February 2012 Open Thread

Comments

  1. #1 bruced
    February 1, 2012

    Today’s Daily Telegraph has a beauty from Bolt titled “Global warming nonsense gets a true cold shoulder”. He states “the planet hasn’t actually warmed for a decade – or even 15 years – according to new temperature data released by Britain’s Met Office.”
    The Met Office instead says “The period 2000-2009 was warmer than the 1990s that, in turn, were warmer than 1980s. In fact, the average temperature over the first decade of the 21st century was significantly warmer than any preceding decade in the instrumental record, stretching back 160 years.” (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/policy-relevant/evidence)
    Has the Murdoch press no standards whatsoever?

  2. #2 john byatt
    February 1, 2012

    Bolt,, Herald Sun ?

  3. #3 bill
    February 1, 2012

    Re#1

    Yes.

    Meaning no, it doesn’t. It doesn’t have to be true, it just has to slop around in the back of the readership’s minds that some idiot somewhere has ‘proved’ something…

    This latest from SkS is rather entertaining. As we know from bitter experience, all the regular Doofuses of Denial constantly cite figures 1 and 2, though they don’t necessarily know it…

  4. #4 john byatt
    February 1, 2012

    looks like an all out attack
    telegraph, herald sun, advertiser in adelaide and also perth press.

    Has truth put his pants on yet?

  5. #5 Scribe
    February 1, 2012

    Porcine pollution princess, Gina Rhino-arse, puts pseudoscientist Pliemer (silent “p”) on retainer. Link

  6. #6 cbp
    February 1, 2012

    A new update to the David Rosegate is in order I think:
    http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

  7. #7 SteveC
    February 1, 2012

    @ Scribe February 1, 2012 2:43 AM

    “[Pliemer's] views are shared by Mrs Rinehart, who has also publicly criticised the idea that human activity is contributing to global climate change… He is also listed as a member of Mrs Rinehart’s Australians for Northern Development and Economic Vision (ANDEV) lobby group, which has taken strong positions on corporate taxation and climate change initiatives

    You can almost read thye script on how this will pan out over the next 5 years from here.

    And of course every Limited News outfall outlet will be overjoyed. But if anyone still entertains the notion that Failfax would behave any differently, Rinehart’s bid for 15% and a seat on the Fairfax board should make them stop and think.

    It’s all coming together nicely.

  8. #8 bill
    February 1, 2012

    All coming together indeed!

    Then we drift even further down the road to becoming the Unlearnt Country; the land of Bolts and vacant brains…

  9. #9 Richard McGuire
    February 1, 2012

    Around October last year I was watching the Bolt Report. One of the guests was Donna Lafranboise, a Canadian journalist and author of “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For The World’s Top Climate Scientist.” Bolt beamed as Lafranboise described how her research and book exposed the IPCC’s processes and procedures, as sloppy at best,and at worst, maybe even fraudulent. Alan Jones also had her in for a chat.

    Now these are serious allegations against a body, whose reports, underpin so much of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. So naturally I expected some kind of assessment or critique of the book from science blogs such as this one, or Skeptical Science,or Real Climate. How about Desmog, Lafranboise is after all a Canadian. Doing a search of the author or book title at any of the blogs just mentioned draws a blank. However, a Google Search produces a deluge of denialist propaganda praising the book. I have not read the book, but have read a summary of its main points, many of which are open to challenge. Some of the commentry also reveals, the author uses outdated or dubious sources of information, and has a poor grasp of the science.

    This does not mean the IPCC is some kind sacred cow, beyond criticism, and cannot improve its processes and procedures. The IPCC recognised this itself, which is why it beat Donna Lafranboise to punch by nearly a year. In October 2010 the IPCC accepted a review of its structure and procedures by the Inter Academy Council, and committed itself to implementing the IAC’s recommendations.

    So how about someone with some climate science credentials, and some knowledge of the workings of the IPCC, putting this book and its author under some long overdue scutiny.

  10. #10 Michael
    February 1, 2012

    @9

    Haven’t read the book, only the stuff on her website – awful dross. Full of basic factual errors and the quality of the writing is lamentable.

    She calls herself a journalist, but that’s just a bit of resume padding.

  11. #11 ThePowerofX
    February 1, 2012

    ^ A book that says the World Wildlife Fund has “infiltrated” the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change because the WWF asked IPCC scientists to join their Climate Witness project. According to the WWF:

    “The role of the Science Advisory Panel is to establish if the impacts observed by Climate Witnesses are consistent with current scientific knowledge of human-induced climate change events in a particular region. The scientists who are members of our Science Advisory Panel will give their expert opinion on submitted Climate Witness stories.”

    So a teenager in Peru writes and asks why her local river has flooded for the 7th time in 3 years, wondering if it’s climate change. The WWF then select a scientist with relevant expertise to respond. Understand that the WWF approached these scientists AFTER they had been selected to work on assessment reports.

    Donna Lafranboise flips this around (AFFIRMATION OF THE CONSEQUENT) to argue that the IPCC fourth assessment report was written by a bunch of WWF hippies. Like saying umbrellas cause rain, because every time it rains… “Look, they’re everywhere!”

    Silly woman. Silly book.

  12. #12 chek
    February 1, 2012

    Silly woman. Silly book.

    Loudly promoted by silly denialists with no discrimination or sense. And Prof. Curry.

  13. #13 Marco
    February 1, 2012

    Richard McGuire: you do not need to be a climate scientists to shoot the book down. All you need is some proper skepticism.

    For example, when I was a bit skeptic, I looked into the claims by Laframboise and her Citizen Auditors about the peer reviewed publications used in the IPCC report. Problem one I encountered was a muddied conflation of peer review and gray literature. As a result (I guess), only journal articles were counted as peer reviewed. IPCC reports, books and book chapters, reports from governments and government organisations, and also NGOs were put in the gray literature and *thus not peer reviewed* category! Well, I guess even some of the pseudoskeptics will wonder what happened, proudly calling themselves peer reviewers for the IPCC reports…Also, the authors who sent me book chapters over the last year will wonder why they received comments about the content of their chapter. Books aren’t peer reviewed, didn’t I know that?

    One admission: I became especially skeptical about this “audit” when LaFramboise in all earnest gave PNAS the benefit of the doubt as a peer-reviewed journal.

    Another example is the hilarious focus on people connected in some way to certain NGOs. Bad, bad IPCC! The WWF and Greenpeace have infiltrated the IPCC! In another chapter she then complains certain “experts” (I’ll get back to that) were not asked to participate. “Experts” like Paul Reiter and Roy Spencer. Apparently being connected to an ideological thinktank like the George Marshall Institute (Roy Spencer) or the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy is not a problem.

    Regarding “experts”, one would almost think Paul Reiter is the world’s most important expert on malaria. Problem is, he has hardly a single publication on malaria, beyond an opinion letter and a history of malaria in the UK. field work? As far as I can determine none. Another “expert” mentioned is Nils-Axel Mörner, the man who rotates sea level rise graphs by 45 degrees to make them flat. I’ll leave the comments on Roy Spencer out, I think plenty of people know how much of an expert he really is (not).

