Thanks to the help of many readers, I’m off to cover The 2013 AGU meeting, and I’ll be in San Francisco this week. I’m in transit today.
Readers might want to peruse the AGU Meeting program and see if they have topics/questions they’d like to see covered.
For those attending and wish to contact me, you can either use the WUWT contact form, or the AGU member messaging system from their web page.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
DHill
‘Wow… Differentiation between ocean regions is not your specialty. How silly is that?’
Oh, I know where hurricanes happen and where typhoons happen.
I was subtly, perhaps too much so, referring to the silliness of your cherrypicking.
Just ask the Taclobanites what they think of your silly sally. To them, after all, it was not ‘a gas’.
“climateace says:
December 8, 2013 at 8:27 pm
Of what to do with $3 billion of taxpayer’s funds, including mine, of course.”
Abbott hasn’t, and probably won’t, do anything with it once the carbon tax is repealed. Unlike the tax, it’s a plan and can be implemented or not.
And on the news now, the largest fire this year in NSW which burnt through 50,000 hectares and a few houses which was being blamed on CO2 driven climate change was caused by the defense services on land that not had hazard reduction performed for 20 years.
BTW, unlike the BoM, I don’t make stuff up about anything.
I’m curious… How did Ross McKitrick know – in 2005, four years prior to the infamous Jones line in the most famous of the Climategate emails – how did McKitrick know to refer to Mann’s deception as a “trick”? (If RM hadn’t used quotes, I would not have noticed his choice of word.) (For reference, see p. 36 of RM’s chapter in P. Michaels’ Shattered Consensus)
patrick
‘Of what to do with $3 billion of taxpayer’s funds, including mine, of course.”
Abbott hasn’t, and probably won’t, do anything with it once the carbon tax is repealed. Unlike the tax, it’s a plan and can be implemented or not.’
It is interesting just how many Abbott supporters (not that you are necessarily an Abbott supporter) actually believe that Abbott has been lying for six years about his intention to spend $3 billion on the DAP in order to achieve the 5% emissions target by 2020. There were posters here on WUWT before the elections stating that they did not expect Abbott to honour his election promise on the DAP.
I beg to differ. I am sure that the Government will implement the DAP.
‘And on the news now, the largest fire this year in NSW which burnt through 50,000 hectares and a few houses which was being blamed on CO2 driven climate change was caused by the defense services on land that not had hazard reduction performed for 20 years.’
Well, there are three facts randomly plucked (cherry-picked?) from tens of thousands of facts available on our bush fire history. They are so random that they it is difficult to guess the point, if any, you are seeking to make. Even then, some of the your ‘facts’ are questionable. I seem to recall that around 200 houses were burned, for example, which is hardly ‘a few’. Various fires joined up into one super fire. While it is true that Defence ignited one of these fires, it did not ignite the rest. Finally, I would doubt that all of the area burned had not been control burned for 20 years.
whoops:
‘Finally, I would doubt that none of the area burned had not been control burned for 20 years.’
RE: climateace on December 8, 2013 at 9:58 pm
whoops:
‘Finally, I would doubt that none of the area burned had not been control burned for 20 years.’
Freudian slip, eh climateace?
The tangled cherry-picking troll web you weave.
RE: climateace on December 8, 2013 at 9:58 pm
whoops:
‘Finally, I would doubt that none of the area burned had not been control burned for 20 years.’
Freudian slip, eh climateace?
The tangled cherry-picking troll web you weave.
Dr C. ‘how did McKitrick know to refer to Mann’s deception as a “trick”?’
I don’t think McKitrick using the term ‘trick’ as in ‘trick data’ shows off his powers of prediction. ‘Trick is a commonly used term when manipulating data. Not is a deceptive way, but in a process well understood and accepted by mathematicians.
Unfortunately, when people, not familiar with the process, come across they word, they assume that means the same as it does in common English, ie to deceive or be deceptive. This is the understanding that I believe you have accepted.
dborth
Sorry, I am not a follower of Freud: his thinking was far too circumscribed by his milieu and, in scientific terms, more or less totally unreliable. But, if Freud is your bag, go for it.
