HTTTACS Open Thread

Okay, the main page for How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic has over 500 comments now, so as I should have done long ago, I am closing comments there.

Please post any miscellaneous comments that don't fit better elsewhere on this site here on this thread, thanks!

More like this

Sorry crakar.

The layer cake is what you get if atmospheric gases don't mix but sort themselves based on molecular weight.

Hey Crakar, what happens when you fill the balloon with oxygen, or nitrogen?. Would you like to hazard a guess?.

By Dappledwater (not verified) on 12 Oct 2010 #permalink

For people asking what happens when you fill a balloon with some gas...

When you put it in a balloon, you are preventing mixing. In this case, the balloon will sink if filled with CO2, and rise if filled with Helium.

If you burst the balloon, the gases mix with the air around, and the individual molecules get bounced in all directions. Some up. Some down. Some left. Some right. It mixes.

If you have a heck of a lot of CO2 and calm air with no wind, CO2 will tend to sink and pool near the surface. If you are careful, you can fill a beaker with CO2, and then pour it out to extinguish a candle. It can be a fun kitchen experiment.

But do it gently. Even a small amount of wind will quickly stir things up again, and if you leave the beaker uncovered, I expect the CO2 will mix up with the air in the kitchen before too long.

There's an experiment you can try at home! My nieces love to do science experiments with me, and when I visit them I'll let them know this was a question, and we'll try it together. I have no idea how long it will take, but we should be able to fill some jars with CO2 using bicarb of soda and vinegar, leave them on the bench and see how long it takes for the CO2 to rise UP out of the jar by simple mixing. We can test CO2 levels with a burning bamboo skewer.

It might be fun to try outdoors and indoors. I expect outdoor jars to empty faster unless it is an exceptionally still day.

Relax guys. Have fun with this one. Scientists are pretty smart folks, but for things like this, we don't have to trust them.

By Chris Ho-Stuart (not verified) on 12 Oct 2010 #permalink

Here is another (slightly more dangerous) experiment to verify whether gases mix or not. It was demonstrated a long time ago, I won't say how long, but the gas put into the can was a mixture of CO and Hydrogen, not natural gas as is common nowadays.

Drill a small hole in the bottom and lid of a metal can (UK readers will know about Lyall's Golden Syrup cans). Fill the can with gas (CO/H2), light the gas coming out of the hole in the lid and stand back (the teacher who performed this for us in equivalent to Grade 7 science made a hasty retreat to the back of the lab).

Let me know what you think happened and why.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 13 Oct 2010 #permalink


Do I need to sign a liability waiver first?

So Chris, how did the experiment go?

I am currently overseas. I told my niece about it when I called home recently and we are going to try it out on my return... which may be a month or more yet.

I don't consider it something of urgency, but rather a fun teaching exercise encouraging kids to be interested in science, and indeed encouraging anyone who is distrustful of the statements by scientists which classify CO2 as a well mixed gas to try testing things a bit.

The niece in question is 9 years old. We've played a bit with CO2 already, and shown that it's heavier than normal air and that candles can be extinguished with the gas. She's looking forward to seeing if it can empty out of a jar and if so, how long it might take. So am I.

But to be honest, I don't need a kitchen experiment like this to know that CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, so I am interested mainly for playing with my niece and fostering her interest in science.

By Chris Ho-Stuart (not verified) on 19 Oct 2010 #permalink

How can CO2 be well mixed in the atmosphere when it's heavier than air?

Hi Myrrh,

Check this link for some clues as to what the mechanisms are:

As you can read in the abstract, wind velocity in general, and specifically convection caused by warm surface temperatures carry CO2 away from its sources and into the general atmosphere.

Also check here: for interesting studies using satellite readings on tropospheric variations in the actual mixing ratios of CO2, apparently caused by large scale wind patterns and their relationships to sources and sinks of CO2. It shows two thing: first is that even though there are some differences in absolute levels the overall cycles and trends match land based background measurements very closely and two: CO2 mixing ratios do not correlate with altitude which one would expect if CO2 sank due to its heavier than air molecular weight.

That is what is fascinating about the physical sciences, whether you know why or not, reality is what it is!

(PS. Thanks to the poster on another thread for providing those links!)

Coby - I've posted these two links before in this argument to support my side...

Have a good read of the first, and do look at the figures, remember, it's not always windy..., the CO2 measurements are higher in calmer conditions. Which is what I've been saying. These confirm the nearly two centuries we have of CO2 measurements.

The interesting observation this study makes is that counter to "Mauna Loa perceived wisdom that growing season lowers CO2 from the plant intake, late spring and summer", this study found the opposite. This is also seen on another graph from the Wisconsin forest study, summer CO2 levels are much higher than winter, and the same observation made, that CO2 is more abundant the lower down it is measured. And I've had a quick look and it appears this is also found in other studies.

Anyway, that's a bit of an aside at the moment.

The second link on the AIRS data showed that CO2 was not well-mixed.

This is against the AGW 'consensus', and of course, came as a shock to AGW, you can't magic it away.

This is what it is saying:

#Carbon dioxide is not homogeneous in the mid-troposphere; previously it was thought to be well mixed#

So, please get this clear, it is not well-mixed in the mid-troposphere.

#There are significant differences between simulated and observed CO2 abundance outside the tropics, raising questions about the transport pathways between the lower and upper troposphere in current models#

Yet another example of the models bearing no relation to reality.

This study thought it would confirm AGWScience, it doesn't.

What's important to remember here from my side of the fence, is that Mauna Loa and Keeling's original choice of 'background' level was far and away at odds with all other measurements that had been done of CO2, far too low, and the particular study he used had long been discredited for method. The general picture was that CO2 was around the 400 ppm average. Really, take a look at the first study you linked to, it is of the pattern as all other studies. Mauna Loa is the anomaly.

I can't get back to the other discussion until after the weekend. See you then.

Chris - sorry, I was posting in a rush forgot to ask what your niece thinks - whether something heavier than air can move on its own back into the air without another force acting on it? There's a page of experiments with dry ice she might enjoy, I'll post it after the weekend.

skip / chris / et al

Interesting presentation from the Regional Director of the BOM here in South Australia. I particularly like the graphs which show the trends in max temperature at a number of regional stations such as Woomera (crakar would be familiar with that place), Mt Gambier, Ceduna and at Adelaide Airport. A couple of nice maps showing the trends over the whole of the country as well.…

Yes i am familiar with that place and i can tell you UHI is not a problem as the place has been surrounded by dirt and rocks for many many years.


Thanks for the BOM PP, i have a coiple of questions.

Page 2 states the accuracy of the thermometers are <0.4C so when we look at the temp trend for say for Adlaide airport we can see a very slight up ward trend in both MIN and MAX since 1958 if we factor in the 0.4C tolerance then the temps could easily have a slight downward trend could it not? Would read this as XX +/- 0.2C?

So when we look at the overall temp for Aust. page 15/16 we see a majority of the continent has warmed by 0.2C or less would we be correct in saying a majority of the warming measured could simply be inaccuracies in or thermometers?

Or have i got it all arse about?

Apparently if you use "<" every thing you say after that does not get to print. Obviously i should have written "less than 0.4C"

Dang Nabbit!!!!

If you use the alternative to LESS THAN everything you type after it does not get printed. In post 16 i should have said less than 0.4C rather than "you know what".

What a stupid fu

Can you just reexplain your question?


Despite your obvious finger trouble, I think I get the gist of your question, which is that if the 'inaccuracies' of the thermometers are 0.4, then how can we measure changes of only 0.2.

Well, its pretty simple really. I would agree with you if we were talking about a single measurement, or indeed, if the sample was very small. However, when you take a large number of measurements over a long period, the inaccuracies in each individual measurement are accounted for in the statistical treatment. This is one of the reasons why complex statistics are best left to people who know what they are doing, and why amateurs with no statistical training and just an excel spreadsheet have no credibility and should be ignored.

Hey i am getting pretty good at MATLAB now aswell not just excell.


My question was if the thermometers have an accuracy tolerance of 0.4C then the temp readings would be XX +/- 0.2C.

On page 15/16 the BOM claim a majority of Australia has warmed by + 0.2C per decade therefore it is not possible to measure how much Australia has warmed.


I can understand you could use statistical methods to account for known biases such as UHI, site movements, time of observation changes etc but i dont think you could use statistical treatment to get rid of a 0.4C tolerance. The only way you could get rid of it would be to use better/more accurate thermometers. The 0.4C tolerance is not a case of the thermometers reading too high or too low by 0.4C so you cannot assume a warm or cold bias.

Then we have another statement by the BOM on page 2 "New technologies (past 10 â 15 years) are more accurate than
conventional recording methods" this of course means 10 to 15 years ago the thermometers were even less accurate.

But yet on page 16 the BOM claim with certainty that Australia has warmed since 1910, do you think it is possible to measure the temps with any great accuracy (one decimal place) when we know current thermometers have an error of 0.4C and up to the mid to late 1990's the error was even greater?

I think it is OK for the BOM to make such statements but i think they should add the % of error that goes with it otherwise they are intentionally misleading the public.

Crakar, you are confusing measurement errors with instrument errors. It is assumed that the thermometers do give a reproducible reading but the absolute value may be off. Every time a measurement is taken the same error is included in the measurement. Thus once one calculates anomalies and trends the accuracy is much better than the reported accuracy of the thermometer. If there was an error of +/- 0.4 degrees in the reading accuracy you would be correct but no one who was reading a thermometer with such an error would be reading one for very long.

Reproducibility and absolute accuracy are always problems which seem huge to the non scientist but are well known and accounted for in scientific work.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 13 Dec 2010 #permalink

crakar, as mandas said the error margin is smaller the more measurements you take. The idea being that a random distribution of errors will balance out and center on a meaningful average.

Thus one measurement may have an accuracy of +/-.2 but a thousand measurements will be much more refined. The formulas are complicated and the other statistical issues very interesting, I don't pretend to understand them all.

Thanks Ian,

Maybe i am looking at this the wrong way, i see it this way.

Lets say i take a reading from the thermometer that is 12.0C now due to the accuracy of the thermometer the actual temp could be anywhere from 11.8C to 12.2C.

I would have no why of telling what the exact temp is, now the next day i take a reading and it is 11.9C but once again the actual temp could be between 11.7 and 12.1C.

Now i am assuming the person taking the readings is taking accurate readings so all i am talking about here is instrument errors just like the BOM. So no Ian i am not confusing measurement errors with instrument error.

Furthermore you do not need to be a scientist to understand or work in areas where this concept applies.


I understand what you are trying to say but i do not agree. You can take 10,000 or 10,000,000 samples and come up with an average or trend or whatever but each sample still has up to a 0.4C error and in fact pre 1990's this error is larger. Without knowing the magnitude or sign of the error from one reading to the next it is impossible to simple use statistical manipulation in an effort to obtain more accurate results. Your data can only be as accurate as the equipment that does the measuring.

The BOM claim Australia has warmed by about 0.7C from 1910 to 2007 the newer thermometers have an accuracy of 0.4C and the older ones had an error greater than this. So it is quite feasible for a majority of the period to have an error margin as great as the measured warming.

Dont you think this information is relevant to the reader? The BOM neglect to mention this in their graphs and therefore are inferring the measurements are accurate but of course they are not.

I suggest we just agree to disagree here otherwise it will morph into another excell argument.

Without knowing the magnitude or sign of the error from one reading to the next it is impossible to simple use statistical manipulation in an effort to obtain more accurate results.

True, but not germane.

No one is saying that "statistical manipulation" makes the data "better."

The assumption is that the many, many individual errors in measurement are randomly distributed about the true temperatures whose measurement was being attempted. It simply means that your estimate of temperature trends has to allow for this uncertainty.

Repeat/reword: Statistical techniques are used to *make the best of the data*; not to pretend the data are better than they really are.

It would be a terrible misreading of this problem to assume that the estimated temperatures from *aggregated* pre-20th century readings are therefore as far off as +/-0.4 C.


".....Dont you think this information is relevant to the reader? The BOM neglect to mention this in their graphs and therefore are inferring the measurements are accurate but of course they are not.....I suggest we just agree to disagree here otherwise it will morph into another excell argument....."

