Cloud Gate Link Cloud!

You all know about the latest dustups and new research related to climate change, including the resignation of the Editor-in-Chief of a major journal as well as some new papers about global warming. There has been so much activity over recent days that I thought a new link farm would be a good thing. So, here it is. Please let me know if I've missed anything!


More like this

Wagner wrote an especially fulsome apology for his error to Kevin Trenberth. That's Kevin Trenberth as in the hardcore Alarmist scientist who starred in this infamous Climategate email:

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPPC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehowâeven if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

That's also Kevin Trenberth as in the Climate Torquemada so committed to his religion he believes that the "null hypothesis" should be reversed: ie that sceptics should be forced to prove that CAGW doesn't exist, rather than alarmists being forced to prove it does. You can't prove a thing doesn't exist: ergo Trenberth wants the impossible.

Why would Wagner feel compelled to grovel to this particular man after his venial (or not as the case may be) slip?

Could it, wonders Johnson, be another case of that old story, wearisomely familiar throughout the global multi-trillion dollar Climate Change industry, titled "Follow The Money?

The connection on the other side? Trenberth and Wagner? Well, Wagner is apparently the director of a group that wants to start a Soil Moisture Network. For this, they have asked the help of the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX).

GEWEX in 2010 announced the appointment, by acclamation, of Kevin Trenberth, as its new Chairperson. (page 3 of this newsletter). On Page 4, is the announcement that the Soil Moisture Network (which is the department Wagner runs) is looking for help. Not, coincidentally, on Page 5 is an article on how cloud albedo is overestimated in models, thus itâs worse than we thought.

By Deep Throat (not verified) on 07 Sep 2011 #permalink

@1: How's this for a null hypothesis: "There is no evidence that Kevin Trenberth ever turned the thoughts expressed in those emails into deeds."

The entire "Climategate" scam consists of nothing but goalpost-shifting and thoughtcrime persecution. People like you would probably support locking away most of the populace for theft, rape, or tax evasion, as based solely on their fantasy lives.

Thank you, Deep Throat, for reminding us that denialists don't do any actual science, they only steal email with no legal authority and lie about what it says. That fact alone proves the denialists are wrong.

That's the same Trenberth who has now given him a better job. The same one who was caught in the climategate emails as saying he would use some trich to prevent per reviewd publishing. Who woulda thunk it.

An editor resigning because of an alleged minor error, one whichyhr publication hasn'y in fact retracted. Who woulda thunk it.

Any ecofascist here who can show where they have condemned Tren for trying to fix peer review previously? No? who woulda thunk it?

And this is the best scam the government paid ecofascists could manage.

Wow! I see a real future selling bridges here!

By Deep Throat (not verified) on 07 Sep 2011 #permalink

Are NC and DT the most dishonest among the deniers, or simply the least intelligent?

NC and DT, like many commenters on many sites, seem to believe that a) by parroting drivel from bigger denialists they will be seen as "on the winning side", or Big Fish themselves, and b) that people in general are as ignorant of the issues as they are. Or they could just be trolls.

dean: DT is a fumbling idiot, Neil Craig is a hateful lying bigot who thinks (or pretends to think) that people who get paid by "the state" are bad (including cops, soldiers, sailors, fighter pilots, their widows and orphans, and the people who make the Internet available to everyone). So the short answer to your question is "yes."

Can any of you provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability? If so, you would be the first!

Natural variability deniers. ;)

It now appears that Dressler made some major errors in his hit piece, not the least of which was misrepresenting SB11 as saying that clouds are not feedback. That is a lie and should have been caught by 'expert reviewers" (I caught it immediately upon review).

So, can Wagner now re-resign and offer a letter of apology to SB?

I'll hold my 'fumbling idiot' breath'! What morons.

Great rebuttal DT! We're now at the usual level of discussion on WUWT, where your contributions are sadly missed.

Seriously: if you want affirmation of your opinions about climate change you should head back over to WUWT, because that's what's on the menu there. Otherwise, how is name-calling and fuming going to contribute to the discussion on this blog?

Rebuttal for what? You just asked for someone to refute natural viability in climate. What is that supposed to mean?

You should change your name back to your other pseudonym and resume talking mainly about Linux, because at this point you are embarrassing yourself and annoying me.

Now that you mention emails; maybe an FOI request for Spenser's emails would be fun.

He might wiggle out by saying that he doesn't use public money but he has already statede that he doesn't take denial money.

By John McManus (not verified) on 08 Sep 2011 #permalink

So no actual answers just an assertion that I am "hateful" for making the points.

I would not like to live as hate filled as almost all ecofascists seem to be.

By Neil Craig (not verified) on 08 Sep 2011 #permalink

So no answer to the false allegations of Dressler's Folly? As usual, when the science has abandoned AGW, the warmists abandon honesty, and science.

Natural variability rules the day, and the planet. Get over yourselves.

[Deep Throat: did you just use EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's email address to sign on to this site? .... checking ... Yes, you did! Wow. I'll be letting Lisa know that you have borrowed her identity! I wonder if identity theft of a federal official is illegal or something. I guess we'll find out! -gtl]

By Deep Throat (not verified) on 08 Sep 2011 #permalink

Neil, you seem to be as filled with ignorance as those you imagine are filled with hate (else, why use a term like "ecofascists" that identifies you as having no substance to your arguments?)

I do not know why you bother me with your nonsense and obsession regarding defaming Dr. Spencer. I would guess it has to do with his having done some pioneer work with satellites while you were laying around some African jungle with apes and pigmies.

By John Swallow (not verified) on 08 Sep 2011 #permalink

Yes I did. She's a fraud and a tyrant, sue me.

I have to use different addresses because you keep blocking me like a good little fascist. Censorship is the second to last refuge of tyrants, the last is violence, which is why I use a pseudonym. I don't need any James J Lee's showing up on my doorstep, and I know how unhinged many of you alarmsists are.

Still unable to address the facts, and still using ad hominems.

Benjamin Franklin also assumed identity when writing, it's a long patriotic tradition.

By Deep Throat (not verified) on 08 Sep 2011 #permalink

@Deep Throat, your question is badly formed:
"Can any of you provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability?"

Of course not - natural variability exists, no one is denying that. If, on the other hand, you're interested in peer-reviewed papers that refute this statement:

Natural variability is responsible for the majority of climate change in the last 50-100 years.

Then yes, there are dozens of peer-reviewed papers that refute this. Here are a couple of places to start: (a Google Scholar link: "climate change natural variability")

By Windchaser (not verified) on 08 Sep 2011 #permalink

Neil Craig, you state that:

The same [Trenberth] who was caught in the climategate emails as saying he would use some trich to prevent per reviewd publishing.
Any ecofascist here who can show where they have condemned Tren for trying to fix peer review previously?

Would you mind pointing out where Trenberth tried to fix peer review, or where he even mentioned using a "trich" (trick?) to prevent peer-reviewed publishing?

You can't do it. You're badly misreading those hacked emails:
1) Trenberth was talking about what peer-reviewed papers should be included in the IPCC report, not trying to stop papers from being peer-reviewed and published.
2) This never went beyond talk, as far as we can tell.
3) Trenberth never mentioned a trick to prevent peer-reviewed publishing. You're probably thinking of Jones' comment about "Mike's nature trick", from a completely separate email conversation.

Now, you've shown that you're badly misinformed on this matter, even though the emails are widely available on the web and it's trivial to check your source before you say something. If you messed up something this trivial, how are we supposed to take you seriously on anything else? Meh.

By Windchaser (not verified) on 08 Sep 2011 #permalink

Deep Throat:

Yes I did. She's a fraud and a tyrant, sue me.
I have to use different addresses because you keep blocking me like a good little fascist. Censorship is the second to last refuge of tyrants, the last is violence, which is why I use a pseudonym. I don't need any James J Lee's showing up on my doorstep, and I know how unhinged many of you alarmsists are.

It is very unethical to knowingly use someone else's email to identify yourself.

I do not censor or block you. Your comments are occasionally trapped in moderation, as many people's are. Just now I released a few comments including this one as well as a couple by people who are, well, not you. It could be that your comments are trapped because you use so man profanities.

Benjamin Franklin also assumed identity when writing, it's a long patriotic tradition.

You are not Benjamin Franklin. Interesting delusion, though! And you are very very far from being a patriot.

I am now convinced that Neil is paid by the owner of this website to run arguments (accusations?) in to the ground to increase site traffic. Professional trolls are the future of e-forum marketing, you know. I just can't accept that anyone is honestly as dumb and selectively def/blind as he is.

Deep Throat, on the other hand, is just an idiot.

By Terry Cassidy (not verified) on 08 Sep 2011 #permalink

Greg old chap,clearly you are intelligent educated and corrupt. Every sane, intelligent and informed person knows climate change as a tool for political change is over. Ocean acidification wont work either.People are wise to it. So get over it and find something else or continue on with the people slightly to the left of Stalin and Mao tse tung. Enjoy the grants and money while you can.Sleep well with your conscience.

By Richard McKay (not verified) on 08 Sep 2011 #permalink

Benjamin Franklin also assumed identity when writing...

So do people who post to porno chat and forum sites. "Deep Throat" is a popular pseudonym in such places. Your boasts don't make you at all credible.

Raging Bee:"So do people who post to porno chat and forum sites. Deep Throat" is a popular pseudonym in such places. Your boasts don't make you at all credible."

Which just begs the question: how do YOU know? You stated that so assertively one suspects that you have LOTS of experience in such places. I have been wondering what great authority causes you to parrot such asinine, redundancies.

Oh for the love of irony...the irony of trolls.

You went this far out of your way to try to bash me for admitting that I know there's porn on the Internet? Get help, you sad little git.

Well Dean if you qwere in any way even approaching honesty in your denunciation of me for using the perfectly accurate term "ecodfascist" you would have objected to the hate filled obscenities which have repeatedly been proben to the very closests the anti-scientific mob on "scienceblogs" aspite to.

You haven't so yopu aren't.

Wind your claim not to know of when Tren declered his intention and ability to subvert peer review, when combined with you then attempting a spurios defence of the very piece of cirruption you claimed tom know nothing about clearlyrepresents the pinnacle of honesty of which capable.

Please let me know if you EVER manage to write something more honest than you are capable of.

nc, until you can master basic english, spelling, science, and (these will probably be the most difficult for you) honesty and integrity, you will always be known by the the tone of your posts: illiterate, scientifically ignorant, dishonest, and apparently a conspiracy theorist.

It's been pointed out that no subverting of peer review was done. I'm not sure what "cirruption" might be, I'll guess you tried and failed to spell "corruption": if so, it's also been shown that there was no corruption of the review/results/process.

Clearly facts aren't important to you: your multiple posts show that, as does your little blog. One of the difficulties of communicating about science is that the loudest voices come from people like you: insignificant little congenital liars, carrying tales that are "told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Quoting Greg...

"Then yes, there are dozens of peer-reviewed papers that refute this. Here are a couple of places to start: (a Google Scholar link: "climate change natural variability")"

Greg, your IPCC link states that the past century has been unusually warm. BS, the MWP was warmer and global...

"authors searched the large database of terrestrial heat flow measurements compiled by the International Heat Flow Commission of the International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior for measurements suitable for reconstructing an average ground surface temperature history...Based on a total of 6,144 qualifying sets of heat flow measurements obtained from every continent of the globe, they produced a global climate reconstruction, which, they state, is "independent of other proxy interpretations [and] of any preconceptions or biases as to the nature of the actual climate history."...From their reconstruction of "a global climate history from worldwide observations," the authors found strong evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was indeed warmer than it is now."

Skeptical Science (not) is a disinformation site and this page was touting Dessler's Folly, a paper that states cloudy days are warmer than sunny days and that clouds have no reflective properties. BS again.

A Google link? Really? Do you understand that all of this nonsense is based upon man made models and fudged data?

Mueller is an AGW believer, but knows fraud when he sees it. Maybe you could learn something here.

Next, read all you can that was written by those working on the Cern CLOUD experiment. Then see Spencer/Braswell2011 and the latest work by Murry Salby.

"Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. Itâs not just that man-made emissions donât control the climate, they donât even control global CO2 levels."

AGW is dead.

By Deep Throated … (not verified) on 09 Sep 2011 #permalink

Deep Throat, on the other hand, is just an idiot.

Posted by: Terry Cassidy | September 8, 2011 3:56 PM

Ahhh, science! Proving AGW through ad hominem attacks, the bread and butter of natural climate change deniers. Deny the Sun, deny the models have ALL failed, deny there are hundreds of papers refuting man made CO2, deny that Mann created a fraud, deny the MWP, deny the LIA, deny ice ages and interglacials.

Sooooooooooooooo sceintific!

By Deep Throated … (not verified) on 09 Sep 2011 #permalink

Proving AGW through ad hominem attacks...

Using the denialists' behavior to show how little integrity and credibility they have is not an "ad hominem attack."

"Using the denialists' behavior to show how little integrity and credibility they have is not an "ad hominem attack."

Another ad hominem attack. What a dope. Yes that would be one too! ;)

By Deep Throated … (not verified) on 09 Sep 2011 #permalink

Definition of AD HOMINEM
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

By Deep Throated … (not verified) on 09 Sep 2011 #permalink

The "contention made" is that denialists are not only wrong, but being dishonest because they're of totally piss-poor character. Therefore attacks on their character are perfectly relevant to the contention made. Therefore attacks on the denialists' character are NOT "ad-hominem" anything. Crying about "ad hominem" is what liars and bigots do when they don't want to admit their dishonesty and/or ignorance has been exposed.

"You're wrong because you're an asshole" is an ad-hominem attack. "You're an asshole because you're wrong and refuse to admit it" is not -- especially after you've been proven wrong.

I have recently become aware of the reason that the fossil fuel industry is pushing AGW denialism. It is because of the classic economic bubble in fossil fuel pricing. Fossil fuel companies are valued on the basis of their reserves of fossil fuels, which are valued assuming that they will be burned as fuel at current prices adjusted for inflation, discount rate and extraction difficulty. Those prices are not adjusted for AGW effects.

There is much more carbon in those reserves than can be released without unacceptable climate change. The pricing of fossil fuel reserves is a classic unsustainable economic bubble. All of that fossil fuel can't have the price that it is valued at because all of it can't be burned because the effects would be unacceptable.

It is maintaining the illusion of the fossil fuel bubble that is driving AGW denialism. If the value of the fossil fuel companies dropped to the value of their reserves that could actually be burned, there would lose something like 80% of their value. The interest on the bubble-inflated value of that carbon that can never be burned is what is driving AGW denialism.

They will lose that much value at some point in the future, when investors realize that lots of the carbon they have in the ground cannot be burned as fuel. The bursting of that bubble will be a gigantic shock to the world economy.

The problem is not the realistic future valuation, the problem is the unrealistic present valuation (which is getting worse all the time). The sooner the real value of those fossil fuels in the ground is appreciated, the sooner the real costs can be addressed, not the fake smoke-and-mirrors âcostâ of revaluing the reserves of fossil fuels that are still in the ground that cannot be burned.

Investors got scammed into thinking that fossil fuels in the ground can be burned until they are all gone. They can't. It isn't running out of fossil fuels that will stop their use, it is the realization that burning fossil fuels will cause unacceptable climate change.

This is also why fossil fuel companies are blocking renewables. Anything that reduces the value of their reserves reduces the value of their companies and reduces the value of their stock.

Revaluing those fossil fuel reserves to something realistic is what is necessary to be able to do something about AGW. Fossil fuel companies sitting on piles of fake assets are not going to revalue them by themselves.

Matthew 7:5 â Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brotherâs eye.

As Greenpeace publishes yet another attack on a reputable scientist, (Dr Willie Soon), who happens to disagree with the IPCC, they again ignore the massive funding going into the âgreenâ movement, from corporations including âbig oilâ, foundations and governments.

Their constant attacks on the integrity of genuine scientists are classic diversionary tactics to avoid close examination of the millions of dollars going into the Global Warming project. A commentary by David and Amy Ridenour in the Washington Times of June 14th last year, showed the major extent of funding to environmental groups by BP, who were being attacked by those same groups over the oil spill in the Gulf.

BP was also a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, (not the same as the Climate Action Network) contributing substantial funding to the climate-change-related lobbying efforts of the environmental groups within it, which include the Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Nature Conservancy and the World Resources Institute.

The new âclimate friendlyâ BP was first promoted by BP CEO, Lord John Browne in 1997, (then Sir John Browne), now on the Climate Change Advisory Board of Deutsche Bank along with Dr Pachauri of the IPCC and Professor John Schellnhuber of the German Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

A report in the Washington Examiner, entitled âWorking for Big Green can be a very enriching experienceâ by Mark Tapscott, showed that the leaders of 15 top Big Green environmental groups are paid more than $300,000 in annual compensation, with a half million dollar plus figure for the top âearnerâ.

He mentions that Environmental Defense Fund President Frederic Krupp, receives total compensation of $496,174, including $446,072 in salary and $50,102 in other compensation.

Close behind Krupp among Big Green environmental movement executives is World Wildlife Fund- US President Carter Roberts, who was paid $486,394, including a salary of $439,327 and other compensation of $47,067.

Krupp and Roberts are particularly interesting because EDF and WWF-US both receive funding from the Grantham Foundation and both are on the joint management board of Jeremy Granthamâs climate institutes at the London School of Economics, (LSE), and Imperial College, London.

Jeremy Grantham is the chairman and co-founder of GMO, a $140 billion global investment management company based in Boston with offices in London, San Francisco, Singapore, Sydney and Zurich.

His first excursion into climate funding in the UK was âThe Grantham Institute for Climate Changeâ set up with £12 million, (~$19million) at Imperial College, London in 2007. The chairman of the LSE Grantham Institute, Lord Stern of the infamous Stern Review, is heavily involved in carbon trading via carbon ratings agency, Idea Carbon. He joined IdeaGlobal, the parent company in 2007, as Vice Chairman. He also advises HSBC on carbon trading.

Environmental Defense boast on their website of their influence on policy in Washington and how they get around the law on lobbying caps:

âEDF has long been a powerful voice in Washington, and when the need began to exceed the $1 million annual cap on our lobbying established by tax law, we created a sister group, the Environmental Defense Action Fund, which is free of spending limits. This has enabled us to ratchet up our legislative efforts, particularly on climate, and to advocate strong environmental laws even as the stakes increase.â

A BBC investigation in 2007 by reporter Simon Cox found that the European Commission is giving millions of pounds of taxpayersâ money to environmental campaigners to run lobbying operations in Brussels. Friends of the Earth Europe (FoE), received almost half of its funding from the EU in 2007.

Greenpeace also donât mention the money that the EPA gives to NGOâs, for example National Resources Defense Council are currently in receipt of a grant of $1,150,123, (XA â 83379901-2) for promoting carbon trading.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) has received $3,879,014 from the EPA in the last nine years for propaganda projects and promotion of emissions trading schemes, $715,000 in the current period 2011/12. If the EPA really were interested in science, they would be funding the genuine research undertaken by people like Dr Soon, rather than policy promotion for their own agenda.

Members of the board of WRI, are Al Gore and Theodore Roosevelt IV. Mr Roosevelt is the chairman of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. and is the former chairman of the ill-fated Lehman Brothersâ Global Council on Climate Change and a board member of the Alliance for Climate Protection, whose chairman is Al Gore. The 2008 income for Goreâs âAllianceâ was over $88 million.

Greenpeace really should be very careful when they seek to muddy the waters on climate science by discrediting opposing scientists, they may well find that the water is full of dirty green linen.

See also SPPI paper by Joanne Nova: Climate Money

and Donna LaFramboise, BP, Greenpeace & the Big Oil Jackpot , the text of which follows here:


BP, Greenpeace & the Big Oil Jackpot

In what passes for debate about climate change one of the most tiresome allegations is that skeptics are lavishly funded by big oil. As a result of this funding, so the argument goes, the public has been confused by those whoâll say anything in exchange for a paycheck.

âFollow the moneyâ weâre told and youâll discover that climate skeptics are irredeemably tainted. Ergo nothing they say can be trusted. Ergo their concerns, questions, and objections should be dismissed out of hand.

Itâs therefore amusing that the current oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is now drawing attention to the close relationship between climate change activists and BP â aka British Petroleum, an entity for which the descriptor âbig oilâ was surely invented.

According to the Washington Post the green group Nature Conservancy â which encourages ordinary citizens to personally pledge to fight climate change â âhas accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years.â

Gee, didnât Greenpeace build an entire ExxonSecrets website to expose the allegedly diabolical fact that, over a 9-year-period (1998-2006) ExxonMobil donated a grand total of $2.2 million to a conservative think tank?

$10 million versus $2 million. Who do we suppose has the cozier relationship with big oil?

But thatâs just the beginning. The Washington Post also points out that Conservation International, another green group which insists climate change represents a âprofound threat,â has âaccepted $2 million in donations from BP over the years and partnered with the company on a number of projects.â

Funny, Greenpeace doesnât talk about that. Nor does it mention:
â that BP is funding research into âways of tackling the worldâs climate problemâ at Princeton University to the tune of $2 million per year for 15 years
â that BP is funding an energy research institute involving two other US universities to the tune of $500 million â the aim of which is âto develop new sources of energy and reduce the impact of energy consumption on the environmentâ
â that ExxonMobil itself has donated $100 million to Stanford university so that researchers there can find âways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warmingâ

The only dollar amounts Greenpeace cites in its explanation of why it decided to launch ExxonSecrets is that measly $2.2 million. Versus 10 + 2 + 30 + 500 + 100. Letâs see, which all adds up toâ¦wait for itâ¦$642 million.

If the world is divided into two factions â one that believes climate change is a serious problem and another that thinks human influence on the climate is so minimal itâs indistinguishable from background noise â one group has pulled off a bank heist while the other has been panhandling in front of the liquor store.

In the same document in which Greenpeace talks about the ExxonMobil money it chillingly asserts that climate âdeniersâ arenât entitled to free speech. Why? Because âFreedom of speech does not apply to misinformation and propaganda.â

Actually, the big thinkers on the subject have consistently taken the opposite view. John Stuart Mill was adamant that no one has the right to decide what is or is not propaganda on everyone elseâs behalf. He would have looked Greenpeace in the eye and told it to stop imagining that its own judgment is infallible.

More than a hundred years later Noam Chomsky famously declared that if you donât believe in freedom of expression for opinions you despise you donât believe in it at all.

If Greenpeace would like to have a serious conversation about who, exactly, is spreading misinformation Iâm up for that â since itâs overwhelming obvious that the big oil jackpot was awarded to those on the Greenpeace side of the debate.

The fact that climate change activists have enjoyed such a powerful funding advantage and yet insisted all the while that the exact opposite was the case is troubling. It tells us a good deal about their intellectual rigour. About their character. And about their ability to distinguish fact from fiction.

If there really is a climate crisis, if our grandchildrenâs future really is imperiled, these arenât the people to lead us out of the wilderness.

By Deep Throat (not verified) on 09 Sep 2011 #permalink

Raging Vee I have never engaged in a tantrum - I leave that to those who are unable to express themselves on their support of global warming, fenocide etc. without obscenities on "scienceblogs".

I am happy to confirm that I am not paid by Greg to drum up traffic.

However I do appreciate his remark that "censorship is the second last refuge of the tyrant". About half of the regular blogs on "scienceblogs" depend on that refuge after obscenity and occasionally even threats of trans-internet violence have failed.

"Trans-Internet violence?" Got any specific instances to cite, or is that just as made-up as your indignorant self-righteous superior attitude toward people who are "paid by the state?"

You are implying that I am lying?
If so will you undertake to unequivocally apologise if I produce it or are you just a dusgusting pierce of filth Bee willing to say absolutely any untruth in the ecofascist cause?

No 3rd option.

By Neil Craig (not verified) on 12 Sep 2011 #permalink

nc, your posts already establish that you are more likely to lie than tell the truth. That is not in question. Your most recent post, as well as any post where you fling spittle-specked gems like "ecofascist" show that you are prone to tantrums. Your "help, help, my message is being repressed by the evil overlords at science blogs" shows your peculiar imagination.
The only thing in question is whether, at some time, some other loser tossed an empty threat at you. It is entirely possible that has happened, given the large number of places you've posted and insulted people.

Neil: do you have ann example to cite, or do you not? Probably not -- if you had one, you'd produce it and THEN demand an apology. (And you still wouldn't get one, because demanding evidence to support an accusation is not wrong.)

Trying to make me promise to apologize in advance is just another bluff from a denialist troll who has nothing but bluff to offer.

OK so Bee refuses to say he will apologise if proven a liar. I think we can take it as read then (as Dean clearly does).

The term "ecofascist" is an appropriate description, indeed the appropriate description. Somebody who believes that force should be used to suppress debate is, by definition, a fascist (look it up). Somebody who believes that in what they claim to believe is the "wnvironmental" cause (we will ignore whether "environmentalists" actually care about the environemt) is therefore an ecofascist.

So when I say that most commenters here are wholly corrupt, lying, thieving, parasitic, ecofascists I am simply stating proven and relevent facts.

Whereas when Dean opens this discussion by calling me and others both stupid and dishonest (#6) without making any attempt whatsoever to introduce anything remotely like a fact to justify it, he is simply proving what a lying fascist obscenity he is - also engagi8ng in a tantrum, though whether spittle flecked or not I couldn't say.

I do not believe I can be honestly accused of rudeness to anybody on "scienceblogs", not even the racist, murdering, genocidal, child raping, cannibalistic, organlegging Nazi savages who make up the "Democratic" party.

By Neil Craig (not verified) on 13 Sep 2011 #permalink


I do not believe I can be honestly accused of rudeness to anybody on "scienceblogs", not even the racist, murdering, genocidal, child raping, cannibalistic, organlegging Nazi savages who make up the "Democratic" party.

...and the winner in the category "Least Self-Aware Comment on a Blog Post" goes to...

nc, if you do not wish to be known as a liar, there is a simple remedy: stop lying about what the science says concerning global warming.
if you don't wish to be known as prone to rants or temper tantrums, don't let your posts degenerate into the type of twaddle you post at 48 (and almost every other post you make).
If you don't want to be known as a blithering idiot, don't say stupid things like "...Somebody who believes that force should be used to suppress debate is, by definition, a fascist (look it up)" - when doing so does not support your statement.
Don't invent asinine terms like "ecofascist", claim they refer to people who threaten violence, and apply them to people who have done no such thing.
And "...whatsoever to introduce anything remotely like a fact to justify it" - all I need do is point to any post you've made about the substance or intent of a scientific paper on climate change, or any other topic you comment upon, and your dishonesty is shown.
Finally, I note that you've tried to claim you are correct and RB is incorrect in the discussion of threats of violence against you, WITHOUT (as RB predicted) providing any evidence for your own support. Nobody should be surprised at that, since you never have evidence.

Greg, my apologies for dragging this out so long on your site. Responding to people like nc is never productive: I know that but for some reason was foolish enough to do it anyway.

...racist, murdering, genocidal, child raping, cannibalistic, organlegging Nazi savages who make up the "Democratic" party.

Yep, Neil's having a tantrum all right. Hope someone changes his bib before he goes to bed...

dean: for what my opinion is worth, you needn't apologize. Neil is a bigot, plain and simple, no better than someone who routinely trashes Jews because they're Jews; and I think decent people have an obligation to call out and shame the bigots whenever and wherever they show up; and to make it plain that such deliberately destructive hate is not welcome in grownup dialogue.

Raging Bee, I agree with your sentiment. I guess my current feeling is that, having done so once, continuing to do so with no realistic hope of change in response, on another's forum, was poor form on my part.

So according to Dean if I don't want to called a liar and mental defective by him I shouldn't start by calling him a liar.

While accepting this advice as representing the very highest standard of honesty to which the totally corrupt lying ecofascist ever aspires anybody looking at my initial post #4 will see I made no specific mention of him and yet his response #6 was to call me a liar and mental defective.

Perhaps more seriously for any reputation "scienceblogs" may have, nobiody suggested that Dean should try using facts and rationality rather than vituperation.

Note that i do not accuse the lying fascist parasite of being mentally defective - proof that I do not engage in vituperation but stick to proven facts.

Bee's response is less worthy of an answer.

By Neil Craig (not verified) on 14 Sep 2011 #permalink

Stephanie, would you pleas stop trying to rerail this conversation?

Actually, Greg, it's more of a social experiment. So far, given Neil's comment on the other post, my hypothesis looks to be supported. But it is early yet.

suggested that Dean should try using facts and rationality rather than vituperation.

Ok. Don't vituperate.

the lying fascist parasite of being mentally defective - proof that I do not engage in vituperation but stick to proven facts.

Look at the purty facts

vituperation [vɪËtjuËpÉËreɪÊÉn]
1. abusive language or venomous censure
2. the act of vituperating
vituperative [vɪËtjuËpÉrÉtɪv -prÉtɪv] adj
vituperatively adv

Compare to

lying fascist parasite


You can't pretend you stick only to facts and are above petty insults, when you can't make that statement without adding petty insults and not including facts.

lie 2
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

By Drivebyposter (not verified) on 14 Sep 2011 #permalink

"Lying", "Fascist" & "parasite" have all been factually proven.

Greg's "all your questions were clearly answered in a long discusiion by me on radio" turned into "most of the points were discussed in few moments" to "I am unable to put any of it down in black and white". It is simply untrue to say that these were all "answered" and obviously so since otherwise there would be no problem giving the answer. Refusing to answer by saying it has all been answered already and here is a link to realclimate is a common alarmist alternative to actual evidence.

I have asked Greg, allegedly the only climate scientist in the world who supports catastrophism and gets no government money to say what evidence he has that global warming is either outwith historical records or damaging and he has refused.

The alternative is
"The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."

But that comes from a Physics Nobel Prize winner who thus, presumably, does not have the eminence the "climate science" experts here claim.

By Neil Craig (not verified) on 15 Sep 2011 #permalink

"Lying", "Fascist" & "parasite" have all been factually proven.

And you expect to be taken seriously after an idiotic statement like that?

Oh, and you still haven't shown us any peer-reviewed work disproving AGW.

Refusing to answer by saying it has all been answered already and here is a link to realclimate is a common alarmist alternative to actual evidence.

I didn't give a link to RealClimate. You must have gotten lost.

I have asked Greg, allegedly the only climate scientist in the world who supports catastrophism and gets no government money to say what evidence he has that global warming is either outwith historical records or damaging and he has refused.

Still waiting for you to tell me who pays me.

~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years

Is this a claim you are making?

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever

Nobel Laureate 1973

That's the source.

He resigned in disgust.

By Deep Throated … (not verified) on 15 Sep 2011 #permalink

"Lying", "Fascist" & "parasite have been factually proven"

If you are referring to me, show the proof that I am lying (your response will be that I am because you say I am), am a fascist or parasite, you worthless shitbag. Proof, not your "it's true because I say it is" bullshit.

You could also show Raging Bee the proof for your claim that people have threatened you with "trans-internet" violence.

But that comes from a Physics Nobel Prize winner who thus, presumably, does not have the eminence the "climate science" experts here claim.

Oooooh. A Nobel Laureate. Greg, I think he's right. After all, no Nobel Laureate has ever been wrong about anything and arguments from authority really are the most convincing evidence.

Also you haven't proven the "fascist" or "parasite" or the "lying" part, but you can still pretend.

You conveniently forgot to explain how you don't vituperate or alternatively, you can admit that you do vituperate and you were just lying where you said that.

Oh and actual evidence. You know...valid evidence of your claims. You forgot to add that. Not just pointing to random scientists in unrelated fields who disagree with climate science.

More or less you need to support just about every claim you've made so far. Hell, even your argument from authority didn't come with a link or an attribution.

By Drivebyposter (not verified) on 15 Sep 2011 #permalink

I love how Neil Craig's argument that environmentalists are all driven by moneylust is that the CEOs of two or three of the largest, oldest, most famous, and most successful environmental groups in history each make about a whole entire $480,000/year. By the wealth redistributionist, class warfarist, corporate welfarist standards of conservatism, $480k for your CEO is a pittance. And not everyone at those groups are CEOs, are they?

Oh, and kudos to the Breitbartian labeling of "BIG GREEN." The term 'size queen' comes to mind.

Gosh Drivelposter, an ecofascist suggesting that arguments from authority have no validity.

Perhaps you would care to enlighten us with links to the 10s of thousands of times you, allegedly not being a wholly corrupt fascist, have been equally quick to denounce all the other ecofascists who have argued from the faked authority of the "scientific consensus", "97% of climate scientists" etc etc etc agreeing - all arguments from "authority" and in fact lies anyway.

If you are not a lying fascist you must have done so. If any of the other commenters here are not personally wholly corrupt fascists wuth repsect whatsoever for honesty or logic they will all denounce you if you don't.

Anubody think there is a single alarmist commenter here who will not prove, yetv again, to be a wholly corrupt, disgusting, lying, fascist parasite.

Hopwever being inherently polite I will not say anything rude about the scum.

By Neil Craig (not verified) on 16 Sep 2011 #permalink

Greg, please stop expecting Equus quagga to achieve monochromaticity. ;)

Even Neil's insults aren't coherent anymore. He's sounding almost as unhinged as pornybarker. Oh, and he still can't show any actual science debunking AGW. Are the Saudis paying him to spout such mindless hatred (it certainly serves their interests, and reminds me of how their textbooks talk about Jews), or is he such a dedicated bigot that he doesn't even think to ask for a paycheck?

Greg perhaps youn might consider having a consistent policy on what you censor. I would have no problem with consistency if it were balanced.

Previously you have decided that asking simple questions that suggest the alarmist caseis threadbare deserve censorship.

No you are objecting to "insults". I have said noting insulting as opposed to proven true and indeed have gone to considerable lengths to prove anyting I have said or commenters merely accurate.

However in the first post here referring to me you allowed Dean to call me both dishonest and meentally retarded and in Bee's above has accused me of "hatred" and being a "bigot". None of these are remotely truthful.

I realise "scienceblogs" is hardly a site of impartial or honest pr scientific debate but, having boasted of your opposition to the "tyranny" of censorship it behooves you, if you are going to exercise it, to do so honestly and transparently.

Neil, I assure you that I the commenting policy on this blog is not something that needs to be designed to satisfy your sense of balance or even fairness. Think about what my policy might be regarding whether or not I let you hang out on my front porch at home.

I realise "scienceblogs" is hardly a site of impartial or honest pr scientific debate

Are you suggesting that my fellow bloggers and I are dishonest? don't appreciate that.

having boasted of your opposition to the "tyranny" of censorship

I don't like censorship but I do not know what you refer to here.

You do understand, I hope, that if I delete a comment you write here, that is not censorship.

f you are going to exercise it, to do so honestly and transparently.

I think you are calling me dishonest again. This is a thread about climate change. Please keep it on topic and stop insulting my colleagues, the commmenters here, and me.

It is amazing how this site seems to have de-evolved into a troll flame site. That's sooo Pharwrongula, so unoriginal.

" contrary opinions shalt not be expressed," and "assholery shalt not be tolerated unless it is in-group assholery,' and poorly cited, poorly courced parroted and barely intelligible comments from Ragging Butt.

Thou shalts and thou shouldest--they always precede the lock-step marchers, and the new religions.

No wonder Dick Cheney is backing Hillary Clinton for a run at President, 2012.The right and the left are inseparable--the onkly difference is that on the left, they are out of thecloset (Ragging Butt) and on the right, they have more restraints...

Terry, @ "Professional trolls are the future of e-forum marketing, you know."

There is only one professional troll working this post--Raging Bee--a paid parrot.

Pornalysis I didn't know that about Bee though I did know that almost everybody in the alarmist movement and every scientist is paid by alarmist governments.

"You do understand, I hope, that if I delete a comment you write here, that is not censorship."

Wikipedia definition

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient"

I suggest you take it up with them and tell them it would not be censorship for them to remove that article at your request. Would I be right to presume the 7 questions you deleted were merely inconveniet.

Neil, this is not public communication. This is my blog. You are here entirely at my pleasure and there is absolutely no other reason.

Neil, those questions couldn't possibly have been nearly as inconvenient for Greg as listening to the answers appears to be for you. After all, those questions are still up on other posts on this site, and you haven't listened to any of the radio show despite being linked to it twice.

Wait, don't we have a word for cut-and-paste comments left by people with no intent of following through on them? Right, that's it. "Spam." Highly deletable. In fact, it's generally considered a disservice to readers to leave spam in place.

Stephanie I note your request that Greg censor any communication from you because you have repeatedly demonstated "no intent of following through on" on any form of scintific questions.

There are some paradoxes here. The most amusing being that if he had censored your last post in deference to your call for it hewouldn't have had the reason to censor it. Whereas by not doing so he has.

Greg's "its my blog and i'll censor if I want to" is simpler.

Neil, the fact that your comments are still on this thread proves your accusations of "censorship" are false, and you know they're false. Greg is the OWNER OF THIS BLOG -- if he was guilty as charged, you'd have no presence here at all. Your accusations are just another obvious lie from a right-wing denialist troll whose sole objective is to drag adult converations to the most infantile level possible.

Arguing with Neil is jst as pointless as trying to reason with a four-year-old in the midst of his latest temper-tantrum. I, for one, believe we can consider this argument over.

Pornalysis I didn't know that about Bee...

...and now you choose to believe it, despite the total lack of evidence, because it suits your prejudices and you're so desperate for validation that you'll take the word of an incoherent wanker who can't even write a coherent on-topic opinion on anything.

Seriously, Neil, the fact that you're counting on pornybarker for validation makes you look even more pathetic than than you looked yesterday.

Gues what, Stephanie -- Neil's now running away and crying about ecofascist name-calling on another thread. Just another hate-filled freelance crank with too much time on his hands (because he's unemployable?).

As an indication of his lunacy: on another thread nc was lamenting the fact that others were calling him names rather than using logical arguments to refute his "facts". he then said:

When attacked thus, with , apparently, the full approval of the author, I reserve the right to defend myself, though I do nit reply with either lies or obscenity since I consider that rather declasse.

You could not write the stupidity and dishonesty he spouts in a story and have people believe it: yet it flows from him like a river.

Lets keep this simple for you Bee.

Greg has censored. Indeed has admitted doing so and others have made a point of it.

However he has also claimed that he is sufficiently liberal minded to consider censorship "tyranny".

He has thereby made himself look hypocritical, dishonest and foolish and put himself on a cleft stick over whether to censor or not in future. Sometimes one way sometimes the other.

There is also the fact that he censors factual questions while passing posts which are devoid of facts and merely insulting, like the last 2 above. This is obviously incompatible with any respect for either liberalism or the principles of science.

By Neil Craig (not verified) on 23 Sep 2011 #permalink

Let me make this real simple for you, Neil: you've already proven yourself a bigoted liar, who has never backed up any of his accusations with evidence, nor answered pertinent questions from any of us (where's that peer-reviewed science debunking AGW?).

Also, you've been consistently able to get your asinine bigoted oppinions up on this blog whenever you want; so whatever censorship Greg has done is so miniscule it isn't even worth talking about. You're only crying about "tyranny" because you're desperate to change the subject and avoid admitting you're both dishonest and wrong.

"bigoted liar", "assinine" and yet again no attempt at anything remotely like a fact.

As I said "while passing posts which are devoid of facts and merely insulting". Thank you for the demonstratiin of the intellectual standard to which the entire alarmist movement clearly aspires. Self examination is not your stromg point.

Ok Neil, instead of your usual language, explain why your questions weren't addressed by the discussion to which you were directed. Lay your answers out in tone you want to hear from others, and show how to link to peer reviewed supporting your argument. Show us how a pro does it.

Still censoring eh Greg.
You clearly know that the ecofascist alarmist case cannot survive without it.

By Neil Craig (not verified) on 28 Sep 2011 #permalink

It took you four days to come up with that?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 28 Sep 2011 #permalink

Still censoring eh Greg.

Um...I'm able to see your comment, so that kinda means the answer is "no."

It took you four days to come up with that?

Yeah, he's pretty slow. Also, he's been busy writing utter nonsense on his on blog, where he's less likely to be called out for his bigotry and lies. (And even there he's occasionally called out, and is never able to respond credibly.)

Incidentally, if you want to get an idea of where his stupid hatred comes from, just look at his recommended reading list: one of his faves is Jerry Pournelle, who's been supporting nuclear power, and trashing both liberals and gummint officials as backward Luddites, at least since the '70s. Pournelle was completely off-base back then, and Neil's just parroting the same self-righteous technocratic nonsense with no updating.

I recall reading that Pournelle was involved with the group who convinced President Reagan to start chasing the "Star Wars" defense travesty. It seems he only trashes government folks when they aren't as bat-shit crazy as he is: it's always thus. He also wrote some really crappy science fiction with Larry Niven.
It is interesting that Neil recommends him, given this Pournelle quote (from the early 80s)

He is quoted as saying "with what we spent in Iraq we could build nuclear power plants and space solar power satellites and tell the Arabs to drink their oil.

Space solar power satellites? Sounds very left wingy, liberally, in need of government support-ish to me.

Pournelle is not stupid - his academic achievements indicate that - but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a lot of stupid ideas and views.

I used to read a "science fact" article he wrote regularly for Galaxy magazine: lots of really good (or at least cool) ideas, my faves of which were: solar-power satellites beaming unlimited energy back to Earth in the form of microwaves (gotta be careful with the aim though); and laser-propulsion for reusable ground-to-orbit rockets (again, gotta watch the aim or the rocket loses power way too soon).

But his SF was crap, all the characters acted like cardboard cut-outs from a propagandist history textbook, he was clearly a bad Heinlein wannabee, and his hatred of liberals (especially the environmentalist kind) just oozed from every page. I can see why Reagan's boy-geniasses loved him (he was an early proponent of "missle-eating lasers" with no regard to the complexities of identifying, targeting, and destroying incoming ICBMs in any of their flight-phases). I can also see that Neil has swallowed all of his fantasies without even allowing for new knowledge or previous experience between the '70s and today.

(Also, FWIW, I heard Pournelle supported intelligent design -- probably just because he couldn't bear to admit liberals were right about anything.)

The Greg Laden site on the string of related American sites called "Scienceblogs" is arguably the most prominent.

Greg is a catastrophic warming supporter, which is his right. He censors opposing views or even questions put courteously which is his right because, as he explains its his site, though incompatible with any claim to "science".

He has claimed to be opposed to censorship. saying "Censorship is the second to last refuge of tyrants, the last is violence" (#23) a refreshingly liberal (in the true meaning of the term) viewpoint on "scienceblogs" where 9 sites, at last count, promote censorship. Rather than answer the 7 questions any climate alarmist should be able to easily answer if it is true, he simply censored them.

Note that he does not delete ad homs or indeed obscenity, which are clearly, after all, the stock in trade of climate alarmist "scientists", particularly those "peer reviewed and published in the finest journals" (#5) (although he did censor some criticisms made in return, neither ad hom nor remotely obscene since I don't find that persuasive). Indeed, while censoring me, he recently passed a comment that I should be glad Greg hasn't come round to my house and cut off my head which is the last argument he allegedly disapproves of.

It is his choice to run his site that way. However he does worse than that.
Greg has also claimed to be the sole scientist anywhere in the world who supports warming catastrophism and is not paid by the state. Not one single cent.

He has also claimed to be a "climate scientist".

Indeed he has been given numerous opportunities to say the "misspoke" (a la Clinton), panicked or that the claim needs "clarifying" (a term often used by British politicians caught lying). He has, repeatedly, stood by his claim.


Greg Laden is a Biological Anthropologist, studying human evolution, with degrees from Harvard University. He has taught at several universities, including Harvard and is currently a part time Assistant Professor at the University of Minnesota. He is an independent scholar who blogs at…

Not a wise move when elsewhere claiming to be a climate scientist receiving not one cent from government. Though his "scienceblogs" bio is replete with "did I mention Harvard"'s it is astonishingly less forthcoming about his present role as a part time assistant teacher at Minnesota U.

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (U of M) is a public research university and A public university is one that is predominantly funded by public means

So the alleged only scientist anywhere in the world who supports warming catastrophism while receiving not a cent from the government is actually an assistant teacher of anthropology, largely or entirely paid by said government (at what I understand Americans call a "cow college" rather than Harvard).

Laden has clearly, deliberately and continuously lied and if the entire "scienceblogs" site and anybody connected is not to it is not to be wholly discredited as not being in any way connected to scientific principles it is impossible he could remain on it.

Knowing a little about anthropology in academe in Britain I can say that it is largely a matter of keeping ones tongue between the cheeks of those above you on the ladder while refusing to notice any scientific evidence which does not suit the politically correct paradigm (admittedly difficult to do otherwise in such a position). Rather than being a real science it is very much the sort of "science" Richard Feynman described in his "Cargo Cult Science" lecture.

Perhaps American anthropology is totally different and a real science.

Perhaps his interest in (and possible limited understanding of CAGW) is inspired by coworkers, friends and neighbours. I haven't visited Minnesota and it may be a warm place with a large coastal area which would explain the local's interest in the possible bad effects of warming. Indeed it must be so because pathetic as it is to lie on the subject it would be unbelievably pathetic to lie in a way that will not impress coworkers and neighbours.

By Neil Craiog (not verified) on 30 Sep 2011 #permalink

I don't work for the University of Minnesota.

The kind of anthropology I do is usually not part of UK anthropology departments. Yes, the fields are quite different.

Minnesota is no where near a coast.

And that comment was so obnoxious that I think it will be your last one here.

I haven't visited Minnesota and it may be a warm place with a large coastal area...

Neil can't find Minnesota on a fucking map (or maybe he can't find the Atlantic Ocean?), but he knows damn well that all the climate scientists are wrong about the climate, and we can all trust his word that Greg is censoring him (except when he's not).

So tell us, Neil, does your silly little "9% Growth Party" have "teach kids basic geography so they can get jobs and spur growth" in its campaign platform?

Neil isn't just stupid, he's pathologically uneducable. Oh well, at least he admitted Greg has an education, even if he tried to portray it as a bad thing...

So allegedly not a
"part time assistant teacher of anthropology"
but an
umpaid "part time assistant teacher of anthropology"


By Neil Craig (not verified) on 01 Oct 2011 #permalink

Good Gods, Neil, do you really still think anyone is gonna take you seriously anymore? Go have a restful day on the warm sunny beaches of Minnesota and spend some liesure time looking at a map, okay?

What a fucking idiot.

Greg, he stated you are an "umpaid ...". I didn't know you spent your time assisting baseball umpires.

Well Laden I will tell you what you missed. You missed that this is complete nonsense, And to be honest, I have no idea why I am bothering to add this comment, Because a closet fascist can never be reasoned with. And you will just ban me after I win the argument, And then after you ban me, You will make serious accusations about me, with no proof. That is what you do to anyone that does not agree with you. However Laden, I hope one day you can let go of your bitterness. Once you do, you will be a much happier person. God bless.

And to everyone else, Please educate yourselves, Do your own fact finding. Do not listen to people like this man. And never take anything as truth unless you see absolute proof. A blog or book somebody wrote is not fact or proof. But from my own research I have learned this is complete fantasy. But do not believe me simply because I said, Do your own fact finding. It is not hard, I promise. Peace everyone.

By Abbie Hoffman (not verified) on 14 Jan 2015 #permalink