Matt Ridley’s first response to my post about his failed prediction was denial:

I did not write for the Globe and Mail in 1993 let alone about climate!

Then he moved onto stage 3, bargaining:

global av temp (ignoring pinatubo drop) is about 0.2C above 1991 level after 22 yrs – so I was spot on so far!

UAH_LT_1979_thru_Dec_2012_v5.51

As you can see, the graph he cites shows 0.5 degrees of warming since he made his prediction, so it seems that he is applying a 0.3 degree correction for Pinatubo.   Which brings us to Ridley’s next column, published in The Sunday Telegraph on 30 Jan 1994 (one month after his column with the failed prediction):

The satellites, however, tell a very different story about the 1980s (their data do not go further back). Orbiting the planet from north to south as the Earth turns beneath them, they take the temperature of the lower atmosphere using microwave sensors. By the end of 1993 the temperature was trending downwards by 0.04 of a degree per decade.

The satellite’s masters explain away this awkward fact by subtracting two volcanic eruptions (Mount Pinatubo in 1991 and El Chichon in 1982) and four El Ninos (sudden changes in the circulation of the water in the Pacific).  Since they assume that all these would have cooled the atmosphere, they conclude that the 1980s did see a gradual warming of the air by 0.09 degrees: still less than a third of that recorded by the old method.

Even with this sleight of hand (and when I was a scientist I was trained not to correct my data according my preconceptions of the result), the startling truth remains that the best measure yet taken of the atmosphere has found virtually no evidence of global warming.

So according to Matt Ridley in 1994, Matt Ridley in 2013 used a “sleight of hand”, something that he was trained not to do.   If we hold Matt Ridley to the standard he declared at the time of his prediction there has been 0.5 degrees of warming since he predicted that there would be just one degree by 2100.

But if we do want to know what the long term warming trend is, it is not a “sleight of hand” to remove the short term effects of volcanoes and El Nino/La Nina. It is, however, a sleight of hand for Ridley to just correct for Pinatubo and not El Nino/La Nina.  Here is the graph from Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) that shows what temperature records look like if the short term effects are removed:

figure05

Using Ridley’s preferred UAH data set we see that there has been 0.4 degrees of warming since he made his prediction.

Any way you slice it, there has been much more warming that Ridley predicted.  I hope this information will help him reach stage 5, acceptance.

Comments

  1. #1 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    Oh, good grief.

    Are you truly stupid enough not to see that my sincere wish for Latimer to answer it most certainly violates your bold claim that:

    I seem to remember you lecturing me that it isn’t necessary for people to answer them.

    Or are you merely shifting the goalposts once more?

    And do you not to see the contradiction between “Just because you say you WANT him to answer doesn’t mean you haven’t asked a rhetorical question…” and “…especially when the speaker both asks and answers them himself…” – and my point that the question invited clarification?

    I did not answer it and I am not going to answer it on his behalf. My question does not suggest dialogue on Latimer’s behalf. It offers him an open opportunity to clarify his position.

    Which one of you wins when you argue with yourself?

    And BTW, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the ACTUAL POINT of Latimer’s comment.

    …asserts the Queen of Miscomprehension without any justification – about a guy who has missed the point of almost every rebuttal of his claims.

    You couldn’t make this stuff up.

    But chameleon certainly can.

  2. #2 Jeff Harvey
    January 18, 2013

    “Jeff H is behaving like an insufferable, egostistical, cloistered, academic, snob.
    He is employed by an ‘academic’ institution which still means that he is an employee.
    He somehow believes that because he lives in the ‘publish or perish’ fraternity, his opinions should therefore hold more weight than other well qualified scientists who happen to have chosen different career paths”

    Now, Chammy you’re getting personal. And desperate.

    I never said that my opinions should hold more weight than other scientists. What I said, if you could bother to read, is that it should seem odd that most of the climate change deniers have little or no pedigree in the field of climate science, and that most of them actually have little pedigree in ANY field of science.

    As I have maintained on other threads, I am an ecologist and not a climate scientist. My knowledge of the field of climate science is limited, therefore I defer to the vastly greater knowledge of the people who have spent their lives in this field of endeavor. And the vast majority of them agree that the main forcing agent that accounts for the recent warming is the human combustion of fossil fuels and the concomitant increase in atmospheric concentrations of C02.

    If anyone is behaving arrogantly and petulantly, its those on the other side who are not qualified as climate scientists and yet who write all kinds of bullshit about it as if they are experts. In my field I can vouch with plenty of evidence that there are many biotic proxies showing that the planet is warming and warming rapidly. I leave it up to those in climate science to determine the underlying causes. And, as I said, the vast majority of them agree that its down to us.

    Now you can act like a spoiled little a****** all you want, and come in here beating your chest about whois fair and who isn’t, but nothing can change the fact that my views are based on the science and by the scientists doing that science. Not on a motley bunch of pseudo-scholars on the outside (bearing in mind that few of them actually do research) who snipe away at those doing the research. The deniers are like creationists, who think that by finding a few holes in evolutionary theory that the who edifice will collapse. They don’t do any of their own research, but instead constantly try and poke holes in our existing knowledge base. Similarly, climate change deniers like to take published studies and to distort their conclusions and to smear the authors while they are at it. You are a bloody hypocrite; the qualifications and reputations of quite outstanding scientists as Kevin Trenberth, Ben Santer, Michael Mann, James Hansen and others has been dragged through the mud by many of the deniers and their paymasters and yet I don’t see you pounding your chest in anger over this quite abhorrent behavior.

  3. #3 bill
    January 18, 2013

    Jeff, you’re aware of this?

  4. #4 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @lotharsson

    ‘Are you recommending scientifically unskilled people read journalists who have a history of misrepresenting science?’

    I make no recommendations in this matter at all. And I don’t intend to. In IT terms my response is ‘null’.

    I’m really disappointed if this level of 4th form debate is the best you can manage. I’m guessing that you’ve been stuck here talking only to your homies and agreeing with each other for so long that you’ve lost any match fitness you might once have had.

    Get out more…go over to Judith’s to get some game time(*) in. Stick one over on the ‘evil denialist Big Oil funded life-exterminating clever little right wing nutjobs and slime balls’ at Anthony’s. Wow the crowd at Steve McIntyre’s with your forensic skills.