I agree on one thing. It is best that we agree to disagree, but not for the reason you are suggesting. As coby, skip and myself have tried to point out here (and on other threads), statistical treatment of data such as this is EXTREMELY complex, and cannot be done on the back of a scrap of paper or even with PC tools like Excel. I (and I am sure both coby and skip) have all done basic statistics as part of our science degrees, and the knowledge and tools required to do such work is way out of our league. That is why I always turn any data I collect over to a statistician in order to make sense of it, even if it looks relatively straight forward. Just as a challenge, get yourself a textbook (or go to a website) which discusses some "relatively" straight forward statistical techniques such as linear regression (which is being discussed at the other thread). Here is a link to wikipedia:

Did you understand that crakar? How do you think you would go on COMPLEX techniques?

To be fair, I also agree with you (partially) regarding the 'accuracy' or otherwise of the BOM data. Of course there are errors involved, which is why they would show and discuss those errors in any full analysis undertaken for a scientific purpose. But if they are just providing a 'lay' presentation or discussion, those complex data treatments are ommitted - they are just too complex to show all the details.

Of course there are errors in the data from the BOM. There are lots of them. But that is why you need a competent statistician who understand these things in order to make sense of them. I know my limitations, so I won't even try, and will rely on people who know more than me on the subject.

It is often said that the more you know, the more you realise how little you know (or words to that effect). Its patently obvious that there are a lot of people out there (and posting here) who don't know enough to realise how stupid they really are. is a great source of information related to a lot of climate change issues. John Cook, the site owner, recently published a 'Scientific Guide to Global Warming Scepticism'. The guide reads and looks a bit like a 'glossy brochure', but it does provide succinct 'talking points' for any discussions you might have with your average denier. The document is here:

I particularly love the image on Page 1 entitled "Human Fingerprints on Climate Change", and then the "Human Fingerprint #6" on page 9.

I strongly urge everyone here to have a read of it.

The link in my previous post is VERY important. I don't want it to be pushed off the edge of the 'recent comments' box by the idiocy at the other thread until everyone has had a chance to see it.


It would be closer to +/- 0.2C if it has an error of 0.4C.

Mandas in 27,

Do you write posts with full intention of attempting to belittle people? I only ask because post 27 smacks of arrogance on your part so i was wondering if you do it deliberately or not.

What is so complex that the BOM have decided the "lay" person is just too stupid to understand?

Is the lay person too stupid to understand the simple arithmetic to work out that if the BOM claim the temp has risen by 0.2C over 50 years measured by thermometers with at least a 0.4C error may be measuring a warming that does not exist?

Or is the lay person too stupid to understand the "complex" data processing used to eliminate the error bars from their glossy brochure?

I know one thing the lay person does understand and that is the BOM's track record of predicting future climate is about as good as me picking the next lotto numbers.

Mandas i have had a quick look at your link, it reminds me of something Jo Nova has produced with a differing view and result of course.

As i said it was a quick look so i will discuss in detail just one claim for now, the claim is stated on page 11 consensus of evidence. He cites Doran and Zimmerman (65), have you read this paper? Are you aware of how they came to their conslusion?

Let me tell you how they did arrive at this conclusion. To begin with they contacted 10,257 scientists and posed 9 questions. Of the 10,257 scientists only 3,146 or 31% bothered to respond. The first criteria used by the authors was to only accept responses from respondants that claimed they work in a climate science or related field so the number was culled down to 157. The second criteria was that the scientist must have published at least 50% of their work in the field of climate science in recent years, this brought the grand total down to 77 respondants.

Now i do not have access to the full paper so i only know of two questions asked these are:

1, When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

Of these respondants 77 of 79 answered risen (96.2%), now one must ask "risen, compared to when?"

2, Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

For this we have 75 of 77 say yes (97.4%)

So without knowing the other 7 questions here we have the magical 97% figure, but surely we should use the entire number of all respondants (3,146) of this would then make the consensus a mere 2.38%. Of course we could use the total number of people contacted 10,157 which wouldgive us a staggering 0.73% consensus.

Now i dont know if you have read this paper (notice how i dont assume like others do) i would like you to read it/share your thoughts on its merits but also enlighten us on the other 7 questions.

My opinion is that if a propagander piece like this needs to rely on such a flimsy survey as this one to support its views then he must really be clutching at straws.

Response rates are low in survey research, Crakar. I know because I've conducted it. Even specialists are lazy this way. My last survey of field-specific experts was a whopping 50ish percent and I thought I'd split the social atom.

The key is you don't get to count non-respondents as opposing the consensus when arriving at your low figures. You would have to assume that, for some reason, experts in climate science who do not respond yes to questions 1 or 2 are holding their opinions back for some reason. If there were such a silent majority/plurality/substantial minority of such experts they would long ago have been discovered by the denialsphere, and you guys wouldn't be stuck with Monckton and Watts.

In fairness, this survey by itself is not "proof" of a consensus among climate specialists, but is rather part of a larger body of evidence that non-experts must seriously consider, such as Oreske's examination of the abstracts of climate related studies and what came of Peizer's attempt to challenge it, and the more recent examination of the publication records of skeptics versus non-skeptics conducted by . . . ok spacing the name but I have that article saved on pdf somewhere.

Yeah ok response was and is low in most surveys but the very fact that the response was low in conjunction with omitting almost all of the respondents means this study is worthless and yet it is used to strengthen someones PR pamphlet.

I have just been lectured by some on how we should read the study not just the head lines to see whether the study is any good and yet they do the very same thing, all i want is consistency without it we will simply revert back to the old ways which i want no part of.

What would be a credible alternative, Crakar--the OISM solicitation for anyone who claims to be a "scientist" who opposes AGW theory?

I ask because you've cited *it* in the past. Just remember that before you call the Doran study a piece of "propagander".

crakar @ 30

Your post speaks volumes. I don't need to post comments with the sole intention of belittling people. From the complete lack of any understanding that you displayed you seem perfectly capable of doing that yourself.

And with regard to my link that I keep asking people to read - you will have noted a couple of things. Firstly, one of the human fingerprints of AGW is winter temperatures rising at a greater rate than summer temperatures (wonder where I have heard that before).

And if the best you can do is to try and discredit a 'consensus survey', then you have no credibility whatsoever. As you try to point out at post #33, we should read science rather than headlines. So why don't you go away and read the 68 references cited and tell us what you think? Or is reading actual science too damn hard for you?


From what i have seen all efforts to claim a consensus in either direction are flawed not just the Doran attempt. There are perfectly good reasons why but i will not bother going any further because i would just be wasting my breath explaining.


Once again you have spectacularly completely ignored what i have written and inserted your own reality so as you can mount an arguement from a position of strength.

It is not "the best i can do" i said in plain english "i had a quick look" and the first thing that jumped out at me was a reference to a flawed study about consensus. I did note the warmer winters etc and yes i did get the irony.

People try to be nice, they try to be amicable and it would appear that most here respond in kind but not you Mandas you just continue with the crap. You will now be treated the same way IPF is, in other words all posts from you henceforth will be completely ignored. Have a merry fucking Christmas.

Wow crakar, your hypocracy is simply breathtaking. Cut the bullshit about 'trying to be nice' etc, and have a good hard look in the mirror and stop acting like a whining little child whose sensibilities have been hurt.

Your whole focus here - indeed your whole worldview on climate change - is based on the simple fact that experienced scientists who have been studying a subject for decades are all wrong. They supposedly either don't know what they are talking about, or are lying. And you, the great former LAC crakar, airframe fitter extraordinaire (or whatever you do for a living) know far more about the subject than people who have spent years studying and working in the field. Indeed, you gave even told me on a number of occasions that I was wrong about what I do for a living, and have criticised my approach to science.

In the past I have patiently pointed out some of the flaws in your arguments, and asked you to do some reading before putting fingers to keyboard. On each and every occasion you have failed to do so. You show your remarkable lack of character, in that you NEVER admit your errors, you NEVER apologise for your mistakes, you just abuse people, change the subject, and return to the same old tired crap a few weeks or months later when you think we might have forgotten about it.

Your 'quick looks' ARE the 'best you can do', because you NEVER read a post in any depth, and ignore things that have been said to you by multiple people on multiple occasions. Coby, skip and I have ALL tried to tell you about statistics, errors and instrumental readings, but you keep ignoring us and keep repeating your errors over and over and over again.

Quite frankly crakar, you are a moron. Go ahead, treat me the same way you treat IPF. I will consider it a badge of honour, because both of us are heartily sick of your idiotic cut and pastes from morons like Jo Nova and the SPPI, and both of us have reached the point where we have come to realise that NO amount of evidence, logic or rationality will ever sway you from your unswerving conviction that you know more about a subject than everyone else, despite your total lack of knowledge or even desire to learn.

I WILL have a merry fucking christmas. You do the same.

And in the holiday spirit of the conversation I'd like to personally wish you a *sorry, old* fucking Christmas.

The biggest problem by far for the end-of-the-world-global-warming-alarmists seems to be that they are seemingly all fueled by government subsidies, and produce the results that power-hungry governments desire.

Everyone in this industry, and everyone who creates, promotes, subsidizes and visits sites like this one should visit this link and download the .PDF file of the research. Pay special attention to the roughly 20 studies at the end. It is fascinating stuff:

There's material here for a New Year's Resolution.

Seeing as I never go to SPPI anyway, I'm finding it hard to organise the wording.

Good morning Adelady

Hot enough for you?

Its the perfect way to say farewell to what has been described as the hottest year on record. 43 degrees here in Adelaide today (yes - 43 degrees C). Too damn hot to do anything except to stay inside in the air conditioning and drink lots of fluids.

Happy new year and happy hogmanay to everyone!

Happy New Year to you too.

Esp. since New Year's Day will be lucky to have a maximum higher than last night's (well 6.30am) minimum.

And Happy New Year to everyone else.

Hey Skip did you watch the game yesterday? I think we are going to belt new orleans into next week what do you think?

Thanks for the fair thoughts, Crakar, but I fear not.

The NFC West was a pillow fight in which my beloved Hawks were just the last posers standing. I suspect NO will put us out of our misery in game that's not worth watching by the 3rd quarter.

Here's to hoping . . .

Well we didnt quite belt them into next week as predicted but that last quarter was a hoot i hope you watched it.

Did you see where number 89 (forgot his name) pretended to fall over so he could waltz in for a TD? Funniest thing i have ever seen.

By the way whats the difference between us being denied a field goal attempt and effectively taking the game away from NO because we were "delaying the game" and Brees? the NO QB intentionally dropping the ball on the second down because they ran out out of time outs?

Do we know who we play next week yet?



Hi Crakar

Think I might sit over here with you. I don't know much - if anything - about American football (I went to a couple of games when I lived there), and despite the game itself being painfully tedious (the atmosphere was fantastic though - the best part was the tailgate party before and after the game), it must be better than what is being discussed in the other thread.

Actually Mandas you might be able to help me out but first how was your Xmas and new year all good i hope.

As you know i have just finished readings Plimers H&E the point of reading this book was not to restock my ammo cache over Xmas for arguing here. The point was to read two books (minimum), one book written by someone who takes the available evidence and comes to the conclusion that AGW is basically a non issue and with Plimers book i essentially got that.

The second book would be written by someone who takes the same available evidence and comes to a completely different conclusion, an antithesis if you like.

For this book i chose Tim Flannery's "We are the weather makers" unfortunately Tim's book put it bluntly a big dissappointment. You may not agree with what Plimer says but at least he attempts to back up his claims with references to published studies. Flannery's book is full of opinions and anecdotes and is much more suited to indoctrinating Hitlers youth than educating the general public.

So i am still looking for a book or books that take the available evidence and use said evidence to show AGW is a serious threat etc. If you or anybody else reading this knows of such a book i would very much appreciate it if you could respond to this post with the title and maybe even an ISBN number.


By the way i have also read "Aircon" by Ian Wishart, it is an interesting book he does not delve too deep into the science but instead focuses more on the political arm of AGW (Gore, Greenpeace etc).

