March 2012 Open Thread


  1. #1 chek
    March 13, 2012

    You could have picked on many science points and discussed but you’re so tightly handing(sic) on to your pinko positions that you’re unable to actually think.

    Ah – this sounds very similar to another recent visitor who believes in thinking for yourself, which would be quite the achievement for the moron in question. So, with that in mind and having skimmed a couple of Wiki articles, I’m now off to harangue some Japanese government agency about Fukushima.

    I’ll bet they’re sick to death of self-interested advice from pinko nuclear careerists more eager to enrich themselves from the grants trough on the gravy train with their post-modernist, post-normal, post-graduate, post-colonial, post-early-for-xmas ‘science’.

  2. #2 Karen
    March 13, 2012

    StevoR, maybe you need to see this.

    “two key government documents have been dug up – which tell us that Arctic sea ice extent was much lower prior to 1979.

    In 1990, the IPCC published the graph below based on NOAA data. It shows us that Arctic ice extent in 1974 was almost two million km^2 less than 1979”

  3. #3 MikeH
    March 13, 2012


    Thanks for the link. That was seriously funny. You deniers may know squat about science but you do know how to tell the joke. Very convincing too – I thought I was at [Climate Depot]( Actually I notice Climate Depot has a link to Real-Science – maybe it was a co-production.

    While we are sharing here is a link to [My Water’s On Fire Tonight (The Fracking Song)](

  4. #4 chek
    March 13, 2012

    [This comment]( is too good not to re-post. ‘Karen’ should first and foremost rememeber that “Steven Goddard” is as unreliable as John O’Sullivan, which is about as unreliable as it can possibly get.

    If the ice was at 2007 levels back in the 60′s then how did we miss the Northeast and Northwest Passages being open? Especially since we were trying to gauge the feasibility of shipping oil across the arctic.
    Oh, maybe it *wasn’t* at those levels:

    On Sept 2, 1969, the S.S.Manhattan turrned her huge armored bow toward Baffin Island and started encountering her first ice floes at approx. 14 feet thick. The Manhattan, cracking off half-acre floes, sailed on without a quiver. As the blocks grew larger, more power was required and the Manhattan broke though ice floes as thick as 60 feet. When in the McClure strait howver, ice 15 to 20 high and sometimes as deep as 100 feet proved too much for the Manhattan. Ploughing into thick ice, backing out and going forward again and making very little headway and requiring icebreakers to relieve the pressure on the side of the ship caused a change in direction on Sept. 11th and the Manhattan changed course to the Prince of Wales straight, the more normal route for the Passage. On Sept. 14, the prow of the Manhattan cracked the last floe at the southern end of Prince of Wales Strait and ahead lay 1,000 miles of open water. Upon reching Prudhoe Bay, the Manhattan took on a ceremonial barrel of oil.

    Ice 35+ meters thick. They just don’t make ice like they used to – at least not in the arctic. By the way, if the Manhattan made the same voyage today (or any year since 2007) they wouldn’t even go through Prince of Wales Strait, there’s open water *north* of the strait in most years now – not ice 35 meters thick.

    ‘Karen’ might also like to ponder that warming began [prior to 1979]( and that 1979 is used when measuring the icecap as that was when satellite coverage began. But of course ‘Karen’ won’t ponmder anything at all.

  5. #5 Chris O'Neill
    March 13, 2012

    Moving the goal-posts right along:

    Out of science:

    Flannery also raved about the MDB, Sydney and Brisbane

    Flannery wasn’t talking about average rainfall for these places. He was talking about the increased risk of reservoirs running dry because of increased variation in rainfall which is indeed what happened: Wivenhoe dam got down to 15%. One more summer the way things had been going for 6 summers and Brisbane was stuffed.

  6. #6 Jeff Harvey
    March 13, 2012

    Out of ammon claims to ‘want science’.

    On the subject of ecosystem services, which he so casually belittled, I types the words ‘bidoversity’ and ‘ecosystem services’ into the biggest scientific search engine, Thompson’s ISI Web of Science. There are 2,428 articles published in the peer-reviewed literature linking these terms, and these studies have been cited 44,170 times, including more than 11,000 last year alone. Forty one of these papers are published in Science, 17 in Nature, and 32 in the top Ecology journal, Ecology Letters.

    What does our new resident moron call this – oh yes, ‘scientific wankery’. I’d like him to go through the 2428 studies in the scientific literature and please point out where the ‘wankery’ can be found. If truth be told, research on the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, and in turn bridging functioning with the supply of critical ecosystem services, currently lies at the heart of system biology and ecology. Out of ammo is in truh out of brains – in true, tried and trusted fashion of the ignoranti he camouflages his lack of knowledge of the field in sematics and smears. No substnace necessary: if he doens’t usnderstand it, the least he can do is belittle it. There is an infamous clown on another thread who is a maste rof the technique. You guys must have been joined at birth.

    As for extinction models, which are you referring to? Storks 12 mosels (1997) or Lomborg’s kindergarten-level take on the subject? The truth is that the most reliable models are those projecting decaying exponential rates based on habitat loss. Originally formulated by Rober t MaCarthur and Edward O. Wilson, and later updated by John Terborgh and Michael Soule, they have actually proven to be highly accurate is estimating regional extinctions of habitat specialists on the basis of area of habitat loss. IN North America they actually underestimate avina extinctions, whereas in Peurto Rico and coastal Brazil their accuracy is uncanny. In fact they are often too conservative because they ignore other anthropogenic stressors, such as inavsive species, overharvesting or pollution that also have negative impacts on biodiversity. The additional problem is that 95 or more percent of species have never been formally identified. Thus many species have almost certainly been lost without being classified. Given that species in tropical regions are often locally rare and have distributons some 70% smaller than their temperate counterparts, there’s little doubt that the loss of 50% of the world’s wet tropical forests has resulted in the loss of huge numebrs of species and populations. Like other loony deniers (I have met my share) ammoless argues that without 100% incontrovertibel evidennce then the problem does not exist. This trick has been routinely used by deniers to downplay a range of other environmental problems: acid rain, pesticide toxicity and also climate change.

    Finally, O of A shows his hand with his ‘pinko’ comment. So here we have another far right libertarian who cannot hide his politial bias which accounts for his ‘scientific’ position. Its amazing how many of those deniers claiming to have profound interest in science ultimately cough out their guts and let everyone know that their views are far to the right. No need – it appears that this expalins about 99% of them. The truth is that they routinely deride the science that they hate.