    But FFS don’t just sit around stultifying here. If you never engage ‘your enemy’ you’ll never beat them. And they show absolutely no signs of giving up. Get out there and fight.

    But please, no more of the ‘have you stopped beating your wife?’ questions. Worthy of a 15 year-old, but not a grown up

  5. #5 Vince Whirlwind
    January 18, 2013

    Shame you got the Monbiot referencing thing wrong from the outset.

    Rather coloured your entire non-factual and illogical foray here.

  6. #6 Vince Whirlwind
    January 18, 2013

    Really Richard?
    You can’t see why this question:
    Are you recommending scientifically unskilled people read journalists who have a history of misrepresenting science?”

    is a rhetorical question?

    No. I don’t see it.

    Having read Latimer’s latest contribution, I would like to ask him, do you think that scientifically unskilled people should go to non-science crank blogs funded by political lobbies to further (or even, to begin) their understanding of climate science?

  7. #7 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @vince whirlwind

    ‘do you think that scientifically unskilled people should go to non-science crank blogs funded by political lobbies to further (or even, to begin) their understanding of climate science?’

    I make no recommendations in this matter. ‘Null’.

    But at both school and university my tutors were keen that we should read widely around the subject we were studying. And in the 30 odd years since I’ve learnt nothing that tells me they were wrong to do so..

  8. #8 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @chameleon

    Thank you for your kind words.

    @bill

    ‘ you are a component of a reactionary enterprise that will never accept such a simple fact. For ideological reasons. It really is that simple’

    Got any evidence to present to us for me being ‘a component of a reactionary enterprise’ and my ‘ideological reasons’.?

    I’d be interested to see it.

    @chek

    ‘what a fucking brainless dick’

    Thanks for raising the tone of the conversation. I will treat your criticism with the due weight it deserves.

  9. #9 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    I’m really disappointed if this level of 4th form debate is the best you can manage.

    You should take a good hard look at your own – for reasons already pointed out to you on this site.

    So, you now have a “null” position. Welcome to our “I’m trying for this sophisticated ‘honest broker in the middle’ kind of thing, but I’m crap at it” club. We’ve almost always got a couple of those hanging around. They tend to assert a false balance, but have great difficulty backing it up with evidence, enthusiastically misrepresent other people’s positions, fixate on what they portray as a key piece of an argument whilst everyone else is trying to point out it’s not necessary to the argument at all. But they are very good at skewering strawmen.

    …no more of the ‘have you stopped beating your wife?’ questions.

    Epic Analogy Fail.

    It wasn’t a question of that form, not even if you assert it to be – and your response was pure projection.

    I leave it for you to ponder what the key distinction in the form of the two questions is. Based on your performance so far it may take some time. Or maybe you could ask chameleon for help? She seems to be sympathetic to your work.

    Get out more…go over to Judith’s to get some game time(*) in.

    If that’s where you’ve been practicing, that quite suggestive of the idea that it’s not particularly effective.

  10. #10 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @lotharsson

    I don’t see it as my place to recommend what anybody else should or shouldn’t read. Nor what they should or shouldn’t publish.

    ‘Let a thousand flowers blossom’ – Mao Zedong

    I hope that clarifies things for you.

  11. #11 bill
    January 18, 2013

    Get out more…go over to Judith’s to get some game time(*) in.

    Um, why are you here? Have you not, somehow, noticed this is one of the highest-traffic AGW sites on the web?

    And you also somehow haven’t noticed that we scarcely need to go out to look for opponents – the trolls flock here!

    (And just about all of them at some stage try to tell us all that this place is unimportant and inconsequential! Some of them have been literally telling us this for years.)

    And, you know, it’s not often one is condemned for not being a troll! The folks at Judith’s are not any more open to persuasion than the folks at Watts’ or the Sticky Bishop’s. I know there’s this self-deluding, nonsensical line that you and the other putative Solomonically-detached ‘null’ types like to put about that you’re somehow representative of ‘Joe Public’, but you’re actually rather risible and moth-eaten wolves clad in direly unconvincing and bedraggled sheep-skins.

    I’m not buying it – as I pointed out to the other buffoon – ‘the public’ don’t rabbit on about ‘CAGW’, for a start, and they don’t turn up with fixed – and palpably wrong – ideas about, say, George Monbiot.

    I’ve got a lot of patience with the public, and may even put some effort into providing information and correcting false notions. But as for you lot – really, who cares what you think? Nowt I can do to change it.

    OTOH, the demonstration effect of beating up trolls when they barge in here can be a useful one; some with a mind to do so can actually learn a considerable amount in the process – and the resulting sport is part of the reason this place is high-traffic.

  12. #12 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @lotharsson

    And fwiw I am always deeply suspicious of those who try to dictate, censor or otherwise manipulate what others can read or publish. Too frequently they are members of an ‘establishment’ with things that they’d rather not get generally known.

  13. #13 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    And fwiw I am always deeply suspicious of those who try to dictate, censor or otherwise manipulate what others can read or publish.

    The dictation and censorship angles are – yet again – a strawman. I’m pretty sure no-one here has argued for that.

    “Manipulate” is a loaded word – but presumably it applies to those who control editorial policy in major media outlets as much or more than it does to those who point out that some people’s work is almost entirely and consistently not well-founded.

  14. #14 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    …and the resulting sport is part of the reason this place is high-traffic.

    That, and there’s also a suspicion that some of the trolls aren’t here for the hunting, if you know what I mean ;-)

  15. #15 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    So Latimer, does pointing out that someone’s work is almost invariably not well founded – or even that it is frequently demonstrably counter-factual – count as “manipulating” what others can read? I’m not really sure what the scope of the term means when you apply it.

    What’s the kind of thing you have in mind when you talk about “manipulating what someone can publish”? How can that be effected these days when anyone and everyone can (and does) get their own blog(s)?

  16. #16 bill
    January 18, 2013

    I am always deeply suspicious of those who try to dictate, censor or otherwise manipulate what others can read or publish.

    Persecution fantasies getting a bit overwhelming there, Latimer?

