March 2013 Open Thread

Sorry it’s late, I blame the carbon tax!


  1. #1 Lotharsson
    March 7, 2013

    Speaking of the carbon tax that was going to wreck the economy…

    not so much.

  2. #2 Wow
    March 7, 2013

    Abbot is still going to punish you for daring to introduce it, though, and will rip it out and “compensate” the ones “damaged” by it. I.e. the mining companies.

  3. #3 Sou
    March 7, 2013
  4. #4 Sou
    March 7, 2013

    The latest survey from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication is interesting.

    In the USA, full on deniers have dropped back to around 8%.

    They are mostly the weirdos who don’t have a handle on reality, going by their views on the range of items in the survey. In fact this bottom 8% probably think they are the majority.

    On the downside, the proportion of respondents who think the USA should support a large-scale effort to reduce global warming has dropped over the years, though it’s still a big majority. And by far the majority still think the USA should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

  5. #5 ligne
    March 7, 2013

    Sou: “In fact this bottom 8% probably think they are the majority.”

    …except when it suits them to present themselves as an oppressed minority, of course.

  6. #6 bill
    March 8, 2013

    In fact, they’re a valiant and oppressed minority that represent the silent majority that just know in their hearts that science must be wrong if it suggest that they might not get what they think they’re entitled to.

    And, in a strange way, they’re right!

    Frankly, I think that in this country the majority are almost certainly hypocrites; they’ll tell pollsters they believe the science and that we should do something about it, they’re willing to make meaningful sacrifices etc. – and then vote for Tony Abbott when there’s a real chance that any of this might actually come to pass!

    Short-sighted? Cowardly? Cynical? Conformist? Just plain dense? Any/+/all of the above?

    Come to think of it, there doesn’t seem to be much discussion of the apparent fact that people are far more noble in surveys than they are in practice…

  7. #7 Craig Thomas
    March 8, 2013

    John McLean has written an article claiming that Tim Flannery has been making dud predictions:

    Quite ironic, really, when you consider John McLean is the crank who made the “coldest year since 1956” prediction.

    I’m also concerned that he seems to have lost the “PhD” that used to appear after his name.
    Can anybody help him find it?

  8. #8 bill
    March 8, 2013

    Ah, McLean, you’ve done it again!

    The ‘1956’ thing was the single most comic ‘forecast’ of the debate to date – and let’s never forget who else helped out with his ‘research’.

  9. #9 rhwombat
    Upper Transylvania, NSW
    March 8, 2013

    Craig: I think it’s infra dig (even at Quadrant) to claim a PhD that was never awarded. If I recall correctly, he was claiming to be a PhD at James Cook University, with his supervisors being Carter (as external) and someone else on the faculty at JCU as the beard. I can find no reference to McLean as graduating from JCU with a PhD – or of any papers published by him since 2010.

  10. #10 Craig Thomas
    St Leonards
    March 8, 2013

    Hmmm…well his “1956” prediction may have taught him the ceiling of his limitations lies lower than the level required to complete a PhD?
    Obviously not low enough to prevent him scribbling nonsense for the Quadrant, but then again, I think that venue is pretty much an open-air one, so far as credibility, qualification and expertise are concerned…

  11. #11 Vince Whirlwind
    March 8, 2013

    Well, much as I hate to link to a crank blog, this has got to be seen to be believed:

    This is how Monckton had his screen setup at his Perth Crankture:

  12. #12 rhwombat
    Upper Transylvania, NSW
    March 8, 2013

    Vince: Obviously he’s lost Gina’s support – which must have been enormous.

  13. #13 rhwombat
    March 8, 2013

    Craig @#7&10: On further searching I still can’t find JD McLean listed as a graduate or student at JCU. I have found a paper published in the International Journal of Biosciences 2013, 4:234-239 ( in which de Freitas & McLean rehash their 2009 effort with (the now thankfully defunct) Carter. This lists McLean’s address as Dept of Physics, JCU, but a search of the JCU website doesn’t locate him there. If JD Mclean is still doing a PhD through JCU, it is remarkably occult. Perhaps you only need to publish once or twice in open source journals to pass a PhD in physics at JCU (mumble, grumble, different in my day/discipline…grumble, the young of today…I don’t know…) . Interestingly, there is another McLean (Roger F) who looks to have done some solid work on marine ecosystems through JCU Townsville – must suck to have a similar surname to the phantom PhD student.

