Sea sick Andrew Bolt: now just making stuff up about sea surface temperatures

With the evidence of climate change becoming even more overwhelming, and the majority of public opinion indicating acceptance of its reality (watching one half of Australia burn while the other drowns will have that effect), Andrew Bolt is getting desperate. 

What’s a poor denier boy to do?

Well, you could accept the overwhelming evidence that climate change is real.

Or you can stick your head in bucket and scream “La-la-la-la! Not happening!”

Andrew of course accepts the later course of action.

In his most recent cut-and-paste attack on Tim Flannery, Bolt makes the startling claim that sea surface temperatures have not risen.

How does Andrew prove this startling scientific truth?

Bolt cites his favorite denier of both climate change and evolution - Dr. Roy Spencer – to argue the globe is not warming.

Spencer produces the following graph on his blog:

By golly no warming claims Andrew!

Gosh dang it, I mean even the graphs from the Bureau of Meteorology show no warming!

BOM_SST

SST data from BOM

Well look at that – no warming trend!

Take that warmists!

Huzzah! Global warming is falsified!

Oh wait…

What’s that.

You want some more SST data Andrew?

You want the whole BOM graph?

You want SST data since 1950 huh?

Zing Andrew – a warming trend.

Scientists do science. They go into the real world and, collect data. Form a hypothesis. Test it. Publish their research.

Climate change scep… I mean deniers, fiddle with the X-Y axis of Excel generated graphs.

Andrew: liar, liar, the sea is on fire.

About these ads
Tagged , , , , ,

140 thoughts on “Sea sick Andrew Bolt: now just making stuff up about sea surface temperatures

  1. FrankD says:

    Speaking of making stuff up, the Bolter excelled himself in todays column. Went the full dummy-spit toys-out-of-the-pram on the Climate Commission’s “Angry Summer” report. The usual crapulous rant, but there was one bit that made me LOL:”But how does one Australian heat wave prove anything about global temperatures?”

    Andrew usually uses local weather cherry-picks to play down global temperature metrics. Now he uses a false claim of mild global temperatures to try to play down Australia’s record breaking summer.

    Local beats global. Global beats local. The circle is complete…

  2. john byatt says:

    apparently we have their facts and our massaged conspiracy,

    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/giss.gif

  3. zoot says:

    You’ll find that the datasets which get massaged the most have 1998 slipping down the rankings the fastest.

    Another conspiracy?

    • Debunker says:

      Funnily enough, even by Skeptikal’s preferred dataset, we still get a warming trend, even starting from 1998.

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/last:360/mean:12/from:1998/plot/uah/from:1998/trend

      Whatever can be the matter? Maybe GW is continuing despite all denialist denials… :-D

    • Dr No says:

      How about those odds for this year or next being the warmest on record?
      Eric and Skeptical cannot offer 100 to 1 nor 10 to 1 nor 5 to 1.

      Maybe they would be comfortable with offering even money?
      i.e. my $1 says a new record against their $1. Winnings to go to charity.

      Or how about this one? The odds that Melbourne will, this year, set a new warm record for March.
      Surely this is unlikely given the sun spot phase or whatever.
      Surely the climate is not warming.
      Surely the odds must be 10 to 1 at least.

      • Skeptikal says:

        Dr No, you might need some help. Try this page here.

      • Dr No says:

        As predicted.
        Cannot put your money where your mouth is.
        Even for a dollar.
        Even for charity.

        The upshot of your declining is that you are inadvertently revealing deep-seated concerns- namely that the alarmists may be correct all along. In fact, you are implying that the odds of another record warm year must be less than even money.
        i.e. deep down, you must be expecting it to happen – irrespective of what you say.

        I think it is you who may need help.

  4. Debunker says:

    Skeptikal says:

    “The 1998 record should have been broken by now. When we get a year hotter than 1998, you’ll have something to crow about”

    Zoot says:

    “Hey Delusional, the hottest year on record was 2010 followed by 2005, 1998 comes in third.”

    Skeptical replies:

    ” I was talking about trends, not individual years”

    Err Skeptikal, how is that not self contradiction? Talk about moving the goal posts!

    How do you expect to be taken seriously (to the extent that you are :-D ), when you can’t even lie consistently. Nuff said…

    • Skeptikal says:

      Debunker, I was talking to Nick about a Holocene period graph which I put up a link to before… has nothing to do with 1998 being the hottest year conversation.

      • Debunker says:

        Right,

        So you now admit that we have something to crow over since the 1998 record has been broken… twice?

        And by the way, the graphs I linked to used Hadcut3, which had a known cooling bias because they didn’t include all of the Polar regions, which I’m sure you know are heating at a faster rate, due to the well known phenomenon of Polar Amplification. (which curiously, none of the denialist sites have even heard of).

