Quote:

New paper shows Medieval Warm Period was global in scope Andrew Revkin writes: Michael Mann can’t be happy about this work. Here’s a chat with two authors of an important new Science paper examining 10,000 years of layered fossil plankton in the western Pacific Ocean. The paper finds that several significant past climate ups and downs — including the medieval warm period and little ice age — were global in scope, challenging some previous conclusions that these were fairly limited Northern Hemisphere phenomena. (video follows, an interview with authors) The study finds that the rise in ocean temperatures in recent decades is far faster than anything seen earlier in the Holocene, the period since the end of the last ice age. But the researchers say that this rise is from a relatively cool baseline. Between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago, at depths between 500 and 1,000 meters, the Pacific Ocean was 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than today. (text from the video description) The paper is here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/

Ohh look its sunday morning and sock puppet Ajax is already hard at work cutting and pasting deceitful propaganda for his fossil fuel corporate masters. Well, you know what they say "No rest for the wicked".

Not a credible source, but adds detail.
Rosenthal et al 2013
Steve McIntyre, posted on Nov 2, 2013 at 4:15 PM

There has been considerable recent attention to Rosenthal et al 2013: WUWT here, Judy Curry here, Andy Revkin here.

The article itself presents a Holocene temperature reconstruction that is very much at odds both with Marcott et al 2013 and Mann et al 2008. And, only a few weeks after IPCC expressed great confidence in the non-worldwideness of the Medieval Warm Period, Rosenthal et al 2013 argued that the Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period and Holocene Optimum were all global events.

Although (or perhaps because) the article apparently contradicts heroes of the revolution, Rosenthal et al 2013 included a single sentence of genuflection to CAGW:


Quote:

The modern rate of Pacific OHC change is, however, the highest in the past 10,000 years (Fig. 4 and table S3).

In the press release accompanying the article, this claim was ratcheted up into the much more grandiose assertion that modern warming is “15 times faster” than in previous warming cycles over the past 10,000 years (though the term “15 times faster” is not actually made in the peer reviewed article):


Quote:

In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.

Rather than quoting the article itself, Michael Mann, an academic activist at Penn State University, repeated the claim from the press release in an article at Huffington Post entitled “Pacific Ocean Warming at Fastest Rate in 10,000 Years”.

However, both the claim in the press release and the somewhat weaker claim in the article appear to be unsupported by the actual data.

In the past, we’ve often observed that great care needs to be taken in the interpretation of spaghetti graphs containing both instrumental and proxy data. In the present case, none of the graphics in Rosenthal et al 2013 contain both instrumental and proxy data, a deficiency that I’ve attempted to remedy in today’s post.

First, here is Rosenthal’s figure (3B) showing their reconstruction of IWT (Intermediate Water Temperature) for the past two millennia, which shows a sharp decline in temperature from the medieval period to the Little Ice Age (which, as at Baffin Island also in the news lately, was the coldest period in the past 10,000 years), with a recovery in the 20th century, but to levels lower than those of the medieval and earlier periods.

On the far right, I’ve plotted Pacific ocean heat content, converted to deg C anomaly (red), together with its trend line. The two solid yellow lines show trend lines for 1100-1700 AD and 1600-1950 AD, two of the three periods considered in Rosenthal Table S4. It is true that the rate of change over the past 55 years is somewhat higher than the trend over 1600-1950, but it is not “15 times higher”. While I don’t think that one can safely reify the fluctuations in Rosenthal’s IWT reconstructions, on the other hand, these fluctuations appear to me to preclude any strong conclusions that the relatively modest increase is unprecedented.

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/two_millennia_annotated.png
Figure 1. Annotation of Rosenthal Figure 3B. Original caption: “Compiled IWT anomalies based on Indonesian records spanning the ~500- to 900-m water depth (for individual records, see fig. S7). The shaded band represents +-1 SD. Red- OHC Pacific 0-700m heat content converted to temperature using the 0-700m Pacific mass shown in the Rosenthal SI. The values are consistent with 0-700m temperature anomaly values at NOAA http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index3.html.

[continued ...]

[... continued]

Rosenthal’s assertion that recent OHC trends are unprecedented are derived from their Table S4, which consists of three panels, the first of which is shown below.