    And next you read another chapter in the book, in which she complains that…wait for it…an expert was in charge of the chapter! Apparently, you cannot have any critical assessment when a convening lead author is working in the field. So, the problem is not just the use of biased experts and the wrong experts, no, it’s the actual use of experts in the field!

    These few thinks I already noticed by just reading the “highlights”…no wonder Judith Curry liked it!

  14. #14 Deep Climate
    February 1, 2012

    Marco # 13 is bang on.

    Another “conflation issue” can be seen in the failure to distinguish between the three working groups, only one of which (WG1) deals primarily with physical science.

    Even using Laframboise’s improper “gray literature” classification, WG1 still scored very high, chapter by chapter, for percentage of “peer reviewed” sources.

    The book was discussed a fair amount at DC open threads, but I agree a proper takedown is in order.

    Ditto for Steve McIntyre’s latest braying about IPCC efforts to quite properly limit drafts to registered reviewers, without citation or transmission to the general public, at least until the final report is released.

    McIntyre claims that this runs counter to IAC’s call for more openness at the IPCC. But in fact, IAC’s *own* process calls for just such limits on review drafts, as plainly seen in their report on the IPCC; in fact, the IAC doesn’t release drafts even after the final version is released to the public. I’ll be getting to that one sooner or later.

    But first …

  15. #15 Deep Climate
    February 1, 2012

    Joe Oliver recycles debunked EthicalOil.org talking points on oilsands emissions, refuses to accept climate science

    http://deepclimate.org/2012/01/31/joe-oliver-recycles-debunked-ethicaloil-org-talking-points-on-oilsands-emissions-refuses-to-accept-climate-science/

    Recently I noted that planned expansion of the Alberta oil sands can not possibly be reconciled with the Harper government’s promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next few decades. (And Simon Fraser climate policy researcher Mark Jaccard apparently agrees). And I also exposed the ever mounting number of evident links between the Conservative government, including Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, and the pro-oilsands EthicalOil.org PR group (a.k.a the Ethical Oil Institute).

    Now Oliver has upped the ante on both contentions spectacularly. Answering questions from NDP environment critic Megan Leslie in the Canadian Parliament today, Oliver repeated a previously debunked claim that oil sands emissions (not intensity, but actual emissions) have fallen. And he implied that emission intensity (i.e. GHGs per barrel) continues to fall. Those same mistaken assertions were also made by former Ethical Oil executive director Alykhan Velshi in the ironically titled “Myths and Lies” section of EthicalOil.org, albeit with incomplete hasty corrections later on. And Oliver never did come clean on his understanding of climate science, doing little to reverse the impression that anti-science contrarians have gained a significant foothold in Ottawa, and that Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have no intention of meeting their climate commitments.

    Related posts:

    http://deepclimate.org/2012/01/06/canada-after-kyoto/

    http://deepclimate.org/2012/01/13/ethical-oil-political-connections-part-1-conservatives-go-newclear/

  16. #16 Composer99
    February 1, 2012

    It’s an open thread, so I don’t feel too bad engaging in shameless self-promotion.

    I came across an editorial piece in the Financial Post (part of Canada’s National Post newspaper) consisting of an excerpt from Laframboise’s book and took a crack at rebutting it (the excerpt, not the book – I’m hardly going to pay money for that kind of rubbish) on my own blog (link in my ‘nym).

  17. #17 Lars Karlsson
    February 1, 2012

    Ah, Donna Laframboise. The following excerpt from Chapter 24 should give you a good idea of where she stands:
    > No matter what they said the problem of the moment was – over-population, ozone depletion, acid rain, global warming – environmentalists have long advocated the same basket of solutions.
    These solutions amount to humanity forsaking industrialized society and a good measure of individual freedom. Apparently the answer is a return to Eden – to a slower, greener, more, ‘natural’ pace of life that embraces traditional values rather than mindless consumerism.

  18. #18 Marion Delgado
    February 1, 2012

    Anyone, when is the (South?) Australian robot competition Tim runs?

  19. #19 dz alexander
    February 1, 2012

    // “the planet hasn’t actually warmed for a decade – or even 15 years – according to new temperature data released by Britain’s Met Office.” //

    The Daily Mail had this too. They didn’t get around to identifying the article in question, but the particular period mentioned “since 1997″ or “the past 15 years” has an interesting apect. In 1998, there was a very strong el Nino which increased the temperature beyond any increase from AGW; in contrast 2011 was a la Nina year so atmospheric temperatures were lower than the trend.
    So drawing a line from a maximum to a minimum will http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/2012-global-temperature-forecast reduce the slope of temperature increase or make it negative. [see table at bottom]

    In other words, they are doing this http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif .

  20. #20 Steve
    February 1, 2012

    Looks like Ian Plimer’s financial interests in coal are now completely unambiguous:

    “According to disclosures made to the Australians Securities and Investments commission overnight Prof Plimer was appointed to the boards of Roy Hill Holdings and Queensland Coal Investments on January 25.”

    (if they weren’t before, he did deny that he had taken any money from the coal industry recently)

  21. #21 Heystoopid
    February 1, 2012

    Interestingly, Murdoch appears to have launched a major offensive world wide, on the reality of real world climate science, in his various print media outlets including the [Wall Street Journal](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html)!

    Skeptical Science’s “Dana1981″, did an excellent take down and debunking of this nonsensical trash [Op-Ed](http://www.skepticalscience.com/examining-the-latest-climate-denialist-plea-for-inaction.html). Thank you Dana1981, for you sterling efforts.

    Interestingly, another article in ["Skeptical Science"](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Policy-Peak-Oil_U-Washington.html) has shown that peak crude oil has come and gone in the year 2005. World wide production hitting 75 million barrels per day and has now flat lined. The alternative sources for extracting oil from fossil carbon sources, like shale and coal, is virtual climate suicide. Way back in 1956, Dr. M. King Hubbert predicted such an event as shown by this [graph](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hubbert_peak_oil_plot.svg) and this [youtube video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImV1voi41YY).

    Who benefits, from delaying that which is inevitable?

  22. #22 Harvey
    February 1, 2012

    @9
    MS Strawberry (LaFramboise) is infact a luminary for the Libertarian Denialati.
    It’s only because of Murdoch that anybody knows of her…..
    http://www.libertarian.to/NewsDta/templates/news1.php?art=art2512

  23. #23 Richard McGuire
    February 1, 2012

    Some interesting comments re The Delinquent Teenager ect….The fact is the average punter often goes first to Google to check on the bona fides of an author or book. A Google search of Donna Lafranboise or The Delinquent Teenager will find opinion on the first two Google pages favourable to the book and author by a ratio of nearly twenty to one. A coherent assessment or critique of the book is nowhere to be found. It is not enough to dismiss Donna Lafranboise as a “silly woman.” The reputation and credibility of the IPCC is too important.

  24. #24 Lotharsson
    February 1, 2012

    Burt Rutan …er, [triples down](http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/01/31/climate-science-discussion-between-burt-rutan-and-brian-angliss/) (see “from comment #150″).