    Pointing out that Ridley spouts nonsense is none of the above, except in the most febrile and narcissistic of imaginations, no? This is a Watts level of cheap histrionics…

    It’s called ‘disagreeing’, bucko – get used to it!

  17. #17 Chris O'Neill
    January 18, 2013

    Latimer Alder:

    And fwiw I am always deeply suspicious of those who try to dictate, censor or otherwise manipulate what others can read or publish.

    Good to know that you’re deeply suspicious of Anthony Watts.

  18. #18 Jeff Harvey
    January 18, 2013

    Latimer,

    You are creating by now an army of strawmen. Nobody has said that we shouldn’t be allowed to read what we like. But your argument suggests that science should do away with peer-review and that everything submitred should be published ‘as is’. Am I correct? I do not disagree that there are flaws in the peer-review system, but it’s all we have to keep science somewhat safe. Otherwise we’d be swamped with all kinds of nonsense from creation ‘science’ to alchemy to flat Earth theories being promulgated.

    As I said above, my field of research is population ecology. I studied zooology and specialized in population and evolutionary ecology, went on to do a PhD and have spent the past 20 years doing research. I am still learning a lot in my own field and realted ones. I am cautious enough to defer to experts in other fields. Therefore, I think that its wrong that a relatively small number of people, most of whom have little or no relevant scientific pedigree, feel that they have something useful to say in the complex field of climate science, especially since their views conflict with the vast majority of statured scientists in the field. Yet we have the media giving many of these people a platform to spew their nonsense. Unlike cautious scientists, amny of them don’t hesitate to say that they know exactly what they are talking about. We had old Professor David Bellamy last week itnerviewed in the Independent saying that he knows he isn’t wrong with respect to climate change. What does Bellamy know about climate? Virtually nothing, if one looks at his professonal background, but that did not stop him claiming without reservation that he was correct. The only reason he gets this attention is because of his old celebrity status. Why not ask Johnny Depp or Harrison Ford of Julia Roberts what they think about climate change? Heck, they may have read a few books on the subject as well, and they are celebrities.

  19. #19 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    Bill says

    ‘Um, why are you here? Have you not, somehow, noticed this is one of the highest-traffic AGW sites on the web?’

    Well, no I hadn’t noticed that. Until recently I had only ever vaguely heard of it. Bu t I could always be wrong and so went and did a little research. Here are my conclusions:(*)

    In the 36 days since December 12th, this blog has generated 2890 comments.

    In the same time, Climate Etc (Judith Curry) produced 7366 – two and a half times as many. Bishop Hill managed 3846 – a third more than here.

    And WUWT takes about four days to generate the same number – eight or nine times the rate.

    So I really doubt your contention that this is one of the highest-traffic AGW sites on the web.

    But as a consolation, it’s a lot more active than Real Climate. A socking great 614 in the same time.

    My contention that you guys should get out more since you are missing where the action is is substantiated by the facts.

    For every posting here there are about 12 on WUWT, Climate Etc and BH combined.

    *The experimental method used was ‘counting’. it should be reproducible by any competent ten -year old.

  20. #20 Vince Whirlwind
    January 18, 2013

    I see what Latimer’s problem is – somebody told him to “read widely”, so he opened his mind….and his brain fell out.

    Nobody in their right mind would go anywhere near paranoid crank sites for information. Whether it’s WUWT or that bitter and nonsensical Curry woman – it’s garbage.

  21. #21 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @jeff harvey

    I have said nothing whatsoever about ‘peer review’. If a journal wishes to accept or reject articles based upon it, that’s fine with me. But it’s a great mistake to think that it is a perfect mechanism and that it somehow confers authenticity onto either the journal or the paper. Scienc functioned perfectly well for hundreds of years before peer-review became the norm a few decades ago, and will function just as well as the internet takes over from the published journal as the place of record for new science.
    But the transition may take some getting used to for the traditional author such as yourself.

    And one could make a very strong case that a thorough going over in real time from interested parties all over the world is a much better from of review than a having a mate casually glancing at something on the train and approving it ‘if it feels right’ (Phil Jones UEA).

    The recent furore over the withdrawn paper ‘Gergis et al’ provides a fine illustration. We can expect more in the future.

    And I’m quite happy for anyoen to take issue with Ridley or Watts or Curry or me or anybody else if they can show that the science is wrong. No problem. My own theoretical Masters project was shown – by comparison with experiment – to be spectacularly wrong. That’s science. Good argument and experiment is the way its suppose to work.

    But what I entirely disagree with is the viewpoint of 90% of the posters here that Ridley must be wrong because of all sorts of spurious things about him as a person or about the company he keeps or about whether doctor of zoology counts as a proper scientist… and not about the argument he makes. Or whether his article had references on the same page or not.

    That’s not science, that’s advocacy and politics. True science should be person-independent.

    And every time I see it, I – and everybody else who is yet to be convinced that Ridley is indeed the Denier Devil Incarnate – begins to wonder why those who get so passionate about hos personal failings don’t just demolish his scientific argument and have done with it. There are lots and lots of posts purporting to show that Ridley is a Very Bad Man, but few that I have found that say ‘and his science is wrong because…’ together with detailed rebuttal.

    I paraphrase only slightly when I opine that

    ‘He is wrong because he is a Denier’

    seems to be this blog’s default position.

    Please get out more. You have been stuck here too long.

  22. #22 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @vince whirlwind

    ‘Whether it’s WUWT or that bitter and nonsensical Curry woman – it’s garbage.’

    Thanks for the informative post. I’m sure the authors and posters at both those blogs will give due weight to your views. And its good to see exactly the level of calm and rational discussion that you wish to promote.

  23. #23 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    FWIW, Latimer, I had a look at Curry’s site when she started.

    It was obvious in fairly short order that (a) she had an agenda that wasn’t particularly constrained to well-foundedness, (b) she was far too fond of her own logical fallacies, (c) she was talking beyond her competence about probabilities and uncertainties, and (d) she was quite happy to allow all sorts of cranks free rein in the comments, even explicitly encouraging some of their nonsense IIRC. She appeared to be buying an audience by going for a kind of Solomonic above-the-fray honest-broker thing that was apparently intended to allow “skeptics” with poor arguments and/or an anti-climate scientist bent to have a venue where they would get some apparent respect.