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/table-s3a.png
In my annotation of their Figure 3B shown above, I’ve shown two trend lines, each of which more or less corresponds to the trends reported on lines 2 and 3 of Table S3: a trend of -0.15 deg C/century from 1100-1700 and a trend of 0.09 deg C/century from 1600-1950. The “money” trend in Table S3 is that shown on the fourth line: the value of 0.032 deg C/century is presumably an error. This is not the only error in the table: in the first column, the observed delta-T in the third line (0.25) is greater than that in the fourth line (0.11), but the delta-HC (5.6) is less than that in the fourth line (8.4) – something that seems to be an error. In passing, I wonder whether the “15 times” claim somehow originates in the seemingly unrelated bolded value of “15″ in the fourth column fourth line. (The derivation of “15 times” is not explained anywhere and is not obviously supported by the data.)


Rosenthal’s Holocene Figure
Rosenthal’s Figure 2 shows their temperature reconstruction over the past 10000 years (the version in their Figure 2C is shown below.) I’ve overlaid my digitization of their two-millennium reconstruction shown above (cyan). (Unfortunately, Rosenthal and coauthors didn’t archive anything: neither reconstruction nor underlying data, though, in response to my email, Rosenthal has undertaken to do so.) Once again, I’ve shown the temperature anomaly (as I’ve calculated it from instrumental ocean heat content) in red. At a Holocene scale, it is a very small squiggle – which I’ve accordingly highlighted by a circle around the squiggle). On the right is a blow-up of the graph in the left panel for the past 500 years.

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/rosenthal-2013-figure-2c-annotated.png
Figure 2. From Rosenthal et al 2013 Figure 2C. Red- temperature anomaly converted from NOAA Pacific Ocean 0-700m ocean heat content. Cyan – Rosenthal Figure 3B reconstruction (my digitization). Orange trend line shows third comparison from Rosenthal SI, taken from first row in Table S3.

As with the two-millennium figure, there are many fluctuations within the reconstruction with much greater rates of change over a century than calculated from the modern instrumental OHC record.

Although spin by Mann and others has focused on the modern portion, Rosenthal and coauthors observe that their reconstruction differs on important points from that of Marcott et al 2013,


Quote:

To the extent that our reconstruction reflects high-latitude climate conditions in both hemispheres, it differs considerably from the recent surface compilations, which suggest ~2°C MWP to- LIA cooling in the 30°N to 90°N zone, whereas the 30°S to 90°S zone warmed by ~0.6°C during the same interval (24- Marcott et al 2013). In contrast, our composite IWT records of water masses linked to NH and SH water masses imply similar patterns of MWP-to- LIA cooling at the source regions.

They showed the Marcott et al 2013 reconstruction in their Figure 2, apparently unaware that its 20th century uptick is (at best) an artifact. It is regrettable that Marcott and coauthors have not issued a corrigendum conceding that the uptick cannot be relied on.

Although IPCC recently reported much confidence in the non-globalness of the MWP, Rosenthal et al took the opposite view:


Quote:

The inferred similarity in temperature anomalies at both hemispheres is consistent with recent evidence from Antarctica (30), thereby supporting the idea that the HTM (Holocene Thermal Maximum), MWP, and LIA were global events.

Given all the publicity about the supposed unprecedentedness of the recent increase in Rosenthal et al 2013, the data in the article offers little support for the assertion that the modern rate of increase is 15 times greater than any previous increase – or, indeed, for the weaker proposition that the modern increase is unprecedented. Moreover, it stands against claims that modern temperatures are themselves unprecedented, not only within the Holocene, but within the last two millennia.

Quote:

In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.

Computer model was it........?????

Take a few proxies adjust them feed them into the computer models and presto we have an outcome.....!!!!!

http://i42.tinypic.com/vy33hs.png

liar

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 12:49pm:

liar

the truth will set you free

http://i39.tinypic.com/25qey6x.jpg

Hard to believe it's the same study:
Where’s the heat? Warming of Pacific Ocean fastest seen in 10,000 years

Skeptics have made much of the so called 15 year “pause” in warming for land surface temperatures, while conveniently overlooking the warming oceans.