    Can you see the substantive response to valid critiques buried amongst reiterations of debunked talking points (mostly ClimateGate and “the Hockey Stick is broken, and without it there’s no cause for concern”); at least one apparently libellous accusation; and egregious violations of basis statistics and logic?

    No, me neither.

    Comments are still being directed to the [original thread](http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/01/27/open-letter-to-burt-rutan/), and responses to Rutan’s latest start at #152.

  25. #25 Nick
    February 1, 2012

    The funny thing about Laframboise being a torch-bearer for ‘skeptic/libertarians’ is that her soft liberal/arts qualifications are exactly the kind usually derided by ‘skeptic/libertarians’.

    Her book is a predictable combination of paranoia,poor research and ignorance of science and science procedure.

  26. #26 chek
    February 1, 2012

    [Richard @ 22](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/february_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6221150)

    It’s sadly the case that the denialists will publish cheap lo-rent books – no matter how trashy e.g. Donna The Raspberry (really???) and Bishop Montford) – but neither will never publish a paper. They are unable to provide a rational, meaningful case.

    Conspiracy and innuendo, no matter how expertly confected, just doesn’t withstand scutiny. And that’s all they’ve got in lieu of actual evidence.

  27. #27 Lotharsson
    February 1, 2012

    Speaking of the Daily Mail, “[Do the weather forecasters quoted by the Daily Mail actually exist?](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/jan/26/weather-forecasters-daily-mail)”

  28. #28 ianam
    February 1, 2012

    Has the Murdoch press no standards whatsoever?

    Oh yes, they have standards, and you’re seeing the implementation of them.

  29. #29 Richard McGuire
    February 1, 2012

    Chek @ 25 “Conspiracy and innuendo, no matter how expertly confected, just doesn’t withstand scrutiny” My point Chek is, that as yet, there has been no scrutiny. Certainly nothing credible enough to counter balance the denialist rubbish on the Google pages.

  30. #30 Ark
    February 1, 2012

    @ Richard, 22

    I’m also surprised that nobody seems to have responded to Laframboise’s book smear tract, especially Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, who was mentioned specifically in the Oz’s [predictable glowing endorsement](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/ipcc-warming-assessments-attract-the-activists-and-snub-the-sceptics/story-e6frg6zo-1226180881974) of it a few months back. The sad fact is that real scientists like Ove, Trenberth, Mann, Jones, Santer etc. are paid to advance humanity’s knowledge of their respective fields, not to spend countless hours refuting lies about them in the media. Meanwhile, the Bolts, the Roses, the Codlings, the Laframboises of the world are able to make a living out of propagating those lies.

  31. #31 Mikem
    February 1, 2012

    @1. While the Murdoch Press isn’t renowned for it’s razor sharp accuracy, Andrew Bolt is, well, just kinda stupid. Memorable pieces of complete brainlessness from his article:

    “Sea levels have recently dipped” (only if you ignore every other piece of data except the El Nino-La Nina changeover Andrew)

    “Oceans have lately cooled” (not globally Andrew)

    “Arctic ice has not retreated since 2007″ (from which planet did you get that data Andrew? It sure wasn’t Earth!)

    Then he craps on about rain as if the heavy east coast rainfall this summer is proof it must be globally cooling. La Nina, Andrew? La Nina?

    He is a moron. What’s even more disturbing is that, looking at his blog comments, moronism seems to be a transmissible disease. This has me deeply concerned that I should be vaccinated against it.

  32. #32 Russell Seitz
    February 2, 2012

    It grieves me to find a real national asset, aerospace icon and America’s Cup defender Burt Rutan dragooned into signing the WSJ piece , but Pat Michaels has been using his Forbes column to ballyhoo it and Watts as well, adducing the remarkable claim that WUWT doesn’t ban critical commenters.

    To test that hypothesis, as adduced by Pat’s sidekick, Robert E. Phelan
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2012/01/27/watts-up-who-killed-climated-change/2/

    I posted this test piece on Watts blog :

    Rutan turns to the mural and says, "You know that face on Mars? NASA did the dumbest thing. They said it wasn't a face, it was a pile of rocks. If they'd said it was a face, they'd have full funding!" ">

    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/space.html?pg=4&topic=&topic_set=

    It instantly elicited the following response:

    In the meantime, please do be as upset as you wish. I'm done with you and your prickly condescending attitude towards people you disagree with.
    Such a fine example for Harvard you set, sir. - Anthony Watts] “>

    Odd as it may be to see Wired’s direct quotes from Burt styled”“weapons grade vitriol “, it’s wonderful that Yosemite Sam has found a new lease on life as a role model for retired TV weathermen.

  33. #33 Anthony Lonergan
    February 2, 2012

    I returned to my high school this week and found a letter from the Institute of Public Affairs in my pigeon hole. It informed me that teachers were not presenting both sides of the story, that two Nobel laureates did not agree with the AGW thesis, that science had previously asserted that the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around us therefore scientists could also be wrong about global warming, that unnamed scientists were now critical of other unnamed scientists of being political, that the IPCC had recently debunked Al Gore and that Roger Pielke Jn agreed about something, possiby Gore, and that Ian Plimer would be able to set all the kiddies straight by reading his book, a copy of which was kindly included for our library. It was signed by Director John Rostrum, Professor Ian Plimer himself and Newcastle property developer who doesn’t much like Lake Macquarie Council’s take on building close to sea level, Mr Jeff McCloy. Anyone else in school get one of these?

  34. #34 Lionel A
    February 2, 2012

    Richard McGuire @ #9

    ‘…a Google Search produces a deluge of denialist propaganda praising the book.’

    I don’t know if you have ever tried looking at customer reviews of books by the usual suspects, Montford, Booker, etc. on Amazon. It would be a momentous and depressing task to take on all of these at both Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk (and other applicable zones). I think that an effort is required. Sadly, due to health and disability issues, I am finding it extremely onerous.

    This is a real Dunning-Kruger example that should be countered.

  35. #35 John
    February 2, 2012

    >”Arctic ice has not retreated since 2007″ (from which planet did you get that data Andrew? It sure wasn’t Earth!)

    Take one guess

  36. #36 Sou
    February 2, 2012

    Richard McGuire @ #9
    The book you are talking about is easily debunked in a few minutes. If you haven’t found an article debunking it, maybe you could write one yourself and put it on a friendly blog somewhere (if you don’t have your own). It doesn’t need a climate scientist to do the debunking.

    For example, you could check her count of grey literature against the actual references (she’s got it all listed and categorised on her blog).

    You’ll find that, as someone else mentioned, the grey literature is not only completely acceptable, the reports could not have been prepared without them. Her count of grey literature even includes references to previous IPCC reports as well as references to meteorological data and data from industry organisations, UN and similar policy statements etc.

    You could also check the bios of the scientists she criticises.

    I’m not surprised it’s not debunked – reading the language she uses and doing a five minute check of her ‘facts’ is all it takes.

    One other thing – her findings were well and truly debunked before she put them in book form – including by some commenters on WUWT as I recall.