  7. #7 FrankD
    March 13, 2012

    I wasn’t sure before now, but “Karen’s” latest proves she really is Sunspot! No one at Deltoid, on any thread however inane, has mastered the art of the pie-in-your-own-face quite like the resident clowntroll.

    I normally wouldn’t bother with a Goddard article, but as a fan of Sunspots art, a little deconstruction shows the true genius of the self-administered cream pie:

    1. A one-off -900,000 sq km anomaly in 1974 cannot mask the trend over the period of observation, any more than a one-off -1.1 million sq km in 1995 does.

    2. The two graphs that Goddard would like us to mentally stitch together both measure anomalies, but from different baselines. To the extent that you can splice them together, that 1974 anomaly translates to approximately -500,000 sq km on the 1979-2008 baseline graph. So a notably deep anomaly in 1974 is about the same as a notably high anomaly now. That’s pretty bad for anyone trying to argue the ice is fine, mmm, you betcha. It’s…why it’s like someone claiming that a abnormally warm year in, say, 1998 being the same temperature as an abnormaly cold one now means that we are not warming overall. But who’d be stupid enough to try that on?

    3. Goddard then says Arctic ice is 10% higher in 1974 because the CIA say that global snow and ice was. Anyone who doesn’t know the difference between Arctic sea ice and global snow and ice should just shut their fuckin’ yap and try to learn from those who do.

    4. But even if Goddard’s leap was legit, it still leaves the problem that he blunders when he stitches that 10% onto 1974. The CIA report was written in 1974, so its hardly likely to refer to earlier that same year as “in the early 1970’s” – clearly, even if it related to Arctic ice (and it doesn’t) it would have to be referring to some earlier high point, most likely no later than the zero anomaly in 1973. But since the IPCC FAR Goddard draws his bollocks from refers to 1972-1975 as a period of relatively low Arctic Ice cover, it is probably earlier (and higher) than that mark.

    So what can we conclude from the actual material Goddard uses? The worst state of 1974 roughly equals the best state now. The early 1970’s were quite a bit higher than that. Arctic Ice recovering? Only on the other side of the mirror…

    As a final dose of self-inflicted farcical goodness, that CIA report, which deals with reports on the possibility of global cooling and concludes – in the very section Goddard quotes! – “Most meteorologists argued that they could not find any justification for those prections.”

    So much for the “In the 1970s, scientists predicted a new ice age” meme!

    Really, you can’t make up clowntrolling genius like this…

  8. #8 FrankD
    March 13, 2012

    There’s always (at least) one:
    “prections” s/b “predictions”

  9. #9 Out of ammo
    March 13, 2012

    More pseduo-science tugging from Jeff – you know you’re right among it when they start using new fashion words like libertarian – WTF – all part of the meaningless greenie speak. And when you don’t really have a clue or anything to offer wave your arms with vacuous comments about ecosystem services. Blugh !

    I typed dickhead into Google and got over 7 million hits and over 27 million for wanker.

    So Jeff more importantly what is the current rate of Australian mammal and avian extinctions. What are the drivers. And what are you doing about it.

  10. #10
    March 13, 2012

    Hmm. Ooa is starting to sound VERY familiar. IP check?

    new fashion words like libertarian

    Not new, not fashion, and why are you debating this?

    all part of the meaningless greenie speak

    Only a libertarian would say something as dense as this. Could you try to not contradict yourself within the same sentence, precious? People might actually start to pretend to take you seriously if you can only manage that.

  11. #11 rambo
    March 13, 2012

    > I typed dickhead into Google and got over 7 million hits and over 27 million for wanker.

    Cutting edge climate science from our solitary hero.

  12. #12 chek
    March 13, 2012

    I can’t say I’ve noticed too many ‘libertarians’ around these parts for a few seasons now. Not your actual swivel-eyed, name your kids ‘Rand’ type of barking but relatively honest loonies.

    Of course, the recent Lindzen and Heartland debacles really has brought the fellow-travelling corporate whores and apologists out of the woodwork. And those poor diddums also tend to get offended when they’re not taken seriously.
    Just like … oh.

    Carry on Stu.

  13. #13 bill
    March 13, 2012

    I typed dickhead into Google and got over 7 million hits and over 27 million for wanker.

    The dreck just keep getting dreckier.

    This one will doubtlessly turn out to be known to us already, but who cares? It’s just the sound of the last noxious jets escaping from a punctured carcass…

  14. #14 adelady
    March 13, 2012

    I’m not so sure about the familiarity of out of allknownuniverses.

    It might be a newborn reincarnation, not fully briefed on the task yet. I thought the all too familiar looneytunes representatives at least know who Jeff Harvey is.

  15. #15 bill
    March 13, 2012


  16. #16 adelady
    March 13, 2012

    And just for those who dislike the notion of armchair scientists ….. try this out. edded&v=3F9FbdqGRsg#! (I’ve inserted a space because of the embedding. You can get rid of it yourself.)

  17. #17 MikeH
    March 14, 2012


    I typed dickhead into Google and got over 7 million hits and over 27 million for wanker.

    That would be the ultimate vanity Google.
    “Egosurfing (usually referred to as Googling yourself and sometimes called vanity searching, egosearching, egogoogling, autogoogling, self-googling, master-googling, google-bating)”

  18. #18 Lotharsson
    March 14, 2012

    > Ooa is starting to sound VERY familiar.

    OOA sounded very familiar from the get-go, and has remained that way.

    Better trolls, please.

  19. #19 Karen
    March 14, 2012

    Chek and Frankd, I suppose neither of you thought to have look at the graph depicting the sea ice extent in the IPCC WG 1 report ?

    Go to page 224 and there it is.

    ( )

    “Especially importantly, satellite
    observations have been used to map sea-ice extent
    routinely since the early 1970s. The American Navy Joint
    Ice Center has produced weekly charts which have been
    digitised by NOAA. These data are summarized in Figure
    7.20 which is based on analyses carried out on a 1° latitude
    x 2.5° longitude grid. Sea-ice is defined to be present when
    its concentration exceeds 10% (Ropelewski, 1983). Since
    about 1976 the areal extent of sea-ice in the Northern
    Hemisphere has varied about a constant climatological
    level but in 1972-1975 sea-ice extent was significantly less.”