  14. #14 Wow
    March 8, 2013

    They also think that a majority cannot be science too, remember.

  15. #15 Lionel A
    March 8, 2013

    Vince: Obviously he’s lost Gina’s support – which must have been enormous.

    Probably washed out when she jumped into the ‘denier pool’.

  16. #16 Sou
    March 8, 2013

    Watts seems to have lost it completely after the new paper from Marcott et al. He’s already posted not one, not two but three articles in protest.

    Hard to say which is the stupidest but it’s probably the third one.

    (Tim, hope you don’t mind the self-link. Let me know if you do.)

  17. #17 bill
    March 8, 2013

    It’s not too hard to see why Marcott has Willard A all in a tiz, is it?

    “It just isn’t troooooooeeeeeeee!!!! Leave Britney Alone!!!”

    Even that utter plank can see the future of well-deserved irrelevance and well-deserved opprobrium that stretches before him. And Montford – we must never forget Montford…

    What was it Nietzsche said about needing to enjoy revenge a bit to be true to ourselves? The grin on my face is pure Schadenfreude, I’ll confess…

    Nice post, BTW, Sou!

  18. #18 bill
    March 8, 2013

    Fans of the heroically obtuse may also enjoy Brandon Schollenberger’s outstanding effort over at SkS.

    Suggesting that SkS was funded by Als Gore and Jazeera to create Reality Drop is not a conspiracy theory, apparently!

  19. #19 Sou
    March 9, 2013

    Brandon gets very defensive when it comes to conspiracy theories, especially ones he thinks might be true. When he’s not sticking up for Watts conspiracy theories he’s sticking up for McIntyre’s.

    Brandon posted an article on WUWT highlighting McI’s weird surmises about a slide Mann used in an AGU presentation. (McI is a great one for paranoia – if it’s not a general conspiracy (climate scientists are faking the data), then it’s ‘they’ are out to get him personally, like cutting off his wifi.)

    It’s kind of hard to present yourself as a ‘reasonable person’ when you’re a conspiracy nutter.

  20. #20 BBD
    March 9, 2013

    I had a feeling Marcott et al. would produce a frenzy of foam-flecked denial.

    All those years making a pointless fuss about MBH98/99 and then this comes along 😉

    Too funny.

  21. #21 BBD
    March 9, 2013

    Willard Tony has completely blown a gasket on this. Recommend Sou’s link @ 16 for a quick overview of the hideous mess WT is posting at WTFUWT.

    Blithering incomprehension and denial. It doesn’t get any worse (or better!) than this.

  22. #22 bill
    March 9, 2013


    The idiot count seems to have suddenly declined around here. Coincidence, do you think?

    It must be quite a genuinely queasy experience to realize that to remain part of the tribe you’re going to have to follow Watts into burbling insanity.

    Come on folks, don’t give up now! Just one big swallow that hideous chunk of clammy gristle then you can start regurgitating just like before…

    PS – NZ now in ‘worst ever’ drought. I mean, just how stupid are you intending on becoming, people? Seriously: don’t just curl your lips – ask yourselves the bloody question!

  23. #23 Bernard J.
    March 10, 2013


    Quod-rant, more like.

  24. #24 Sou
    March 10, 2013

    More furious recursion on WUWT today, started by Brandon, with Foxgoose saying Lewandowsky got his conspiracy theory wrong.

    Foxgoose says he (Foxgoose) wasn’t saying the people who answered the survey weren’t human, he was saying the blog-owners weren’t human (or something like that!) ie there were no (skeptic) human blog owners who were asked to take part in the survey). (And even now FoxGoose seems to be sticking to that notion, despite the blog owners subsequently being identified and acknowledging they were invited to take part.)