  37. #37 Lars Karlsson
    February 2, 2012

    Another piece of idiocy from Laframboise’s book, chapter 7:

    >The IPCC may claim that the world’s top scientific minds and climate modelers are one and the same.
    But I think that’s a stretch. In July 2007, five IPCC authors wrote an article for Scientific American in
    which they equated climate models with a fortune-teller’s crystal ball.
    On the one hand, they declared it a certainty that people, plants, and animals would all be living with the
    consequences of human-induced climate change “for at least the next thousand years.” On the other, they said:
    >>Unfortunately, the crystal ball provided by our climate models becomes cloudier for predictions
    out beyond a century or so.

    >Each of us has to make up our own mind regarding whom to trust and what to believe. But when I became a grownup, I stopped believing in crystal balls.

  38. #38 Composer99
    February 2, 2012

    Re: Richard McGuire’s inquiry @9:

    Further so Sou’s response @36:

    The book you are talking about is easily debunked in a few minutes. If you haven’t found an article debunking it, maybe you could write one yourself and put it on a friendly blog somewhere (if you don’t have your own). It doesn’t need a climate scientist to do the debunking.

    Once again, let me indulge in some [shameless self-promotion](http://composer99.blogspot.com/2011/11/national-posts-war-on-science-boogeymen.html).

  39. #39 Lionel A
    February 2, 2012

    Composer99 @ #38

    That ‘shameless self-promotion’ was much appreciated and well worth the time reading through. ‘Climate Bible’ indeed! This is just another variant of the denier accusation of climate change study being a religion.

    The take down of the three scientists by Laframboise reveals how much the likes of Laframbois cannot grasp how many thousands of scientific strands come together, thus how many scientific sub-disciplines are involved in supporting our level of understanding about the cause of the warming trend and the increasing related dysfunction of natural earth systems. Of atmospheric and ocean currents and the biosphere. Small minds are not capable of enlightenment.

    Either that or Laframbois is being duplicitous by trying to deny AGW in public whilst realising only too well that ‘…the times they are a changing’.

  40. #40 Brian Angliss
    February 2, 2012

    I’ve added another response to Burt Rutan here. Scroll down to “Brian Angliss’ response, from Comment #173″

  41. #41 John McManus
    February 2, 2012

    I read an newspaper artricle by LL flacking her book. What seemed to bother her the most was that Africans were allowed a voice by the IPPC. China having scientists also enraged her.

    Her world seems to be a racist swamp where only white people should participate. Does she think the no African or Chinese has ever gone to school?

  42. #42 Richard McGuire
    February 2, 2012

    Sou @36 If the book is so easily debunked why hasn’t a blog like this one done so ? After all it is only the reputation and credibility of IPCC that is being questioned. The issue is too important to be left to enthusiastic amateurs like myself, who are limited to asking questions and initiating discussions on forums like this one.

  43. #43 Marco
    February 2, 2012

    Richard, you are starting to sound like Judith Curry, who demanded Montford’s book was rebutted. It’s giving attention to something that does not serve attention. Those who are even remotely skeptical in the proper meaning of the word will have no problem seeing the problems in the booklet. Only those that are already ‘converted’ will believe it, and no take down will ever make a change. Just see how Judith Curry, who should have the ability to see what a bunch of trash it is, touted the book.

    She wasn’t open for reason when people pointed out issues with Montford’s book (au contraire, she went off on a hissy-fit when the mistakes were pointed out), so who would one write for? Not for the rational, sane people, who can easily see the ideology shining right through, and not for the deniosphere, which has already decided that no facts will ever change their mind.

  44. #44 ThePowerofX
    February 2, 2012

    Judith Curry’s reaction is fascinating. I once read a book, as a naive and impressionable teenager, that said JFK was assassinated by the CIA. The author presented facts in a manner that made a plot seem plausible. Such was my uncritical acceptance I thought “Gosh, the real killers roam free!” When people pointed out the book was highly selective and misleading, I reacted badly, defending the thesis that CIA whacked Kennedy. This episode ran through my head witnessing Judith Curry’s reaction to Andrew Montford’s book. She made a big scene before seeking alternative answers and explanations, thus, when colleagues informed her that Montford’s account was wrong and misleading in many ways, instead of processing new information, Judith resisted because she wasn’t properly sceptical to begin with. To compound matters, her schooling happened in a very public manner (whereas I only looked silly in front of friends and family) and she could not accept people knowing her critical thinking skills were underdeveloped. Much of her output is geared toward rationalising her foolishness and she shows no signs of throwing down the shovel.

  45. #45 bill
    February 2, 2012

    Yeah, I’m curious; the world is over-run with absurd critiques – John Cook from SkS was confronted with some new publication denouncing Tim Flannery at a public meeting recently as though this was somehow his problem – do we have to get excited about all of them, and spend 6 months running around meticulously identifying their errors, or what?

    Laframboise’s thing came out a while ago – I recall the angry reaction at the time to her absurd notion that somehow the IPCC was run by undergrads (‘surly teenagers’ IIRC) because, would you credit it, they were doing the actual leg-work on many of the papers (I mean! Really!). She thinks the IPCC has been ‘infiltrated’ by the WWF! That website of hers is just another tedious pile of shopworn Denialist memes for rechumming back into the system.

    Who cares?

    I mean, why bother to credit it at all? Gee, the Deniers have whipped themselves into an lather about another wannabe Ann Coulter. We must respond! We must sue! If we don’t we have admitted the charges! Aha!

  46. #46 John
    February 2, 2012

    Richard, anybody who believes conspiracy theories about the evil Communist WWF-infiltrated IPCC isn’t properly skeptical to begin with.

  47. #47 John
    February 2, 2012

    It’s like saying that since NASA scientists won’t engage with people who believe the moon landings were faked, then it’s proof the moon landings were faked. Their claims are ridiculous to anyone with an actual *skeptical* mind.

  48. #48 Richard McGuire
    February 3, 2012

    I hear the gaffaws ricocheting around the echo chamber. I mean who would ever have taken any notice of Monkton ?

  49. #49 ianam
    February 3, 2012

    What a silly troll you’re being, Richard. Monckton has been refuted well and good, and yet he’s still plying his propaganda … if anything, that’s an argument for not paying attention to Montford. The fact is that you have been rebutted in `#`43-`#`47, but rather than addressing any of the points made you offer up ad hominem BS about an echo chamber. But merely because several intelligent and knowledgeable people share similar views, that doesn’t make them an echo chamber.

  50. #50 Sou
    February 3, 2012

    @ Richard McGuire #42 – this blog is run by an ‘enthusiastic amateur’ – he has given you a platform to debunk the book, not complain that not enough people have debunked it.

    No-one gives it any credence and only the most entrenched deniers quote it. It was a 5 minute wonder in the deniosphere. At $4.99 or whatever she wants you to pay it’s overpriced by at least $1,000.

    Scientists and enthusiastic amateurs have to prioritise their ‘leisure’ time. Tim does an excellent job – particularly trying to keep the media honest and pointing out where they are not.

    If you want to play a part in informing the world of the risks of AGW, then don’t just wait for someone else to do all the work – why not have a go yourself.

    In this case though, Composer99 has done it for you – and twice in this thread has given you link that you can point people to.