        So, if you use Hadcrut4, it is still an upward trend, even starting from 1998.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:360/mean:12/from:1998/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/trend

        Point taken about reply to Nick. Apologies for that, however it still seems disingenuous to use individual data points in one argument then concentrate on trends in another. You use whatever gives you the answer you want. That is still cherry picking is it not?

      • Skeptikal says:

        Debunker, if Nick wants to talk about trends and you want to talk about individual years, then it’s hardly disingenuous on my part to maintain two conversations simultaneously when those two conversations are about two different things entirely.

        So you now admit that we have something to crow over since the 1998 record has been broken… twice?

        No. I still maintain that 1998 was the hottest year… as per the UAH dataset. You have nothing to crow about. As I said earlier to zoot… You’ll find that the datasets which get massaged the most have 1998 slipping down the rankings the fastest.

  5. Debunker says:

    Eric says:

    “17 years with no warming is not a cherry pick, its a trend. And we’re 1 year away from that”

    Lets fact check that.

    Since 2000 (13 years) the trend is up
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:360/mean:12/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/trend

    Since 1999 (14 years) the trend is up:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:360/mean:12/from:1999/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999/trend

    Since 1997 (15 years) trend is up, though slightly flatter
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:360/mean:12/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend

    Since 1996 (16 years) the trend is up, definitely.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:360/mean:12/from:1996/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/trend

    Since 1995 (17 years) the trend is up, very definitely.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:360/mean:12/from:1995/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/trend

    Basically, any year before that, the trend is up, massively. The only year where the trend is flat is 1998. So that’s not a cherry pick Eric?

    Once again, he has been caught uncritically regurgitating standard denialist talking points without even bothering to check the facts himself. And he claims to be a skeptic? Why pick on 1998? Is it because that is the only year that gives the answer he wants? So how does Eric define a cherry pick in his bizarro world? How come the deniers always get to pick the dates?

    Please explain Eric. We would all really like to know

    • Skeptikal says:

      You don’t seem to like 1998 for some reason.

      • Debunker says:

        Cripes Skeptikal!

        Do you even know what a cherry pick is? The reason you denialistas pick 1998 is because it was just about the hottest year for the entire last century. That gives you a high point to draw your horizontal line from. Hence, it is a deceitful presentation of the data, because it ignores all the other years where the trend is up.

        Pick any other year last century and you get a positive slope. that is standard denialist methodology. Focus on the one tiny contradictory data point in a mountain of confirmatory evidence, and declare that invalidates global warming.

        Extreme average heat across all of Australia all of this summer? Extreme heat and drought in the US? No problem, just link to some obscure Siberian town which registered a record low, in one particular place, one particular day. Pah! Where’s your global warming now hey?

        The Arctic hits a new record low for ice extent, after having lost 80% of it’s ice volume in just 30 years; (way more ice loss than at any time since the last ice age). What me worry? Nope, just point to some minor ice gain in the Antarctic as Jo Nova did, (during Southern Hemisphere winter for Chrisakes!).

        Can you guys not see the extent to which cherry picking goes on in the denial community? It is just about your only mode of argument, mainly because you really have to “torture the data” to produce your “no warming” mantra.

      • Skeptikal says:

        Debunker says:

        The reason you denialistas pick 1998 is because it was just about the hottest year for the entire last century.

        That was a hot year, no denying that… but it’s a level of warmth which hasn’t been exceeded in any year since. In a warming world, new global temperature records should be, as mike would put it, the new normal. The 1998 record should have been broken by now. When we get a year hotter than 1998, you’ll have something to crow about… until then, your precious AGW theory has a problem.

      • Nick says:

        Outed yourself as absolutely bloody clueless,Skep… BTW,Go back and look at the Holocene Optimum chart you linked to,and look for 2004 on the RH axis. You couldn’t even read that chart…

      • zoot says:

        Hey Delusional, the hottest year on record was 2010 followed by 2005, 1998 comes in third.

      • Skeptikal says:

        Nick, if you put a trendline through that chart… it would be a cooling trend, regardless of the 2004 temperature. I was talking about trends, not individual years ;)

      • Nick says:

        GISS puts 2006 and 2010 as equal or greater to 1998.That chart has the most data coverage. Cherry season again.

        And considering the PROCESS [enhanced GH effect],the PHYSICS,the MATHS [carbon accounting] ,the ocean/atmosphere dynamics tells you that one year does not mean anything.the trend is predicted by the properties of the extra GHGs perturbing a system with varying time responses. It will warm,no matter year-to-year or decadal variation.

        Don’t look at numbers without considering what they represent.

      • Skeptikal says:

        Hey Zoo, it depends on which dataset you look at. UAH still has 1998 as the warmest year. You’ll find that the datasets which get massaged the most have 1998 slipping down the rankings the fastest.

      • Nick says:

        Re the Holo chart,Skep, how do you explain the trajectory to 2004 from the LIA. It’s a greater movement in a shorter time [150y] than any other variation in 8000 years. Don’t say ‘the sun’ because that is denialist chum,and bunk according to many individual studies. Solar variation over the last 350 years has been overstated by some.