Happy to discuss cherrypicking in this string if you want to get to specifics.
Conservatives could run these two against the Hillary Clinton/ Elizabeth Warren ticket in 2016?
These are real veterans, not draft dodging, deferment seekers
But “UNIPOCC,” which sounds silly, evokes the UN (ugh), and rhymes with Schlock, Crock, Knock, etc. isn’t really a change of name, but simply a fuller version of it: United Nations Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change.
That was my brainwave a few years back, IIRC–or anyway, I thought I invented it back then, although it may have been used before me. The problem is that this is a childish insult; it can’t masquerade as a neutral term, and thus be used by pawky / deadpan humorists and adult mainstream commenters.
New alternative hypothesis for the modern increase in CO2: It was caused by the Medieval Warm Period! Ice cores show that CO2 lags temperature by 800 years.
This will make you all feel warm and fuzzy all over. Up here in northern British Columbia we have Bear Muontain Wind Park. Now that is a feel good name if there ever was one. http://www.altagas.ca/power/renewable/wind/bear_mountain_wind_park
Now it has only been in operation for about three years and they are already replacing the blades. For better effenciency so they say. With them being a private generator I cannot seem to find output information.
Mr. Watts,
It would be interesting to see if you can find out from a MSM person why they persist in ignoring the sceptic side of the AGW debate.
Mountain, one fingered typing on a “smart phone” challenges my typing and english skills.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/pre-fod-syr03122013-fin.pdf
So Climateace,
You want to impose your climate taxes and ETSes but won’t own the damage your ideology causes. Does that make you a hypocrite as well as a misanthropist?.
You also completely failed to realise that your inordinately expensive insurance is entirely due to the actions of irresponsible green councils who refuse to do adequate hazard reduction and have used legal manouvers to unconstitutionally prevent landowners from clearing adequate fire breaks around their property in the name of “environmentalism”. So premiums are being set in an environment where your own local government is contibuting to burning down houses, killing people and animals and of course therefore driving up the cost of premiums. What you should be doing, “ace”, is demanding that your local member enacts legislation that prevents government interference in the cutting of firebreaks on private land. A 200m firebreak , that’s what will lower premiums and make you insurable
You are right about is the direct action scheme however , it will be almost exactly as effective as Gillards 40 Billion dollar scheme that is, not effective at all in lowering the temperature, except that instead of being a total waste of 44 Billion dollars over 4 years, it will be a not quite so total waste of 3 Billion dollars instead. I say not so total waste, because it will address some land degradation, salination and water problems too. I am increasingly hopefull that it might even get used to build some cyclone shelters, which of course wont do a jot about CO2 but just might save a few lives from the weather. You’re right, the Oz government should scrap, direct action, the Renewable Energy Target, and all the other dodgy schemes as well. Weather that you want to be worse is weather in a world that for the last 7-22 years can’t be proved to have warmed at all, something wrong with the Cause and effect there “ace”, bushfires are so much worse from climate ” staying much the same” for 17-22 years…. Hmm now there’s food for thought?
But who am I to talk, you’re the climate ace, and you’re perfectly entitled to be a deluded misanthropic hypocrite if you want to.
climateace says:
…yes, we do have our bushfire plan up to date and our valuables and our treasured photos where we can grab them quickly. Luckily there are still insurers who want to take us on and we can still afford to pay the ever-increasing premiums.
We had 600 houses burn in our city not so long ago, so it pays to be prepared.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
What city would that be? I can’t find it:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22600+homes%22+burnt&hl=en
And why don’t you have a flood plan?
quote:
The Brisbane River peaked on 13 January at a lower level than predicted, but still 20,000 houses in Brisbane were inundated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%9311_Queensland_floods
Did the climate gurus predict the flooding, or did they instead contribute to the problem with prophesies of a permanent drought? See my previous comment for some help with the answer.
By the way, climate ace, I never said the BOM was wrong just that the claim is based on an unpublished formula, commenced just last year, the same formula that claimed an angry summer “record” which according to the satellite data wasn’t a record at all.