    I guess that this must be another mistake to put into the long line of IPCC mistake’s, it didn’t fit the narrative so they changed it in later reports.

    ps, I do find your abstractions and confabulations most amusing.

    pps. Who the hell is sunspot ?

  20. #20 spottedquoll
    March 14, 2012

    And meanwhile, over at [“The Land”](“) Ian Mott confesses he learnt everything he needs to know about climate change from one meeting.

    “And I was in the meeting of the Qld SLATS Committee when the designated “expert” predicted no major rain events in SEQ for 30 years.”

    And that’s all the proof he could put forward.

  21. #21 SteveC
    March 14, 2012

    Out of ammo | March 12, 2012 6:52 PM

    Despite your bedwetting Australian flora and fauna survive massive extremes and swings of climate of climate at interannual, decadal and centennial scales. And now the biota is now back after the big wet. A big reset for the bush. Funny that those nitrogen fixing bacteria, detritivores and pollinators are back doing their thing.

    So Australia has the reputation for the highest rate of species loss of any “developed” nation for no reason? So your “the biota is back” claptrap is based on verifiable data comparing diversity and abundance now with times past? So there’s no such thing as rabbit plagues, house mouse plagues or feral animals, or weed intensities increasing sharply?

    And here we have yet again – the spectre of extinctions from hysterical wrong species projection models.

    Yeah like the thousands of threatened species already listed here aren’t enough to be concerned about. Or did you only just land here? Or is it wilful blindness? Or deliberate trolling? Hard to decide.

    What an abomination is post-modernist wankers doing virtual ecology instead of science. Meanwhile some of us are doing real science and trying to make a practical difference.

    As if. You’re a fucking troll, as confirmed by…

    Perhaps if ecosystem services are worth so much perhaps someone or maybe the Gaia bank can send me a cheque?

    Me ME ME!!! That about sums up your entire contribution to the world.

    “Out of ammo” about sums you up.

  22. #22 bill
    March 14, 2012

    Ah, ‘Karen’: Always a big fan of the ‘What’s a moider*?’ ploy.

    Sunspot is, ahem, ‘another’ Denier who deploys invective remarkably similar to your own, coincidentally cannot grasp the use of possessive apostrophe’s, and also indulges in remarkable feats of idiosyncratic punctuation [gap] !

    To be fair, I’m perfectly willing to believe these are all merely symptoms of the single personality disorder with which you are both afflicted.

    *think Springfield’s mobsters.

  23. #23 chek
    March 14, 2012

    ‘Karen’, speaking of confabulation, two words for you ‘extent’ and ‘volume’: two very different things deniers love to conflate. The point at issue is the disappearance of the mass of ice at the poles – not how thinly spread whatever remains is. Sea ice extent refers to an area of water with at least 15% ice, i.e. 5/6ths open water.

    And until the launch of the Seasat and Nimbus 7 satellites in 1978, monitoring relied on US Navy sampling. It’s only with the launch of the GRACE satellites that truly meaningful measurements also able to determine mass that a clearer picture of what is happening has become available.

    As with the Central England Temperature graph also used in early IPCC publications, the alacrity with which deniers jump on any old data thinking it means whatever they like to imagine it means without any caveats is a pretty tired routine. Goddard is yet again trying to sell a crock version of reality to the gullible. And you bought it.

    As the voyages of the SS Manhattan excerpted previously show, there used to be a lot of thick, solid ice blocking the arctic ocean 40 years ago. Now there isn’t. Get over it.

  24. #24 Rick Bradford
    March 14, 2012

    What we seem to need is smaller humans, as obviously they have a smaller footprint. Or so says Prof Liao of New York Uni.

    No surprise, of course, to see Eugenics dusted off in the service of the Green movement under the banner of climate change mitigation.

  25. #25 John
    March 14, 2012

    That’s right Rick, crank theories about eugenics will help you capture the minds of the public. It’s worked so well for you conspiracy theorists in the past.

  26. #26 FrankD
    March 14, 2012

    >I suppose neither of you thought to have look at the graph depicting the sea ice extent in the IPCC WG 1 report ?

    But since I referred to the exact paragraph you quote – “But since the IPCC…refers to 1972-1975 as a period of relatively low Arctic Ice cover, it is probably earlier (and higher) than that mark” – I suppose you didn’t actually bother to read my post before replying to it. Or just didn[‘t understand it?

    Either way, your “supposes” look to be about as accurate as Goddard’s… What you think about him conflating Arctic Sea Ice with global ice and snow coverage? Pretty much a beginner mistake. What’s your take on the fact that the exceptionally low area is now equal to our 12 month maximum? That means were headed downwards overall, right?

    I mean, you linked to that piece of arrant stupidity, so let’s hear what you have to say about it.

    Or is it just another dud attempt at a driveby Molotov cocktail? I heard the glass break, but no boom…:-(

  27. #27 lord_sidcup
    March 14, 2012

    In case you are wondering what Bradford’s faux outrage is about, Leo Hickman has written sane article on the topic:

    [Bioengineer humans to tackle climate change, say philosophers](

    Philosophers engage in a challenging philosophical and moral enquiry, SHOCK HORROR OUTRAGE.

  28. #28 Dave H
    March 14, 2012

    Even better – this is an adaptation strategy, not a mitigation one. And which “side” favours adaptation? Why, the “skeptics” of course! Put it off until it can’t be denied anymore, then adapt.

    So, Rick, it is *you* that favours this strategy you find so comically offensive.

  29. #29 SteveC
    March 14, 2012

    @ Bradford

    Eugenics dusted off in the service of the Green movement

    Yes Bradford, once us Greenz attain world domination one of the priorities is to make sure people like you are prevented from spawning any more generations of stupid. You and your ilk aren’t entirely without purpose in Our Evil Dominating World Plan though – we intend to make the most of your otherwise irritating habit of pointing us to sources of Stupid.

  30. #30 Trent1492
    March 14, 2012

    I just saw a denier over at Boing Boing post this link. The link is the usual baffle-gab invoking PDO and citing the Oregon Petition and what ever to explain Alaska’s temperature rise. The interesting thing is that it is on a NOAA web site belonging to the Alaska office of NOAA.
    Anyone know what gives?

  31. #31 chek
    March 14, 2012

    What comes across most powerfully to me in the [Guardian’s “Green Eugenics” story]( isn’t the Bradfordesque fearmongering, but how little effect bio-engineering humans would actually have in terms of solving the problem.