      • Skeptikal says:

        Nick, a spike is just a spike. Can be any number of reasons, but I’m not going to speculate. The fact remains that the Holo graph shows a ‘long term’ cooling trend and making a fuss about a short term spike isn’t going to change the long term trend.

      • Nick says:

        “Making a fuss” about AGWs perturbation of the long gentle fall [less than a degree C /two thousand years] from the Holocene Optimum? It’s not as though we do not have ample evidence of glacial retreat revealing surfaces not uncovered for 2500 to 5500 years, Our little ‘fuss’ is the most dramatic excursion in climate since we climbed out of the LGM.

        “Can be any number of reasons” No,it can’t and no it isn’t. Sounds like an appeal to ignorance to me. Shunning knowledge.

  6. john byatt says:

    We have already sorted this Watt a load of fudge out
    Tamino has bothered to whack him again

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/fact-checking-the-cherry-pickers-anthony-watts-edition/

  7. john byatt says:

    Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu yesterday announced it was scrapping the former Brumby government’s climate change target of reducing carbon emissions

    and today they scrapped him

  8. john byatt says:

    67?

  9. Skeptikal says:

    This would be funny, if it wasn’t so sinister…

    The crowd at skeptical-pseudoscience are behind a new spam game where you win points by spamming.

    The church of climate change is really showing its desperation in trying to “spread the word” with this game. I’m sure that some children will be all starry-eyed at the prospect of winning points and gaining a higher rank, but this tactic is sending out two clear messages from the alarmist camp…

    1/ That global warming isn’t a problem for adults, but rather it’s a game for children… and

    2/ That spamming is now somehow acceptable.

    Desperate times call for desperate measures, but you have to draw a line in the sand. Blatently using children to promote a cause crosses that line. Children are very impressionable and trusting, and to use children in this manner is utterly deplorable.

    • john byatt says:

      Thanks, great way to get the science out there, will get the grandchildren involved.

      • john byatt says:

        Kenji is in third placed not fair, he gets to read Watts crap first,

        “the dog spewed when he read my homework”

    • Eric Worrall says:

      I hope the alarmist missionaries get the same welcome we give to creationists, scientologists, and other anti-science nuts.

      • john byatt says:

        Attacks eugenics but votes for the eugenics party

        Attacks creationists but has exactly the same arguments against climate change as they have

        thinks that polar bear numbers are rapidly increasing .

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I know you prefer to get your science from the WWF, but here is what the people who are charged with managing the animals have to say:-

        http://env.gov.nu.ca/sites/default/files/foxe_basin_polar_bears_2012.pdf

        Our results suggest that Nunavut’s management regime has enabled polar bear abundance in FB to remain relatively stable.

        So despite local native hunters killing significant numbers of bears, there has been no drop in population, in the surveyed area.

        Frankly I don’t know what the fuss about polar bears are – they are a vicious top level predator, which poses a significant threat to local people (every so often someone gets eaten). I’d certainly quietly euthanise anything that dangerous which started hanging around anyone I cared about, license or not.

      • john byatt says:

        Too easy

      • Nick says:

        Oh,lawd,Eric thinks he has to rationalise the dwindling of polar bear populations: ‘they occasionally eat people’ so we can let them die out…what a comedian.

    • Care to answer my questions Skep?

      • Skeptikal says:

        I can only find two questions from you….

        Can you demonstrate that all the votes in this popularity contest are representative of the wider community? Can you demonstrate that opt in events such as these are statistically valid?

        I didn’t think you really wanted an answer, but since you do….

        I’ll just say that I can demonstrate this about as much as Mike can demonstrate that “the majority of public opinion indicating acceptance”

        I will point out that blogs are fast becoming the new media. The bloggies are an online award for an online media and, while you can’t really prove anything about the wider community based on the voting at the bloggies, it is a reasonably good indicator of the views of the people who use blogs as an information source. If you use this as a sizable subset of the wider community, then you can draw conclusions as to the entire community as is done with political opinion polling. While political opinion polling does have some margins of error, the shear size of the majority of skeptical sites to make the bloggies finals render any error margins inconsequential. While you can’t ‘demonstrate’ anything from this, it is a good indicator.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Don’t be such a sore loser Uki – your denial of the relative popularity of skeptic vs alarmist blogs does you no credit as a scientist.

        • “Don’t be such a sore loser Uki – your denial of the relative popularity of skeptic vs alarmist blogs does you no credit as a scientist.”

          As a scientist Eric, I understand the importance of experimental design as it applies to polling. My opinion on the relative merit of a poorly designed popularity contest is based on my knowledge of what is actually in this case very very basic statistical design. Being the non scientist that you are Eric, just like Skep, you fail to understand. I provided a link to Skep where he can take a basic stats course. I recommend you undertake the same so that when you talk about statistics we can at least consider taking your opinion seriously.