Hi crakar

Yes thank - I had an excellent xmas and new year. Fishing. diving and golf - but it was all too short unfortunately. How about yourself?

I haven't read either Plimer or Flannery's books, but I take your points about both of them. I tend not to read books like that, because they tend to sensationalise their points and are almost always 'preaching to the choir'. They trying to sell books after all, and you don't do that with dry descriptions of the evidence or by telling your audience they are wrong. You could try the IPCC report and read it from cover to cover. Its not as bad as you might think, and very informative.

I would much rather read journals and papers. But I also take your points from before about not having access to all the journals - fortunately I can do that through the university and through work. Is there some mechanism where you can do it through work as well?

Coby's 'Another Week in GW News' is always good value because it gives lots of links to lots of studies etc. But maybe someone else will have some suggestions for you.

Mine was not too bad i have returned to work today for a rest as my wife had a list of "things to do" as long as your arm. I have a set of golf clubs in the shed covered in dust maybe we should have a hit sometime.

In regards to Plimers book i would think we would all find it a good read (you can get it from the library so you dont have to buy it). Yes of course it has a few contentious points but that is to be expected, here is a list of them.

1, he opens up by talking about the IPCC and the hockey stick and does not have a kind word to say about either of them.

2, the MWP and LIA was global

3, he devotes a chapter to "its the sun stupid"

4, and we have already discussed the volcano/co2 issue

but apart from that i think the rest is somewhat settled, well when i say settled every claim he makes is referred to a study or two but what he basically says is the climatic changes experienced on Earth since its beginning is largely unexplainable. For example he says the climate changes can be matched to the 41Ky precession cycles but then all that changed to the 100KY orbital variations but no one knows why, things like that, you should read it Mandas i think you would enjoy it.

I have read the IPCC report well not all of it i find it hard to navigate but i have read the chapters where they attribute the causes etc i think the IPCC report tells you what they want you to hear but they do not explain why after all it is a report.

I dont get access to scientific papers like you do my email ends in so only defence related stuff and even then i have to contend with "big brother" so a lot of websites are blocked.

Hey Mandas and Skip, a little while ago you both offered to try and access papers that i cannot which is something you may wish to regret because i may need your help.

Now i should point out that this issue is being used by the deniers to torpedo the good ship AGW but that is not why i am here.

Here is the first study that i cannot get access to

Basically what they are saying is that CFC does not break down the ozone molecule as first thought or at least as much as first thought so your task here is to try and get access to the study read it and let me know what you think of it.

Of course there is a natural way to break down ozone and that is via UV rays, in this study (the denier torpedo) they show that TSI has increased over the past 400 years but what is of greater importance the 50% increase in the shorter wavelengths.

Now if both studies are correct then it would explain why even though CFC production has ceased for 20 years but the ozone hole is just as big.

Now i cannot access either study but if you guys or anyone else out there for that matter can then i would be interested in your opinions.



Sorry this is a long response, but I have included some quotes from a couple of papers so you can get the full picture regarding your query.

I wouldnât offer an opinion either way on that article, but I did some research and found a great deal more information.

As you said, the issue is being used by deniers (I noticed it was on wattsupmybutt and other equally reputable website), but unfortunately, what took me 15 minutes was obviously far too difficult for Mr Watts and his cronies. Either that, or they just donât care about facts.

Your link â once I went through the paywall â took me to an article written by Quirin Schiermeier, who is the German correspondent for Nature. He is a graduate in economics, geography and statistics and used to be a cartographer before writing for Nature (thatâs just for background â it isnât really relevant to the discussion).

The article discusses this paper:
Pope, F. D., Hansen, J. C., Bayes, K. D., Friedl, R. R. & Sander, S. P. J. Phys. Chem. A 111, 4322â4332 (2007).
Which, as you suggested, made a number of findings regarding the breakdown of CFCs and the impact on ozone depletion. Here are a couple of relevant paragraphs from the article:

".....The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASAâs Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, was extremely low in the wavelengths available â almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate. âThis must have far-reaching consequences,â Rex says. âIf the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.â What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.....â

â....The measurements at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory were overseen by Stanley Sander, a chemist who chairs a NASA panel for data evaluation. ..... One of the problems with checking the data is that the absorption spectra of chloride compounds are technically challenging to determine. Sanderâs group used a new technique to synthesize and purify Cl2O2. To avoid impurities and exclude secondary reactions, the team trapped the molecule at low temperatures, then slowly warmed it up....â

However, the paper was from 2007, and just like in all science, scientists have followed up on the work â examining the results and attempting to replicate them. If Mr Watts and co. had any science credibility, they would have known that, and they would have checked out if anything had changed. And guess what â things HAVE changed; but not in the way the deniers would like â hence the complete lack of any follow on discussion by the deniersphere.

A more recent paper and article has been published which overturns the previous results, and confirms the earlier theories and models regarding CFC breakdown rates. The article is here:

I am not sure if you have access, so here are some paragraphs:
ââ¦..Two years after puzzling experiments threatened to shatter established models of ozone depletion in the atmosphere, Taiwanese chemists have published data that support the currently accepted theory. The standard model for how chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) destroy ozone in the Arctic and Antarctic stratospheres was called into question when experiments challenged the rate at which chlorine peroxide (Cl2O2), generated when CFCs decompose, is split apart by light (photolysed). This reaction produces aggressive chlorine radicals that help to deplete ozone. But in 2007, Francis Pope, an atmospheric chemist then at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, and his colleagues, found that Cl2O2's photolysis rate in stratospheric conditions was almost an order of magnitude lower than that needed to explain the rate of late-winter polar ozone depletion seen above Antarcticaâ¦..â

ââ¦..Thinking that Pope's preparations might have been at fault, Lin and his colleagues introduced a different experimental approach, which works whether or not the sample can be prepared free of all impurities. Lin had his team fire a beam of Cl2O2 molecules â together with impurities â into a mass spectrometer, which was selectively set to detect only the Cl2O2 that came through. The researchers then irradiated the beam with laser light, which depleted the Cl2O2 molecules with a probability proportional to their absorption cross section. With the help of reference molecules, the scientists could then determine the precise absorption values for two specific wavelengths available in the stratosphere. The researchers report their results in Science2. The absorption values they obtained are much larger than those reported by Pope, and agree well with previously calculated values. Reassuringly, they point to a photolysis rate that is large enough to support established models of ozone depletion and suggest that chlorine-catalysed ozone loss works even more efficiently in the polar stratosphere than thought. â¦.â

"â¦.Impurity does pose a problem, and their method seems like a rigorous way of getting round it," says Pope, now at the Centre for Atmospheric Science at the University of Cambridge, UK. "If their numbers are correct, ours were wrongâ¦.â

What is really interesting about this is how it illustrates the mind of the denier. The earlier results â as you suggested â seem to provide fodder for the deniers. However, later studies overturned the earlier work, and the author of the original work has even come out and supported the methodology of the new study and admitted that he could have been wrong.

But of course, no equivalent ethical admission has been forthcoming from the denial community. I think that speaks volumes.


And with regard to the paper about TSI and the solar irradiance spectrum, I â and most people in the âAGW proponentâ community - are really confused why deniers are supposedly excited about this paper. As you noted from the abstract, the paper suggests this:

â...The model predicts an increase of 1.25 W/m2, or about 0.09%, in the 11-year averaged solar total irradiance since the Maunder minimum....â

If you had read some of the earlier work by the same authors (which are referenced in the paper) - specifically this paper:

Krivova, N. A.; Balmaceda, L.; Solanki, S. K., Reconstruction of solar total irradiance since 1700 from the surface magnetic flux, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Volume 467, Issue 1, May III 2007, pp.335-346

you will have noted that the authors previously stated this:

â....The model predicts an increase in the solar total irradiance since the Maunder minimum of 1.3^+0.2_-0.4 Wm-2.....â

You will note that the researchers have revised their earlier estimate of the increase in TSI DOWNWARDS (ie 1.3 â 1.25 W/m2). You will also have noted that there have been a few articles written about the work of this institute, which discusses the findings with the authors, with the following conclusions:

â.....Two scientists (ie Krivova and Solanki) from the MPI for Solar System Research have calculated for the last 150 years the Sunâs main parameters affecting climate, using current measurements and the newest models: the total radiation, the ultraviolet output, and the Sunâs magnetic field (which modulates the cosmic ray intensity). They come to the conclusion that the variations on the Sun run parallel to climate changes for most of that time, indicating that the Sun has indeed influenced the climate in the past. Just how large this influence is, is subject to further investigation. However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming.....â

â.....This comparison shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar influence on climate cannot have been dominant. In particular, the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30% to the steep temperature increase that has taken place since then, irrespective of which of the three considered channels is the dominant one determining Sun-climate interactions: tropospheric heating caused by changes in total solar irradiance, stratospheric chemistry influenced by changes in the solar UV spectrum, or cloud coverage affected by the cosmic ray flux....â

So there you go. Happy to help with your queries.

Oh oh!!

It looks as though NOAA agrees with NASA. 2010 WAS the hottest on record.

That would tend to disagree with morons who like to claim that "....It won't be the warmest on record, not even close....."

I guess that any moron who disagrees can always write to both NASA and NOAA with his/her criticisms. After all, they would be meaningless unless he/she was to do that.

Alternatively, your average moron can just: "....not trust anything that radical socialist says...."

Just like a creationist really. If you don't like the evidence, just disbelieve it.

Mandas i was more interested in the increasing UV levels, according to this paper are they increasing?


The answer to your question is - it depends on what timescale you are talking about.

Have they increased since 1850? Yes.

Have they increased since 1950? No

They are essentially tracking at similar levels of change as TSI. As the quotes from my previous post indicate, that means they can have no effect on the recently observed temperature increases - but then, the authors said that explicitly.

Here is an article written by Andrew Bolt where he talks about the accuracy of the models re rainfall.…

He gives you statements from various experts and politicians stating how the drought was caused by AGW and how we should expect to see more droughts into the future.

The comments by the experts have directly affected policy here in Australia in recent years.

What we are now seeing is people saying this flood has all the hall marks of AGW as it is an extreme event and he questions the honesty and intregrity of these people.

Of course not one of these people have mentioned a near record La Nina spurred on by a -ve PDO but of course to discuss this would be to discuss the science and not fear mongering propaganda.

My question to all is when is a prediction considered to be wrong and should fall back positions like "extreme events" be allowed by people like this to save face?

I got up at a sparrows fart this morning (thats really early) to watch the seahawks take on the bears, i had to leave for work half way through the 3rd quarter thank God because the seahawks were playing like Betty White, you know like in the snickers commercial.

I think in the end we added a bit of scoreboard respectability but all in all i am sure Skip is bitterly disappointed.

Link to AGW: It was really, really cold with snow.


I have a Seattle Seahawk sweatshirt at home somewhere (if my wife hasn't thrown it out). I bought it about 20 years ago when I had a work visit to Boeing, and had to buy something warm because it was such a cold day. But from my very limited knowledge of NFL they are not and never had been much of a team (I am sure skip and you will say otherwise though!).

I guess Seattle can get pretty cold this time of year. I believe the average is something like 3 inches of snow falling in January, with about a week of below freezing minimum temperatures. Does that seem right?

Could everyone please, please, please click on the link below.

I just discovered that our mate Dick has his own youtube channel, where he has all his uploads and favourites. This is one of the favourites.

If you have any doubts about Dick's sanity, they will be quickly dispelled when you realise who one of his heroes is:


I am going to give you one last chance to demonstrate that you have even a scintilla of integrity. On 17 November (#262), I provided a quote which suggested:

â....2010 is set to be the warmest on record....â (NOAA)

And predictably, you said this (#264):

â....Since the year is not over yet, I find that rather optimistic, and unrealistic, eventually to be shown false. It won't be the warmest on record, not even close....â

You added to this on 6 December (#45), with this:

â....2010 will be remembered for just two warm months, attributable to the El Nino effect, with the rest of the year being nothing but average, or less than average temperature.....â

Then NASA came out and said that â yes â 2010 WAS the hottest year on record.

Sadly, but predictably once again, you attacked the man not the ball (despite your protestations against us for doing the same to Anthony Watts etc, by stating that you would:

â....not trust anything that radical socialist (Hanson) said....â

Then NOAA came out and agreed with NASA. 2010 WAS the hottest year on record (link at #57 â HTTACS thread).

Once again, you denied the evidence.

Now, the WMO has issued their statement agreeing with NASA and NOAA that 2010 was the hottest year on record.

So here is your chance. Show you are capable of admitting you are wrong. Make a very simple statement that you were in error. Itâs not hard. We know you are wrong. You know you are wrong. Continuing to deny the facts does not serve you well. You wonât lose any credibility if you make the admission â but you will do much to confirm others opinions of you if you donât.

Don't forget that

The summer of 2010 was the hottest year on record [for Moscow]. --Richard's blog

Mandas, I'll give you odds on a bet that Richard responds to me regarding the Moscow data and ignores you altogether.

Eventually this all has to end, of course, but I do want to help Coby (if he wants it) to write a summary account of Richard's lunacy for a heading called "The Curious Case of Richard Wakefield" or some such addendum, and then Coby can close his account.

I'm still having fun but probably no one else is.


Glad you're having fun but I think you are right about everyone else.

On the subject of guest posts, I have also prepared one showing the changes in climate here in Adelaide. I have been holding off giving it to coby - he may or may not want to use it - but I might send it to you later to see what you think.

You will have your work cut out for you documenting all Dick's foolishness. It will be a VERY long post.


Can we start a new thread as a continuation of this one. You could call it "How to talk to a creationist", and we could put all of Dick's posts here.

It might save the rest of the blog from turning into the cesspit of bullshit that has happened to the other threads.

I take a break from diapers at 2 am and this is my reward?

I stopped reading after this paragraph, Crakar:

He [Trenberth] is implying that the IPCC says that scientists have âunequivocallyâ shown that humans are the cause of weather ills, and if I donât take that as an article of faith, itâs my job to prove that we are not the cause of floods in Brisbane.

If your target doesn't really say something dumb enough that you can feel superior in refuting it, just invent something and claim he's "implied" it.

Please, for the love of God, stop reading these fools.

I've already spoken with Mandas on this matter. Much as he appreciates your decency in lending him your Caravan, we are sacrificing you to the Wagga Wagga god when I come out to Australia. We've agreed to allow you to live long enough to watch St. Kilda win another cup; it seemed only fair.

This buys you time to address any unfinished business (Fosters un-drunk . . . sheep un-shagged)

I'm just the messenger.


Its a damn shame you stopped reading when you did otherwise you would have read (with horror) that the darling of AGW was caught red handed committing the heinous crime of plagiarism.

By the way i think you need to re read the little bit you did or maybe read a little more to understand the bull shit from Trenberth.

But once again i know i ask too much, anything that smells remotely like anti AGW facts is immediately ignored (picture you running through the house fingers in ears screaming LA LA LA LA).

Trenberth is a plagiarist pure and simple so i expect you to treat him exactly the way you treated me when accused of the same crime, of course i know you wont because you like all your comrades here operate with a very high degree of double standards.


I - like skip - opened the link and saw SPPI and immediately stopped reading.

However - IF Trenberth has committed plagiarism then he should be condemned for it. But I am rather confused by your statements about us 'clinging to shit' or that he is somehow the 'darling of AGW'. In what are you basing that?

So, as far as your claims about double standards go, they are totally without substance. I condemn ANYONE who commits plagiarism.

Do you have any other points, or do you think that this means anything?

Now -

Well Mandas there is no point pontificating about plagiarism i suggest you get over you affliction with SPPI and read the article, well there is 4 articles the last two are by McIntyre.

In fact the evidence of plagiarism is quite damning Trenberth in his pre print speech to the AMS clearly plagiarises Hasselman (sp) and the only reason why he changed it was on the advice from Mc Intyre. So one can assume now that you condemn Trenberth?

Everything you post here is dripping with double standards Mandas, totally without substance LOL.

In the other thread you wish away a study that shows the oceans are not warming by saying the journal is crap...and....and....and it only looks at a small section of ocean but you cant show me a data set that measures the entire ocean all at once that shows the oceans are warming.

Of course we both know the only data set that can do this is the ARGO network but that shows a cooling trend so we must now debunk that data so in other words you have nothing but yet you claim so much.

You crap on about reading studies and when i do you claim i have not in a feeble attempt to discredit, you pick and choose the studies you accept and the studies you reject.

You pick and choose the scientists who's words of wisdom you take as gospel and the others you call names once again in an effort to discredit.

Your claim there is no substance to your double standards what a laugh you are sometimes Mandas.


What part of "I condemn ANYONE who commits plagiarism" don't you understand?

Jesus crakar, you are so used to me disagreeing with you that you arc up even when I agree with you. You need to learn to read.

" pick and choose the studies you accept and the studies you reject...."

On the subject of double standards...............

And crakar....

".....In the other thread you wish away a study that shows the oceans are not warming by saying the journal is crap...and....and...."

I will give you my next year's salary if you can show me where I said that.

If you can't, you apologise for being a fuckwit.

So Skip you took a break from changing nappies read this and stopped.

"He [Trenberth] is implying that the IPCC says that scientists have âunequivocallyâ shown that humans are the cause of weather ills, and if I donât take that as an article of faith, itâs my job to prove that we are not the cause of floods in Brisbane."

This is what Trenberth said

"Given that global warming is âunequivocalâ, and is âvery likelyâ due to human activities to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence."

I challenge you to find a quote in the IPCC 2007 report that says global warming is unequivocal and is very likely due to human activities.

In other words Trenberth is full of shit just like your babies nappies. But dont worry yourself about it because if you dont reda stuff like this then it never happened and you can continue maintaining the faith.

By the way i follow Geelong not Saint Kilda but i know its the thought that counts.

Messenger or lap dog?

Did not take long for the swear words to re emerge did it Mandas, your true colors are showing once again for all to see (it was easier than i thought actually).

In regards to plagiarism, rather than proclaiming to be pure as driven snow on the subject why dont you read what Mc Intyre says then have a look at what Trenberth originally wrote and tell me if he did commit plagiarism. If so then condemn him, dont waste my time telling me what should or should not happen.

When it comes to double standards i think you hold that crown, anyone can produce a study to support their own POV the hard part is accepting a study which shows the opposite and this is where you fail spectacularly.

You read a study, wave it around as confirmation of your beliefs but if someone produces a study which casts a shadow of doubt on it you discredit it by any means possible.

By the way hows the search going for that ocean temp study going? ANd yes i will do a Skip here and hound you until you either produce one or admit you are full of shit.

".....Did not take long for the swear words to re emerge did it Mandas....."

So? I have a potty mouth - get over it fuckwit.

Now how about you address the issue and either show me where I said the journal was crap or admit your error and apologise.

"....When it comes to double standards i think you hold that crown, anyone can produce a study to support their own POV the hard part is accepting a study which shows the opposite and this is where you fail spectacularly...."

And in what way have I failed to accept the study? I was VERY clear about that - I disagree with NOTHING the authors have written. Get that crakar - nothing.

The only difference here is that I read and understood the study and know what the point of the study was and what its limitations are. You..... didn't.


No one beats me when it comes to a potty mouth, its only out of respect for Coby that i contain myself.

You need to think outside the box a little Mandas when i say double standards i dont mean on this one study i mean every study we have discussed over the last two yeras (two years is it really that long?).

The last paragragh illistrates the attitude you have to others around you. I can picture you strutting your stuff down the halls of the Adelaide Uni in your tweed coat and pipe at the ready.

I get it Mandas you think as a scientist (of goat shit and the like) that you understand climate papers and me a lowly ex RAAF member too stupid so you view me with contempt.

So once again i ask can you provide a study that shows the oceans have warmed from 1957 to 1998 which covers the vast oceans of the world? Or are you applying another double standard?

Just a question, crakar. Is that SPPI article talking about Trenberth's draft of a talk where he omitted the quote marks for a paragraph?

iirc, that draft had a couple more rewritings where all those little bits and pieces were fixed up. Is that the one?

".....No one beats me when it comes to a potty mouth, its only out of respect for Coby that i contain myself....."

I didn't realise it was a competition.

"...I can picture you strutting your stuff down the halls of the Adelaide Uni in your tweed coat and pipe at the ready...."

I am more comfortable in jeans and a t-shirt thanks. And I prefer a bong to a pipe.

"...and me a lowly ex RAAF member too stupid so you view me with contempt....."

Have you forgotten that I am an ex-RAAF member as well?

"....So once again i ask can you provide a study that shows the oceans have warmed from 1957 to 1998 which covers the vast oceans of the world?...."

Never even looked for one, so I guess that's a no. I could look if you like, or you could try doing some research for a change. Try Google Scholar rather than wattsupbybutt, jonova or the SPPI.


And how are you going with admitting your error and apologising for suggesting I said the journal was crap (it was skip you know - not me)

Ahh - its okay. I know you never admit to making a mistake. That would require integrity and would be completely out of character. And you would be doing it all the time.

"....So once again i ask can you provide a study that shows the oceans have warmed from 1957 to 1998 which covers the vast oceans of the world?...."

Well this one shows warming over the time period but only for a small section (you may find it familiar) quote: "...maximum upper-ocean warming found in 1998 to only 0.15°C for the period 1957-2005, slightly higher than half of that found during the 1957-1998 period." Velez-Belchi et al (2008) Changes in the temperature and salinity tendencies of the upper subtropical North Atlantic Ocean. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2008, abstract #OS33B-1355

Globally? Well there's this:

Which references the following:

Ishii, M., M. Kimoto, K. Sakamoto, and S.I. Iwasaki, 2006: Steric sea level changes estimated from historical ocean subsurface temperature and salinity analyses. J. Oceanogr., 62(2), 155â170.

Levitus, S., J.I. Antonov, and T.P. Boyer, 2005a: Warming of the World Ocean, 1955-2003. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L02604, doi:10.1029/2004GL021592

Willis, J.K., D. Roemmich, and B. Cornuelle, 2004: Interannual variability in upper-ocean heat content, temperature and thermosteric expansion on global scales. J. Geophys. Res., 109, C12036, doi:10.1029/2003JC002260.

I suggest you start with those perhaps?

Oh, and crakar. Don't forget to answer adelady's query @ #81.

And Crakar:

"Close minded" is when you reject something perfunctorily, without reason--sort of like calling Hansen a "socialist".

I "reject" Knox and Douglas for specific reasons:

(1) The relative prestige of their journal relative to *Nature* is next to nil.
(2) They use *fewer* data than the Lyman piece, and as Ian pointed out, simply rejected one dataset out of hand.
(3) They claim "cooling" even though their own error range dictates nonsignificance of their "trend", showing they are publishing with the very *intent* of attracting gut-shot AGW denier attention, not just dipassionately report facts. And wow did it work on you.
(4) Even what they "discovered" (recent flattening of "ocean" surface temps) is something you could have known from reading the *Nature* piece. Its old news.

These are all facts, and pointing them out is not being "close minded"; its explaining a preference.

You don't just get to copy and paste an article from a denier website, and if someone provides critique, cry foul and claim "close-mindedness".


The interesting thing about this issue of variability in Atlantic SSTs is just how well it highlights the close mindedness of deniers like crakar and wherever it was that he sourced the material.

They look at a single paper (sorry, two) that shows a short term decline in SST on a single transect in a single ocean, and conclude that AGW has been officially discredited. This despite the obvious limitations that have been pointed out to them, and despite the HUGE body of work (with HUGE datasets and accumulated evidence) which point to internal variability in SSTs across the world (not just the Atlantic). The denier simply ignores this data, and cherry picks a period in order to draw the trend line they want - and voila!

Unfortunately for crakar and his ilk, it only takes a few seconds research (not crakar's strong point obviously) to uncover dozens of papers which not only explain these mechanisms, but which actually PREDICT a decline in SSTs at the time and location of the studies that crakar linked to. I wonder why wattsupmybutt didn't talk about those as well? Can anyone think of an explanation? I will suggest it can only be either incompetence or deliberately hiding data (but which is worse?). What do others think?

Here are just a couple to be going on with (but there are LOTS of others):……

I await the next piece of denialist crap and cherry picked data that crakar trawls from wattsupmybutt, jonova or the SPPI.

Oops - I guess I have to wait a month. After all, crakar assures us all that he only looks at watts once a month or so, isn't that right crakar?

Chris S in 85 here is my response to Adelady in 81.

Why dont you read the article and find out for yourself, if i tell you, you wont believe me.

Mandas in 82,

We can make a comp if you want.

I do know you are ex raaf as well

The fact that you are a pot head answers a lot of questions, explains a lot of things.

So you have never looked for a study that you claim exists? Maybe you were stoned when you that.


I think you will find i have offered appologies in the past and in this case you are right Skip and Ian did say those things and not you so i will retract my original statement which implied you said them.

Chris in 84,

Globally? Well there's this:

I dont think you have been following the gibberish from Mandas very well, its OK looks like he is stoned most of the time so its not your fault.

Lets recap Chris, Mandas disputed a study based on the fact that it was of a small region of ocean whic in itself is a fair comment and i agreed this study cannot be used to gauge trends/changes in OHC. However Mandas then claimed that thousands of independant scientists stated that ocean temps have risen and it is caused by AGW.

Now you and i both know this is just the hash talking so i challenged him to provide a study which shows a rise in temp resulting from data measured from all over the worlds oceans.

Since then Mandas has fallen silent on the subject similar to the Richard Wakefield incedent that no one talks about and whilst he has ducked out for some munchies you have come to his rescue. Whilst i find this sweet of you your appeal to authority has fallen flat on its face.

See the link below it is the graphical representation of where all the data came from, the same data the IPCC use to proclaim the worlds oceans have been warming.…

This is the opening paragragh below the gragh, "An example of the distribution of ocean temperature observations in both space and time is shown in Figure 5.A.1. This figure shows the in situ temperature data distribution for two five-year periods used to create estimates of global heat content change (e.g., Figure 5.1), one with a low (a) and one with a high (b) density of observations. It is clear that parts of the ocean, in particular in the SH, are not well sampled even in periods of high observation density. Hence, sampling errors resulting from the lack of data are potentially important but cannot easily be quantified."

Notice how little coverage there is in the SH, when you consider this is where most of the water is i think it is pretty significant.

So in summary

Pot head Mandas debunks a study due to lack of data.

Claims "Thousands" of scientists have shown OHC rising due to AGW

Then claims he has no knowledge of such studies nor the "thousand" scientists.

You appeal to authority but the appeal MUST be rejected because the mighty reefer smoking Mandas has decreed how much data is needed before it can be accepted.

So the only data we have that can be used as an accurate gauge of OHC is the ARGO bouys and after 10 years they show very little change. Anything beyond this is pure speculation.

Hows your dick Mandas?, still bleeding?

"....Pot head Mandas debunks a study due to lack of data...."

Actually, mandas did NOT debunk the study. I will say this for the third (fourth?) time - I have no problem with the study and think it is probably accurate. The problem I have is with your interpretation of it, which is totally at odds with what the authors were REALLY saying. Not that there is anything unusual about that - you don't have an opinion of your own and Watts and his cronies are just wrong as usual. I don't know why you keep reading him every day.

"....Hows your dick Mandas?, still bleeding?..."

The blood is not mine - it's yours. And you can work out where it came from. Need an inflatable pillow?

Skip in 86,

I think i have already answered your post (see above posts).

However you do mention in your reasons for rejection something that remainds me of something unrelated to OHC.

You said, (2) They use *fewer* data than the Lyman piece, and as Ian pointed out, simply rejected one dataset out of hand.

Now i am not going to dispute what you have said here (frankly i see no point) but do find Santers rejection of the radiosonde thermometer measurements for GPS data to be just as unpalatable?

Mandas come back when you have straightened up with the "thousands" of independant scientific studies that show OHC is rising due to AGW studies that use data collected from all the worlds oceans.

Until the shut up you are becoming an embarrassment.

"....Until the shut up you are becoming an embarrassment...."

Being an embarassment has never stopped you from speaking, so I think I will just ignore your generously given advice. But thanks anyway.

On the subject of embarassment, I just want to reiterate this comment by you on the other thread:

"....No, i might look there (wattsupmybutt) once a month if i am bored. Let me just say for the record if someone has a personal opinion (watts,nova etc) and i bother to read it i will take it with a pinch of salt. If they link to a paper of interest then i will read the paper...."

If that is not the most embarassing, bald face lie ever written then I will run naked down Rundle Mall at lunchtime. We know you have favourite links to wattsupmybutt, jonova and the SPPI on your computer and that you check them frequently, if not every day. And you NEVER take anything they say with a pinch of salt. They are your gods and you salivate whenever you read something that you think you can use against us.

And please stop the bullshit about reading papers. You have already admitted on numerous occasions that you can't access them behind paywalls. So which one of those two contradictory statements - that you read them or that you can't access them - is the lie? Because sure as shit one of them is.


Any advice i give is free so therefore you can take it or leave.

This great stuff,

"If that is not the most embarassing, bald face lie ever written then I will run naked down Rundle Mall at lunchtime. We know you have favourite links to wattsupmybutt, jonova and the SPPI on your computer and that you check them frequently, if not every day. And you NEVER take anything they say with a pinch of salt. They are your gods and you salivate whenever you read something that you think you can use against us."

Exactly how do you know what i have in my favourites list and who is "we"? You and Skip? another person who claims to have mystic powers of observation.

Mandas are all papers behind a paywall? No they are not but you knew that so there goes another lie by you.

Now onto more important matters, i realise that when you claimed there were "thousands" of scientists that can show OHC is rising due to AGW you were as high as a kite and then later claimed to have no knowledge of the "thousand" of scientists or indeed any study claiming such things after coming down from your drug induced high.

So just for the record Mandas, to the best of your knowledge is there a study that supports the theory that AGW is causing OHC to rise?

".....Exactly how do you know what i have in my favourites list and who is "we"? You and Skip? another person who claims to have mystic powers of observation....."

So do you deny it?

Slow down with the posts Mandas i am struggling to keep up, do you take steriods as well?

I already have you nincompoop, remember when i told you i look at WATTS about once a month?.....remember?

Then you are lying.

What kind of logic is that Mandas, the same kind used by the fairies you see at the bottom of the garden during a bad trip on magic mushrooms?

Just for the record i look at Andrew Bolt (i like his style), ice cap, SPPI (not always as they dont update articles all that often) and i have been known to add the odd post on Nova and here of course.

Speaking of Bolt we have this…

Now correct me if i am wrong Mandas but leading up to,during and after the last election we spoke a little about failing IQ tests. I do believe you voted for the moronic greens thus you were part of the reason why we failed.

Now since then we have had Bob Brown blaming AGW on the fires in victoria, agw on the floods in qld and now we have Milne blaming AGw on the cyclone.

Question, due regret voting for dickheads like this?

"....What kind of logic is that Mandas...."

Excellent logic. We all know you read those idiots on a regular basis. And all your denials won't change facts. So you may as well stop lying about it. Besides, why are you embarassed to admit that you read them? I know I would be, but in your case that is just par for the course.

"....the same kind used by the fairies you see at the bottom of the garden during a bad trip on magic mushrooms?..."

So you can't tell the difference between mushrooms and marijuana huh? Just for you - mushrooms are the fruiting body of a fungus, while marijuana is a plant. If you want to get high, you EAT mushrooms and you SMOKE marijuana. Although of course you can eat marijuana if you bake it into cookies etc (I have a good brownies recipe - want to borrow it?). There are other ways of using them, but they are the basics for a beginner such as you.

"...Just for the record i look at Andrew Bolt..."

Why doesn't that surprise me? He has even LESS credibility than Anthony Watts and I wouldn't even wrap my fish and chips in anything he wrote. But keep on reading him and having your theology confirmed in your own mind (if not in reality).

" were part of the reason why we failed..."

Failed at what?

"....Question, due regret voting for dickheads like this?..."

Since I don't live in Tasmania then I can't actually remember voting for them. But if you are referring to the fact that I voted for the Greens, then I am very happy thanks. Are you still happy you voted for a fundamentalist creationist with no integrity?

"Excellent logic. We all know you read those idiots on a regular basis....."

For all those that consider themselves to the "We" in the above statement please for the record can you stae your name.



"So you can't tell the difference between mushrooms and marijuana huh? Just for you - mushrooms are the fruiting body of a fungus, while marijuana is a plant. If you want to get high, you EAT mushrooms and you SMOKE marijuana. Although of course you can eat marijuana if you bake it into cookies etc (I have a good brownies recipe - want to borrow it?). There are other ways of using them, but they are the basics for a beginner such as you."

So now you know more about drug abuse than me, my God is there anything you dont anything about Mandas? By the way is drug addiction rife in the world of academia or are you the exception?

For the other readers i should clarify Bolt would be considered a political journalist and a vast majotiry of his writings reflect this. Mandas chooses to abuse the mans character based on his negative writings towards the money wasted by the Green led Green/Labor coalition on various matters including green schemes that cost truck loads.

"Failed at what?" Failed the IQ test!!!! For the love of God man put down the bong and concentrate....jesus fucking wept.

"Since I don't live in Tasmania then I can't actually remember voting for them. But if you are referring to the fact that I voted for the Greens, then I am very happy thanks. Are you still happy you voted for a fundamentalist creationist with no integrity?"

Now you see here a person with a stable state of mind would have made the assumption that as you live in South Australia and Brown and Milne are senators from Tasmania then there is no way you could have voted for them.

I am happy that you are still happy Mandas, he my be a fundamentalist creationist but he did not piss away over 50 billion (and counting) on shit. He did send the country so broke that he had to increase taxes to pay for the QLD flood with more to come after the cyclone hits.

But we are digressing Mandas, have you found that list of a "thousend" scientists yet?


"....So now you know more about drug abuse than me, my God is there anything you dont anything about Mandas? By the way is drug addiction rife in the world of academia or are you the exception?...."

I would love to discuss this with you right now, but I am at home and have already had my first glass of wine and my wife is packing the bong as I type.

Is it just a thousand that I have to come up with, or do you still want thousands? Last count I could only find 957. So my apologies.

"....he my be a fundamentalist creationist but he did not piss away over 50 billion (and counting) on shit. He did send the country so broke that he had to increase taxes to pay for the QLD flood with more to come after the cyclone hits...."

Ok crakar. Try to use correct grammar so we all understand you. Abbott didn't send the country broke despite your assertion that he did, because he is the leader of the opposition and does not control any taxation revenue. But we all know what Treasury thought of his election promises don't we?

Oh, crakar

NO-ONE doubts that you read denialist websites on a regular basis.

Do you really think that anyone would support your idiotic challenge at #101?


In regard to #99 about the article by your lying right-wing nut-job mate, Andrew Bolt, it seems he is even better at cherry-picking and quote mining that you are.

In regard to the Queensland floods and bushfires etc, you may wish to have a read of what the IPCC reports PREDICT for Australia:

"A range of GCM and regional modelling studies in recent years have identified a tendency for daily rainfall extremes to increase under enhanced greenhouse conditions in the Australian region (e.g., Hennessy et al., 1997; Whetton et al., 2002; McInnes et al., 2003; Watterson and Dix, 2003; Hennessy et al., 2004b; Suppiah et al., 2004; Kharin and Zwiers, 2005). Commonly, return periods of extreme rainfall events halve in late 21st-century simulations. This tendency can apply even when average rainfall is simulated to decrease, but not necessarily when this decrease is marked (see Timbal, 2004). Recently, Abbs (2004) dynamically downscaled to a resolution of 7 km current and enhanced greenhouse cases of extreme daily rainfall occurrence in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland as simulated by the CSIRO GCM. The downscaled extreme events for a range of return periods compared well with observations and the enhanced greenhouse simulations for 2040 showed increases of around 30% in magnitude, with the 1-in-40 year event becoming the 1-in-15 year event....."

Or this:

"...Increases in extreme daily rainfall are likely where average rainfall either increases or decreases slightly. For example, the intensity of the 1-in-20 year daily rainfall event is likely to increase by up to 10% in parts of South Australia by the year 2030 (McInnes et al., 2002), by 5 to 70% by the year 2050 in Victoria (Whetton et al., 2002), by up to 25% in northern Queensland by 2050 (Walsh et al., 2001) and by up to 30% by 2040 in south-east Queensland (Abbs, 2004). In NSW, the intensity of the 1-in-40 year event increases by 5 to 15% by 2070 (Hennessy et al., 2004). The frequency of severe tropical cyclones (Categories 3, 4 and 5) on the east Australian coast increases 22% for the IS92a scenario (IPCC, 1992) from 2000 to 2050, with a 200 km southward shift in the cyclone genesis region, leading to greater exposure in south-east Queensland and north-east NSW (Leslie and Karoly, 2007)....."

".....An increase in fire danger in Australia is likely to be associated with a reduced interval between fires, increased fire intensity, a decrease in fire extinguishments and faster fire spread (Tapper, 2000; Williams et al., 2001; Cary, 2002). In south-east Australia, the frequency of very high and extreme fire danger days is likely to rise 4-25% by 2020 and 15-70% by 2050 (Hennessy et al., 2006)....."…

Or you may wish to check out the Garnaut Report:

"....Queensland's coastal settlements are anticipated to suffer extreme infrastructure impacts from increased storm surge and localised flash flooding....."

Question - So who's suffering from IQ failure now?
Answer - Andrew Bolt's readers, climate change deniers, and those who voted for Tony Abbott (actually, they are all the same group!)

This is not really a climate post, but I just wanted to wish everyone a happy Easter (do Americans say that or is it happy holidays again?). I am off on an break with the university and will be spending the next week or so underwater with the sharks and seals (seriously!). Its ANZAC Day in Australia on Monday (sort of like Memorial day for Americans), so we all get an extra day's holiday on Tuesday.

See you all in a week or so.

I have watched American politics with interest for many years, and like most normal people, I am continually amazed by the conspiracy theorists and utter lunacy of many of the players involved.

The 'birther' movement is one of the stranger groups - and they even have a new champion in that idiot of idiots, Donald Trump.

If you were sane, you would think that the recent presentation of the Presidents birth certificate would kill off these lunatic ideas. But of course, no amount of evidence will ever convince the most hard core conspiracy theorist or denier.

I see eerie parallels between the birther movement and the climate denial community. Both are almost solely the province of the far right lunatic fringe, both are populated with people who lack teeth and neurons, and no amount of evidence will ever persuade them that they are wrong.

I get it now. Snowman, vernon, crakar, Dick, MoB - they are all birthers!

Please note,
Two requirements to be eligible to become President of the US.

1) age of 35
2) natural born citizen

Both require a birth certificate.

This should have been the first item checked years ago.
He was gambling on a political ploy.
It backfired.
He brought this on himself.

Maybe things are different in the good 'ol US of A. But here in Australia, if you want a passport or a drivers' licence or any of those things, you need to produce your birth certificate.

Now, I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Obama probably has both of those things, which strongly suggests to me - unless things ARE different in the US - that he has produced his birth certificate in the past in order to obtain those documents.

So ummmmmmmm - why is this even an issue? It can only be because birthers - and those that make statement like Paul on this thread and snowman on the other thread - have got their heads so far up their arses that they can see what they ate for breakfast?

For f**k's sake guys. Give it a rest. Obama did NOT bring this on himself - the idiot media and moronic right-wing conspiracy theorists brought this one on. And since you two are not in the media, I guess that puts you in the latter category.

I can't remember ANY president other than this one having to go address the same stupidity. So is it because you are just a moronic, right-wing nut job, or is it because you are racist?

Re: producing a b'certificate - Obama produced the only legally required version of a birth certificate years ago when this stuff first surfaced and it is the only one the state of hawaii normally provides (a so-called "short form" certificate). The "issue" for the birthers was it was not the "long form" certificate like what most other states what? Hawaiian governers and vital statistic folks all assured everyone that the long form version was on file just like every other Hawaiian born citizen. Now they have obviously made an exception at Obama's request and released a certified copy. It will not appease conspiracy theorists, but I figure it was better to do it at this point anyway.

Coby makes the point you failed to understand.
The conspiracy theorists now look like goofs.

Surely this is desperation on the cusp of madness? Establish birthers as nut jobs, make weak tenuous connections to deniers and throw in a hint of racism for good measure and viola Mandas's fantasy world is complete. What a dickhead you are.

Just for the record:

I do not agree with the magic bullet theory

I accept man landed on the moon

I do not think a UFO crashed at Roswell, (although i would like to know what those Iranian F16's were chasing).

I do not care if Obama is a yank or not however if he has produced a birth certificate then so be it. By the way John Mc Cain is a US citizen but was born in Panama so there was some problems there for him on this issue.

The first time i look here in ages and i see some dickheads dont change.

By the way Snowman i see Chelsea was lucky to get the win the only thing i have to look forward to now is how long West Ham will languish in the championship league :-((((


No - I understood the point just fine. And the conspiracy theorists ALWAYS looked like goofs; although that is being kind. This never should have been an issue worthy of anything. It just says a lot about the people involved that they would give it any level of credibility. The 'issue' for birthers has nothing to do with the long or short form of the birth certificate, and has everything to do with them being a few sandwiches short of a picnic, and being far right-wing, racist nutjobs. As crakar has so ably pointed out, Obama was born in the USA, but McCain was not (is the Panama Canal zone part of the USA now?). Why were Obama's credentials questioned, but not McCains? 10 seconds to answer.............

And it looks as though the prodigal son has returned. And with a contribution up to his usual standard. You 'accept' that man landed on the moon do you crakar? Glad we cleared that one up. NASA will be reassured.

What about JFK? Princess Diana? The Philadelphia experiment? Loch Ness monster? Bigfoot? AIDS? Da Vinci code? Or is the great 'AGW conspiracy invented by Al Gore - abetted by Phil Mann and the fake hockey stick - to make squillions and instigate a global socialist government your only concern?

The prodigal son has not returned he is simply defending his name against slanderous speculation from the likes of you.

Why were Obamas credentials questioned when Mc Cains were not? is another misnomer spread amongst the ether by the likes of you.

What about JFK? the answer is in the previous post re "magic bullet theory" i suggest you stop reading AGW propagander and start reading history (maybe thats your problem?)

I listed but a few conspiracy theories as you seemed to think there is a connection between them and ones deniability towards AGW but in your last post you seem to have abandoned this line of atteck and are now trying to turn it around in an attempt to hoist yourself back up into your ivory tower.

Once again your posts follow no logical path but merely flip flop around in a vain attempt to gain the ascendency on your opponent.

I will give the conspiracy theory in regards to this issue, Trump is an idiot but a useful one, he represents the republicans and calls out Obama on his birth certificate, Obama produces said certificate making Trump and by extension the republican party look like fools. Trump goes back to making sitcoms and Obama looks the goods for a second term. Job well done by all.

Sadly the American people have not had good government not to mention free and fair elections for years so they will not see this for what it is and they will be left with a choice between Obama who should hand back his Noble and that stupid woman from Alaska.

So - all I have to do to get crakar to return from summer hibernation and continue where he left of with his usual gibberish is to make a disparaging remark about him?

Skip - it looks as though I have the same power over crakar that you have over snowman. Maybe we can use this somehow.....


It's typical of the left here to use "racism" when the discussion is going south for them.

I know you're better equipped than that.

His parents were US.
BHO were not.
If they were, then all were wrong to question from the beginning.


Two things.

1 - What makes you think I am, 'of the left'?
2 - Why do you think Obama's birth credentials were questioned, while McCain's were not?

Don't bother to answer, I will do it for you:

1 - I'm not.
2 - Given that birthers (read 'morons') are all from the far right, are mostly teabaggers or members of similarly deluded organisations, all of which have exhibited racist tendencies, I think that it is perfectly reasonable to equate the moronic birther movement and everyone who supports it - even tacitly - with racism.

Or perhaps you would like to provide an alternate explanation other than your previous claims of it being a 'political ploy' and he 'brought it on himself', whatever that is supposed to mean.

1] I said left, here (in the US)
2]asked and answered, see above

Paul, your answer that Obama's father was born overseas and therefore it is legitimate to be a birther does not cut it in any way.

Thomas Jefferson, Herbert Hoover and Woodrow Wilson all had mothers that were born overseas.
Both Andrew Jackson's parents were born overseas.

So - let me ask the question again. Why would you question Obama's legitimacy? And once again, he did NOT 'bring this on himself'. Racist right-wing nut jobs and moronic media outlets like Fox News (and oxymoron if ever there was one) brought this on.

a] see post 117, and read it slowly.
b] as for anyone questioning his legitimacy, see post 108.

then drop the racism shtick.


You may find the following helpful also, but again, read slowly.

Citizenship status of Barack Obama's parents

The forwarded email asserts that because Obama's Kenyan father wasn't a U.S. citizen, and because his mother, who was a citizen, didn't fulfill the supposed legal requirement of "resid[ing] in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16," Obama himself was therefore not a citizen at birth.

That is false on two counts:

1) Obama was born on U.S. soil â in Honolulu, Hawaii â and was therefore a citizen at birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment (and the principle of jus soli).

2) The stated residency requirement, in effect between 1952 and 1986, applied only to parents of individuals born outside the United States.

Therefore Barack Obama is, in fact, a U.S. citizen.


Read both posts, repeatedly. And unless you are very poor at expressing yourself, you have - on a number of occasions - passed comment that suggest you believe there were justifiable reasons to question Obama's legitimacy. You said so at post #108 (political ploy, backfired, first item that should have been checked, etc), and you said so at #117 (parents not US).

If not, then I apologise, but I am going to suggest that anyone would have read both of those posts in exactly the same manner.

But as for the 'racist shtick', I am going to stay exactly where I am thanks. The vast majority of people questioning Obama's legitimacy are exactly as I have described them so far. There is not and never has been any justifiable reason for questioning his legitimacy. So why are people doing it? And why are the very people who ARE doing it, so very often members of organisations which exhibit strong racist tendencies? Coincidence?

mandas, you are either willfully missing the point, unaware of US citizenship requirements or intellectually dull. I suspect it is not the latter.

All the facts are on the table. Unless you bring something new and interesting to the table there is nothing more to be discussed.


You are partly right. It isn't the latter, but then again, neither of the former are correct either.

But you are correct about me not bringing anything new to thr table. All my statements about the ignorance and racism of teabaggers and birthers has been known for quite some time.

You haven't read it yet?

So, what is your opinion of it then?

If it says AGW is false, cracer will love it.

If it says AGW is correct, cracer will insist that it's part of the conspiracy.

If it says in any part AGW is false, that will be the only bit cracer will read.

He will have to wait until Watts tells him what it says, however.


I can already tell you that crakar will hate it - its more "propergander" (lol) and "crap", and we are all "dickheads" for "swollowing" (lol) this "religion", hook line and sinker.

But of course, he hasn't read it and never will. If you want to know crakar's opinion on the subject, it is right here (from Andrew Bolt - his favourite columnist. A regular source that he uses to troll his opinions):…

Here in Australia, we have as politicians notable morons such as Nick Minchin and Steve Fielding, who are denialists of the first order, and even the leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott, who is a denialist but likes to pretend he isn't.

But even these detestable people have nothing on the sheer stupidity and outright ..... well, I'm lost for words.... as they have in the USA. I thought Inholfe was about as bad as they get, but check out this article regarding some remarks that were supposedly made by Dana Rohrabacher, who is the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs oversight subcommittee:

"....(he) made it clear during a Wednesday hearing that he doesn't believe in man-made global warming....But if it were true â and most of the world's scientists agree it is â Rohrabacher said he's hit on an answer by tackling the 80 to 90 percent of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions "generated by nature itself": Namely, yank down old trees and get rid of the rotting wood in rainforests...."Is there some thought being given to subsidizing the clearing of rainforests in order for some countries to eliminate that production of greenhouse gases?" the California Republican asked Todd Stern, the top U.S. climate diplomat and lead witness at the hearing. "Or would people be supportive of cutting down older trees in order to plant younger trees as a means to prevent this disaster from happening?"..."

Of course, this is only a newspaper article and we all know (except crakar) how unreliable those are. But it seriously makes you wonder doesn't it.

But then, maybe its important for morons to be represented in Government as well. And the most obvious way for that to happen is to elect morons. As stupid as these remarks are, the comments section in the on-line newspaper contains even stupider remarks:

"...Is he out of his mind? We have NO money....We have 9% unemployment with a debt of almost $15 Trillion to pay and this guy wants the taxpayers to go to other nations and clean the rain forrest. What comes over politicians when they arrive in Washington? Do they take leave of their senses when it comes to OUR money?..."

Yes, that's right. This person isn't concerned with the basic idea of cutting down trees to stop global warming - he thinks the problem is that it would cost too much!

Do these people have sufficient IQ points not to be considered retarded?

I did read it, found nothing new just the say old tripe.

Did those of you who did read it read the disclaimer? I think the disclaimer sums up the report quite well. Also i was a bit confused about the picture on the back page which inferred the sun is causing the temp to rise.

Maybe that was a Freudian slip or just sloppy editing?

In the end it gave you lot something to hug at night and wipe your arse with in the morning but from a scientific point of view it added nothing.

Most disappointed..........

I did read it,[wrong punctuation] found nothing new [no punctuation] just the say [sp] old tripe.


I doubt your ability to read exceeds your ability to spell.

Oh . . . by the way, Crakar: When will you condemn Wegman for plagiarism?

Don't lie crakar - we know you didn't read the report. Looking at the back page and the index does not constitute reading the document.

Is that really the best you can do? To criticise the picture on the back cover and to think the standard disclaimer used on every government report somehow means something?

You are even more deluded that I thought.

And are you upset I pre-empted the source of your opinion on the subject? I know you read Bolt's column, and you would love to have used his exact words, but I have to congratulate you that you have sufficient grasp of the English language to be able to paraphrase Bolt's comment of "ground hog day" into your thoughtful analysis of "same old tripe".

Good work. But you should still reference the source of your opinion, even if you do change the words. It's called integrity.

Speaking of which, when are you going to condemn Wegmann for plagiarism?


Judging by your post i can only assume that you agree with my summation of the report, thanks for the spelling tips i will take it on board.


Another deluded post by you,

Once again, i was disappointed in the report (which infers to a logical, sane person that i read it) i found the disclaimer to be profoundly concerning.

My interpretation is that they have written a report that they themselves find hard to beleive, a report that could have major ramifications for the general public for example this report infers that if you have coastal property it will be worthless in a few years time.

Lets say this report (if anyone actually beleives it) will drive down property prices on the coast, home owners lose money on their investments, sell before market bottoms out, report proven to be a complete crock.

Compensation? Not on your sweet nelly, the disclaimer covers the arse of the author quite well.

Re picture on back page, is it a Freudian slip or sloppy editing? If not then what is it supposed to represent oh great one?

What has Bolt got to do with it?


"....Once again, i was disappointed in the report (which infers to a logical, sane person that i read it)..."

No logical, sane person would ever believe that you read a report like this.

"... i found the disclaimer to be profoundly concerning..."

Which just proves you have no idea what you are talking about. A similar disclaimer is on just about every Government report.

"...My interpretation is that they have written a report that they themselves find hard to beleive...."

Then you would be wrong - as usual.

"....Lets say this report (if anyone actually beleives it) will drive down property prices on the coast, home owners lose money on their investments, sell before market bottoms out, report proven to be a complete crock...."

That's probably the most deluded thing I have ever read. Drive down property prices? You're kidding, right?

"...Compensation? Not on your sweet nelly...."

Compensation for what? For producing a report that summarises the science of climate change. How dare they!

"....Re picture on back page, is it a Freudian slip or sloppy editing? If not then what is it supposed to represent oh great one?...."

You do know what a "Freudian slip" is, right? Apparently not. Go and look it up.

"...What has Bolt got to do with it?..."

Well, Andrew Bolt is completely irrelevant to just about everything. He is a deluded, racist, homophobic, mysogynist, denying arsehole. Sort of like you really - which is why you rely on him for so many of your opinions, including your opinion of the report you still haven't read.

So, why won't you condemn Wegmann for plagiarism.

The disclaimer reads: "This document is produced for general information only and does not represent a statement of the policy of the Commonwealth of Australia. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the material contained in this document, the Commonwealth of Australia and all persons acting for the Commonwealth preparing this report accept no liability for the accuracy of or inferences from the material contained in this publication, or for any action as a result of any personâs or groupâs interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in relying on this material."

A similar disclaimer can be seen on this report on Australian jobs ( (add the www. yourself).

The Department for Industry, Innovation, Science and Research has this diclaimer: (add the www. yourself).

And the defence department has this: (you know the drill).

I'm sure wherever you look on the Australian government website you will find similar disclaimers - it's probably illegal not to. For crakar to find this "profoundly concerning" displays a lack of knowledge of the workings of government.

The back page figure seems to indicate increasing temperature = sun. But of course it's not just the back page figure - scroll up to the top and you see that the figure is half of a cover picture encompassing back and front pages. The full figure: increasing temperature = sun, storms and precipitation.

"For crakar to find this "profoundly concerning" displays a lack of knowledge of the workings of government."

No, it displays how cracker-ass will make anything up as long as he can get His Message out there to the Faithful: "AGW is a scam. We don't know why because all our attempts to prove it have failed. We conclude that not only is there a scam going on, but a conspiracy too! And anyone says otherwise, they're in on the conspiracy too".

Of course, that isn't cracker-ass's message. It's Watts' message, as told to him from On High by the Kochs.

I find it rather amusing that a bunch of teabagger political pundits go sucking up to the Kochs. Does anyone else find it so?

"And are you upset I pre-empted the source of your opinion on the subject?"

Of course he is.

He thinks of himself as Really Smart, Smarter Than All You Who Have Been Deluded Into The AGW Scam.

And any reality that might puncture that facade really hurts his pride.

His stance against AGW is probably just his gargantuan ego talking. Since he's against thousands of PhD's, that he has seen the Actual Truth (tm), he's smarter than all of them put together!

And he wants everyone to know how smart he is!

So, yes, your accurate observation that he has no independent thought of his own destroyed his attempt to show off.


"...I find it rather amusing that a bunch of teabagger political pundits go sucking up to the Kochs...."

Not sure if you were making a double entendre there - but if so, well done!

I think this shows that teabaggers have a spelling ability equal to crakar. The correct spelling is "C..O..C..K..S"


Was that you or Snowy in the front row of Q&A audience tonight making terribly I'll-informed comments more suitable to someone two generations older....?

By Matt Bennett (not verified) on 29 May 2011 #permalink

I am overwhelmed by the information you've related. I will be spending more time reviewing it.

However, I didn't see any response to the idea that there have been many scientists (including the IPCC) who have admitted and been discovered falsifying data (or exaggerating data) to support their claims. Maybe I just missed this.

I do not take kindly to scientists falsifying data. For any reason. It diminishes my capability to believe any of their claims or their research. Please rebut.

Hi Cami,

There are quite a number of accusations I am aware of of falsification, exageration or other kinds of scientific fraud out there. However, I am not aware of any admissions, nor am I aware of any convincing demonstrations of wrongdoing that would rise to the level you describe.

If you can be more specific about which accusation you have heard made I am sure we can provide you with the rebuttal you seek.

In the meantime, here is a link to a recent post about one of the more widespread "fraud" myths:


I agree. There is nothing more unethical than a scientist falsifying data, cherry picking, plagiarising, ignoring important information or injecting unsupported emotive or ideological arguments into a paper without providing supporting evidence.

We should not tolerate the sheer audacity of organisations like the SPPI, poor scientists like Ian Plimer, plagiarists like Edward Wegmann, ideological 'documentary' makers like Martin Durkin, liars like Christopher Monckton, evidence deniers like Anthony Watts, and politicians with their noses in the fossil fuel trough like James Inhofe and Tony Abbott.

Don't you agree?

"I do not take kindly to scientists falsifying data. For any reason. It diminishes my capability to believe any of their claims or their research. Please rebut."

What's to rebut there?

This, though:

"I didn't see any response to the idea that there have been many scientists (including the IPCC) who have admitted and been discovered falsifying data (or exaggerating data) to support their claims"

can be rebutted with "Where did you see that?" since this doesn't appear anywhere on this site, never mind this thread.

Since the accusation hasn't been seen on this thread, a rebuttal of this accusation would not be seen on this thread either. I would suggest you go to the thread that made the statement and ask for a rebuttal there.

PS 144 is linkspam again.

This is a general comment about the whole debate.

The fossil lobbies have propagated their theories across the interweb, a Hydra of half-truths which grows two more misunderstandings every time one misunderstanding is removed.

Their points can be refuted, but the sceptics always come back with more, because many of them are in active psychological denial, and this is how people with denial behave. Others are driven by fundamental belief in the inviolability of the Free Market, and arguing with them is like trying to tell a Jehovah's Witness about evolution.

I suggest we try a different tack. If their position is scientific, it must be refutable. Let us ask them what it would take to make them stop believing that man-made climate change is wrong. This will take the fight into their own territory, and force them to think critically about their own position. I suspect that they will find it hard to provide a position that has not already been refuted by the evidence we already have to hand.

I have made contact with Benny Peiser and Anthony Watts so far. Peiser says we will need to wait 20-30 years before we can "know". He has not offered a testable hypothesis. Watts also has no hypothesis. Neither have responded to follow up emails.

This could be a productive line of attack. It focuses onto a single point - refutability - and this overcomes the infinity of special pleadings and cherrypicked anecdotes that is their stock in trade.

If we can get at least the more serious journalists involved, it will at the same time help to educate the public about the nature of science itself.

Hope this proves helpful.

"Their points can be refuted, but the sceptics always come back with more"

More of the same.

That's why they're called "zombie arguments". They just regurgitate the same old crap again and again, immune to any evidence (since any evidence that doesn't support denial of the problem is merely proof of the conspiracy for a NWO).

"Let us ask them what it would take to make them stop believing that man-made climate change is wrong. "

Been tried time and time again. It's always another 15 years of proof. Just like the last two 15 years of proof. We're running out of 15 years of more proof.

"This will take the fight into their own territory"

Their territory is pure denial. Science doesn't enter into it at all. Just ideology. This is why the continue to refuse any proofs otherwise: they project their actions onto other people as a justification for their unjustified faith. If everyone's doing it, then it's not bad.

"If we can get at least the more serious journalists involved,"

Problem there is that the journalist is afraid of losing their job and they're not willing to do any journalism that may cause problems for their boss's customers or the boss themselves.

That's not to say you shouldn't give it a go yourself, mind. Just don't expect any change.

Just have a look at the common "I just want to ask a few questions..." spiel that quickly turns into "It's just something else, 'cos I heard that it was somewhere else" when their "honest" queries are answered with responses that don't prove AGW wrong.

Been tried time and time again. It's always another 15 years of proof. Just like the last two 15 years of proof. We're running out of 15 years of more proof.

By pembe maske (not verified) on 14 Jun 2011 #permalink

Can I sue the linkspammer for copyright infringement, coby?



At least that's what I'm told all the time by the telly...


Another effort by Bryan and John second last line is a real hoot.

If the ABC were Relevant, Part 34.

(The Economist and the Shrink.)

[Scene: A psychiatristâs office. BRYAN is behind a desk. JOHN enters.]

Bryan: Ah â Professor Garnaut! Thank you for waiting â how can we help you today?

John: Thereâs nothing wrong with me, of course.

Bryan: Of course, thatâs why youâre hereâ¦

John: Itâs Australia.

Bryan: Whatâs wrong with it?

John: The people, Bryan. No-one believes a word I say.

Bryan: [Serious] Have you ever tried telling the truth?