I don’t claim the BOM is wrong, I never did, but until that methodology is published it’s just another case of an appeal to authority…. Trust us, we’re climate scientists? Rubbish, show me the data, and your methods, and after comparison with the satellite record, I’ll determine for myself if you have a leg to stand on. Meanwhile, I stand by my assertion, since this method has only been in use for 2 years then this spring is the hottest since records ( calculated by this method) began… Ie since last year.
curiousnc December 8, 2013 at 2:31 pm
Point out CO2 is beneficial for life and that a warm planet is a happy planet.
bobl
You are throwing up great clouds of words about all sorts of irrelevant stuff, but you are not helping me with my house insurance premium one little bit.
I would be happy with premiums that more or less kept pace with inflation. But they have been exceeding that for some time now.
I take it you don’t own a house in Australia or you would know exactly what I am talking about.
bobl
I am pleased that you agree with me that the DAP uses our taxpayers money is an efficient way in order not to achieve an objective that the Government does not agree with in the first place.
Absurd.
climateace says:
December 8, 2013 at 7:58 pm
Patrick
[Talking of Australia, the carbon tax apparently has worked in reducing emissions of CO2. The figures are in, the science is settled, Australia’s emissions dropped ~0.1% (Apparently) in the first year. That’s ~0.1% of ~1.5% of ~3% of ~400ppm/v CO2. No-one here is attributing the reduction to the economic downturn.]
Just as well the Abbott Government is going to get rid of the carbon tax spend $3 billion pf taxpayers’ funds on direct action. That should fix the problem, eh?
I leave it to a financial genius to tell the difference between a tax and a tax.”
________________________________________________________________
Tony Abbott won’t do anything. He just added Direct Action to make it sound good. You really are a sandwich short of a picnic aren’t you Climateace. It is probably Nick Stoke in disguise. LOL
Khwarizmi
Good question on the flood plan. When we purchased our house we did so with a view to never getting either flooded or burnt out. It turns out that the second bit of the plan was optimistic, what with suburbs getting burnt down and all in the new normal of hotter extremes. (Check the Fire Report cited above, for details).
What does rather irritate me is that that the insurance premiums of people such as ourselves, who do not build amongst the gum trees because they are fire bombs, have gone up to pay for the idiots who do build amongst the gum trees. Ditto for idiots who build on flood plains.
In some locations building a house was close to suicidal before AGW arrived and it has become worse since as things get hotter and hotter.
Their choice, of course, but expecting everyone to pay higher premiums for their poor risk management is a bit over the top, IMHO. Still, here and there. insurers are getting the right idea and refusing to insure foolish people at all.
In terms of the fire management issues you raise, it is all so boringly predictable isn’t it?
People build a house in a fire prone area and then demand that all the biodiversity in the adjacent bushland be damaged or destroyed by ‘hazard reduction burning’ to protect them from their insanity in building in the wrong place. Naturally this ‘hazard reduction burning’, which is expensive, has to be done with other people’s tax money, fire levies, flood levies, special rates and the like. Equally naturally, these fools expect the state to pay for expensive fire equipment. And, of course, they expect volunteers to risk their lives to save them from their stupidity. And they keep doing it because, apart from the ones who do get burnt to death, they get away with their stupidity.
When their houses do get burnt or destroyed in floods, do they blame themselves for their folly? Oh no. They scream blue murder at the government/council/authorities for not protecting them from their own stupidity. The ‘victims’ expect, and get, expensive taxpayer programs to help themselves rebuild their bloody houses (and all that costly infrastructure) in the wrong place again.
Oh, and of course, the insurers with every hundred million or billion dollar fire or flood disaster whack up the house insurance premiums for the rest of us.
Steve B
‘Tony Abbott won’t do anything. He just added Direct Action to make it sound good. You really are a sandwich short of a picnic aren’t you Climateace. It is probably Nick Stoke in disguise. LOL’
I don’t know who Nick Stokes is, or why you are sending him lots of love, but I don’t interfere in people’s personal lives.
You say Abbott has been lying about Direct Action for six years and that he will not implement it.
I say that he was lying about Direct Action for six years and the he will implement it.
Abbott is going to demonstrate that one of us has been a sandwhich short of a picnic – that’s for sure.