A study just released this week in Science indicates the Pacific Ocean may be warming at a rate faster than it has in the last 10,0000 years [pay wall]:


Quote:

Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

This study was also reported in the LA Times, where some (genuine) climate scientists expressed scepticism about the rate of warming. Still it is very clear the oceans have been acting as a “buffer” in absorbing additional heat. However we can’t bank on the oceans performing this role in future centuries:


Quote:

“This is much faster than anything we’ve seen in the long term,” said Yair Rosenthal, a professor of earth sciences at Rutgers University and lead author of the study.     The timing could be fortuitous, because we may be pumping the atmosphere full of carbon after a naturally-occurring cooldown, just when the oceans are most prepared to absorb the heat, Rosenthal said.     “There may be some hope, “ he said, “because maybe the ocean will be able to store more heat than we were estimating before.”     It could also spell trouble. While temperatures in the atmosphere go up and down pretty quickly, seawater can absorb a lot of heat before its temperature rises. So even if carbon emissions are reduced, it could take years or even centuries for the ocean to respond, a lag that could have consequences far into the future.

liar

Still persisting with the crystal ball......!!!!!!!!

So what instruments where used to measure the temperature of the lower layers of the ocean (3000 metres and deeper)........????

How do we know what these temperatures where hundreds, thousands or millions of years and how where they measured................???

The deep ocean that is.............!!!!!!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/04/rough-estimate-of-the-annual-changes-in-ocean-temperatures-from-700-to-2000-meters-based-on-nodc-data/

a liar and pretender

reveal yourself

take off that mask liar

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 1:18pm:

a liar and pretender reveal yourself take off that mask liar

Tell me how where the temperatures of the deep ocean layers taken hundreds thousands and millions of years ago....????

Then tell me how the temperatures of the deep oceans are acutually taken today................????

I'm all ears..................!!!!!

German Ears

liar

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 1:25pm:

German Ears liar

Tell me how where the temperatures of the deep ocean layers taken hundreds thousands and millions of years ago....????

Then tell me how the temperatures of the deep oceans are acutually taken today................????

I'm all ears..................!!!!!

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 12:08pm:

Ohh look its sunday morning and sock puppet Ajax is already hard at work cutting and pasting deceitful propaganda for his fossil fuel corporate masters. Well, you know what they say "No rest for the wicked".

Sunday morning- 12:08PM....

(Sorry I had to  :D)

---

Well it's in the semantics. From the hundreds of papers dealing with paleotemperatures, it's obvious that there was a prounced Medieval Warming in North America, Greenland and Norway.  In some areas, the effect was less pronounced, and in some areas, there was a pronounced cooling.

The overall effect was probably a slight global warming for this period, however the only regions to show temperatures similar to the late 90s was Northern Norway and Greenland.

That is apparent from looking at the "spaghetti" graph that shows the various studies superimposed. 

Was there an increase in Total Solar Irradiance for this period? Yes. Proxy data show this quite clearly.

Has there been an increase in Total Solar Irradiance in the past 60 years? No. I don't think anybody can dispute that.

So what's the fuss about anyway? Error in determination for this period is considerable.

Vuk11 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 1:39pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 12:08pm: Ohh look its sunday morning and sock puppet Ajax is already hard at work cutting and pasting deceitful propaganda for his fossil fuel corporate masters. Well, you know what they say "No rest for the wicked". Sunday morning- 12:08PM....

Ohhh, so cutting. How will I recover. Its a pity you don't show humanity and the planet as much loyalty as you show your Koch army colleague. How many pieces of silver does it take. Come on, you can tell us. 

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 2:45pm:

Ohhh, so cutting. How will I recover. Its a pity you don't show humanity and the planet as much loyalty as you show your Koch army colleague. How many pieces of silver does it take. Come on, you can tell us.

;D!!
I was just taking the p*ss........why you so mad?  :D

Seriously though? Got about 700oz, I'm hoping to graduate to gold pieces after I do enough votes on internet polls  ;)

---

Vuk11 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 1:39pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 12:08pm: Ohh look its sunday morning and sock puppet Ajax is already hard at work cutting and pasting deceitful propaganda for his fossil fuel corporate masters. Well, you know what they say "No rest for the wicked". Sunday morning- 12:08PM.... (Sorry I had to  :D)

481 seconds doesn't change the truth contained within ImSpartcus's post.

As usual vuk11, you expose the ant but cannot see the ant colony NOR its place in the ecosystem,

The stench that you emit within this particular thread is predictable, immature and riddled with the putrid foul odour of Hades

And for that alone you stand condemned and eternally immersed in decaying carcass froth

Ajax wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 1:30pm:

... Tell me how where the temperatures of the deep ocean layers taken hundreds thousands and millions of years ago....???? Then tell me how the temperatures of the deep oceans are acutually taken today................???? ...