      • Skeptikal says:

        The US presidential elections are an ‘opt in’ popularity contest, and they use that system to elect their country’s president. Of course, there would be some people over there complaining that it isn’t really representative of the views of the people… but I’d imagine those complaints would all be coming from the losing camp.

        If the alarmist sites had dominated the finals, I’m sure you’d had been jumping for joy and pointing out the community sentiment and heaping praise on the bloggies as a thermometer for the opinions of the wider community.

        The reality is that sites like WUWT get more pageviews in a day than your site would get all year. This popularity is reflected in the bloggies. You really have to come to terms with the reality that being in the unpopular minority means your not going to win any popularity contests. Dismiss the bloggies on the grounds of statistical significance if you want, but that’s not going to change much… except maybe your level of self esteem.

        • If you want to hold the US elections up as a good model of democracy then we are going to disagree about that as well. I like compulsory voting.

          As for WUWT getting more hits in a day than I do in a year, well, that just tells me there are plenty of idiots with too much time on their hands. If that puts me in some sort of popularity minority well, that’s great. Clowns are always most popular with children.

          If the result was the other way around and denier dens weren’t as popular, I would give it as much credence as I am this current result because unlike you, I understand how meaningless the results are. If it was conducted with people randomly selecting a representative sample size of people and asked them for their favourite science blog, I would not be surprised to find more than 75% saying they don’t visit science blogs and a substantial number nominating YouTube.

          No self-esteem issues here either Skep. I know what I know and I know what I don’t know so don’t need to mask any inadequacies by pretending to know what I’m talking about…unlike most deniers I have come across.

          I’m curious though Skep,do you believe what you consider to be the broader public opinion on blogs has any bearing on the actual science of climate change? For example is the Arctic going to stop melting because unninformed people with nothing better to do than visit unscientific blogs vote in a poorly formatted popularity contest? Are the 29000 species of plants, animal and fungi identified as undergoing anthropogenic climate change induced range shifts going to suddenly turn around and go back to where they came from? Is the pH of the ocean going to miraculously become more basic? Public opinion about blogs in meaningless and to give it any weight at all in the context of the climate ‘debate’ is….there’s no other word for it….stupid. Are you stupid Skep?

      • Skeptikal says:

        uknowispeaksense says:

        I provided a link to Skep where he can take a basic stats course.

        I suggest you send that link to Lewandowsky.

      • john byatt says:

        The same idiots on WUWT are the same idiots at Jonova climate madness and all the other blogs,
        a core of deniers, number about 7000 world wide,

        they even tout for votes on each others blogs,

        multiple hits each day by the same people give them the numbers.
        We even give them a hit whenever we need a laugh.

        In Australia the climate sceptics party were beaten by the informal vote in some places

        informal vote therefore more popular?

        ,

        • Yep, says something when the general public, where everyone is expected to vote and people can’t vote twice, thinks you are so bad, they’d rather have nobody running the ship. Actually, John it’s funny when you see some of the crazies that did attract more votes than them.

          FORMAL 12,722,233 96.25
          TOTAL 13,217,393 93.83
          Australian Labor Party 4,469,734 35.13
          Liberal/Nationals 2,724,940 21.42
          The Greens 1,667,315 13.11
          Liberal 1,092,601 8.59
          Liberal National Party 1,015,062 7.98
          INFORMAL 495,160 3.75
          Family First 267,493 2.1
          Australian Sex Party 259,583 2.04
          Liberal Democrats (LDP) 230,191 1.81
          Shooters and Fishers 214,119 1.68
          DLP – Democratic Labor Party 134,987 1.06
          CDP Christian Party 127,894 1.01
          Democrats 80,645 0.63
          One Nation 70,672 0.56
          Unendorsed/Ungrouped Amalgamated 55,786 0.44
          Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party 48,547 0.38
          The Nationals 42,334 0.33
          Country Liberals 39,268 0.31
          Socialist Alliance 32,580 0.26
          Carers Alliance 28,578 0.22
          The Climate Sceptics 25,758 0.2
          Senator On-Line 17,441 0.14
          Building Australia Party 17,241 0.14
          Socialist Equality Party 13,945 0.11
          Citizens Electoral Council 13,243 0.1
          Secular Party of Australia 11,981 0.09
          Australia First Party 9,680 0.08
          Communist Alliance 6,999 0.06
          Non-Custodial Parents Party 3,616 0.03
          Senate Ghost Groups Amalgamated 0 0

      • Skeptikal says:

        uknowispeaksense says:

        If the result was the other way around and denier dens weren’t as popular, I would give it as much credence as I am this current result because unlike you, I understand how meaningless the results are.

        Is that an admission that Lewandowsky’s ‘faked moon landing’ (opt-in) survey is meaningless? Should he now take your online course to see how silly his findings are? Should this survey have even been conducted? Should activists now renounce it?