  51. #51 Marco
    February 3, 2012

    Richard, Monckton presents *technical* arguments, something 99.9% of the population cannot follow, which you can’t blame them. In such a case a rebuttal is useful to at the very least cast doubt on his claims (“but experts say you are wrong”)

    Anyone reading Laframboise’s book will have no trouble seeing the conspiracy nuttery.

    Note also that despite all the times Monckton has been rebutted, he is still hailed on WUWT as their savior, and is still happily invited to act as a front figure by several organisations.

  52. #52 ianam
    February 3, 2012

    P.S. Bob Ward wrote a rebuttal to Montford at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/aug/19/climate-sceptics-mislead-public?

    I found this via the Wikipedia article on The Hockey Stick, linked to by the Wikipedia article on Andrew Montford … you could have yourself, Richard, if you weren’t such a lazy troll out to bash people for not spending even more of their lives addressing the lies of deniers.

  53. #53 ianam
    February 3, 2012

    Wait, we’re talking about Donna Laframboise’s book? Sorry, I misread and misunderstood the comment in `#`43 about Judith Curry and Montford.

    Well, that changes things entirely, because Donna Laframboise is a blithering idiot and you have to be close to being one to think that her book merits any attention … but if you really really need someone to do that, see http://nittygrittyscience.com/2011/11/03/an-open-letter-to-donna-laframboise-or-you-have-got-to-be-f-kidding-me/ (the fourth hit on her name on google … too far down for lazy trolls who can’t even spell her name right to look, I guess).

  54. #54 Bernard J.
    February 3, 2012

    The trouble with all the cranks and the conspiracy theorists is that although they might “just” be fools and febrile ignorants apparently not worthy of rebuttal, they have already won the propaganda war.

    Had the Denialati not been active I suspect that the international community might actually now have a coordinated and enacted plan for decarbonising. As it stands, such a program will not exist for at least another decade.

    Many folk (rightly) compare the delaying tactics of climate deniers with those of the tobacco lobby. The recent movement of Gina Rinehart into the Australian media context should produce more of the same. There is one critical difference however: where denial of tobacco carcinogenicity ‘simply’ resulted in more tobacco-related deaths mostly restricted to (essentially voluntary) smokers than would have otherwise occurred, the delay of action on carbon emissions will seriously and detrimentally affect the climate, the ecology, and the food-productivity of the whole planet for billions of humans currently living, and yet to be born, and not actually impact too much on those relatively few actually braying for the delay.

    Oo, and the biodiversity of the Earth will cop a beating too…

    As much as it might gall those who understand that refutations are mostly an exercise in casting pearls before swine, it is nevertheless worth recalling some sage advice from a well-known children’s author:

    >Uncle Tim always said that a good farmer looks every day at his roofs, gates and fences. He said that a nail in time saves nine, and a tile in time saves a hundred!

    The potential worth of a political argument is very different to the (sometimes apparently low) worth of an intellectual argument. That makes Richard McGuire’s point quite important, and it is in fact why we have Skeptical Science, Deltoid, Rabbett Run, Open Mind, Climate Crock, and so many other fine sites in the first place.

    The extent to which advocates of rational science step in to counter the propaganda machine will determine the extent to which humans ameliorate (rather than negate) the eventual final cost of losing the climate war.

  55. #55 ianam
    February 3, 2012

    It is not enough to dismiss Donna Lafranboise as a “silly woman.”

    Considering just how blatantly silly she is, yes it is.

    The reputation and credibility of the IPCC is too important.

    Non sequitur, you silly man.

  56. #56 ianam
    February 3, 2012

    The trouble with all the cranks and the conspiracy theorists is that although they might “just” be fools and febrile ignorants apparently not worthy of rebuttal, they have already won the propaganda war.

    Yes, but rebutting them isn’t the way to win it, something that folks like you have a lot of trouble grasping. And even if it were, it doesn’t apply to Donna LeFramboise, both because she’s so transparently whacked and because her book isn’t about climate science, it’s about her extraordinary ignorance about how science is done.

    That makes Richard McGuire’s point quite important, and it is in fact why we have Skeptical Science, Deltoid, Rabbett Run, Open Mind, Climate Crock, and so many other fine sites in the first place.

    You seem very confused. Richard’s point is that when he googles LeFramboise he mostly gets denialists lauding her … the existence of those sites doesn’t change that, nor would it if one or more of them had covered LeFramboise’s book. Now, if you can convince Rupert Murdoch, the Koch brothers, Richard Mellon-Scaife, ExxonMobil, etc. to fund propaganda sites, then perhaps you could begin to turn around the propaganda war.

  57. #57 Bernard J.
    February 3, 2012

    Richard McGuire.

    Having [said that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/february_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6221963), [Composer99's post](http://composer99.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/national-posts-war-on-science-boogeymen.html) and [ianam's link](http://nittygrittyscience.com/2011/11/03/an-open-letter-to-donna-laframboise-or-you-have-got-to-be-f-kidding-me/), amongst others, are already out there, so an organised rebuttal of Laframboise need not reinvent the wheel…

  58. #58 Bernard J.
    February 3, 2012

    >Richard’s point is that when he googles LeFramboise he mostly gets denialists lauding her …

    That was one of Richard McGuire’s points – we need to be careful not to fall for the logical traps that catch the Denialists.

    Still, it’s true that many search queries return a string of crackpot hits first. That’s one of the many factors that have helped to scuttle effective response in reducing carbon emissions. Sensible searching would mitigate against this, but unfortunately sensibility is not a character trait of our species.

    All that’s left is to do the best that we can.

  59. #59 spottedquoll
    February 3, 2012

    Anthony Lonergan @ 33, I think that publication should go in to the fiction section of the library along with EIS’s for coal mines and, well, maybe, power substations in salt patches (if you are who I think you are you’ll get this reference), or, as has been suggested elsewhere, use it for teaching critical thinking, find a claim, examine it, see if it stacks up. But please, don’t put it in the compost, you’ll give the worms a stomach ache.

  60. #60 ianam
    February 3, 2012

    To get some insight into how the propaganda machine works, read `http://www.cjr.org/cover_story/hot_air.php`

    When climate scientists are picked up by the Drudge Report and are interviewed by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs and are invited to speak at the Heartland Institute like these weathermen are, things will change. Cranks like Coleman get wide coverage, with a little help from right wing billionaires; folks like Tamino, and Rabbett don’t. Much as we value them, they don’t make much difference in the greater world because very few people ever read anything they write.

  61. #61 ianam
    February 3, 2012

    That was one of Richard McGuire’s points – we need to be careful not to fall for the logical traps that catch the Denialists.

    Don’t play dishonest games with me. You’re the one who referred to “Richard McGuire’s point”, as if there were only one, and failed to identify just what point you meant … so I did it for you.

    Still, it’s true that many search queries return a string of crackpot hits first. That’s one of the many factors that have helped to scuttle effective response in reducing carbon emissions.

    With all those points and factors, you’re pretty safe in avoiding the logical trap of implying that you’re focusing on the ones that matter.

  62. #62 Chucky
    February 3, 2012

    inaman,

    Have you seen this ?

    ( http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2012-0-09-deg-c/ )

    It looks like your the denier, global temps are currently down to the 1980 temperature, how odd, sorta make’s people stop and think about what science has been shoving down their throats.

    And just to rub it in

    ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/02/wuwt-and-other-climate-blogs-are-2012-bloggies-finalists/ )

  63. #63 Wow
    February 3, 2012

    You know that the satellite isn’t measuring temperature, right, Chuckles? It’s measuring brightness. Of the atmosphere. All of it.

    And absolutely none of the atmosphere is the earth’s surface. This isn’t Jupiter, you know.

  64. #64 Richard McGuire
    February 3, 2012

    @49 ianam , whoever you are ? You call me “silly old troll” then accuse me of ad hominem B.S. ?

    @ 50 sou “This blog is run an enthusiatic amateur” who is a computer scientist. Sou I am not in same league. I do appreciate the fact he provides this open forum, which being an “Open Thread” I assume gives me the right to complain about a book not being debunked. If Composer’s “shameless self promotion” @ 38 were to make it to the Google pages it might make a difference.

    @ 51 marco Monckton not only presents technical arguments, but more importantly, tells people what they want to hear, just as Lafranboise is doing. Monckton may still be the darling of the denialosphere, but his reputation and credibility has been greatly diminished, thanks to blogs like this one. Just google Monckton, and you will find many unflattering comments on the man, including an entry by Deltoid “Monckton debunks Monckton.” Google Lafranboise or her book title and see what you get.

  65. #65 David Duff
    February 3, 2012

    Bad show, chaps, you’ve let me down! One of the mildest winters on record and I was beginning to think those chaps at Deltoid really have done the business and warmed things up – which is, of course, “A Good Thing” not “A Bad Thing” considering the alternative, although you haven’t quite worked that one out. However, no sooner do I start hunting for last Summer’s sun cream than the bloody Russians send their arctic Siberian weather over here! They say frozen birds are falling out of the sky! Even worse, because I believe everything you say on this blog, I had given my Long Johns to charity and I have been forced to go and buy some more!

    And talking of believing things on this site, I do recall some mentions in the past concerning DDT and malaria. I avoided the topic not so much because I know very little of it (but when did that ever stop me – heh, heh?!), but mainly because I don’t care given that malaria is non-existent in south west England. According to The Guardian (no less), deaths by malaria have doubled and according to ‘Dellers’ it is directly due to the virtual ban on DDT. He reckons “the Greens have been responsible for killing more people than Hitler.”

    Crikey! You lot have much to answer for! Not only putting us all at risk by failing to warn of global cooling but also letting those pesky ‘Mozzies’ fly free. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Now get a grip!

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2012/02/watermelons-kill.html

  66. #66 Wow
    February 3, 2012

    > You call me “silly old troll” then accuse me of ad hominem B.S.

    You need to work out what ad hominem means.

    > One of the mildest winters on record

    Aaaww. Look Dai is calling weather climate again. Just like he whines about all the climate realists doing at SkS and RC…

  67. #67 Wow
    February 3, 2012

    > Monckton not only presents technical arguments, but more importantly, tells people what they want to hear

    You have that right.

    I believe your watch stopped.

    > I assume gives me the right to complain about a book not being debunked.

    Oh, yes. But no right to expect anyone to bother to do anything about it. Do it yourself. Or live with it. You have the right to choose those and any others you wish.

  68. #68 chek
    February 3, 2012

    Not only putting us all at risk by failing to warn of global cooling but also letting those pesky ‘Mozzies’ fly free. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

    Duffer you dumb old coot – there is no global cooling. You’ve fallen into the trap (as you do every single time) of believing idiots with no evidence except their own ignorant application of the data. This is chiefly your own fault because despite every encouragement you choose to remain an ignorant git who refuses to educate himself.

    You might also like to acquaint yourself with the proven effects of blanket application of pesticides like DDT. What happens is that there are always colonies with slightly different genetic variations who are immune. These immune colonies then breed without competition from the wiped out colonies until you’re back at sqauare one with an ineffective chemical suppressant that doesn’t suppress.
    The merest smidgin of background reading would inform you – if you were interested, which you’re not.

    Instead you prefer joining in with the moron’s groupwank of ignorance with political deadend idiots like eureferendum who know and care for nothing except their own geriatric prejudices. Then for an encore you come and jerk off your swivel-eyed ignorance over here as if you’re being clever. If only you could see yourself the way others see you.

  69. #69 John
    February 3, 2012

    Weaker than usual Duff. “It’s cold in Winter” really the best you have?

    I am chuffed that you brought up biology since, according to you, it isn’t a science (that is unless you can use it to blame your enemies for things!)

    Look forward to you ignoring this post you gormless coward!

  70. #70 John
    February 3, 2012

    Chek, don’t bother. He knows he’s lying. He does it to get a reaction. It’s his “cause”

  71. #71 Marco
    February 3, 2012

    Richard, as you correctly point out, Monckton appeals to those already wanting to hear the message he spreads. The technical rebuttal of Monckton is useful for those who cannot see through his manipulation and mistakes, because they lack the basic skills to see where he goes wrong.

    This is different with Laframboise. The language she uses is enough for just about all human beings to see this is ideology speaking, not a discussion of facts. It is, in short, a very clear narrative. Providing a rebuttal does not help, because those convinced will believe her regardless of the facts, and those in doubt will smell the stench of the ideology.

  72. #72 Marco
    February 3, 2012

    ianam, cutting down on the vitriol might be nice.

  73. #73 Bernard J.
    February 3, 2012

    [Ianam](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/february_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6222067).

    I’m sorry if my phrasing isn’t always so precise that it covers all contingencies.

    Nevertheless, the fact remains that I have a lot of sympathy for the sentiment of Richard McGuire’s initial post here. Blogs such as [those I listed previously](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/february_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6221963) are all about deconstructing the rubbish that denialists promulgate and promote. If they’re not coming to the fore in search results when non-scientists are looking for answers then there is a problem, whether large or small.

    Yes, the most scientifically ‘credible’ propagandists need to be addressed with priority, but this does not preclude also attending to numpties in the vein of LeFramboise who gain considerable traction amongst both rusted-on denialists and in the more general public sphere.

    And yes, it’s a bitch that Google doesn’t filter on credibility, but rather via sites’ traffic (or via paying inducements…). To this end having organised rebuttals of folk such as LeFramboise is useful, even if their arguments are entirely specious. The important fact here is that they are popular amongst the lay public who don’t know how to filter information, but who eventually have such great sway with the politicians for whom they vote.

    I don’t resile from either point, and I’m a little bemused that others have given Richard McGuire a toasting for his original comment. In my experience he is most certainly not a troll, concern or otherwise, and if the blather of people such as the seriously facile LeFramboise is slipping under the radar and scoring unwarranted credibility with the general public then McGuire’s point (or “points“…) is a surely valid one (or are valid ones…).

    Perhaps one unintended consequence of this little enchange will be to promote the thread higher in the Google rankings – Deltoid often (and sometimes surprisingly) seems to shoot to the first page of certain Google searches. I hope so: people will then have at least [two decent links](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/february_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6222007) to access in their journey to understanding LeFramboise’s purile nonsense.

  74. #74 Bernard J.
    February 3, 2012

    For what it’s worth, I agree that LeFramboise’s idiocy is plainly transparent – to intelligent and educated folk.

    The problem is that it doesn’t seem to be plainly transparent to enough people. I once wasted hours on a (non-science) forum trying to educate over a dozen people about the inadequacies of her book. For my pains I was flooded to exhaustion with links to Plimer, Monckton, Watts, Bolt et al, et al, et al.

    Ignorance, stupidity, and denial of reason are the intellectual equivalent of matches. Their memes are quick to light, and in-and-of themselves are puny little flickers, but they can ignite raging forest fires of factual obfuscation that are beyond the resources of whole armies of people to quell.

    LeFramboise may be a dim spark, but she’s still one worth stamping on whilst directing the hoses to more blazing scientific bastardry.

    IMHO.

  75. #75 Composer99
    February 3, 2012

    [Richard:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/february_2012_open_thread.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link#comment-6222135)

    One way to get refutations of Laframboise higher up in the rankings of the Almighty Google is to share them online, link to them in discussions, that sort of thing.

    Just sayin’.

  76. #76 David Duff
    February 3, 2012

    Duffer you dumb old coot – there is no global cooling.

    Possibly, Chek, but there ain’t no warming either, at least, for the last 10 years and maybe longer. And you (the collective ‘you’) promised me endless Summers for the lat years of my sainted life. What’s gone wrong? And I want my money back!

    And as for ‘buggaboos’ building up biochemical resistance to DDT, well of course they will over time, but meanwhile, as they get around to it, hundreds of thousands will live. You might as well apply your argument to anti-biotics which have saved millions of lives even if the ‘buggaboos’ are now beginning to dodge the bullet. Anyway, your preferred methods don’t seem to have worked at all with the number of deaths doubling!

    Sorry, Chek, but you and the rest of the class ‘Must Do Better’ or you will all have to stay behind and copy out ‘What’s Up With That’!

  77. #77 Wow
    February 3, 2012

    “but there ain’t no warming either”

    Unfortunately, that dastardly liberal called “reality” says you’re wrong.

    “at least, for the last 10 years ”

    Where are the error bars on that? You aren’t a scientist unless you can give error bars.

  78. #78 dhogaza
    February 3, 2012

    You might as well apply your argument to anti-biotics which have saved millions of lives even if the ‘buggaboos’ are now beginning to dodge the bullet.

    The argument is not only applied, but practised, efforts have been made to reduce the overuse of antibiotics for a couple of decades now.

  79. #79 Ian Forrester
    February 3, 2012

    duffer the puffer shows his ignorance once again:

    And as for ‘buggaboos’ building up biochemical resistance to DDT, well of course they will over time, but meanwhile, as they get around to it, hundreds of thousands will live.

    The mosquitoes became resistant to DDT years ago you stupid ignoramus. Why don’t you either just shut up so you don’t let everyone know how stupid you are or at least do a bit of reading in areas you choose to comment on?

  80. #80 Lionel A
    February 3, 2012

    Duff, so you are Still Going Down the Up Escalator . What a cross-grained duffer of an old buffer you are.

  81. #81 John Mashey
    February 3, 2012

    re: 54

    I *strongly recommend a brand-new book on tobacco, which occasionally mentions the weird connections with climate anti-science, by Stanford Professor of History Robert Proctor, a world-class expert in this turf. I have a review there.

    I will note that besides killing children, slowly, the tobacco business:

    a) Occupies land that might grow food.
    b) Causes trees to be cut to grow tobacco.
    c) Causes more trees to be cut to burn to cure tobacco.

    Of course, he other connection is that most US thinktanks that do climate anti-science learned the tactics by doing it for tobacco. The tobacco archives are fabulous resources.

  82. #82 Jeremy C
    February 3, 2012

    Meanwhile the deniers have opened up another front against Michael Mann [here](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/feb/03/penn-state-facebook-michael-mann?commentpage=last#end-of-comments).

    They never stop do they.

  83. #83 chek
    February 3, 2012

    Unfortunately no they don’t – it’s their job.

    However, no sane government on Earth is going to ask the opinions of those cracker-barrel idealogues once out-of-the-box effects (such as the AGW predicted outgassing of methane from the permafrost) start occurring, as they have, in the real world. The think tank puppets just haven’t had the memo yet. The next El Nino at the height of the solar cycle with its attendant effects, will wipe them out.

  84. #84 guthrie
    February 3, 2012

    IIRC DDT resistance was first noted in the 1950’s. Antibiotic resistance was predicted shortly after widespread use of antibiotics began, and unsurprisingly showed up in a decade or less. Duff shows that once again he is here only to annoy people.

  85. #85 ianam
    February 3, 2012

    ianam, cutting down on the vitriol might be nice.

    Thank you for your patronization, but I don’t think much of nice; I’m much more interested in truth, and the truth is that he trolled here, regardless of past behavior — Bernard’s irrelevant “experience”: talk about a logic trap!

  86. #86 ianam
    February 3, 2012

    For what it’s worth, I agree that LeFramboise’s idiocy is plainly transparent – to intelligent and educated folk.

    Ah, yes, but I’m sure that a careful and precise rebuttal posted at, say, SkepticalScience.com or that even more widely read location, Deltoid, will turn them all around.

    You really really do not get it, and your metaphor of stamping out sparks is truly dim.

  87. #87 Bernard J.
    February 3, 2012

    It’s more complicated than a simple issue of a “logic trap”, Ianam.

    Yes, folk who post sensibly most of the time can sometimes hit a sour note. I have done so on occasion, and I’m not Robinson Crusoe. However, people can also appear to some folk to be saying one thing, but mean something else simply because the subtext and the context are obscured by the lack of finesse that accompanies written communication. Heck, that’s why emoticons were spawned.

    I’ve seen Richard McGuire post elsewhere. Many of those posts were about the effectiveness – or otherwise – of science communication, IIRC. Given my prior familiarity with Richard, it seemed (and still seems to be, to me) reasonable to assume his genuine intent, rather than any concern-troll motivation.

    The underlying issue is that if Richard had difficulty locating refutations of Laframboise, people with even less familiarity and capacity for matters climatological will likely have even more difficulty. However, this can be remedied.

    As [I implied](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/february_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6222205), and as [Composer99 explicitly explained](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/february_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6222220), repeated and consistent linkings to such debunkings rapidly shifts useful material closer to the top of Google searches: it’s one reason why I often post links on Deltoid*. It’s up to people who know where the resources are to centralise (to some extent) the access to them, so that people who might not otherwise locate these resources have an easier time of it.

    I’m not quite sure why this has caused the minor conflagration that it has, but it should certainly help to bring one step closer to the truth, seekers of an answer to the question of the reliability of Laframboise. Or should we not bother to do so, whenever we are able? If the answer to that last is that we should not bother, then should we not bother to refute Bolt, or Watts, or Monckton?

    Frankly, I’m glad of this kerfuffle. It’s flushed out Composer99’s link, and that’s a useful one for my bookmarks. Which in the end was essentially Richard McGuire’s desired point (or “point”).

    [* And on the topic of linking, I use backupURL.com for exactly the opposite reason - to avoid giving denialist sites a leg-up on search engines. And it's good for preserving for posterity contentious comments.]

  88. #88 bill
    February 4, 2012

    I agree; the Composer99 link was great.

    ianam, react how you will, but you really, really need to have a bit of a think about whether your omni-directional blowtorch style is always benefiting the cause* . Sorry, but the mood here is definitely such that I’m confident I’m not the only one who feels it doesn’t. This needs saying.

    The ever-irrelevant windbag Duff is fair game. Richard McGuire is a horse of a completely different colour. I’ve responded to him above about not seeing that we were obliged to take time out to respond to every shibboleth the Deniers spit up, but I don’t believe he’s playing the troll.

    He has taken it all rather well, but I would not have been surprised if he hadn’t. And Bernard is being very diplomatic and respectful in his responses to you. The reverse, sadly, cannot be said.

    (*yes David, ‘the cause’. You screech ‘Aha! and carry on like the proverbial porkchop; I say ‘bite me.’)

  89. #89 Lotharsson
    February 4, 2012

    Monckton suggesting that [some of Australia's super-rich should buy up or create a TV channel](https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/mining/monckton/monckton-speaks-to-mining-industry-share-this-video) to serve similar purposes as Fox News does in the US. (Gina Rinehart buying up a portion of Fairfax, anyone?)

    Monckton touts Jo Nova and Andrew Bolt as commentators who should be on every day…

    And there’s [an article at The Drum](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3807130.html) about it from a couple of days ago, complete with more links.

  90. #90 StevoR
    February 4, 2012

    Andrew Bolt is scheduled to be on the box again tomorrow – ‘The Bolt Report’ screening 10.30 am and repeated at half four. If folks can bear to watch it.

    Read [this](http://climatecrocks.com/2012/02/01/scientists-answer-the-wall-street-16/) in The Australian newspaper the other day (2012 Feb. 3rd) – it was on page 14 – located directly opposite it was the regular “Cut’n’paste” column headlined “Plagued by Climate doubt? Concerned about cooling?Suffering from an open mind’ pushing the climate contrarian line. Sigh.

  91. #91 Lotharsson
    February 4, 2012

    > Andrew Bolt is scheduled to be on the box again tomorrow…

    And IIRC on a channel that Gina Rinehart bought a piece of a while back…

  92. #92 Richard McGuire
    February 4, 2012

    @87 Thank you Bernard J, for first, not regarding me as some kind of alien invader. You have argued a case better than I could have. It is now up to others to judge what happens next.

  93. #93 Chris O'Neill
    February 4, 2012

    Monckton suggesting that some of Australia’s super-rich should buy up or create a TV channel to serve similar purposes as Fox News does in the US. (Gina Rinehart buying up a portion of Fairfax, anyone?)

    Fox News is already in Australia on Pay TV. The trick is getting news that she can influence on free-to-air TV.

  94. #94 Climate Sceptic
    February 4, 2012

    David Duff,

    You must be a glutton for punishment! This blog is a nest of fundamentalist global warming believers. And, instead of defending their beliefs with argument they resort to abuse.

    Have you tried asking their views on the relative importance of CO2 and the sun on climate?

  95. #95 Lotharsson
    February 4, 2012

    > And, instead of defending their beliefs with argument they resort to abuse.

    LOL – what a wonderful Poe!

  96. #96 Alex
    February 4, 2012
  97. #97 John
    February 4, 2012

    >Have you tried asking their views on the relative importance of CO2 and the sun on climate?

    Of course he hasn’t because that would take him far out of his comfort zone which, to date, has revolved around making snide assertions that the AGW theory is finished (a claim he’s been making for two years now, in which time the evidence has grown stronger) and it’s cold in Winter so how can global warming be happening?

    The only time Duff has tried to argue science he threw his support behind dowser and conspiracy peddler Nils Axel-Morner and his infamous tilted graph, before announcing that biology wasn’t a science. When backed into a corner he chucked a sobbing wobbly and flounced off promising never to post again, only to return days later spamming the usual assortment of right-wing memes and not engaging with any responses.

    So perhaps instead of asking why we won’t engage with Duff on the science, you should ask why he is too afraid to engage with us?

  98. #98 bill
    February 5, 2012

    He also staged a highly convenient disappearance here. 102 posts, and not-a-one from our very own Colonel Blimp.

    Proving that even Duff can occasionally recognise a truly blatant train-wreck when he sees one.

  99. #99 David Duff
    February 5, 2012

    I gather I have been missed! Well, apologies and all that sort of thing but you must realise, mes enfants, that popping down here to the junior school, so to speak, and beating up a few of the kiddies, is only a part, a very small part, of my life. Even so, John, above, is eager for some, er, ‘science’, so here goes, although it is from the Met Office and I trust them about as far as I can piss into a gale:

    “Our records for the past 15 years suggest the world has warmed by about 0.051C over that period,” said the Met Office. In layman’s terms that is 51 thousandths of a degree.”

    Is that it?! 0.051C? Over 15 years? With the Chinese opening coal-fueled powers stations at the rate of one a week? To say nothing of the Indians! And all the Greenies howling that we’re not cutting our emissions anywhere near enough! So why only a measley 0.051C? What about all those dire predictions from Hansen et al? Come on, boys and girls, something’s not right here and you keep telling me how, er, scientific you all are, so tell me (or teh Met Office) where the missing heat went!

  100. #100 John
    February 5, 2012

    You negelected to give me the source of the article. Obviously you are hiding something and it took me mere seconds to find out what.

    >For most climate scientists the answer is simple. “Fifteen years is just too short a period over which to measure climate change,” said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at the Met Office. “The world undergoes natural temperature changes on all kinds of time scales from daily variations to seasonal ones. It also varies naturally from year to year and decade to decade.”

    And:

    >That sounds ominous but Lockwood calculates that even a decline in activity on that scale would now have little effect because the impact would be far smaller than the opposing effects of surging greenhouse gas emissions.

    Does losing, come naturally, to you? You are, completely incompetent. How, er, many times am I, er, going to give, er, you, er, a sound thrashing before, er, you stop trying?

    (Although I must give you a big thumbs up for trying to slip an article from serial fabricator Jonathan Leake past me and thinking I wouldn’t notice)

    >that popping down here to the junior school, so to speak, and beating up a few of the kiddies, is only a part, a very small part, of my life.

    That’s a lie. You blog prodigiously and read this blog religiously. For a troll, you are soft and easily provoked and I was supremely gratified to watch you run screaming off instead of answering the very simple quesiton of why you believe Nils Axel-Morner’s projections when his observations are wrong.

    Are we still any closer to an answer on that or are you just going to spam the next big Bishop Hill talking point you will forget within a couple of hours?

    Why are you so weak, Duff?

1 2 3 11

Current ye@r *