    It seems to me it addresses only the most superficial of aspects, and has nothing to offer regarding ocean acidification, flooding and drought, poleward habitat migration, or species extinction. Whether that’s a flaw with the article and not of the paper itself I can’t say. But if the article is a fair summary, it seems to me the philosophers involved ought to be thinking at a much deeper level. Like for survivability splicing our DNA with cockroaches or bacteria.

    Of course some might say that approach has already been tried on the evidence provided by the Bradfords and Sunspots and Jonases, and look how that worked out.

  32. #32 Rattus Norvegicus
    March 14, 2012

    That link looks like a subterranean page put on the website by the author. It does not use the standard NOAA master page decoration, which makes me wonder just how official it is. You might want to notify the webmaster about it.

  33. #34 MikeH
    March 15, 2012

    John Mashey

    lord sidcup reported on another thread that Lord Bunkum also has his begging bowl out here.

    Note the registered address – a PO Box in Balwyn North VIC, Australia.

  34. #35 MikeH
    March 15, 2012

    Some video from last night’s ABC news showing the Cape Grim CO2 monitoring station.

    Worth watching.

  35. #36 FrankD
    March 15, 2012


    Interestingly, that PO Box is already registered to Olaris and Associates, an accounting firm specialising in tax accounting. Since most “charitable” foundations perform their best work in minimising the tax liabilities of their donors, one can hardly be shocked that their correspondence goes to their accountants as a point-of-contact.

    In other news-that-isn’t-news, the contact phone number on the Bunkum Foundation website belongs to Chris Dawson, managing director of Desaln8, and simulataneously was a Victorian Senate candidate for…drumroll…[The Climate Sceptics Party]( Which seems to be a remarkable bit of unwitting cognative dissonance, when you think about it…

    The LordBunkumFoundation domain name is also [worth checking](…

  36. #37 FrankD
    March 15, 2012

    In checking out the previous I did stumble over [this hilarious submission]( tax submission TCS11.pdf) to the Senate on carbon pricing, at which I literally laughed out loud. Enough predictable “references” to fill everybodies Denial Bingo card.

    The little network of confirmation bias is so cute!

    Section 4: “The No Regrets Strategy” is my favourite piece of unintential comedy. Clue: “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” is the term preferred by people who blush when the term “Cold Fusion” comes up in coversation.

  37. #38 bill
    March 15, 2012

    re Mike H#233 – Gee, the ABC failed to get an idiot’s opinion for ‘balance’!

    How refreshing!

  38. #39 Lars Karlsson
    March 15, 2012

    From Hot Topic:
    [How Heartland lied to me and illegally recorded the lies](!

  39. #40 Lars Karlsson
    March 15, 2012
  40. #41 chek
    March 15, 2012

    Could be that Joe Bast’s next career move will be to a market stall….

  41. #42 Bernard J.
    March 15, 2012

    >Could be that Joe Bast’s next career move will be to a market stall….

    Watts is doing his best to try to ensure that such is not the case. I don’t wish him well.

    And by the way, aren’t there property issues involved with trading images and names without permission?

  42. #43 Jeff Harvey
    March 15, 2012

    Great interview with Penn State’s Michael Mann outlining the sordid tactics used by the extremely well-funded and organized denial lobby to smear scientists and downplay the effects of climate change.

  43. #44 Out of ammo
    March 15, 2012

    SteveC screams “As if. You’re a fucking troll, as confirmed by…”

    Well hush your Getup mouth.

    “So Australia has the reputation for the highest rate of species loss of any “developed” nation for no reason? So your “the biota is back” claptrap is based on verifiable data comparing diversity and abundance now with times past? So there’s no such thing as rabbit plagues, house mouse plagues or feral animals, or weed intensities increasing sharply?”

    Yes it has been overstated – yet another grande overclaim with no supporting evidence from you. If you have recently driven through and sampled the wildlife in western Queensland and NSW the resurgence is phenomenal – many anecdotes such as – and

    And the resurgence is also alongside ferals and toads. Climate isn’t the concern – it’s the animals out of place. Including feral greenies and Getup delusionals.

    BTW doofus – mouse plagues are an episodic grain industry phenomenon not climate change

    You’re obviously an ecological ignoramus.

    If we are to spend fortunes on conservation we need to get the numbers and mechanisms right e.g.

  44. #45 John
    March 15, 2012

    Don’t forget to read Monckton’s entirely bonkers CV, an extrodinary list of boasting and history revisionism.

    In brighter news, his claim to have won a Nobel Peace Prize has finally been removed from his profile at the SPPI website, while his CV claims it was all just a “joke”.

    Here was the hilarious joke:

    >His contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 – the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise – earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA.

    Forgive me for missing the cutting satire in that paragraph.

  45. #46 John
    March 15, 2012

    Monckton also claims to have found a constitutional lawyer who backs up his claims that’s he’s a member of the HoL in that weirdly defensive CV. If that’s the case I think the only option is to sue the the house for defaming his good name with horrid lies about his non-membership, and demand they repeal that nasty letter that denies what is rightfully his.

  46. #47 Wow
    March 15, 2012

    No, his only option is to SAY he’s going to sue the HoL.

    That way he doesn’t have to lose.

  47. #48 Bob
    March 15, 2012

    Among the many nuggets of comedy gold to be found within his CV is the following:

    > An expert on the internet has said that the cost of giving the gibberish pages a ranking above the page with the genuine video was probably not less than $250,000.

    That has to be one of the most unintentionally funny things I’ve read in a long time. “An expert on the internet”!

  48. #49 Be Green
    March 15, 2012

    Since this is an open thread, I won’t feel too guilty in this shameless self promotion..We just started a new project focused on providing the average citizen with topical information on environmental issues, and encouraging them to learn, discuss and participate – [Be Green]( We welcome any point of view and encourage any and all feedback. Keep on fighting the good fight.