      • john byatt says:

        Lew was not looking for numbers just links between the crazies and denial of the science
        do you really need any more proof than Monckton, the deniers hero endorsing a goon who brings people back from the dead and talks to god, these are the loonies that you are stuck with,

        “Just because Monckton is a raving loony does not mean we all are”

        want to bet?

        we have a peer reviewed paper telling us that you are weirdos

        cue eric and Osama

      • rational troll says:

        Science award? Get real. Where are the nominations for newsicence.com, wired.com, scienceblogs.com, even fucking theconversation.edu.au is far more deserving of a science award than any of the blogs listed, skeptical science included. The bloggies are a joke. Allow me to indulge myself with a poor analogy, Home and Away has won 38 logies, quality television??? yeah right.

      • Nick says:

        Lew’s stats were fine. McIntyre did not know the methodology,and dissembled that Lew’s must be suspect. McI is little more than hubris.

      • Skeptikal says:

        uknowispeaksense says:

        Have you read the whole Lewandowsky manuscript?

        Have you thought about answering my questions?

        • Your questions speak to the fact that you haven’t actually read the paper. Read it, and then come and revise your questions because they are built on a false premise.

      • Skeptikal says:

        Stop talking shit and answer the questions. The premise is that if ‘opt-in’ surveys are not a good indicator of anything, as you previously stated, then lewandowsky’s ‘opt-in’ survey must also be worthless. You can’t have it both ways… either these kinds of surveys have value or they don’t. I don’t need to read his manuscript to work out that it was an online ‘opt-in’ survey. It was a more restricted survey than the bloggies. With the bloggies anyone can go to their site and vote. With Lewandowsky’s survey, it only caught people visiting a handful of sites. So now answer my previous questions.

        • FFS…one is quantitative and one is qualitative. Unlike you, I’ve read the paper. I understand the analysis. Your questions are shit because you are asking from a position of ignorance. Really, go and do that stats course, read the paper and come back when you know something.

      • Skeptikal says:

        Your nothing more than a TROLL!

        You expect others to answer your questions, yet you won’t answer the questions put to you. Go and crawl back into your hole where you’ll feel save from those nasty deniers.

        • Hang on. You’re questioning my take on a paper you’re too lazy to read by your own admission. You ask questions out of ignorance and repeat denier memes adnauseum on a website dedicated to providing factual information and you call me a troll? That’s a classic.

      • Skeptikal says:

        uknowispeakshit says:

        Hang on. You’re questioning my take on a paper you’re too lazy to read by your own admission.

        Surely you can’t be that thick, nobody can be that thick. We are not talking about what’s in the paper… we are talking about the ‘opt-in’ survey method of collecting data used by both Lewandowsky and the bloggies. It doesn’t matter what Lewandowsky’s interpretation of the data is, it’s the data collection method which is the issue. You claim that an opt-in survey produces meaningless results.

        You wont answer the questions because you’re a troll.

        • You are determined to show everyone just how ignorant you are aren’t you? Of course the type of data being collected influences the methodology employed to collect it. I’m pretty sure I covered that in High School. Did you do vege maths or something?

          I won’t answer the questions because they are the wrong questions. You don’t understand why they are wrong because you don’t know anything about even basic statistics. I feel like I’m talking to a 5 year old. It’s not me who’s thick sunshine. You think you’re being clever but alI see is someone who doesn’t recognise their own inadequacies. So you can call me thick and you can call me a troll and it won’t bother me because neither is true, but you are an ignorant fool. It’s just a shame you lack the self-awareness to recognise your limitations.

    • rational troll says:

      Wouldn’t be anything like this would it? Are you going to lose your [edit] at Marohasy?

      http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/11/a-new-book-by-geologist-marc-hendrickx/

      Reality drop is hardly spamming. Using your logic, you are spamming by posting on this site.

    • How about Watts’ flying monkeys being asked to post reviews of books the Church of Idiots disapproves of?

  10. Conrad says:

    In its shabby mono-vision crusade to distort the science reporting on the truth about global warming, Cut & Paste (6 March) cherry picks the words of Tim Flannery. When quizzed on why ‘the earth’ has not reached some previously forecast temperature rise Flannery pointed out: “we see a continually strong rise in temperature. 90 per cent of the heat that is trapped by the greenhouse gases goes into the ocean, and you look at the whole of the Earth, we’re seeing a very strong warming trend.” The full facts can be seen if the reader enters into Google the terms: Andrew Glikson, The Conversation, Fact check: has global warming paused?

    • john byatt says:

      We had another “Tim said that the dams would never fill again” letter in the sunshine coast daily today, I have put up $100 that the writer cannot produce a quote from Tim in context to that effect.

      will he take me up on that

    • Eric Worrall says:

      You guys wouldn’t be down to reading signs and portents if the surface temperature was still rising. And I notice none of you are willing to predict when it will start rising again.