Ajax, are you capable of understanding? Are you willing to understand?

# wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 6:49pm:

Ajax wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 1:30pm: ... Tell me how where the temperatures of the deep ocean layers taken hundreds thousands and millions of years ago....???? Then tell me how the temperatures of the deep oceans are acutually taken today................???? ... Ajax, are you capable of understanding? Are you willing to understand?

talking to yourself again?

muso wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 2:15pm:

... So what's the fuss about anyway? ...

From what little I understand, the denyosphere has latched on to a small part of a study that can be misinterpreted to bolster their perverse world view.

# wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 6:51pm:

muso wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 2:15pm: ... So what's the fuss about anyway? ... From what little I understand, the denyosphere has latched on to a small part of a study that can be misinterpreted to bolster their perverse world view.

a group conversation with only one person present

interesting neurotic fraud based psychosis

Lol Chimp are you still on the conspiracy stuff.
Do you really think Ajax, Muso, # and myself are all the same people?

It's pretty obvious that Chimp and Ajax are the same poster.

I don't know how we can demonstrate that there are no socks on this board.  We have very different views on nuclear power. I don't mind it in principle but I don't think it's financially viable. I'm neither pro nor anti although I support it over coal.  I think # is opposed to nuclear and I'm not sure about Ajax.

Vuk takes a denialist stance on climate, but at least understands basic concepts and asks good questions. Ajax is very keen on conspiracy theories of all kinds and doesn't believe in Anthropogenic AGW for political/financial reasons.

I get very frustrated that people can't spot the obvious BS in denialist arguments.

How can I convince you Chimp?

# wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 6:51pm:

muso wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 2:15pm: ... So what's the fuss about anyway? ... From what little I understand, the denyosphere has latched on to a small part of a study that can be misinterpreted to bolster their perverse world view.

The Medieval Warm period is not part of any argument. It's a red herring. The fact that Monckton's cheer squad latches on to it is totally perplexing.

The Lord Monckton moves in mysterious ways.

muso wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 7:58pm:

It's pretty obvious that Chimp and Ajax are the same poster. I don't know how we can demonstrate that there are no socks on this board.  We have very different views on nuclear power. I don't mind it in principle but I don't think it's financially viable. I'm neither pro nor anti although I support it over coal.  I think # is opposed to nuclear and I'm not sure about Ajax. Vuk takes a denialist stance on climate, but at least understands basic concepts and asks good questions. Ajax is very keen on conspiracy theories of all kinds and doesn't believe in Anthropogenic AGW for political/financial reasons. I get very frustrated that people can't spot the obvious BS in denialist arguments. How can I convince you Chimp?

Now you are talking to yourself about talking to yourself

interesting persistence to cover your tracks you have there muso

A little bit embarrassing don't you think?

the numbers in ozpolitic.com must be on the downward trend - like the ice cover at the poles

Ozpolitics is not exactly a commercial site. It is owned by Freediver.  From my experience with Internet Ads, I doubt if they cover his expenses. As usual, you have the wrong end of the stick.

All the moderators on here are volunteers. Nobody gets paid.  You have an obsession with corporations. It's  just a pastime.

muso wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 7:58pm:

It's pretty obvious that Chimp and Ajax are the same poster. I don't know how we can demonstrate that there are no socks on this board.  We have very different views on nuclear power. I don't mind it in principle but I don't think it's financially viable. I'm neither pro nor anti although I support it over coal.  I think # is opposed to nuclear and I'm not sure about Ajax. Vuk takes a denialist stance on climate, but at least understands basic concepts and asks good questions. Ajax is very keen on conspiracy theories of all kinds and doesn't believe in Anthropogenic AGW for political/financial reasons. I get very frustrated that people can't spot the obvious BS in denialist arguments. How can I convince you Chimp?