  49. #50 Bernard J.
    March 15, 2012

    With respect to Monckton’s camp’s penchant for altering history, I commented at [Barry Bickmore’s]( on 19 December 2011 (2:11 am) on an example of Monckton-related [Wikipedia]([changing](

    I’d long been suggesting that Monckton’s behaviour regarding the marketting of the Eternity puzzle fits the definition of fraud: it seems that either that or someone else’s comments about it encouraged some revisionism. For the perverse it might be amusing to follow the Wikipedia history of the changing…

    The shame for Monckton though is that it doesn’t change history itself. If someone bought the Eternity puzzle on the basis of Monckton selling his house to fund the prize, they would still appear to have a case for seeking damages as a consequence of fraud. If there were a class action on this basis, it could be quite inconvenient for Monckton and Ertl Toys – to say nothing about his reputation amongst the Denialati as an ‘honest broker’.

  50. #51 bill
    March 15, 2012

    This pompous dweller in a happy land of magical ponies being taken seriously at all says everything you need to know about ‘skepticism’, including the notable dearth of convincing authorities to put forward.

    Of course, their misplaced faith being so palpably ridiculous only makes them more attached to it!

    For the connoisseur I offer this exchange with Monbiot over intriguingly mobile compensation claims on Wikipedia, and the Press Complaints Commission findings of 2010, also relating to Monbiot.

    It’s well worth reading his original ‘offending’ 2009 article – particularly comparing its actual contents to the complaint Monckton made – and the long Observer interview with the Legend-in-in-his-own-Mind that’s referred to, too. But, as I’m only too aware, ‘too may links and it sinks’!

  51. #52 ianam
    March 16, 2012

    Ho hum – still no science.

    Ho hum, heavy projection from another intellectually bankrupt troll.

    And what I repeated the word detritivore. Oh gee willikers – I’m so sorry. I’ll ask permission next time.

    It was just a misattribution that I corrected, moron; nothing to get so childishly defensive about.

    your pinko positions

    Funny how it’s always about ideology with you denialanuses.

  52. #53 Deep Climate
    March 16, 2012

    Wiley coverup: The great Wegman and Said “redo” to hide plagiarism and errors

    I had thought the saga of climate science critic Edward Wegman and the various allegations of misconduct in his recent work could not possibly get any more bizarre, especially in the wake of manifestly contradictory findings in two recently concluded investigations at George Mason University.

    But in a shocking new development, it turns out that two problematic overview articles by Wegman and his protege and congressional report co-author Yasmin Said in Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics (WIREs CS), have been completely revised. Those revisions saw the removal or rewriting of massive swathes of copy-and-paste scholarship, as well as correction of many errors identified by myself and others. In each case, the comprehensive revisions came “at the request of the Editors-in-Chief and the Publisher”, following complaints to Wiley alleging wholesale plagiarism. But Wegman and Said also happen to be two of the three chief editors of WIREs CompStat, thus raising compelling concerns of conflict of interest, to say the least.

    In fact, it is very clear that Wiley’s own process for handling misconduct cases was egregiously abused in favour of a face-saving “redo” manoeuvre. And this latest episode raises disturbing new questions about the role of the third WIREs CS editor-in-chief (and “hockey stick” congressional report co-author) David Scott, and indeed Wiley management itself, in enabling the serial misconduct of Wegman and Said.

    More here

  53. #54 Marco
    March 16, 2012

    DC, you may want to contact the people behind retractionwatch about this one. They’ve recently taken up the issue of “mega-corrections”. This is definitely a new one to add to their list!

  54. #55 Acacia
    March 16, 2012

    Congratulations to Deep Climate and John Mashey for their tireless work in pursuing Wegman’s distortion, deception and obstrufication if there is such a word. As Adelady commented on Deep Climate ‘I’m amazed that anyone can put actual words together to comment on this’.

    On the topic of disinformers, columnist Mike Steketee has a good article in [today’s Oz]( looking at the affiliations of Carter and Singer. Nothing new here but it is good to see this information making it into the public domain. If only the Murdoch Press had more columnists of the calibre of Mr Steketee.

  55. #56 John
    March 16, 2012

    >No doubt the views of Carter and some other contrarians are sincerely held.

    I laughed.

  56. #57 MikeH
    March 16, 2012

    Carter has always had a good line in comedy.

    However, Carter’s biography on his website says: “He receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments.” Isn’t the Heartland Institute a special interest organisation? “Of course not,” says Carter. “They are a think tank.”

    Good one Bob.

  57. #58 StevoR
    March 17, 2012

    @241.Jeff Harvey | March 15, 2012 9:37 AM

    Great interview with Penn State’s Michael Mann outlining the sordid tactics used by the extremely well-funded and organized denial lobby to smear scientists and downplay the effects of climate change.

    You beat me to it, Jeff. I was going to post that here.

    Oh well, I’ll have to be content with posting a link to this article on the Drum :

    by Sara Phillips instead. There’s an interactive sea level rise for Australia graphic thingummy at the end of that which may be of interest to folks here too.

  58. #59 Jeff Harvey
    March 17, 2012

    Its kind of weird that gormless stupid wan*** (GSW) is arguing on another notorious thread that my discussion of >2,000 peer-reviewed studies and >11,000 citations in the empirical literature linking the effects of AGW on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning is ‘indulgent greenie wank’. In other words, as in keeping with nincompoops who are miles out of their depth in a field of science, *by all means do not engage in a scientific discussion of a field in which you know absolutely nothing*. Instead, mere ridicule and hyperbole are enough to de-ligitimize a field, no matter how empirically based it is. GSW and Out of Ammo consistently engage in this kind of bait and switching tactics. Neither can tell a dragonfly from a monitor lizard. Both sit in ivory towers wallowing in their own profound ignorance. Why they think their comments ‘add to a discussion’ on a site like Deltoid is anyone’s guess.

  59. #60 StevoR
    March 17, 2012

    @198. Out of ammo | March 13, 2012 5:47 AM :

    Yes SteveoR – I have read Flannery’s Weather Makers – my copy has a drill bit hole in it. Along with many denier texts with multiple holes. He got off lightly.

    Um..what the!? You drill holes through and vandalise books after (during?) your reading of them? Really?

    Thanks for the (eventual) straight answer I guess. But that leaves me puzzled because you earlier claimed in comment 141 (March 11th, 2012 7:33 AM) that :

    “..face it Flannery wouldn’t know about AGW and should bugger off.”

    So Flannery has written a book showing he *does* know something abut AGW and yet you obviously disagree and think Flannery is wrong because, well, why?

    What specifically has Flannery got wrong in his book that shows he knows (in your view) too little about the topic to be taken seriously and listened to?

    What makes you think after reading Flannery’s book that he doesn’t know about Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating?