      • john byatt says:

        predict when it will start rising.?

        You have even accepted that 2013 will be above 2012 which was above 2011,

        in the Aussie language we call this rising

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I’m predicting a slight wobble. If that is all 1/3 of all anthropogenic CO2 ever produced can achieve, emergency over.

      • john byatt says:

        A Worrall Wobble

      • You mean you’re guessing, Eric.

      • zoot says:

        I’m predicting a slight wobble.

        That would indicate you are predicting a year that is cooler than the one before. Since you already acknowledge that 2013 will be warmer than 2012 let’s have your prediction of when the cooler year will appear – 2014? 2015? never?

      • Dr No says:

        All right then.
        How about 5 to 1. Surely you cannot pass up this opportunity to win $1

  11. Skeptikal says:

    With the evidence of climate change becoming even more overwhelming, and the majority of public opinion indicating acceptance of its reality

    With 4 out of 5 finalists in the 2013 bloggies science category being skeptical sites, you might not be fully connected to public opinion.

    • zoot says:

      You assume the bloggies are connected to public opinion. Not very skeptical of you.

      • Skeptikal says:

        Do I detect sour grapes?

      • zoot says:

        Skepticism, not sour grapes.
        The bloggies are an online poll (are they not?) and I have been involved in gaming enough online polls to be skeptical of their relevance to the real world.
        Skepticism. You really should try it one day.

      • Nick says:

        “Do I detect sour grapes” No,more like amusement. A few hundred desperate deniers are gaming the system. Why don’t you do some science instead,chumps.

    • Can you demonstrate that all the votes in this popularity contest are representative of the wider community? Can you demonstrate that opt in events such as these are statistically valid? The issue at stake here is that these denier dens are not scientific blogs. They are echo chambers full of pseudoscience, conspiracy ideation and political ideology… three things that science is not. The fact you seem to think the angry white men who frequent those site are representative of broader public opinion says more about you than the bloggies science category does about science. http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/angry-white-men/

      • Eric Worrall says:

        A fair comment is that of people who take enough interest in climate to bother to vote, the overwhelming majority are skeptics.

        You’re right, it might not be representative of the wider community. But it certainly suggests that people who care enough to act are overwhelmingly sceptical.

        • “A fair comment is that of people who take enough interest in climate to bother to vote, the overwhelming majority are skeptics.”

          Bullshit Eric. For a start, you mean deniers. If you think the people at WUWT and Nova and Climate Audit etc are sceptics, then you don’t know what a sceptic is. Not once has any one of them ever questioned anything the gurus they sycophantically bootlick say. They automatically oppose anything they perceive to be green before even reading whatever it is first. You are guilty of exactly that same thing Eric.When given references you don’t even bother looking, you just automatically oppose. That is not scepticism. It is wilfully ignorant denial. http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/denier-comment-of-the-day-november-15-2012/

          As for taking enough interest to “bother to vote”, unlike WUWT and the other denier echo chambers, I don’t recall SKS, ClimateCrocks, this blog, or any other real science blogs calling on their readers to vote for them in the bloggies. They are more concerned with presenting their readers with factual information about the science than sending out flying monkeys to help them win meaningless popularity contests.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Hilarious – you didn’t win because you are too noble.

    • Public opinion? Like this? http://climatechangecommunication.org/sites/default/files/reports/Six-Americas-September-2012.pdf

      The bloggies are disconnected from public opinion. And, sadly, science.

  12. Moth says:

    It’s little different than mad Monckton and the summer of ’98.

    Of course you won’t find a trend if you cherry pick the trend out of existence. Maybe Bolt and Spencer should co-author an article and get their startling revelation into the peer reviewed lit! Amazing stuff!

  13. john byatt says:

    Ice free Arctic from CO2 emissions outside the Arctic not considered as part of the threat to polar bears, threat must come from hunting or polltions to even be considered

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-court-polar-bear-threatened-species-20130301,0,1873606.story

    • john byatt says:

      well that might be construed as politicians crossed with pollution , so politions it is

    • john byatt says:

      The polar bears now have to come off the ice earlier and wait longer to get back on to hunt,

      Polar bears rely on seals for food which they catch on the ice. A polar bear isn’t a good enough swimmer to catch a seal in the water. Polar bears must eat enough food in the winter (about 8 months long) to keep them going through the summer (about 4 months long) when they can’t catch seals. With global warming, the winters are shorter and the summer’s are longer, so instead of having 8 months to fatten up for a 4 month fast, then may only have 7 months of hunting for a 5 month fast. A bear who hasn’t had enough food may starve.

      research for the times they leave the ice and return probably already showing that they are, despite the denial, already likely to become extinct over coming years, not enough hunting time left,

  14. “but still require 25 more comments from twit to complete.

    feed him something in relation to each and complete today”

    He’s ignoring me John lol. Ask him about…..let me see…..just checking the list….. polar bear numbers.