You know muso for someone who lauds the scientific method you really do say some extraordinarily baseless things.  How would you know that there are no socks on oz politics.  They have programs with increasing sophistication that allow one person to open a multitude of accounts in different names without detection.  Do you ever go on the Whirlpool  forum.  They refer to astroturfing as a constant problem.  When Australia implemented carbon pricing it was a big loss for the denialists and the huge fossil fuel interests around the world. It gave impetus to other countries to do the same and now that we are set to scrap it again there is a lot of financial incentive to win the population over to the denialist cause.   Ozpolitics is just one of a number of forums where it would be ideal to spread their propaganda to the grass roots and they hope eventually to the rest of the country.   

As to whether you muso are a sock, I'm inclined to think not. True Colours I don't know much about him/her and couldn't say.  As for Ajax, I think the odds are really high that he is a plant. The guy comes here specifically to cut, paste and repeat the arguments from the denialists blogs without any apparent interest in actually debating the truth or otherwise of what he is saying. It doesn't matter.  All that matters is that he floods the airwaves with his garbage in the hope that some unsuspecting innocents will be taken in by his garbage.  Which brings us to Vuk.  Although Im not as confident about him as I am about Ajax I would still say on balance that he too is a sock here on a mission to spread the denialist propaganda.  I think the things I consider most damning with respect to Vuk are these: He is not a scientist; he tells us without any natural human hesitation that the real scientists in the field dont know what they're talking about; he accuses the expert scientists of having corrupt motives on nothing more then the "possibility" that someone in the scientists' position "might" be making global warming up to fund his/her individual projects and yet he, Vuk, freely ignores the fact that the blog sites that he is repeating arguments from and cutting and pasting from are backed by huge financial interests in the fossil fuel industry.  I'm talking Koch brothers here and their front men like the Heartland and Cato institutes etc.  I think if Vuk was genuine he would ask himself as any basic human being would ask himself.  What's at stake? The expert scientists are saying catastrophe for the human race and the planet. But says Vuk, I'm not a scientists, who am I to doubt what the scientists are saying, especially when so much is at risk.  But instead what does this Vuk do.  He spreads the denialist propaganda, happily cutting and pasting and repeating the latest arguments from denialists HQ without the slightest hesitation.  No this guy IMO is not who he says he is and is here with his sock puppet mate Ajax to spread propaganda for their corporate masters.

Vuk and Ajax think they are so 1950s hardcore business is business types  :D

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 9:30am:

You know muso for someone who lauds the scientific method you really do say some extraordinarily baseless things.  How would you know that there are no socks on oz politics.

The kettle calling the pot black....................?????

Are you for real.....even if your not an AGW religion sock the only thing you bring to the table is ad homs.


Quote:

They have programs with increasing sophistication that allow one person to open a multitude of accounts in different names without detection.

LMFAO...this guy is paranoid.........Ajax-007. 


Quote:

Do you ever go on the Whirlpool  forum.  They refer to astroturfing as a constant problem.  When Australia implemented carbon pricing it was a big loss for the denialists and the huge fossil fuel interests around the world. It gave impetus to other countries to do the same and now that we are set to scrap it again there is a lot of financial incentive to win the population over to the denialist cause.

   

You ever tried being a fictional writer dude, cause you do have some talent there....?????


Quote:

Ozpolitics is just one of a number of forums where it would be ideal to spread their propaganda to the grass roots and they hope eventually to the rest of the country.

Propaganda doesn't last very long, only the truth can remain in circulation for ever. 


Quote:

As to whether you muso are a sock, I'm inclined to think not. True Colours I don't know much about him/her and couldn't say.

So how do we know that your not a AGW sock puppet your self that can't debate the science and has been planet here to administer ad homs......LOL...?????


Quote:

As for Ajax, I think the odds are really high that he is a plant. The guy comes here specifically to cut, paste and repeat the arguments from the denialists blogs without any apparent interest in actually debating the truth or otherwise of what he is saying. It doesn't matter.  All that matters is that he floods the airwaves with his garbage in the hope that some unsuspecting innocents will be taken in by his garbage.

Mate take a look at your threads and posts FFS....!!!

The only thing you'll find is insults & ad homs.....????

You sir are a TROLL of the first order.....................!!!!!