    Bob Tisdale pops in to say how SkepticalScience ‘makes up stuff’ and felflames urges everyone to (once again) lodge a complaint with UWA. (If any of the Wattsonians do that again, will it add to the conspiracy that UWA is part of the ‘plot’?)

    Could you make this stuff up?

  25. #25 Russell Seitz
    March 10, 2013
  26. #26 Wow
    March 10, 2013

    Yeah, that’s about the level of “thinking” we expect from Tony and his fans.

  27. #27 Deep Climate
    March 10, 2013

    James Gentle and Karen Kafadar take over at WIREs Computational Statistics

    There has been a big change at WIREs Computation Stats.
    In a stunning (but welcome) development, James Gentle of GMU and Karen Kafadar of IndianaUniversity have been named editors-in-chief, joining remaining original editor David Scott.
    I last discussed WIREs Comp Stat back in July, when Edward Wegman and Yasmin Said were quietly dropped as editors. I outlined the problems that apparently led to their summary dismissal.

  28. #28 Lionel A
    March 10, 2013

    Another can of Christy worms is opened?

  29. #29 BBD
    March 10, 2013

    Lionel A

    Christy has been insinuating that the surface temp records are borked for decades. He was doing it in 2005 when Wentz and Mears at RSS demonstrated that it was Christy and Spencer’s work that was seriously in error.

    Remember, UAH is the only temperature record to have been shown to be *comprehensively flawed*. It is the only temperature record to have been withdrawn and completely recalculated using corrected methodology. It is the only temperature record curated by ‘sceptics’.

    And the smart money (et Po-Chedley & Fu) says that *once again* UAH is demonstrably biased *cool*.

    Prediction: Christy will end up eating this one of these days. 2005 revisited.

  30. #30 BBD
    March 10, 2013

    Sorry, missed the link for Po-Chedley & Fu (2012). That should have been (eg Po-Chedley & Fu) above btw.

  31. #31 Nick
    March 11, 2013

    @ 24, Shollenberger is dim and determined to show it. He’s deliberately spinning the Lewandowsky take on the Foxgoose comment. What a f**king waste of time that ‘discussion’ is, even worse than usual Watts chum if that’s possible. Bringing back Uncle Eschenbach for another fireside yarn looks attractive.

  32. #32 Sou
    March 11, 2013

    Anthony Watts has cemented his position as Just Another Nutter! (In case anyone was in any doubt.)

    He’s jumped into Booker’s bed again.

  33. #33 Sou
    March 11, 2013

    Re the Shollenberger article, highlighting the various conspiracy theories abounding amont the denialiti (and arguing that Foxgoose’s conspiracy theory was ‘no fake skeptic bloggers contacted’, which he still seems to be hanging onto despite undeniable evidence to the contrary).

    One new conspiracy ideation emerged about Dana Nuccitelli, which he has hit on the head:

    @soubundanga deniers will be unhappy to learn I’ll be posting at *both* @skepticscience & @guardianeco & I find Recursive Fury fascinating— Dana Nuccitelli (@dana1981) March 10, 2013

  34. #34 lord_sidcup
    March 11, 2013

    Look what happens when an inexperienced and little-known blogger provokes the ire of the deniers:

    What a bunch of odious fanatics.

  35. #35 BBD
    March 11, 2013

    What a bunch of ill-informed windbags.

  36. #36 BBD
    March 11, 2013

    Any suggestions for collective nouns?

    A mendacity of deniers?

    A pomposity of deniers?

    An embarrassment of deniers?

    A delusion of deniers?

    I’m sure some of you can do better than this…

  37. #37 chek
    March 11, 2013

    A pustule of deniers?

  38. #38 Wow
    March 11, 2013


    A flock of deniers.

    You can hear them off in the distance going “Bah!”

  39. #39 BBD
    March 11, 2013


    A confusion of deniers?

  40. #40 Andrew Strang
    March 11, 2013

    A benthos?

  41. #41 Vince Whirlwind
    March 11, 2013

    A Conspiracy of Deniers.

  42. #42 Craig Thomas
    March 11, 2013

    Journal of Cosmology
    , Vol,21, No,37 published
    , 10 January
    N. C. Wickramasinghe
    , J. Wallis
    , D.H. Wallis
    Anil Samaranayake
    Buckingham Centre for Astrobiology, University of Buckingham, Buckingham, UK
    School of Mathematics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
    Medical Research Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka
    We report the discovery for the first time of diatom
    in a carbonaceous meteorite that
    fell in the North Central Province of Sri Lanka on 29 December 2012. Contamination is
    excluded by the
    circumstance that the elemental abundances within the structures match
    closely with those of the surrounding matrix.
    There is also evidence of structures
    morphologically similar to red rain cells that may have contributed to
    episode of red rain
    followed within days of the meteorite fall.
    The new data


    diatoms provide
    strong evidence to support the theory of cometary panspermia.

  43. #43 BBD
    March 11, 2013

    University of Buckingham eh? Strange goings on there…

  44. #44 Lotharsson
    March 12, 2013

    IIRC that “diatoms in a meteorite” quickly proved to be an Epic Fail.

    PZ Myers had a take on it and on the response, but IIRC he was far from the only one.

  45. #45 bill
    March 12, 2013

    As a general rule diatoms in meteorites are always an Epic Fail. Diatoms are everywhere…

  46. #46 bill
    March 12, 2013

    A baffle of deniers.

    A glib of deniers.

    A falsehood of deniers.

    A crank of deniers.

    A prattle of deniers.

  47. #47 Ian Forrester
    March 12, 2013

    a frauditorium full of deniers
    a Bishop Hill of deniers
    a junket of deniers
    a lyin’s den of deniers

  48. #48 Zibethicus
    March 12, 2013

    #36: A /Monckton/ of deniers…

  49. #49 joni
    March 12, 2013

    a sophistry of deniers

  50. #50 Nick
    March 12, 2013

    A dimness of deniers…

  51. #51 Nick
    March 12, 2013

    In reference to #34, an irrelevance of deniers. What a conga-line of Montfordian suckholes,and how better to give Tara an insight into their pathology..

  52. #52 Lotharsson
    March 12, 2013

    A clowder of deniers? Their opinions are like a group of cats – can’t get them going all in the same direction at the same time.

    A passe of asses deniers?

    A DuKE of deniers? (Think about it… 😉 )

    I’m also partial to “flock”, “confusion” and “Monckton”.

  53. #53 Lotharsson
    March 12, 2013

    And I forgot:

    A lobby of denialists.

  54. #54 rhwombat
    Upper Transylvania, NSW
    March 12, 2013

    An odium of deniers

  55. #55 Sou
    March 12, 2013

    A duplicity of deniers.

    Oh, the moans when Marcott et al compared their global reconstruction to Mann et al global reconstruction.

    But then the fake skeptics turn around and:

    1. Middleton has tacked a single site modern land temp record onto a single site paleo SST record.

    2. Watts and Easterbrook tack an single site arctic temp record onto a global reconstruction.

    And barely a fake denier bats an eye. They sure showed them scientists, eh!

  56. #56 bill
    March 12, 2013

    A coagulation / clot / contradiction / clamour / dissembling / obfuscation / obtusion / puerility / rant / regurgitation of deniers.

    On a not-entirely-unrelated theme, this (Tamino’s) is entertaining, incidentally – as are the follow-up posts. Ah, the alumni of U. Tallbloke…

  57. #57 Nick
    March 12, 2013

    A nadir of deniers…. or ,re Open Mind, a schooling of deniers.

  58. #58 Wow
    March 12, 2013

    “I’m also partial to “flock”, “confusion” and “Monckton”.”

    Thanks for the vote for flock. I mostly like it because of imagining them wandering aimlessly in the distance, going “Bah!” in groups is funny.

    However, we already have “Moncktonian” tied up with antics such as the brain-dead idiocy of Joan and Bray, so I don’t think we should dual-purpose that word.

  59. #59 bill
    March 12, 2013

    And on the what may be ahead for us front.

    Those who examine the comments from the previous link to Tamino’s may recognise the “oh, shit, there’s a question I just can’t answer because it’ll give the game away; I know, I’ll say it’s you that’s refusing to answer the questions – over and over again – that’ll fox ’em” technique that has been deployed at considerable – and I do mean considerable! – length elsewhere on this blog.

    Flock’s already in use for birds, sheep, goats, seagulls (80’s joke!) wallpaper and congregations – how about a ‘bleat’?

  60. #60 Sou
    March 12, 2013

    My favourites so far:
    benthos or prattle (depending on whether they are slime eating or rabbiting on about nothing)

    One denier I know has a vocabulary limited to one word: “piffle” – so maybe a piffle of deniers?

    And I’m sure I’d go for DuKE if I knew what you meant, Lotharsson 🙂

    Flock of deniers would insult cute woolly baa lambs 🙁

  61. #61 Sou
    March 12, 2013

    Ah, I’m a DuKe(r) – got it! Definitely gets a guernsey.

  62. #62 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    March 12, 2013

    Hello, my little Deltoids, how are you enjoying all this global warming? Sweating, are you, underneath all those thermals and sweaters and overcoats and fur hats?

    I notice Sou@3 has informed us of an increase in CO2 last year so no wonder it’s so, er, well, freezing, actually! (To paraphrase: ‘Something wrong with our bloody forecasts today!’)

  63. #63 bill
    March 12, 2013

    Duff – committed idiot-for-life: you are aware that you are largely talking to Australians, aren’t you? Here’s an exercise for you – use google to find out what the weather’s been like in our very large country; and then see what’s been happening to our smaller neighbours across the Tasman.

    As usual I can only say – as the sea-ice collapses – may all the misery you so richly deserve continue to befall you…

  64. #64 Jeff Harvey
    March 12, 2013

    To Duff one tiny area around Bristol is ‘the world’. And five days is the equivalent of years. In spite of being told a million times that weather and climate connot be conflated, Duffer insists on believeing that warming must be linear, conmsistent and never allow for short-term cold snaps. And Brad has ther audacity to think that Kahan”s study suggesting that climate change sceptics from the general population tend to have a better science education than those accepting AGW is valid when the sceptical side is littered with David Duff’s and their pre-kindergarten level understanding of it.

  65. #65 joni
    March 12, 2013

    Ah the duff picks up on Bristol/Bath being cold – why no mention of the last couple of weeks?

    Oh yeah – we fly back to Bristol this weekend so will double check on Duff.

  66. #66 Sou
    March 12, 2013

    Freezing? I wish!

    It’s boiling here despite autumn being 12 days old. Average max temp so far this autumn is 32 degrees Celsius – 8.5 degrees Celsius above the long term average max for March in Melbourne and 6 degrees above the average minimum so far.

    11 o’clock at night and the temperature in cold old Melbourne is *still* above 30 degrees Celsius.

  67. #67 Wow
    March 12, 2013

    To Duff one tiny area around Bristol is ‘the world’.

    Except when it’s a heatwave there, in which case, he’ll pretend Bristol doesn’t exist.

    PS “Winter weather in winter shock! News at eleven”.

  68. #68 Wow
    March 12, 2013

    Hello, my little Deltoids, how are you enjoying all this global warming? Sweating, are you, underneath all those thermals and sweaters and overcoats and fur hats?

    Are you saying that if there were no GHG that Bristol would still have been the same temperature?

    Because otherwise you’d have to show that Bristol would not have been colder without the increased GHG effect.

  69. #69 Lionel A
    March 12, 2013

    Things that look like diatoms in a meteorite. I recall what happened on another occasion. Hum! There are things on Mars that look like pyramids and a face, see ‘The Stargate Conspiracy’ by Picknett & Prince. [1]. There was a repeat pattern of flowers on old wallpaper where one element was reminiscent of illustrations of Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

    [1] Warning OT. Picknett & Prince also co-authored, with Stephen Prior, ‘The War of the Windsors‘ , ‘Friendly Fire‘ and ‘Double Standards‘, that latter being a most interesting look at the Rudolf Hess affair, my background in aviation and knowledge of aspects of the aircraft involved lead me to suspect that it was a mission that went wrong as Hess flew into UK airspace. It is well know that there were Nazi sympathisers in the upper echelons of The Establishment.

  70. #70 Lionel A
    March 12, 2013

    Yes Duff, you did not disappoint. I had a bet on that you would throw us a line like the above RSN (Jerry Pournelle, BYTE).

  71. #71 Wow
    March 12, 2013

    Duff, are you saying that climate has never changed?

  72. #72 Zibethicus
    March 12, 2013

    A ‘flat earth’ of deniers
    A density of deniers
    A black hole of deniers
    A sophistry of deniers
    A delusion of deniers…

  73. #73 Zibethicus
    March 12, 2013

    …an /ecocide/ of deniers…

  74. #74 chek
    March 12, 2013

    I don’t think we’ve had ‘a duff of deniers’ yet, have we?

  75. #75 Lotharsson
    March 12, 2013

    Zibethicus as usual comes up with some good ones 🙂

    Re: DuKE, does it help if I write it as Du.K.E., or maybe Du.-K.E.?

  76. #76 Lotharsson
    March 12, 2013

    A “duff” works well too.

  77. #77 BBD
    March 12, 2013

    Given that so very many contrarians aretweedy pub bores, perhaps we can add a symposium of deniers to the list of suggestions?

  78. #78 BBD
    March 12, 2013

    Interesting that Wickramasinghe is at the University of Buckingham, an institution closely involved with organised ‘scepticism’ (notably the GWPF) in the UK.

    For those of you unfamiliar with this institution, it is the first, and possibly still the only privately owned university in the UK. Free market ideology is very much the thing at what is literally the brainchild and project of the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) – the original right-wing ‘think tank’ founded by Fisher and Harris.

    More at Sourcewatch.

  79. #79 Wow
    March 12, 2013

    A cacophany of deniers?

    Nah, it used to be, they’re loud but not very many any more.

  80. #80 lord_sidcup
    March 12, 2013

    A conflagration of deniers.

  81. #81 Wow
    March 12, 2013

    Well, given how the world is going against them, a consternation of deniers may be more apt..!

  82. #82 BBD
    March 12, 2013

    Very interesting. Chatting amiably with the ever-charming Poptech over at Tara’s Eco Science Blog and bugger me, he comes out with my first name! Just like that.

    Now where *could* he have got my name from?

    Funnily enough, we were discussing Skeptical Science at the time… now, didn’t SkS get hacked last year and all their commenter data stolen?

    Coincidence? Not in my world.

  83. #83 Sou
    March 12, 2013

    Wow! (no, not you, Wow) I mean wow BBD. Yes, SkS was hacked last year. It was suggested we all change our password.

    Is there any other way he could have got your name?

  84. #84 Lionel A
    March 12, 2013

    WRT Tara’s Eco blog I note that our old ‘friend’ Latimer has posted there, not anything substantive though being a grammar nit-pick.

    Oops. Have I just left a door open?

    Who is behind the Poptech mask, Andrew nnnnnn , not Montford by chance? Wasn’t Montford thick with MacI’ and we all know some of that latter’s role in what became Climategate, which kinda backfired.

  85. #85 BBD
    March 12, 2013

    Not that I can think of. Do you know John Cook by any chance? Perhaps this may interest him.

  86. #86 BBD
    March 12, 2013

    Not Montford, no. Chap called Andrew Kahn.

  87. #87 Wow
    March 12, 2013

    he comes out with my first name! Just like that.

    Now where *could* he have got my name from?

    IIRC he got VERY VERY angry that people were calling him Andrew Kahn because he’d mistakenly used his full name instead of just using the “K”.

    However, to him, it was proof that “The Team” were hounding him and had spies tracing him everywhere and were illegally hacking into his account to find out who he was so he could be silenced.

    He was quite upset.

    But apparently, not upset enough not do do what he thought others did. But enough not to shut the f-k up about how he’s being spied on too, worst luck.

  88. #88 Sou
    March 12, 2013

    BBD, there’s an email link on SkS, down the bottom (contact us). You could send him a link to the exchange here or on Tara’s blog. John might be able to give some insight into whether it could be related.

  89. #89 lord_sidcup
    March 12, 2013


    You did sign off using your name here:

    Over 2 years ago so Poptart must have a very good memory, but maybe you used your name on other more recent occasions?

  90. #90 lord_sidcup
    March 12, 2013

    I was trying to link to the final comment on that page. Seems permalinks on Montford’s site force you to view his posts.

  91. #91 Sou
    March 12, 2013

    Getting back to freezing weather – there’ve been too many hot days and nights here. I can’t get to sleep.

    Just checked, and today Melbourne might break the record (26.3C) for the highest min March temperature, set 76 yrs ago on 3 Mar 1927. Currently 27.6C as at 4:45 am.

  92. #92 Sou
    March 12, 2013

    Make that 86 years ago!

  93. #93 BBD
    March 12, 2013

    # 90

    Well spotted that man. As for using my name – almost never, and certainly not recently.

    But once is enough. Poptech’s on my little list now though.

  94. #94 chek
    March 12, 2013

    Poptart’s probably got you logged on his database as a published sceptic BBD. Mind you, he’s probably also got Mike Mann and Kevin Trenberth down as sceptics too, if his usual flexible criteria are anything to go by. As long as his numbers look impressive at first glance….

  95. #95 Zibethicus
    March 12, 2013


    A /mendacity/ of deniers…

  96. #96 Bernard J.
    March 12, 2013

    At first glance I thought that Zibethicus (#72 above) was going to pre-empt my immediate thought, but not quite…

    A flat-line of deniers?

  97. #97 Bernard J.
    March 12, 2013

    Speaking of a flatline of deniers, this is so astoundingly type-specimen that it’s worth breaking my prhobition on linking to WTFUWT:

    The original conversation between myself and Bart started here:

    Watts has closed the thread so that I can’t reply.

    For those who simply can’t bring themselves to read it, I explained to Bart that yes, the ocean really is acidifying, and Bart ‘explained’ that no, it’s not, and anyway he’s proved that humans are not increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, but no, he’s not going to detail his working because “Kuhn”.

  98. #98 Sou
    March 12, 2013

    That’s plain weird, Bernard. He’s built houses (complex designs that actually work) lol.

    In a later post Bart’s put data through all sorts of contortions. He detrended a temperature series, done some weird number fudging and put a fudged temp chart overlaid with a fudged CO2 chart.

    And: – a 60 year cycle that’s been in evidence for over a century? (Not even two times 60 to see if it’s actually a ‘cycle’ let alone more – and he had to fudge the chart to get his single ‘cycle’.) Like going up a hill and down the other side and concluding all the world is hilly.

    “The ineluctable conclusion is … that human (CO2) inputs are rapidly sequestered, and have little effect on the overall concentration.”

    Bart is a DuKE of deniers all by himself!

  99. #99 Sou
    March 12, 2013

    Not sure if Melbourne will get it’s record high March minimum or not. There’s supposed to be a change coming through.

    It has broken the record for the number of consecutive nights over 20C (seven) and the number of consecutive days over 32C (nine days) for any month of the year. Which is remarkable given it’s happened in autumn.

    And with more warm weather on the way, Melbourne could be heading for the hottest March on record.

  100. #100 Bernard J.
    March 13, 2013


    I’m amazed that someone that appears to have some nous still deludes himself as much as the worst of the ignorants.

    Take this for example:

    I am making two specific predictions for the future and, as you watch them unfold, you will come to realize the truth of what I have told you.

    1) The rate of change of CO2 will continue to track temperatures, as it has for the last 55 years. There is already a marked deceleration in precise step with flattened temperatures in the last ~17 years.

    Oh dear. Bart doesn’t seem to have learned that CO2 is not just a feed-back, but also a forcing. This is an example of the logical fallatio so beloved of the denialati: in this case Bart is affirming the consequent (amongst other fallacies).

    There’s also the fact that notable temperature increase hasn’t always preceded CO2 increase in the recent record:

    and that CO2 isn’t flattening out in the emissions of CO2:

    As to the 60 year cycle thing, that’s Wormtongue Orssengo all over again. Seems that many fish like to bite that baitless hook.

1 2 3 9

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