    The signal to noise ratio at her site was simply too low to be worthwhile.

  24. #24 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @lotharsson

    No doubt Professor Curry will take your remarks very seriously if she ever finds them.

    But they’d have more influence on her if you posted them there, rather than only here.

    As I have tried to point out above, this is a relatively idle backwater of the climatosphere. Like it or not – it is not where the action is. And talking just to each other isn’t going to win you any battles. You need to raise your game and engage with your opponents.

  25. #25 Chris O'Neill
    January 18, 2013

    Latimer Alder:

    just demolish his scientific argument and have done with it

    That was done long ago (just scroll up to the top of the page). But there are people with agendas.

  26. #26 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @Chris O’Neill

    ‘That was done long ago’

    Which specific post? By whom exactly?

    Perhaps I missed it among all the other stuff going on.

    ‘But there are people with agendas’

    Very orotund and oracular. But – apart from attempting to sound darkly mysterious like the baddie in The Avengers or an early James Bond movie – are you actually trying to convey anything?

    Seems to be a meaningless throwaway line to me

  27. #27 Chris O'Neill
    January 18, 2013

    Latimer Alder, I said scroll up to the top of the page. Where it says:

    Matt Ridley’s first response to my post about his failed prediction was denial:

    People with agendas include those such as yourself with piles of strawmen.

  28. #28 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    But it’s a great mistake to think that it is a perfect mechanism and that it somehow confers authenticity onto either the journal or the paper.

    No-one here seems to be doing that. Well, except people like chameleon who protest when we point out flaws in peer-reviewed papers she cites.

    But what I entirely disagree with is the viewpoint of 90% of the posters here that Ridley must be wrong because of all sorts of spurious things about him as a person or about the company he keeps or about whether doctor of zoology counts as a proper scientist…

    Asserting it doesn’t make it so.

    I’m not seeing people making that argument – certainly not “90% of the posters here”. I already explained why over here. Those things you mention may be supplementary indicators, but they aren’t the primary reason people are saying he’s wrong.

    …don’t just demolish his scientific argument and have done with it.

    Ah, you’ve FINALLY stumbled on to the primary reason people say his stuff is crap – they’ve ALREADY demolished his scientific arguments, over and over again, and he’s still making the same claims!

    Glad you could join us.

  29. #29 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    As I have tried to point out above, this is a relatively idle backwater of the climatosphere.

    FWIW, it lost a lot of traffic over the last year or so because Tim wasn’t able to post very often.

  30. #30 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “But it’s a great mistake to think that it is a perfect mechanism”

    So who do you claim is doing that?

  31. #31 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “…don’t just demolish his scientific argument and have done with it. ”

    So even if his argument is crap, it shouldn’t be shown as such???

  32. #32 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @Chris O’Neill

    It seems that you failed to tune in for the next instalment. Ridley responded to Lambert here three days ago.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/15/matt-ridley-responds-to-tim-lamberts-war-deltoid/#more-77576

    The fat lady hasn’t sung on this one yet.

  33. #33 chek
    January 18, 2013

    Bless his li’ll cotton socks, Lati pretends to not know that there is a disinformation industry working furiously to prevent any regulation of CO2 emissions, or its connection to his list of tortured shills souls striving for scientific integrity..

  34. #34 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @lotharsson

    ‘FWIW, it lost a lot of traffic over the last year or so because Tim wasn’t able to post very often’

    Maybe so. Maybe it is just because many passer-by might be repelled by the unpleasant tone of the ‘debate’. Maybe
    its because the level of general interest in climate alarmism is falling. Or (from the UK at least) today’s heavy snowfall means that worrying about CAGW is pretty low down the list of priorities. Maybe that the sight of ‘True Believers snarling at Deniers like the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal is a turn off. *

    Could be all of those things or none.

    But whatever the reason it doesn’t affect the observation that this is not a high traffic area of the blogosphere as claimed by ‘Bill’.

    *(You guys understimate just how many neutral observers find such behaviour a big no-no. It is one of the best recruiting sergeants the sceptical forces have got. When sceptics explain how they arrived at their views, the sheer unpleasantness of the believers is a highly quoted reason for them to look more closely at the mainstream views. And with a more critical eye)

  35. #35 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @wow

    You say

    “…don’t just demolish his scientific argument and have done with it. ”

    So even if his argument is crap, it shouldn’t be shown as such???’

    Absolutely not. If it is right or wrong it should – like all others – be debated right up front and in the open.

    You have fallen into the trap of selective reading and only looked at the very end of my sentence. You will see – if you read the whole thing – that I agree with your point 100%.

    Here it is

    ‘And every time I see it, I – and everybody else who is yet to be convinced that Ridley is indeed the Denier Devil Incarnate – begins to wonder why those who get so passionate about his personal failings don’t just demolish his scientific argument and have done with it’

    The only thing I’d change on rereading is that I’d add ‘supposed’ in front of ‘personal’.

    I hope that this full quotation of my views clarifies the point for you.
    .

  36. #36 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “Absolutely not. If it is right or wrong it should – like all others – be debated right up front and in the open.”

    To what point?

    If no conclusion can ever be made from the discussion, what the hell is the point of it?

  37. #37 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    ‘And every time I see it, I – and everybody else who is yet to be convinced that Ridley is indeed the Denier Devil Incarnate ”

    So you think he could be, right?

    “begins to wonder why those who get so passionate about his personal failings”

    Getting it wrong is something that needs to be pointed out.

    Being wrong is being wrong and being told about that is not insisting any demon incarnation. You’re a hysteric.

  38. #38 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    Is his personal failing ALWAYS getting shit wrong about climate?

    In what way should that NOT be pointed out?

  39. #39 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @chek

    ‘Lati pretends to not know that there is a disinformation industry working furiously to prevent any regulation of CO2 emissions, or its connection to his list of tortured shills souls striving for scientific integrity.’

    AFAICR I have never made any remarks at all about this subject. So how you know what I do or don’t know is beyond me.

    But since you claim to have the ability to read my mind better than I do perhaps you can tell me what to cook for dinner tonight? The heavy snowfall today means that we aren’t going out to a restaurant as planned.