  60. #61 Luke
    March 17, 2012

    Steveo – yawn – what Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating – “rapid”? – we’re trundling along way at the bottom of the range.

    Flannery just copied down a bunch of stuff other had told him. So tedious.

  61. #62 bill
    March 17, 2012

    I do believe Luke’s comment is in English. It certainly has English words in it, he just appears to have plonked them down in some random order. Anyone care? Didn’t think so…

    What I am actually genuinely curious about is the other Tim – our Tim if you will. Tim Lambert, of Deltoid fame, where are you at? I’m almost certain I didn’t imagine him…

  62. #63 chek
    March 17, 2012

    Steveo – yawn – what Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating – “rapid”? – we’re trundling along way at the bottom of the range.

    Translated version: “we’re trundling along way at the bottom of the range” of the predicted warming by AGW, so far in a low activity solar cycle also aided additionally by the warmest recorded El Niño cycle.

    So, like … duh … obviously there will never be any future La Niña events or active solar cycles – especially not acting in concert – otherwise my admittedly fairly puny, futile attempt at an argument would likely fall apart into smithereens.

    Prediction: deniers will be frantically making hay before the sun shines.

  63. #64 John
    March 17, 2012

    So now we’ve moved from “it’s cooling” to “it’s plateaued” to “it’s warming but so what?”

  64. #65 Luke
    March 18, 2012

    Now don’t “denier” verbal me mate. You’re the one that’s rapidly and I mean rapidly overheating.

    It’s really that not rapid is it. It’s the sort of not really as rapid as rapid would be. Sort of Luke warmish rapid sort of rapid. Mind you though it will pick up soon. We’re all sure of that aren’t we? Just as sure as we are of where the trend is now. Ahem.

  65. #66 rhwombat
    March 18, 2012

    If I were you, Luke (and thank Dog I’m nowhere as decerebrate), I’d find another dealer.

  66. #68 Billy Bob Hall
    March 18, 2012

    Wot ? Cat got your tongue again Tim ? Or has your namesake ‘the prince of precaution’, Tim Flannery finally shown you ‘the light’ ? 🙂

  67. #69 GSW
    March 18, 2012


    Ah! Its sociological is it. Nothing to do with, Climategate, Fakegate, the “Travesty” of a lack of warming this century, Polar bears seem to be OK now, and the frogs, and the Coral reefs are recovering, and the Himalayas aren’t doing too bad, and the fact that the Greenland ice sheet is likely to be around for a few thousand years more – Despite what the ‘concensus’ has told us in the past.

  68. #70 chek
    March 18, 2012

    Sociological is probably only one valid reason for willfully carrying around a head full of such tosh as you catalogue, Grima.

  69. #71 Acacia
    March 18, 2012

    It is good to know that the Australian never lets us down. In response to Mike Steketee’s article (#252), [William Kininmonth and Des Moore]( have the first reply. These are very honoured fellows, gracing the Australian’s letters page on such a regular basis.

    On the plus side today there is an article by [Will Steffen]( on the exacerbation of droughts and floods from climate change.

  70. #72 bill
    March 18, 2012

    Ah, I had a feeling ‘Luke’ was one of those devastating witticisms that we are periodically forced to withstand.

    And how would you say the crysophere was going, vis-à-vis ranges and trundling? I mean, seriously, along with all the mouthbreathing Denialati you’re going to play at ‘angels dancing on the heads of pins’ with short-term temp trends, rather than attend to the actual real-world impacts, eh?

    Sea levels? Species migrations?

    And your rebuttal to Foster and Rahmstorf?

  71. #73 John
    March 18, 2012

    GSW provides another casebook example of an own goal.

  72. #74 StevoR
    March 19, 2012

    Just seen a great and rather relvant here episode of Media Watch!

    It’ll be replayed Tues. late night /early Weds. morning & there’s a website too.

  73. #75 lord_sidcup
    March 19, 2012

    HadCRUT4 is now official:

    Will the world has cooled since 1998 meme bite the dust?

    Despite the revisions, the overall warming signal has not changed. The scientists say it has remained at about 0.75C (1.4F) since 1900.

    However, the amendments have resulted in a change in the dataset’s “warmest year on record”.

    Previously, it was 1998. However, the revised data now lists 2010 as the warmest, with 1998 recorded as the third warmest.

  74. #76 StevoR
    March 19, 2012

    Interesting news item (hopefully) here:

    via BBC World news online.

  75. #77 luminous beauty
    March 19, 2012

    Peter Stott explains [HadCRUT 4]( changes with graphs.

  76. #78 Jeff Harvey
    March 19, 2012

    Does everyone notice how one of our resident deniers (GSW) goes back to the Jonas thread her with his brainless musings? He thinks he is going to a ‘higher intellectual authority.’ (that’s a laugh). His latest one is an attempt to belittle thousands of peer-reviewed studies on the Web of Science – the world’s most respected scientific search image – that examine the effects between climate warming, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. The joke? Apparently to belittle this research on the basis that it does not draw causation.

    The point I am making is that the causation has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. Pretty well every one of these studies accepts that the warning is anthropogenic. Science has moved on. Well on, for the vast majority of the scientific community. This little salient fact bypasses the likes of GSW and the little army of idiots.

    Earlier above, and in spite of a point I already vanquished on the you-know-who thread, GSW downplays the effects of short-term warming on the demographics of polar bear populations. This is a clear example of burying one’s head in the sand. I debunked this garbage elsewhere, and GSW dredges it up again. NO attempt is made by him or his idol to challenge a thing I said (because they cannot, so by not replying they attempt to think this legitimizes their arguments). No wonder only two people go there now.

  77. #79 Bob
    March 19, 2012

    Luminous beauty @ 273: thanks. So the take-home messages are:

    1. The 1940s are now slightly warmer due to a correction for the fact that most sea surface temperatures around then were taken using buckets lowered over the side of ships, leading to a cooling bias. If I understand correctly, the data were adjusted based on correlations between these measurements and measurements from buoys.
    2. The 2000s are also slightly warmer* due to the addition of extra stations in Russia and the Arctic. These regions have been warming more rapidly, so when they were omitted there was a cooling bias.
    3. The overall picture has not changed much: a ~0.75°C increase since 1900. I believe this is approximately consistent with other records.

    *I predict much oh-so-cynical eye-rolling from the usual suspects.