  15. catweazle666 says:

    Well, you could accept the overwhelming evidence that climate change is real.

    I am not aware that anyone, anywhere has ever claimed that the climate doesn’t change, and your constant claims that such people exist seriously detracts from your credibility.

    No wonder less and less of the people who you need to impress with your rectitude in order to influence the opinion of those who are in positions to actually change policy are deserting your cause in droves.

    • disingenuous. You’re not even trying to be clever.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Hilarious you’re still citing China as some kind of new wave of climate consciousness, while conveniently ignoring the fact they are building a new coal power station every week.

      In case the last few decades hadn’t shown you, China is a corrupt, lying totalitarian regime. They’ve been filtering the truth to their own people since Mao, and they’re obviously experimenting with how many suckers they can land in the outside world, in an effort to spread their influence.

      • john byatt says:

        Ah prejudice, saves a lot of time in fact checking.

        why do you hate the Chinese ? eugenics ?

      • Nick says:

        Better pull your shares out of Chinese markets then, sweetie. And make your own undies.

        This ‘coal-fired power station every week’ thing is starting to grate. Name the 52 they opened last year please.They may be planning many but a lot do not have a start date,but they know that many are unlikely to be built because the resource is getting too expensive and production bottlenecks are being felt,their infrastructure is choked with coal transport already,they do not have enough water,and as you’ve argued elsewhere,their tolerance for intensive pollution is waning. They are at the stage of mandating energy efficiency because that is a more viable option than endless contruction.

      • john byatt says:

        100Twit app.

        but still require 25 more comments from twit to complete.

        feed him something in relation to each and complete today

  16. Eric Worrall says:

    There hasn’t actually been any significant surface temperature warming since 1997. Temperatures now are very similar to temperatures in 1997.

    So the debate is not whether there has been any warming (as in change in thermometer readings) since 1997, but what the significance of the flat period is.

    16 years is a short period, but its only one year short of Ben Santer’s minimum period of significance for a climate trend.

    https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

    When we hit 17 years with no warming, in one year’s time, will you all be intellectually honest enough to pause, and consider the possibility you might be wrong about climate change?

    Or will you gloss over Ben Santer’s rather unfortunate prediction, and keep extending the deadline, in the hope that nature will finally provide an uptick on which you can hang your apocalyptic fantasies?

    • Dr No says:

      Put your money where your mouth is.
      Offer me odds of 100 to 1 against a new warm record this year or the next.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I said before I don’t gamble with money I don’t have. The move to Australia made a severe dent in my cash-flow, which I’m slowly rebuilding.

        But I’m happy to discuss a forfeit ;-).

        In any case, if you look back through my comments, I predict next year will be slightly warmer – peak of solar cycle 24.

      • Dr No says:

        How about 10 to 1 .
        Surely you would feel confident of winning with those generous odds.
        Go on. My $1 against your $10.
        Name your charity.

    • zoot says:

      Told you!!!

    • and the broken record returns. You’ve still got 35 classic denier arguments from the top 100 still to enlighten everyone with. Don’t hold back Eric, you can do it.

    • “surface” – finally, you admitted it. The heat is in the ocean – and the ocean is part of the globe – and thus global warming is happening. You’ve cherry-picked the 3% of the globe.

      Admit it. The facts have beaten you, Eric.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        The ocean temperatures have paused since 2003. And Ben Santer’s comment related to surface temperatures.

        You can’t keep moving the goal posts and keep claiming to have been right all along. Or rather you can – because you’re climate alarmists.

      • john byatt says:

        New app idea for you to add to the stolen emails and egg timer apps,

        Cherry picks

        “get the latest cherry pick apps from worall”

      • Eric Worrall says:

        17 years with no warming is not a cherry pick, its a trend. And we’re 1 year away from that.

        Ignoring the fact global temperatures have been flat in the midst of the greatest outpouring of anthropogenic CO2 in human history is the real climate denial.

        If 1/3 of all anthropogenic CO2 cannot move thermometers in a statistically significant way, then alarmism is in trouble.

        If the sea occasionally swallows global warming, and acts as a vast drag on any changes to surface temperature, then alarmism is in trouble – because this would imply, even if you are right about CO2 equilibrium temperatures, we’ve got millennia to put things right, or we could simply wait for nature to take its course.

        Take your pick why your theory is wrong.

        • Your fourth paragraph is either fantasy or lunacy. Ah, I’d not considered the alternative of both. Ok, for the chuckle, what paper did you find the data that supports your assertion that we have millennia to sort things out. Citation please.

      • john byatt says:

        You do not even know what statistically significance means
        arguing from your own ignorance again

      • Nick says:

        OTs have not “paused since 2003″ Take all the data and try to understand what physical processes and global components are behind it. Short-term data is meaningless,except to intellectual frauds like Bolt.. As nature takes its course anyway we won’t be waiting for anything,It’s here and committed SLR is in the metres. All we can influence is perhaps an upper limit and perhaps we can keep it to a slower rate,and hope the equilibrating is not too non-linear.