    Instead we’ll huddle around the fire and take turns to laugh at David Viner from UEA ‘Snowfall will be a thing of the past. Our children won’t know what snow is’ quoth he in 2000

  40. #40 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “AFAICR I have never made any remarks at all about this subject. So how you know what I do or don’t know is beyond me.”

    So you do know that such a complicity of money exists.

  41. #41 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    Maybe it is just because many passer-by might be repelled by the unpleasant tone of the ‘debate’.

    My recollection – which may not be accurate – is that if the tone of the debate has changed in any way since the onset of the quieter period, it is – if anything – less of what the tone trolls tend to complain about than before.

    I suspect your hypothesis won’t hold up.

    When sceptics explain how they arrived at their views, the sheer unpleasantness of the believers is a highly quoted reason for them to look more closely at the mainstream views.

    Firstly, “skeptics” say all sorts of things. Many of them turn out to be inaccurate. For example we’ve recently seen how impressively malleable some people’s memories of events – even those that occurred earlier no more than a day ago – can be, courtesy of chameleon.

    And a funny thing: we have people turn up here professing to be quite neutral, wanting to find out about the science. But they give off … certain vibes fairly quickly, often letting slip some of the usual denialist language or tropes, but mostly tending to put forth claims (they don’t generally support with evidence) and then strongly defend them when this is pointed out – and once that doesn’t cut it they resort to tone trolling, or something approaching it. And when they do that, they claim pretty much exactly what you have just claimed – that the tone has convince them the science is wrong. Sometimes they first go through a negotiation stage where they try a kind of emotional blackmail: if you continue to be mean to me (by rebutting my unfounded claims) I’ll go to the “other side” (which conveniently happens to have no interest in rebutting my unfounded claims).

    Worse still, we’ve also seen from quite extensive experience that engaging in a discussion of the evidence whilst avoiding the kind of tone that “newly skeptical because of tone” skeptics cite doesn’t change their mind either.

    There may actually be some subset of people who are persuaded purely by tone – but if that’s what they find persuasive it’s not at all clear that they are willing to think in the first place, so there’s little point asking them to.

    People come here almost exclusively for one of two reasons. Either they’re looking for some information about climate science (and a few other things) and the media coverage thereof, or they’re coming to disabuse commenters here of their insufficiently “skeptical” points of view.

    In short, your argument has almost zero merit, except perhaps in the hypothetical case where large numbers of undecided voters happen to turn up wondering what this climate science thing is all about so that they can vote primarily on the issue – and that is not in evidence here.

  42. #42 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “But since you claim to have the ability to read my mind better than I do perhaps you can tell me what to cook for dinner tonight?”

    That requires predicting your mental state in the future, idiot-boy.

  43. #43 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    So when Glen Beck says there aren’t enough knives for the ritual suicide of all these climate scientists, the tone proves the scientists right, yes?

  44. #44 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    Or (from the UK at least) today’s heavy snowfall means that worrying about CAGW is pretty low down the list of priorities.

    Because increased precipitation, including in winter, and not infrequent colder temperatures in certain places including Britain due to disruption of the Polar jet stream – because these things were not predicted as consequences of anthropogenic forcing, and anthropogenic forcing clearly has nothing to do with it, right?

  45. #45 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “When sceptics explain how they arrived at their views”

    You’ve never managed that.

    Nor has Wodger.

    Nor Matt.

    Nor chammy.

    Nor Donkey.

    Nor Joan.

  46. #46 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    Or (from the UK at least) today’s heavy snowfall means that worrying about CAGW is pretty low down the list of priorities.

    Please prove how you arrive at this.

  47. #47 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @wow

    ‘and everybody else who is yet to be convinced that Ridley is indeed the Denier Devil Incarnate ”

    ‘So you think he could be, right?

    Nope. Its a figure of speech. Call it typical British understatement. Or a touch of irony.

    ‘“begins to wonder why those who get so passionate about his personal failings”

    Getting it wrong is something that needs to be pointed out.

    Being wrong is being wrong and being told about that is not insisting any demon incarnation. You’re a hysteric.’

    Nothing hysterical about expecting a level of debate and discussion rather more intellectual than

    ‘You’re wrong because I said so! Na ananananaa!

    Maybe you;re not old enough to have left the playground yet. But I have.

  48. #48 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    So when Glen Beck says there aren’t enough knives for the ritual suicide of all these climate scientists, the tone proves the scientists right, yes?

    LOL!

  49. #49 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @wow

    Or (from the UK at least) today’s heavy snowfall means that worrying about CAGW is pretty low down the list of priorities.

    Please prove how you arrive at this’

    If you look back at the remarks you will see that I was constrcuting a list of plausible hypotheses that might explain why this blog is not the high-traffic powerhouse as claimed, but a relative backwater. This is one of them….the news in UK today is pretty much dominated by the snowfall, and CAGW isn’t getting much airtime

    And you’ll also note that I finished my list with the remark
    ‘could be all of those things or none’

  50. #50 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @lotharsson

    ‘My recollection – which may not be accurate – is that if the tone of the debate has changed in any way since the onset of the quieter period, it is – if anything – less of what the tone trolls tend to complain about than before’

    Gosh, So you were all an even nastier bunch before you drove the passers-by away! Can’t say I;m really surprised that the readership has gone down.

    FWIW you can read about the history of many sceptics- me included – here

    http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/12/the-denizens-of-climate-etc/

    And the rest of your post shows that – like my little dog seeing off intruders – you’re quite happy to see off anybody who arrives here without the required level of true belief. Growl at the Deniers, Rover!

    Yep – that’s the way to persuade them! Frighten them away…a policy you appear to have had great success with. Soon you’ll be just like the guys at RC .. making great pontifical statements to nobody at all.

    Maybe the phrase ‘counter-productive’ is new to you?

  51. #51 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “You’re wrong because I said so! Na ananananaa!”

    I thought that was your point.

    So, you don’t have anything other than insistence you’re right to claim everyone else is wrong, huh?

  52. #52 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @wow

    ‘So when Glen Beck says there aren’t enough knives for the ritual suicide of all these climate scientists, the tone proves the scientists right, yes?’

    ??