  78. #80 Rattus Norvegicus
    March 19, 2012

    The palpitations have started at WUWT already. “It’s all a conspiracy, I tell you! Hide the decline!”…

  79. #81 MikeH
    March 19, 2012

    Those of you who are regular visitors to Professor Brook’s blog BraveNewClimate may be interested in the debate that has flared on this post.

    The issue as I see it. A number of posts (posts, not comments) at BNC crticising renewable energy have been written by retired engineer Peter Lang.

    Lang is a hard core climate change denier who regularly refers to the “Alarmist’s CAGW scam” and describes renewables advocates including the editor of Climate Spectator as being from the “far left”.

    He does not make those arguments at BNC because of the comments policy (outlined by Christine Brook on the thread).

    Christine expressed the following view
    “Barry made it clear that, if CC/AGW deniers were willing to desist from espousing their views on BNC, their technical expertise on any source of energy, would be welcome”

    I have a problem with that as someone who has had to regularly respond to Lang’s vitriol directed at climate scientists, climate science and renewable advocates at The Conversation and Climate Spectator.

    At the very least I believe it is dishonest to not make it clear at BNC where Lang is coming from. Lang leverages the authority that being a high profile poster at BNC gives him to attack climate science.

    Note that there are also some over the top comments at the thread from Matthew Wright which I disagree with.
    And yes – I know that this comment will result in an attack of the trolls – but I suggest you read some of Lang’s comments which I have posted on the thread before passing judgment.

  80. #82 John
    March 19, 2012

    When the evidence changes I change my mind. When the evidence changes WUWT commenters go nuts:

    >The answer is a question: Do you get more money from an increasing average global temperature or from a global temperature that stays the same?

    >These guys are obviously frauds but what gets me is that they aren’t even particularly good frauds. So why does anyone believe their crap?

    >There are some of us ‘hard core’ skeptics that question if the Earth has warmed at all over the last century. Looking at the magnitude of the one-way ‘corrections’, can you blame us?

    >Surely fra*d charges have to be in the works by now. A new twist on “hide the decline” or same ol same ol for “climate science” which btw is NOT science.

    >This is just plain out wrong, we have OBJECTIVE SATELLITE MEASUREMENTS SINCE 1979 that have an accuracy of 99.99%, don’t see no reason to change it, but organizations like NOAA, NASA, and CRU think it’s ok to make up data sand use it to prove their anti-capatialist, global warming alarmist agenda

    >The Climatologists are in it to move the world into a “Socialist” one world totalitarian government. CAGW is just the lever they are using to do it and lying, dishonest activities are perfectly acceptable if used in the furtherance of the “CAUSE” We have had ample evidence that they lie and cheat, Gleick being just the latest.

    >Its no longer a joke the fellow or anybody involved with thiss must be held to account by the American and Australian Justice Systems

  81. #83 bill
    March 19, 2012

    ‘anti-capatialist’ is priceless! If that’s being opposed to very large and accomodating consumer items then it could catch on!

    I never fail to be amazed by just how mind-numbingly, mouthbreathing, scarred-knuckle Stupid you can be and still stand upright, yet alone make little stabs at a keyboard…

    The indignant responses to Singer’s tactical repositioning as a ‘lukewarmer’ are another amazing example; the idiots are both empowered and entitled – in their quasi-post-modern inversiverse their pure and honest ignorance outshines decadent expertise and learning any day!

  82. #85 John Mashey
    March 19, 2012

    re: 278
    “This is just plain out wrong, we have OBJECTIVE SATELLITE MEASUREMENTS SINCE 1979 that have an accuracy of 99.99%”

    Whoever @ WUWT said that ought to read Fake science… pp.100-101 on satellites. In almost every issue, Heartland E&CN had a satellite section. saying:

    “Each month, Earth Track updates the global averaged satellite measurements of the Earth’s temperature. These numbers are important because they are real—not projections, forecasts, or guesses. Global satellite measurements are made from a series of orbiting platforms that sense the average temperature in various atmospheric layers. Here, we present the lowest level, which climate models say should be warming. The satellite
    measurements are considered accurate to within 0.01°C.”

    These were the UAH numbers of course, in which the successive version of the algorithms changed the numbers far more than that.

  83. #86 Wow
    March 20, 2012

    > The answer is a question: Do you get more money from an increasing average global temperature or from a global temperature that stays the same?

    Therefore exploiting this would be the capitalist ideal, right? So why is it:

    > their anti-capatialist, global warming alarmist agenda


  84. #87 Jeff Harvey
    March 20, 2012

    This just in:

    By any standards, March 2012 is going to go down in the history books as an incredibly exceptional month. There has been a prolonged heat wave over the entire mid-west that is, by any standards, incredible and unprecedented. More than 2,200 warm temperature records have been set so far this month in the United States and more will tumble this week. The ratio of warm-cold weather records in the United States since January 1st is a whopping 14:1. Even weathermen – normally sceptics – are taking note.

    Along with the revised HAD-CRU temperature records, its been a devastating week for the deniers. The evidence is swamping them, and they are now resorting to desperate smears and political attacks in an feeble attmept to dig themselves out of their own ideological hole.

  85. #88 lord_sidcup
    March 20, 2012

    Mike Mann and Miranda Devine have had a right old twitter scrap. Ill-informed polemicist paid for her hyperbolic outpourings says to scientist:

    You hyperbole causes untold damage to the public perception of science


  86. #89 chek
    March 20, 2012

    “This is just plain out wrong, we have OBJECTIVE SATELLITE MEASUREMENTS SINCE 1979 that have an accuracy of 99.99%”

    Thus showing that some models are more equal than others.

  87. #90 Bernard J.
    March 20, 2012

    [Lord Sidcup](

    [Devine’s rant]( is an example of breath-taking Dunning-Krugerism.

    I hope that a time comes when such blatant, anti-factual propaganda is seen for what it is, and that NewsCorp and its staff are brought to task for their contribution to greater damage to the planet than we would otherwise have had.

    I’m sure that our grandchildren and their grandchildren will regard denial of human-caused warming as treason. I hope that they presecute accordingly.

  88. #91 Jeff Harvey
    March 20, 2012

    I see our resident non-scientist is still sniping away at me in his own padded cell er… thread. He’s down to one regular ally now – GSW. Sad.