Quote:

Which brings us to Vuk.  Although Im not as confident about him as I am about Ajax I would still say on balance that he too is a sock here on a mission to spread the denialist propaganda.  I think the things I consider most damning with respect to Vuk are these: He is not a scientist; he tells us without any natural human hesitation that the real scientists in the field dont know what they're talking about; he accuses the expert scientists of having corrupt motives on nothing more then the "possibility" that someone in the scientists' position "might" be making global warming up to fund his/her individual projects and yet he, Vuk, freely ignores the fact that the blog sites that he is repeating arguments from and cutting and pasting from are backed by huge financial interests in the fossil fuel industry.  I'm talking Koch brothers here and their front men like the Heartland and Cato institutes etc.  I think if Vuk was genuine he would ask himself as any basic human being would ask himself.  What's at stake? The expert scientists are saying catastrophe for the human race and the planet. But says Vuk, I'm not a scientists, who am I to doubt what the scientists are saying, especially when so much is at risk.  But instead what does this Vuk do.  He spreads the denialist propaganda, happily cutting and pasting and repeating the latest arguments from denialists HQ without the slightest hesitation.  No this guy IMO is not who he says he is and is here with his sock puppet mate Ajax to spread propaganda for their corporate masters.

Everyone on here that doesn't agree with you must be a sock puppet planted here to preach anti AGW LMFAO.

You are a nazi my friend, just because we don't agree with your point of view it doesn't mean you have to march us out and shoot us.

TROLL

muso wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 8:22pm:

... The Medieval Warm period is not part of any argument. It's a red herring. ...

That's a relief. I was worried that my inability to see any relevance might be the Alzheimer's kicking in.  ;)

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 9:30am:

You know muso for someone who lauds the scientific method you really do say some extraordinarily baseless things.  How would you know that there are no socks on oz politics.  They have programs with increasing sophistication that allow one person to open a multitude of accounts i

I said "on this board" meaning "environment".  There are tools around that I can use. Do you think I don't know the tricks that are used.  Check your PM.

muso wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 9:26pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 4th, 2013 at 9:30am: You know muso for someone who lauds the scientific method you really do say some extraordinarily baseless things.  How would you know that there are no socks on oz politics.  They have programs with increasing sophistication that allow one person to open a multitude of accounts i I said "on this board" meaning "environment".  There are tools around that I can use. Do you think I don't know the tricks that are used.  Check your PM.

Thanks Muso,I'll take yor comments on board but cant say I accept them since I understand that the programs they have developed to avoid sock detection are becoming more sophisticated every day. but I will continue to observe the situation and in any event none of that has any bearing on weather Ajax and Vuk are astroturfing for corporate fossil fuel interests which for the reasons I have given I believe they are.   

Have you seen some of these small business magazines that are going around? It's hardly any wonder that there are denialists out there. I don't think Ajax is being paid to astroturf, judging from some of his earlier responses.

Do you think there is money in it? hmmmm. (bad thoughts)

I do. And yes there is $$$$$ in it.  People spend all day writing glowing reviews for products they've never used before and its a big problem now because you cant trust internet reviews anymore. Go on Whirlpool, where they encounter it alot and also wikipedia have an article on it worth reading.   

I now see that your definition of sock is broader than the one that most of us would understand.

I think the word you're looking for is "shill". In that respect, I can't claim to know whether there are any "shills" on this board. 

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2013 at 2:13pm:

I do. And yes there is $$$$$ in it.  People spend all day writing glowing reviews for products they've never used before and its a big problem now because you cant trust internet reviews anymore. Go on Whirlpool, where they encounter it alot and also wikipedia have an article on it worth reading.

Numbers have recently been given by, i think wendy harmer believe it or not, on the economics of trolling and fake accounts et al/etc.....  :D

muso wrote on Nov 5^th, 2013 at 12:10pm:

Have you seen some of these small business magazines that are going around? It's hardly any wonder that there are denialists out there. I don't think Ajax is being paid to astroturf, judging from some of his earlier responses. Do you think there is money in it? hmmmm. (bad thoughts)

STatus quo= money in it... it's easier to attack than defend ---> its called THE TRANSFER OF ADVANTAGES to put it in stuffy shirt terms!

If I accepted money for telling lies about global warming, I doubt if I could live with that lie. Joanne Nova and David Evans obviously have no such moral qualms.

muso wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 8:09pm:

If I accepted money for telling lies about global warming, I doubt if I could live with that lie. Joanne Nova and David Evans obviously have no such moral qualms.

For some, it's all about the money.

People con and otherwise rob others for the money. People even kill others for money. It's a continuum. Exactly where in that continuum the likes of Nova, Watts and Evans belong, I'll leave for the reader to decide.