    Who is Glen Beck? Not a name I know

  53. #53 Jeff Harvey
    January 18, 2013

    Latimer,

    Still more strawmen… you’d make a great produce for 50s type horror films. Your latest opining is this:

    “‘He is wrong because he is a Denier’ seems to be this blog’s default position.

    No, not at all. What I am questioning is why people like Ridley, Lomborg, Monckton, Bellamy, Montford etc. are interviewed for newspapers or television over issues dealing with global change (including climate change). Why not interview a bus driver? Or a garage mechanic? The man on the street? Many of them probably know as much as these pundits. No, the reason why they are sought out is because they are well known for other things and because their views run against the mainstrems view (that pesky little thing that is absed on the views of the vast majority of real experts).

    Its like the media asking me for my views on quantum physics, or a quantum physicist for their views on population ecology. Why give people with opinions that run counter to the mainstream and who are not experts in these other fields? As I said, the only reason Ridley or Bellamy are interviewed about climate change is because they are contrarians. If they weren’t the media wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole. It seems like being a contrarian is a great strategy to dust off a flagging career in science or to go from being an absolute nobody to a celebrity overnight. Lomborg had published a single paper in his academic career on iterated prisoner’s dilemma, for heaven”s sake, and in 15 months he writes a book covering immensely complex and diverse fields that take experts decade to master. Lo and behold, each chapter starts off with a skewed directed hypothesis,which he then burns down and within no time at all the corporate media, think tanks (and deniers like Ridley) are championing Lomborg. It didn’t matter what we scientists thought. Heck, we are only the ones who do the research that Lomborg and Ridley cherry pick or ignore in deriving their rosy world views. When we respond, we are attacked viciously for daring challenge the innocent blonde Dane.

    Even now, when Lomborg (or Ridley) are interviewed about climate change, they are treated as knowledgeable experts. I often see interviewers coming down on deniers like a pile of feathers. Its as if what they are saying has merit. Itg would’n’t matter if the media didn’t treat them like experts, but it usually does. Their views carry a lot of weight in the public sphere, because many people not only want to believe that we can continue along the current trajectory, but because these people have a ‘Dr.’ title in front of their name it means to the layperson that they MUST know what they are talking about. I believe that Lomborg’s book did immense damage in distorting the public’s (and policymaker’s) views of various environmental problems. Its not like what these people writer is harmless. At least when they are turned from nobody’s into celebrities overnight it should be made clear that the do not have pedigree in the fields they are interviewed about and that their views conflict with the prevailing view amongst the real experts as well as with the empirical evidence.

    I just think that the mainstream corporate media is irresponsible. Its hardly surprising since it is just another arm of corporate power. There is a myth that the media is by-and-large left leaning. This has to be one of the most enduring myths of our time.

  54. #54 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “Nope. Its a figure of speech.”

    Speech is different from noise by having MEANING attached to it.

    What, then, is your MEANING? Or don’t you know why you say what you say, you’re inanimately repeating what you’ve been programmed to say?

  55. #55 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “This is one of them….the news in UK today is pretty much dominated by the snowfall, and CAGW isn’t getting much airtime”

    Where is the causal link between snowfall and AGW?

  56. #56 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @wow

    ‘When sceptics explain how they arrived at their views’

    Try this for starters. A whole blog full – including me,

    http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/12/the-denizens-of-climate-etc/

    I guess there are about 200 there.

  57. #57 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “Nothing hysterical about expecting a level of debate and discussion rather more intellectual than”

    Except all you seem to want IS “debate”. Nothing to come from it.

    Indeed you’ve refused many times now to say WHY the debate is being done.

    Are you merely doing it to see yourself on a popular and heavy-traffic blog like this?

  58. #58 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “And you’ll also note that I finished my list with the remark
    ‘could be all of those things or none’”

    The “none”.

  59. #59 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    ‘When sceptics explain how they arrived at their views’

    Nope, you need to explain how you arrived at your views.

  60. #60 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “Who is Glen Beck? Not a name I know”

    So you’re deliberately pretending to be clueless now.

    Got it.

  61. #61 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “FWIW you can read about the history of many sceptics- me included – here”

    And how much IS it worth?

  62. #62 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “I guess there are about 200 there.”

    200 explanations?

  63. #63 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    So you were all an even nastier bunch before you drove the passers-by away! Can’t say I;m really surprised that the readership has gone down.

    Interesting. You’ve STILL got it backwards despite having it explained to you twice. You are almost as determined as chameleon to misinterpret people’s positions! You two should spend some time together. I reckon you’d get on like a house on fire.

    But returning to the point. Let me make it crystal clear.

    The readership went up whilst it was “nasty”.

    Up.

    Not down.

    Up as in higher readership.

    Not lower.

    Up as in larger numbers.

    Not smaller numbers.

    You don’t seem to have a clue what drives readership at this site – but you’re quite willing to pontificate about it.

    (Now where have I seen that behaviour before…?)

  64. #64 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @wow

    You ask

    ‘Where is the causal link between snowfall and AGW?’

    Well that’s a good question.

    ‘Lotharsson’ a few minutes ago said it was this

    ‘Because increased precipitation, including in winter, and not infrequent colder temperatures in certain places including Britain due to disruption of the Polar jet stream – because these things were not predicted as consequences of anthropogenic forcing, and anthropogenic forcing clearly has nothing to do with it, right?’

    But the respected UK based climate scientist David Viner from UEA/CRU said the exact opposite

    ‘Snowfall will be a thing of the past. Our children won’t know what snow is’

    You pays your money and you takes your choice. Probably its just the weather doing its thing.

  65. #65 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    So, what you’re apparently arguing Latimer, is that your own personal skepticism is not informed by the scientific evidence, but by the tone of people rebutting pseudo-scientific bulldust?

    Got it.

    You’ve abandoned your critical faculties on this topic. Well, that means we can ignore any arguments you make on the topic, right? After all, they’re not based on the evidence…

  66. #66 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @wow

    “I guess there are about 200 there.”

    200 explanations?’

    Go look. But yes.

  67. #67 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    So it seems like the purpose of debate is ONLY so that ideas YOU say should be heard are allowed to be presented.

    Got it.

  68. #68 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “Go look. But yes.”