    He’s really bitter now to learn that thousands of scientists working on climate-related effects on biodiversity take AGW as a ‘given’. If one were to go through these studies one by one, they’d quickly realize that the authors are investigating the potential consequences on AGW, and not its causes. Why is that? Because as far as the vast majority of scientists are concerned (me included), science has moved on. There is no controversy whatsoever. Humans are the primary culprit. Just as we are the pirmary culprit for a range of processes affecting ecological communities and ecosystems across the biosphere. Only in the mindset of a very small subset of the scientific community is there any controversy whatsoever with respect to the causes of the current warming. And watch this space – as the evidence grows, and their numbers shrink even further, then they’ll turn increasingly to the ‘adaptation’ canard.

    I challenged the moron-who-must-not-be-named to discuss and debate ecophysiological aspects in space and time as this relates to declining biodiversity, with emphasis on polar bear demographics. Response: silence. Then GSW, in keeping with his own lack of even the basics, repeats the mantra, ‘polar bears are doing fine’. But of course they aren’t doing fine at all. The dynamics of polar ice loss will without any doubt decimate populations of this apex predator. GSW and you-know-you write as if the Arctic is in stasis, or else that changes in ice cover are either slow or non-existant. I could say that much of the Amazon’s biota are doing ‘just fine’, whilst ignoring the fact that the forests are disappearing. Thus far about 15% of these forests have been felled with about another 20% affected by fire and high-grade logging with its attendant ‘collatoral’ damage. We have no way of knowing now or down the road if 15% is significant habitat destruction for many species (it almost certainly is for species reliant on intact forests) and at what point further extinction thresholds will be reached. Once 50% of the forests are gone, then this will certainly be catastrophic for many more taxa. The same goes for Arctic ice. If no more ice was to be lost over the coming decades, then polar bears will survive. But if, as projected, much of the ice goes, and eventually summers become ice-free, then this will condemn this species to extincton in the wild. No ifs or buts. This is what the deniers conveniently leave out. The dynamics. Its as if today the future stops. Its no small wonder that its virtually impossible to find an environemntal scientist or ecologist who writes the kind of drivel our resident deniers do here. They just cannot think in terms of dynamics or interactions. For them the world is static.

    The final point is that I know I am on the right track when I am verbally abused by the likes of a few climate change deniers on Deltoid who have little or no pedigree in any relevant scientific field. I’d be much more concerned if qualified researchers were weighing in here, telling me that my arguments are without merit. Instead, I have yet to encounter one critic on Deltoid in all the years I have written in who possesses qualifications in climate science or Earth science. Instead they are all D-K intellectual wannabes.

  89. #92 chek
    March 20, 2012

    The Swede is chock-full of sweeping but meaningless rhetorical statements devoid of any substance. There’s never any science cite in sight.

    But that doesn’t matter one bit to his troupe of groupies because as is plain when they venture out of the cellar, they don’t comprehend it anyway. As is the way of all adoring cretins and personality cults throughout the ages, they just like the cut of his jib.

  90. #93 GSW
    March 20, 2012

    @Jeff, chek,

    Any chance you could confine the bruised ego love-in to another thread? I don’t think there is much traction for your Special Pleading here. Honestly, WGAF?

  91. #94 Stu
    March 20, 2012

    Not true, Jeff, they’ve found a new ally. Who cannot spell and fails at reading comprehension (“8 year old daughter”).

    I’m shocked, I tell you.

  92. #95 Stu
    March 20, 2012

    GSW: I’m sorry, did you just actually accuse another sentient being of a bruised ego?

  93. #96 Bernard J.
    March 20, 2012

    Guys, it’s best to leave the Scandinavian Troll Collective alone in their cave to lick each other’s arse by themselves.

    They don’t do science. They don’t reference it in the context of constructing a coherent and defensible case, and quite frankly they don’t care about it. I think that we’ve all poked at the tar baby enough to prove that point.

    They’re only here to cause distraction and obfuscation. Best stop giving them a platform for attention, and hope that Tim Lambert tires of their drivel enough that he closed the thread completely.

  94. #97 Lotharsson
    March 20, 2012

    For anyone who both remembers and cares, Alex Harvey made an appearance on the RC “Misrepresentation From Lindzen” [thread]( more-or-less touting Lindzen & Choi 2011, much like he did somewhere around the Nov 2011 timeframe here on Deltoid.

    There are a few interesting responses from Gavin (e.g. one along the lines of their method is useless if the feedback factor is positive, so any conclusions that feedback factors are negative are fallacious). Given that it doesn’t appear that any of the key climate scientists could be bothered to respond to it (because it’s in a low impact journal and it seems likely they think it’s not even worth the effort), and that Alex somehow still believes this allows it to be credible (or at least portrayed as such), some of the commenters are now digging into it a bit more.

  95. #99 Jeff Harvey
    March 21, 2012

    Given the lunacy going on over at the ‘other’ thread, which I wish to ignore (check out the latest drivel), I will make a single rebuttal and leave it it that. For good. The rest of the post is bile. Unsubstantiated nonsense. My advice to Tim is to shut down the Jonas thread once and for all and to put our self-righteous, self-educated ‘God’ out of his misery. Let him throw his ideas into the scientific arena where they will be chewed up and spat out.

    This comment is made: “Arctic ice has been varying all the time. Has been both more and less. As have been temperatures. Only during this interglacial.”

    Sure it has. But it hasn’t changed at the rate it is doing now. Not even close. The loss of Arctic ice in the space of less than a century is unprecedented. Seems to me most of the deniers – not scientists mind you which is hardly surprising – think 20 years is a long time, and 80 years is metaphorically geological. Most importantly, biotic shifts are occurring that are probably unique over many millennia. Is warming the major threat to polar bears? Yes. There is little doubt about this. Moreover, I never said all of the warming was due to human activities (who is creating straw-men now?) but that much of it is. Certainly enough to be driving the rapid biotic shifts we are witnessing.

    Now, unlike our sad friend, I have science to do. You know – the kind done by professional scientists. He does not qualify. Unless he can tell me of his publication list on the Web of Science. But we know where that will lead.

  96. #100 GSW
    March 21, 2012


    “But it[Arctic ice] hasn’t changed at the rate it is doing now”

    How do you know? we’ve only been measuring it for 30yrs! and there are maritime reports claiming “unprecedented” Arctic variations before that. So, how can you be certain about what you say. I know the answer to that already, you just feel it’s true, no supporting evidence required. So much for doing “Science” jeff.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.