      • Skeptikal says:

        Nick says:

        Take all the data and try to understand what physical processes and global components are behind it. Short-term data is meaningless….

        You’re absolutely right, what we need to look at is the long term trend. When we look at the long term trend, we can see a distinct cooling trend happening.

      • 3% of the globe is a cherry pick. Since your premise is wrong your conclusions are wrong.

      • The last decade has the warmest surface temperatures on record and you can see a cooling?

      • Nick says:

        Skeptikal,did you notice the “2004″ date arrowed on the right margin. I’m thinking you didn’t ;) …. have another look. ’0 years BP’ means 1950, by convention.

        We are now reliving the Holocene Optimum,though without ACO2 the temperature really shouldn’t be any different from the LIA,which was where we had drifted own to over 5000 years. You know what that means? Sea level,already rising,will play catch up over the next few hundred years..another couple of metres. The next glacial has been deferred.

    • Moth says:

      Ha! I just finished a comment, referring to Monckton and 98 and decided to see what Eric had to say. Surprise, surprise! He hangs on the same 98 hook at the rest of his kin!

      Of course, one must ignore many of places where this additional energy load could end up, say, the continuing degradation of both sea and land ice, such as the Arctic and Greenland, or maybe the actual full heat load of the ocean, or what about the record smashing summer?

      To think that all of this is trivial and to ignore simple and well understood principles of how greenhouse gases work (well, my infrared gas analysers would be useless without this understanding), and the physical chemistry behind combustion, and the observed increase of greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity over the industrial era, and the observed reduction of energy transfer back out to space in the wavelengths known to be absorbed by said GHG’s, and the observed warming trend of the same period, directly related to this additional energy storage is mind-numbingly naive…

  17. Steven Noble says:

    Is it possible to complain to ACMA or someone when a columnist uses their pulpit to trade in horse shit like this?

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      That did cross my mind.

    • john byatt says:

      I doubt it steven as Bolt has put up graphs (ludicrous) but still an accurate cherry pick.

      all you can do is what mike has done here and try to get that into the MSM

      again I doubt it

    • Two other people along with myself made a complaint to the Australian Press Council over a Delingpole “opinion piece” in the Australian last year, after about nine months, the Oz was forced to print corrections but the very next day they gave Delingpole another freekick, effectively undermining the APC adjudication. On its own our efforts might not have amounted to much but if enough people complain often enough, the Murdoch rags (and editors) may have to change their game plan.

      • john byatt says:

        Sent one to the ABC, sorry they said it is legal to cut off a quote wherever you please even if it distorts the message.

  18. zoot says:

    Erric will be along any moment to tell us (again) that global warming stopped in 1998, … or 1997, … or 1996, … or something

    • Joel says:

      These days, the cool kids are running analyses to find the longest period of time in each data set that doesn’t have any warming trend*, or any significant warming trend, or whatever result they happen to already believe.

      *: If performing analysis on a hot day, make sure to skip the current month off. Wouldn’t want it interfering with the desired results.

  19. Nice post – Bolt doing some classic data cherry-picking. What always amazes me is columnist/deniers (Bolt, Delingpole, Jones etc) and their minions keep thinking they’ve discovered something that professional climate scientists have missed. There is such a thing as true expertise and domain knowledge you know. These DIY climate investigators seriously think they are smarter than people who have spent their entire lives studying physics, chemistry , mathematics, who occupy chairs at the top universities in the world? I mean look up Prof James Hansen’s CV – http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansencv_201210.pdf – an absolute multitude of peer-reviewed papers in the top science journals – it is a seriously awesome publication record and I say this as a seasoned academic myself).

    Frankly I’m fed up with these fools and their naive, amateur attempts at backyard science. It’s embarrassing that anyone takes this sort of behaviour seriously. The fact that people pay attention to their stupidity is mind-blowing. Of course as we know their real purpose is simply to sow doubt amongst a gullible public for those with a vested interest in delaying a transition from fossil-fuels.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      ‘Of course as we know their real purpose is simply to sow doubt amongst a gullible public for those with a vested interest in delaying a transition from fossil-fuels.” Indeed.

      Thanks for comments Chris.

      Mike @ WtD

  20. Adam says:

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    Is a better graph to illustrate the warming.

    • Nick says:

      That’s why Bolt avoids it! And Spencer cuts out water north and south of the 60 degree latitudes in his choice decade,during which global SL rose.

      Bolt’s main interest is publicly stalking Tim Flannery,in the style of the typical lunar right obsessive whose demented behaviors are normalised and promoted by News Ltd as reputable employment. A f**king bully without any self-awareness. A sane critic would not need to resort to his techniques.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 769 other followers

%d bloggers like this: