH.(No longer bothers commenting on this blog) The level of understanding of the reality of the threat of Climate Change. in the previous comments is medieval in its ignorance and darkness and pathetic egotistical takes on a reality that will probably finish us all off. Thankyou you thick as shit ACT aholes and their Nat Act dick suckers! Scum. Go Rodney scum Hide Bastard.

  18. Paul 18
    11 January 2014 at 7:40 am

    Two more points about climate change.

    This from the Guardian to rebut the comments made by flatearthers about the recent cold snap in the U.S.A.( and any time there’s a bout of cold weather btw). http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11184556

    Secondly, language. The term to describe these people is a conspiracy theorist, not a skeptic.. A skeptic might question the claims of the Mormons are there appears little evidence to support their claims. Only a conspiracy theorist would suggest that the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists are in a vast plot to hide the truth from the world.

  19. Paul 19
    11 January 2014 at 8:09 am

    Further evidence for jaymam, BM and fellow conspiracy theorists to digests about Climate change.
    Very mild weather, bears coming out of hibernation, changing migration patterns, sounds normal doesn’t it?
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/10/polar-vortex-us-mild-weather-scandinavia

  20. captain hook 20
    11 January 2014 at 10:51 am

    Read Al Gores ‘Assault ON Reason” to see how the knuckle draggers will use any and all excuses to protect their supply of power including oil solely to ensure their fantasies of juvenile omnipotence continue.

  21. Glenn 21
    11 January 2014 at 4:49 pm

    A few weeks ago I tried to explain climate change to my 91 year old mother.
    Her reaction, ,” Well I don’t care,I’ll be dead before then”
    I was angry for the rest of the day…. Sons, Grand kids, Great grand kids, fuck them all.
    Actually I’m still angry about it.

    I believe that because catastrophic warming is still beyond a big percentage of the lifespan of those in power and the 1% and much of the talk back media that secretly they think the same as my mother and cover it by denying that climate change exists.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 21.1
      11 January 2014 at 5:04 pm

      I just explained it to my son. You think you’re angry?

      He was quite cynical about it. People are stupid. I tried to argue for the notion that our intelligence (just) marginally outweighs our stupidity.

      • Poptech 21.1.1
        11 January 2014 at 5:40 pm

        Did you try and explain to your son how to call people childish names and use logical fallacies when arguing? No wonder he was cynical.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 21.1.1.1
          12 January 2014 at 5:35 pm

          Do you recall my promise to treat you with ridicule and contempt, Poptart? Did you think that meant I was going to take your drivel seriously enough to respond to it directly or with anything other than casual disdain?

          You charged on over here to defend yourself; that in itself is risible and undermines your credibility before you’ve even said a word, as though Pielke’s words about your list weren’t enough. I’m sure you have a rebuttal to Pielke too, but the fact is here you are, with an anonymous nobody using you as a punching bag.

          Choke on it.

        • Poptech 21.1.1.2
          12 January 2014 at 6:06 pm

          I am well aware you are incapable of actual debate but instead rely on childish name calling. Everyone reading this can clearly see it.

          There is nothing unusual about my appearance here as I always correct any misinformation about my work when found.

          Pielke’s incorrect assumptions have long been rebutted and clarifications made to the list to make that nonsense unlikely to happen in the future. Obviously I have a detailed rebuttal to Pielke’s nonsense, as I have repeatedly told you all of these can be found in the, “Rebuttals to Criticism” section of the list,

          Rebuttal to Roger Pielke Jr. – “Better Recheck That List”

          You give alarmists a bad name and I thank you for it.

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 21.1.1.2.1
            12 January 2014 at 6:13 pm

            One thing missing from your nitwit narrative: the part where I said anything remotely “alarmist”. The only matters of substance I’ve referenced here are entirely mainstream findings. The greenhouse effect, the proliferation of hockey sticks, NASA, Nature, and so on.

            Does that mean I have to show respect to someone (you) I consider to be a low-life piece of lying trash? Why, no, of course not. Scum like you deserve every contumely and humiliation, you occupy the same level of the gutter as the tobacco company executives who hid the evidence, and I’m happy to keep on serving it up for as long as you’re here.

            • Poptech 21.1.1.2.1.1
              12 January 2014 at 6:29 pm

              Your alarmism can be well established by you comments.

              Quote a single thing I lied about.

              Please continue with your childish name calling, as you continue to have no real argument and it is getting more embarrassing each time you post.

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                12 January 2014 at 6:34 pm

                Which comments exactly, Poptart?

                Perhaps you failed (miserably) logic 101, but the person making the claim supplies the evidence. No alarmism here. Just contempt. And ridicule.

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  12 January 2014 at 6:45 pm

                  PS: name one comment where your opinion of whether you tell lies is either here or there. It’s an established fact, even the title of the list is a lie: cf: Pielke et al.

                  Plus, have you mistaken me for someone who respects your opinion or trusts a single letter you type? You’re more of a fool than your considerable web-wide reputation for foolishness would allow.

                • Poptech …
                  12 January 2014 at 6:50 pm

                  Alarmist childish name caller,

                  Quote a single thing I lied about.

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    13 January 2014 at 8:57 am

                    My alarmism. Not to mention 1100+ other lies. Not to mention “peer-reviewed”, “supporting” and “arguments”.

                    This topic has been done to death at Greenfyre, at The Carbon Brief, at Real Climate, but you just don’t get it, do you Poptart?

                    In the immortal words of another anonymous commenter, “…you do not get to be prosecutor, judge, and jury at the same time”.

                    • Poptech …
                      13 January 2014 at 12:03 pm

                      Alarmist childish name caller,

                      1. Which counted paper is not peer-reviewed? (surely you can name one)
                      2. Which paper does not support a skeptic argument?

                      I see you continue to post long debunked nonsense that is found in the, “Rebuttals to Criticisms” section of the list,

                      Rebuttal to Greenfyre – “Poptart gets burned again, 900 times”
                      Rebuttal to The Carbon Brief – Energy and Environment – “journal of choice for climate skeptics” Analysing the 900+ skeptic papers part III”
                      Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment

                      The silly Real Climate post has nothing to do with the list but is debunked here nonetheless,

                      Myth: RealClimate Libel Suit

                      Surely you have a valid argument that has not been debunked ad nauseum? I have never seen such an amateur like yourself.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      13 January 2014 at 12:24 pm

                      He’s back to defend his tarnished honour, to re-assert his credibility in the face of abiding contempt. A legend in his own lunchtime, the last resort of denialist nitwits! Poptart, defender of all that’s derp.

                      I should concede a point, and then he can run to Roger Pielke et al and say “Look, an anonymous nobody on the internet couldn’t be bothered reading my Magnum Opus let alone refute it! I was right all along!”

                      We need better wingnuts.

                    • Poptech …
                      13 January 2014 at 12:49 pm

                      Alarmist childish name caller,

                      I am here simply to correct your misinformation for anyone else reading this. Amateurs like yourself just drive traffic to my site, thanks puppet.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      13 January 2014 at 12:56 pm

                      I expect Pielke et al get a few more hits too, and yet more people are laughing at you.

                    • Poptech …
                      13 January 2014 at 1:16 pm

                      What exactly is “Pielke et al.”?

                      Yet all the emails I receive are constantly thanking me for making these resources available to them.

                      When people are intellectually dishonest like yourself, people can see it and your propaganda does not work.

                      Incoming traffic keeps spiking, thank you for being my puppet.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      13 January 2014 at 1:49 pm

                      Here’s one: “The guy couldn’t find his tuckus with both hands and a GPS. Hates Sourcewatch, hates Snopes, hates any tool that might expose him for the lying libertarian loon he is (IMHO). He can be fun if you have a cruel streak and like to play with your prey.”

                      Dr. Ray Ladbury.

                      Shall I go on?

                      “I would advise you and Mr. Sheppard to check your sources before pontificating…you are confused.” – Dr. Gavin Schmidt

                      But wait, there’s more…

                    • Poptech …
                      13 January 2014 at 1:59 pm

                      Only 2011? …and from RealClimate, the site I am censored from replying? As I could so easily lay waste to all the lies, misinformation and strawman arguments they posted in those comments. Instead you simply spam more dishonest personal attacks.

                      I don’t hate Sourcewatch but rather exposed it for the propaganda source that it is – The Truth about SourceWatch

                      I have no idea what he is talking about with Snopes, as I have used that site many times in the past.

                      Politically I am independent and have never lied about anything.

                      If you are looking for dishonest personal attacks against myself they are all over the Internet, you should learn how to use a search engine.

                      Please continue, I do enjoy the traffic you are generating.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      13 January 2014 at 2:09 pm

                      Dishonest personal attacks from professors who work at NASA, Poptart? It must be hard to draw the attention of the authorities to your blog science when NASA professors have it in for you like that. Perhaps there’s something you can do? Have a little tantrum perhaps? Add another few kilos of manure to the list?

                    • Poptech …
                      13 January 2014 at 3:11 pm

                      Oh Ray is a scientist at NASA? It looks like I will need to make an example out of his libelous lies. Thank you for that information as I had no reason to look into who he was before.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      13 January 2014 at 7:40 pm

                      Don’t you know how to use the Interwebz? Just Google him. and please please please sue: it will hilarious watching your utter humiliation.

                    • Pop-Tech …
                      13 January 2014 at 9:55 pm

                      [deleted]

                      [lprent: Moronic troll doesn’t like being banned. I wonder how many IP ranges I will auto spam before this one gets the idea that fools with a limp ability to sustain an argument aren’t welcome. ]

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      13 January 2014 at 10:19 pm

                      Bye bye Poptart. Enjoy obscurity.

                • Paul …
                  12 January 2014 at 6:53 pm

                  Ignore him. It’s past his bedtime.

                  • Poptech …
                    12 January 2014 at 6:56 pm

                    It seems childish comments and no real arguments is all that can be stated here.

                    • Paul …
                      12 January 2014 at 6:58 pm

                      zzzzzzzz

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      13 January 2014 at 2:05 pm

                      “…their list doesn’t represent what they think it does.”

                      Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.

                      That’s what people who aren’t lying libertarian loons call valid criticism, Poptart. That you don’t like that doesn’t change the fact.

                      PS: I’m not trying to “do anything” about your list, I’m just poking you with a stick for fun. Haven’t you wrapped your handicapped Objectivist imagination around that yet?

                    • Poptech …
                      13 January 2014 at 3:05 pm

                      Alarmist childish name caller,

                      You really need to read the, “Rebuttals to Criticisms” section on the list,

                      Quote mining Roger Pielke Jr. and using it here out of context is intellectually dishonest,

                      Full quote: “Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers they’d better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn’t represent what they think it does.”

                      Rebuttal to Roger Pielke Jr. – “Better Recheck That List”

                      1. Roger Pielke Jr. falsely assumed why his papers and his father’s were listed, “Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers…”

                      Papers can be listed for two reasons,

                      (1) They support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW (His Hypothesis 1)

                      (2) They support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm defined as, “concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.” (Not defined or mentioned by him)

                      All of the Pielke’s papers were listed because they support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm not because they support skepticism of ACC/AGW (His Hypothesis 1).

                      You really should get a political science education. “Objectivists” follow the teachings of Ayn Rand and are not Libetarians. Rand actually disliked Libertarians. I am politically independent.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      13 January 2014 at 3:18 pm

                      No-one cares what you think Rand did or didn’t do, Poptart.

                    • Poptech …
                      13 January 2014 at 3:32 pm

                      Childish name caller,

                      I am glad I can help with your political science education,

                      http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ar_libertarianism_qa

                      Q: What do you think of the libertarian movement?

                      AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement. [FHF 71]

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      13 January 2014 at 3:36 pm

                      It just gets better: he’s got all her quotes on the tips of his fingers, I’ll bet 😆

                    • Poptech …
                      13 January 2014 at 3:38 pm

                      For people are not computer illiterate like yourself, they have all her quotes at their fingertips – it is called the Internet. Would you like an education on how to use it properly too?

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      13 January 2014 at 3:42 pm

                      Hey, Poptart, that was a good one, well played. Geez I feel chastened. No, wait…

                    • Poptech …
                      13 January 2014 at 3:45 pm

                      Childish name caller, you are welcome for the education.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      13 January 2014 at 3:55 pm

                      Thank you Mr. Poptart. While you’re explaining the minute tiny details of the micro-differences between two groups of sociopaths, did you come across Ms. Rand’s sage advice on wallpaper styles? Or which brand of soap to use? Anything at all remotely useful instead of the fact-free tripe that has made her the darling of low-IQ inbreds all over the wingnut infested world?

                      It would be such a help if you could teach me more about her favourite hats, too. Please Mt. Poptart. You too could be of some use for once.

                    • Poptech …
                      13 January 2014 at 5:00 pm

                      Childish name caller, I had no idea you were a zealot misogynist and part of the war on women.

                      [lprent: Foolish troll. I just looked through your comments over the weekend and it appears that in almost every comment you did provided little or no information, linked to or quoted material that you couldn’t argue yourself, and continuously abused everyone. http://thestandard.org.nz/?s=%40author+poptech&isopen=block&search_comments=true&search_sortby=date

                      Banned permanently as being a complete dick. ]

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      13 January 2014 at 5:03 pm

                      Well you can add that to the huge pile of other things of which you are completely ignorant, then, can’t you?

                    • Poptech …
                      13 January 2014 at 9:48 pm

                      Typical censorship when you are unable to debate the facts.

                      I have never seen someone be on the receiving end of abuse like I have here and then get banned for defending myself.

                      [lprent: That was why I provided a link to all of your comments at the point I banned you. I figured you were too stupid to be objective about your own behaviour and it was pretty clear that you hadn’t read the policy.

                      • We tend to frown on link-whoring your own site. Which appears to be what you started off with.
                      • The debate here are defined as being robust, but it must be debate. Simply abusing people because they said your links were ridiculous is not.
                      • Nor does your later behaviour of simply cutting and pasting largely irrelevant waffle and links. Debate involves what other people objections – not simply crapping on other peoples sites.
                      • It was also clear from your selections that you had virtually no understanding about the topic you were trying to debate. Merely being able to look up search terms on the web does not constitute understanding.
                      • Your behaviour matched a rather ancient and extremely troll pattern that is about as predictable as the effect of heat on water. Being a bit of egotist is pretty common on the nets (aren’t we all?). But you should at least explore the possibility of becoming one capable of engaging in competent debate.
                      • Your fatuous faux “surprise” at getting booted is a behaviour that I first saw on the nets in debate three decades ago (and found boring then).
                      • Come back after the next amnesty – but I’d suggest only when you can contribute something more substantial than what appears to be a simple-minded juvenile pissing contest.

                      ]

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    13 January 2014 at 8:25 am

                    That’s the funny part. The only people who don’t ignore Poptart are people like me who use him for sport. Meanwhile the attention he desperately craves, from credible people in authority, is denied him, and he still doesn’t understand why 😆

                    • Poptech …
                      13 January 2014 at 11:54 am

                      You seem incredibly confused as I am only commenting here to correct your nonsense about my work, other than that I have no interest in anything you say.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      13 January 2014 at 12:26 pm

                      You seem terminally cretinous and tiresome, and while I consider mocking the afflicted a bit of a character flaw, I’m still going to indulge myself, chump.

                    • Poptech …
                      13 January 2014 at 12:50 pm

                      How does it feel to know you have been spiking inbound traffic from this website?

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      13 January 2014 at 12:54 pm

                      How does it feel to know that with every pair of eyeballs comes another bullshit detector?

                    • Poptech …
                      13 January 2014 at 1:12 pm

                      The only bullshit can be found in those who desperately attack the list with lies, misinformation and strawman arguments. I deal with amateurs like yourself all the time.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      13 January 2014 at 1:29 pm

                      Poptart, let’s just clear up that little misunderstanding: I’m not attacking the list (others having done so far more effectively than I can be bothered to) insomuch as I’m attacking you personally, especially in regard to your motivations. It’s hard to tell whether you’re dupe or duplicitous, but either way I think you deserve ridicule and contempt.

                      As time goes by, I think we’ll see more and more climate-related lawsuits against the peddlers of this propaganda, but you have a cast-iron excuse: just have your lawyer argue that your cack-handed incompetence and general abject pointlessness cannot have had any effect other than to drive people to more credible sources.

                    • Poptech …
                      13 January 2014 at 1:36 pm

                      Alarmist childish name caller,

                      You can’t attack the list because no one has managed to come up with a valid criticism. You simply spam long debunked links that have no relation to the current version of the list. Feel free to post any criticism you think is valid so I can embarrass you here by refuting it in extensive detail. Come on amateur.

                      Bring on these baseless lawsuits so I can actually make some money off all my work. My lawyer would have a field day taking their money.

                      Not only is there nothing you can do about my list, you are driving traffic to it! I could never have asked for a better puppet than yourself.

    • MrSmith 21.2
      11 January 2014 at 9:12 pm

      We just don’t do long term thinking and planing well, shit we can hardly plan tomorrow nights dinner, so go easy on granny Glen, it’s hand to mouth for most of us.

    • Intrinsicvalue 21.3
      13 January 2014 at 2:52 pm

      Well beyond, seeing as the earth is currently cooling.

    • Paul 21.4
      14 January 2014 at 6:29 pm

      Sorry, no, according to your prophet Al Gore, climate change already destroyed the world, did you sleep through the end of the world?

      • Colonial Viper 21.4.1
        14 January 2014 at 6:49 pm

        My friend, it’s coming up soon. Please be patient and wait your turn.

        By the way, if you know anyone under twenty years of age, they are truly screwed. You may rest satisfied in the knowledge that you helped that along.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 21.4.2
        14 January 2014 at 7:12 pm

        Al Gore is no-one’s prophet. If you want to know in the context of climate science, I’m impressed by Arrhenius, and before him Fourier. Prof David Archer helped me to a better understanding of Quantum Mechanics (particularly the significance of “collapsing the waveform” type rhetoric), and many others have done great work, but Arrhenius figured out the future with a simple mathematical model before quantum mechanics even existed.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 21.4.2.1
          14 January 2014 at 7:16 pm

          By the way, I am used to losing 2-5% of my plum crop to the birds. I don’t like the increasing extra wind damage that much though, so I’ll thank you to put up or shut up when it comes to your personal beliefs about Physics.

      • Paul 21.4.3
        14 January 2014 at 7:26 pm

        This is another Paul. Not me.
        I follow Science, unlike this Paul

Links to post