    But they’re all complete bollocks as explanations.

    They’re no better explanations than “I don’t like it”.

  69. #69 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “‘Lotharsson’ a few minutes ago said it was this”

    For someone who pretends to be British, you don’t get irony, do you.

    Nor dry sarcasm.

    You also don’t get the bit where I asked YOU.

    Is that because you have no thought of your own?

  70. #70 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @lotharsson

    ‘So, what you’re apparently arguing Latimer, is that your own personal skepticism is not informed by the scientific evidence, but by the tone of people rebutting pseudo-scientific bulldust?’

    Please go back and read what I actually wrote, not what you would like me to have written. It isn’t hard to do so.

  71. #71 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “But the respected UK based climate scientist David Viner from UEA/CRU said the exact opposite

    ‘Snowfall will be a thing of the past. Our children won’t know what snow is’”

    And apparently you don’t know what that means either.

  72. #72 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “Please go back and read what I actually wrote”

    He did.

    Nailed it.

  73. #73 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “I reckon you’d get on like a house on fire.”

    Screaming, chaos, death, descruction. Panic.

    Yeah, I’d say that would be about right.

  74. #74 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    David Viner is almost universally acknowledged to have been wrong on the timescale, and the geographical subject. That statement was made in 2000 and there’s been a bit of research since that time.

    Only an idiot would insist that a statement acknowledged to be mistaken should continue to be taken seriously.

  75. #75 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    Please go back and read what I actually wrote, not what you would like me to have written.

    Already done that.

    Please feel free to correct any mistakes in my interpretation. After all, since I can’t read your mind, you are the only one in a position to do so.

  76. #76 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    Latte doesn’t even know what Viner said.

    Despite himself whinging

    You have fallen into the trap of selective reading and only looked at the very end of my sentence. You will see – if you read the whole thing – that I agree with your point 100%.

    Yet here he is taking only part of what was said to spin a story in his head.

    Plus should you not be discussing it rather than just summarily dismissing it?

    Or is it, like I’ve averred before, something for OTHERS to abide by, not yourself?

  77. #77 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

    “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

    The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain’s biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. “It was a bit of a first,” a spokesperson said.

    “Our children” in quotes:

    Mohandes Ghandi, political and spiritual leader in India

    “If we are to teach real peace in this world, and if we are to carry on a real war against war, we shall have to begin with the children.”

    Nelson Mandela, former president of South Africa

    “Safety and security don’t just happen, they are the result of collective consensus and public investment. We owe our children, the most vulnerable citizens in our society, a life free of violence and fear.”

    John W. Whitehead, founder, Rutherford Institute

    “Children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see.”

    Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in

    “The visions we offer our children shape the future. It _matters_ what those visions are. Often they become self-fulfilling prophecies. Dreams are maps.”

    “Our greatest national resource is the minds of our children.” ― Walt Disney

    Do you think they were talking only about the children who were alive at the time?

  78. #78 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @wow
    @lotharsson

    Since neither of you can apparently find my earlier remark, here it is again

    ‘When sceptics explain how they arrived at their views, the sheer unpleasantness of the believers is a highly quoted reason for them to look more closely at the mainstream views. And with a more critical eye’

    @wow

    You want me to explain how I arrived at my views. Follow the link I provided and mine is the third or fourth contribution.

    It will be easy for you to see since it is helpfully headed ‘Latimer Alder’.

  79. #79 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @wow

    Still none the wiser about Glenn Beck. Glenn Turner I know – fine left handed opening batsman for Worcestershire and New Zealand. James Beck I know – actor who played Pte. Walker in Dad’s Army. But not Glenn Beck. Though James Turner was the name of the ‘pirate’ on the houseboat in Swallows and Amazons.

    Enlighten me please.

  80. #80 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @wow

    Your post about Gandhi etc is incomprehensible.

    Did you have a point? What is it?

  81. #81 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    Since neither of you can apparently find my earlier remark, here it is again

    Already read it, explained my response in quite some detail, and you have apparently ignored it.

    Which makes it all the more ironic that you accuse other people of not reading what you wrote, or something…

  82. #82 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @lotharsson

    ‘David Viner is almost universally acknowledged to have been wrong on the timescale, and the geographical subject. That statement was made in 2000 and there’s been a bit of research since that time.

    Only an idiot would insist that a statement acknowledged to be mistaken should continue to be taken seriously’

    Just a pity then that there were about 10 years when it was taken very seriously and our local authorities stopped spending money on winter weather precautions. Like the guys in Queensland prepared for droughts by building useless desalination plants, neglecting their flood precautions and ending up with the Wivenhoe Dam debacle.

    It simply isn’t good enough to make predictions, expect them to be taken seriously and then – when they turn out to be spectacularly wrong just say ‘sorry – we did some more research and our last prediction was all wrong. But this one’ll be great! Until we decide that’s wrong as well.

    I do not recall seeing a statement from Viner or UEA that Viner’s remarks are inoperative. Can you point me to where it is if I have overlooked it? And if not, we must assume that it is still the UEA/CRU official position

  83. #83 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @wow

    ‘But they are all complete bollocks as explanations’

    Thanks for sharing your deeply considered views. It’s always good to hear some serious analysis to give us new insights.

  84. #84 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “Thanks for sharing your deeply considered views.”

    You’re welcome.

  85. #85 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    Just a pity then that there were about 10 years when it was taken very seriously and our local authorities stopped spending money on winter weather precautions

    Just a pity you’ve nothing to show that was why they cut back, rather than, as is actually the case, that it was the forecasts for the weather that meant they cut back and saved a shitload of cash on gritting that wasn’t needed.

    Indeed, the Met Office were congratulated by all the councils who expresed an opinion on the accuracy of the forecast and how it had helped them cut costs without cutting safety.

  86. #86 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “Did you have a point? What is it?”

    For the hard of thinking like yourself, when you say “Our children” you aren’t NECESSARILY talking about YOUR CHILDREN.

    It is used similarly, and more accessibly to the common man, to mean the children that will live in the future.

    However, your entire self worth is predicated on a world view that would be devastated by understanding, so you refrain.

  87. #87 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    @lotharsson

    ‘The readership went up whilst it was “nasty”.

    Up.

    Not down.

    Up as in higher readership.

    Not lower.

    Up as in larger numbers.

    Not smaller numbers.’

    Fine.

    Perhaps by trying the ‘even nastier’ tactic once again you might manage to drag your readership up beyond that of a Scottish Chartered Accountant. Or perhaps yu will see it continue to decline. Like those sad old religious types who are the last members of some minor sect fading away into the mists of time.

    But me – I think I’ll find some more congenial company for the moment.

    Thanks for your time…it been extremely revealing and instructive .And I’ve learnt a huge amount about the practitioners of Deep Alarmism.

  88. #88 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “When sceptics explain how they arrived at their views, ”

    Because you seem not to have noticed, here it is again:

    There has been no explanation.

    Just the assertion of views.

  89. #89 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “the practitioners of Deep Alarmism.”

    Since you keep blithering on about catastrophe, that would be you, right?

  90. #90 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “Perhaps by trying the ‘even nastier’ tactic once again ”

    So at long last you agree your assertion previous was incorrect.

    It’s odd how you can’t bring yourself to say that without being nasty.

    I guess that proves your views wrong, right?

  91. #91 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    Just a pity then that there were about 10 years when it was taken very seriously and our local authorities stopped spending money on winter weather precautions.

    Yes, indeed.

    If that’s what they actually based their opinions on – a newspaper article that Wow has been trying to point out to you does not actually assert that Viner specified a near-term timescale (a fact which I did not recall until Wow started dropping broad hints).

    Like the guys in Queensland prepared for droughts by building useless desalination plants, neglecting their flood precautions and ending up with the Wivenhoe Dam debacle.

    Desalination plants and dams are both mighty useful with the kind of patchy rainfall history we’ve had in the last few decades. “Totally useless” is the same sort of illogical black and white thinking as “my house insurance is totally useless because my house never burnt to the ground”.

  92. #92 Marco
    January 18, 2013

    Latimer Alder:
    Please provide evidence that your local authorities took a newspaper article in the Independent as gospel and stopped winter weather precautions.

  93. #93 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    Perhaps by trying the ‘even nastier’ tactic once again you might manage to drag your readership up beyond that of a Scottish Chartered Accountant. Or perhaps yu will see it continue to decline.

    Yes.

    This has been another edition of short answers to content-free prognostications.

  94. #94 guthrie
    January 18, 2013

    Latimer would make a good troll, except that the sine qua non of trolling is to ensure that the other people post much much more than you do.

  95. #95 Jeff Harvey
    January 18, 2013

    Latimer’s arguments are getting more and more desperate. They were thin to begin with but now… cellophane is thick by comparison. From one strwman after another to scraping up quotes from scientists made 13 years ago.

    Since when is snow an indicator that there is no warming? The most important statistic is that warm weather records and being set at 5 times the number ofn cold weather records, and this ratio has been increasing rapidly since the 1970s. Today Sydney just had it warmest EVER day. Not just a date record but an all time record. the current cold weather in Europe is below normal but is nowhere close to setting any records. The US saw 362 all time warm weather records set this year and precisely 0 all time cold records.

    But if we don’t take instrumental records as evidence for warming, what about the huge numebrs of biotic evidence? Its all there in the scientific journals. Poelwards or elevational advances by many species of plants and animals, changes in seasonal phenology, voltinism, flowering times, and other life-history related phenomena. Oak processionary caterpillars (a species I study) have exapnded to the north at a rapid rate sicne the 1980s; this year we found that the main parasitic wasps emerging from caterpillars of the diamondback moth were (for the first time) dominated by thermophilic species normally common in southern Europe. They are replacing the less thermophilic species. The diamondback moth, by the way, is a major pest of cabbage crops and is a southern native that has only recently begun to survive winters in central and northern Europe. This means that they emerge earlier in the year and can build up their numbers much faster.

  96. #96 Richard Simons
    January 18, 2013

    Latimer: Are you suggesting that devotees of WUWT and Judith Curry feel that physics depends on the bluntness or otherwise of people who are expressing certain views?

    Soon after JC started her blog I visited a few times. I particularly remember her blog where she drew an analogy to the Italian flag, in which she lost track of what her analogy was and switched arguments part way through. Then there was the time when she said there had been a decrease on global temperatures, or maybe there hadn’t, and she showed a startling ignorance of basic statistics. Those two incidents convinced me that there was no point in visiting for the science.

    Jeff said:

    The deniers are like creationists, who think that by finding a few holes in evolutionary theory that the who edifice will collapse.

    More than that, both groups seem to work on finding brief snippets that could be interpreted to mean something different, in the belief that this will uncover the silver bullet that destroys the entirety of the evidence.

  97. #97 Jeff Harvey
    January 18, 2013

    Richard,

    “More than that, both groups seem to work on finding brief snippets that could be interpreted to mean something different, in the belief that this will uncover the silver bullet that destroys the entirety of the evidence”.

    Exactly. I couldn’t have said it better.

    As for JC, she doesn’t seem to know where she stands or what she means. I have read a few of her threads and some of them are cringe-inducing. I also notice that she once linked her site to a range of other blogs, but since then she’s deleted most of the rational ones in favor of denial blogs. It seems to me that she doesn’t know which side is up most of the time.

  98. #98 Chris O'Neill
    January 18, 2013

    I’ve learnt a huge amount about the practitioners of Deep Alarmism.

    This Latimer Alder is a particular type of troll who comes along with pre-conceived notions and is only capable of making observations that confirm what they already believe and incapable of observations that contradict their pre-conceived notions.

    I guess you could call him a seeker-of-biassed-confirmation troll.

  99. #99 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    I particularly remember her blog where she drew an analogy to the Italian flag…

    Yep, that was one of the ones that convinced me she didn’t know what she was talking about. IIRC some people were trying to point out obvious flaws in her claims based on that analogy, but she was having none of it.

  100. #100 Chris O'Neill
    January 18, 2013

    Latimer Alder:

    Like the guys in Queensland prepared for droughts by building useless desalination plants

    One more year without a La Nina or desalination plants and Brisbane would have virtually run out of water.

    This Latimer Alder appears to be good only for parroting stupid denialist memes.