John: Settle down, Bryanâ¦

Bryan: No, honestly â itâd do wonders for your credibility.

John: Iâll take your word on that Bryan.

Bryan: Go on, give it a goâ¦

John: Sorry, itâs not that simple. What is truth?

Bryan: Sort of comes naturally to some peopleâ¦

John: Yes â but to a finely tuned mind like mine, truth is a complicated beast. Try, for example, to ask me a simple questionâ¦

Bryan: OK. [Thinks.] What do you get when you add two plus two?

John: Iâll take a stab and say seven point five, Bryan.

Bryan: Seven and a half? Are you sure?

John: According to the IPCC, the sum of two plus two is âvery likelyâ to be seven point five, with robust model outputs producing values in the range between seven and eight.

Bryan: When was this discovered?

John: IPCC, 2007. Itâs in the official report â black and white and 2000 pages. It must be true.

Bryan: Funny, I thought it was four.

John: Lots of people used to, but your information is obviously out of date. This was corrected in AR2, further updated in a subsequent report and thereafter in AR4.

Bryan: Any idea what two plus two will equal by the year 2020 Professor?

John: A difficult question Bryan but some of the best minds on the planet are refining the models to determine this as we speak.

Bryan: What if I were to tell you that two plus two equals four?

John: Iâd have to disagree with you Bryan. Itâs seven point five â no doubt about it.

Bryan: Call me old fashioned, but I still think itâs four.

John: No, Bryan. The value seven point five was achieved by a significant consensus of highly trained IPCC climate mathematicians and this result has been published in several respected peer-reviewed journals. Are you a climate mathematician?

Bryan: No.

John: Can you produce any peer reviewed scientific papers demonstrating that two plus two does not equal seven point five?

Bryan: [Thinks] None I can think ofâ¦

John: Then it is totally irresponsible of you to be peddling doubt and misinformation about an area you are clearly unqualified to discuss.

Bryan: I still think itâs four.

John: Your opinion is invalid and I will now commence calling you names.

Bryan: Look! Iâll show you. Hereâs two fingers (raises two fingers) and hereâs another two. Add them together â what do you get?

John: Seven point five.

Bryan: [Counting] One, two, three, four. Thatâs four fingers! Four is the answer.

John: Look, Iâm only an economist, and am morally bound to defer to the peer-reviewed consensus of the climate mathematics specialists. If they say the answer is seven point five, then thatâs what it is.

Bryan: Surely you can do a due diligence, though? A review of the available data?

John: And it has been done Bryan.

Bryan: By whom?

John: By the best authority on the subject Bryan â the IPCC. A most thorough review of the IPCC climate mathematics is performed as an intrinsic part of the reporting process. Each and every page of an IPCC report comes complete with its own due diligence. The answer is seven point five.

Bryan: And the reason you came here today?

John: Itâs Australia. They donât believe me.

Bryan: Youâre saying Australia needs a carbon tax â a tax on fresh air, as it were?

John: Yes.

Bryan: And that this tax will save the world?

John: Yes.

Bryan: Because the IPCC said so?

John: Yes.

Bryan: And it wonât cost too much?

John: Theyâll hardly notice, Bryan.

Bryan: And, as a result, Australia, or a goodly part thereof, thinks youâre full of it?

John: Got it in one, Bryan.

Bryan: This scandalous assertion of theirs being based solely on science, logic and physical evidence?

John: Exactly right â and itâs so wrong!

Bryan: This may come as a surprise to you Ross, but thatâs not an opinion â itâs a consensus. Goodbye. [Towards waiting room] Next! [John gets up and leaves.]

Bryan: [Towards waiting room, offstage.] Ah â Prime Minister! Thank you for waiting â how can we help you todayâ¦

Now i know weather is not climate so the following story which states Darwin has had its coldest June on record which was followed by its coldest May on record is not evidence to refute AGW. However remember we have pollies lying through their teeth by associating weather events with AGW so it is understandable that the general public will also associate weather events with AGW.

Therefore many people will look at this as evidence that AGW is a crock of shit, looks like the pollies have been caught in their own web of lies.…

By the way any of you warmbots like to make an easy 250K? Feel free to help yourself to some of my tax dollars the government has saved up to piss against the wall.…

$250k? Small beer old chap. See for example:…

Including, for 2011/12:

$9,451,000 for: Further understanding of Australian Indigenous cultures, past and present through undertaking and publishing research, and providing access to print and audiovisual collections. (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies)

$157,676,000 for: Improved knowledge, innovative capacity and healthcare through nuclear-based facilities, research training, products, services and advice to Government, industry, the education sector and the Australian population (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation)

$8,891,000 for: Square Kilometre Array Radio Telescope - supporting the Australia-New Zealand bid.

$13,229,000 for: Australian Space Science Program

$100,972,000 as Special Appropriation for: Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Act 1999

$15,500,000 to the La Trobe Institute for Molecular Sciences

$15,000,000 to Australian Future Fibres Research and Innovation Centres

$26,100,000 to The Australian Institute for Nanoscience

Looking through the budgets there's a commendable amount budgeted for green schemes such as the Automotive Transformation scheme ($211,750,000) and the Green Building Fund ($31,480,000) but to complain about $250k smacks of idealogical desperation.

Thanks Chris.

[ERROR: ERROR CODE #($JDHS9403%$@KK) baiting portion of comment lost in cyberspace]


Intoxicated and embittered as ever . . . .

Crakar, there is something that continues to puzzle me about the goings on in Oz that I hope you can clear up. I have always pictured the Aussies as an independently-minded bunch, very quick to spot bullshit, and very good at telling the purveyors of crap to get stuffed. Certainly, that is true of all the Australians I know. And yet here is the country about to commit economic suicide in pursuit of a delusional fantasy, and its citizens seem to be doing nothing about it. What on earth is going on?

It is almost as if Australia has become infested with the self-righteous, jumped-up, politically-correct, conceited bores and half-wits who pollute this site - a country populated by millions of Skips, Wows and Mandrases, in other words. It is a vision of hell, so please tell me it isn't true. Tell me Australia hasn't been taken over by goat herders and lecturers at third-rate 'universities' that no one has ever heard of.

Yes, I don't know why the Aussies swallow that load of foetid dingoes kidneys purveyed by the likes of Andrew Bolt.

I guess the problem is that, like you, they can only see their own wants and needs and, since they get employed to dig up coal, INSIST that coal isn't a problem.

I also wonder why, like you, they insist that it is going to be economic suicide to utilise one of Australia's foremost resources: sunlight.

But there you go, Australians (at least the extremely vocal ones) would rather keep going with a dead-end tecnhology than change their ways.

As for the American's newly found "can't do" attitude, much the same problem arises.

There's a reason I put that first skip.

snowman: "Aussies [are] an independently-minded bunch, very quick to spot bullshit, and very good at telling the purveyors of crap to get stuffed."

Perhaps that's why they are pushing forward with mitigation & adaptation schemes - the bright ones have seen through the lies & BS that the likes of Bolt, Plimer & Monkton have been spouting over there.

This site is the freakin motherload. For someone like me who really dosent have the experience or scientific background to properly debate these issues, it's awesome to read about these topics and look at the threads to see both sides of the story.
Awesome work, Coby.

This is absolute gold! "How to Talk to a Climate Change Sceptic" indeed! From an Australian ABC comedy show that specialises in satirising politicians and their ilk:

We should all take a leaf out of their book and treat other deniers with exactly the same level of disdain.

Just goes to show, you should always do your research.

Still, he never pays any attention to scientific research, so he'd probably have ignored any warnings about this little adventure. Other Australians might remember Norman Gunston. He could have done a good job with this one, too.


That is uncanny.

This topic is the freaking and the discussion is mindblowing. For a student like me who isnât as much knowledgeable or experienced to properly debate on these issues, it's awesome to read about these topics and read the comments in the threads to understand all aspects of the conversation. Good work, Coby.

Many of our US friends (and watches of the Daily Show like myself) may be aware of the recent issue before Congress with regard to healthy food in school lunches. It is only of minor importance, but some of the arguments being used are eerily similar to the zombie denier arguments used by climate change deniers.

You may have heard the funny example of how Congress (supposedly) classified pizza sauce as a vegetable to get around the requirement for kids to actually eat vegetables as part of their diet. But that isn't even the best one. Consider the lobbiest position on this, which seeks to reduce the amount of salt in school lunch meals:

"....Sodium is an essential mineral and is required for life....."


Sound familiar?


That is beautiful. Thanks for the heads up Mandas.

Just wanted to chime in and comment on how it seems Coby the responder to inquiries only chooses to answer questions he has a rebuttal for. Questions with valid points or theories are simply ignored.

Questions with valid points or theories are simply ignored.

For example?

".....Coby the responder to inquiries only chooses to answer questions he has a rebuttal for...."

So would you rather he answer questions that he DOESN'T have an answer for?

Well spotted, Mandas.

This will be the quote that is so stupidly mined, I am quite sure:

"It [sprites] may play an important role in solar activity and climate . . . "

And yet another thing proving the "irrelevance" of CO2. Groan.

I have spent all night reading through the majority of the articles on the amazing website in order to gain information for my school debate tomorrow. i have my opinions and thought on many of the controversial topics that arise here, however i come here to acquire intellectual aid. :)

"Is the sun the primary driver of climate change?"

That is my topic and im argueing against the title. I was hoping you guy's could please summarise the KEY arguements associated with anthropogenic involvement ??



Nice try but no cigar. If you really want to play gotcha moments, you will have to do a little better than that.

If you really wanted summaries of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, then they are all over this site and dozens of others. But then, that never was what you were after was it?

"Is the sun the primary driver of climate change?"

The answer is "No, CO2 is".

I have just spent a lazy day reading this original post and the thread of 670+ comments. Great entertainment and I have learned a little along the way. I even followed a number of crakar24's links, in the interests of fairness to the chap. Altogether, I have not changed my view that AGW is real and dangerous, but I have gained new and grudging respect for the well-oiled machinery of disinformation.

I am not a scientist, nor a leftie, nor a Green. I am more centre-right than anything, but my training and career as a software developer (now retired) has given me some ability to think critically and to be prepared to change my ideas if the underlying data changes.

To date, I have seen and read much in the way of opinion from the denialisti (I do not call them sceptics - that is what I regard myself to be), but not once have I encountered a credible alternative theory which explains all the evidence as well as AGW does. If any of the denialisti can point me to such an alternative, I will be interested to read it. Who knows? I may even change my mind. It will have to cover all of the disciplines contributing to the AGW theory, though, from Physics to Paleoclimate to Geology to Astronomy to ... you get the picture. Any takers out there?


I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a credible alternate theory, because there not only isn't one - there can not be one. Because - quite simply and obviously to anyone with a scintilla of scientific knowledge and an open mind - there cannot be a credible alternative theory to the facts.

I wouldn't hold my breath...there cannot be a credible alternative theory to the facts

I'm not going to hold my breath, but I am a fair man and am willing for the denialisti to show that I am wrong, if they can.

So far, all the evidence I have been able to understand (I am not a scientist, remember), agrees nicely with AGW. All the denialisti have been able to come up with, AFAIK, is the "it is due to unknown forces" meme, which sounds to me like an appeal to alchemy: "Honest, you can turn lead into gold if you just believe hard enough".

Someone else linked this lecture by Dr. Richard Alley to the AGU. Not only is he erudite, he is entertaining. I can't help smiling when I watch him at work. I highly recommend it to anyone who has an hour to spare. (I can't find who linked it originally, but I am sure it was somewhere in this thread. Worth a repeat, anyway.)

Actually, owlbrudder, you won't have to wait long. It is now perfectly clear that the Modern Warm period ended over a decade ago and we are embarking upon a prolonged period of cooling. The reason, of course, is the deepening solar minimum.

How long will it be before the usual academic climate alarmists admit they were wrong? Well, as one British journalist recently put it, hell will freeze over first. There are simply too many reputations at stake.

Although the climate gang will grimly stick together, the game is clearly up. The recent op-ed by a group of distinguished scientists in the Wall Street Journal confirms what has been obvious for years: that many younger researchers know that the AGW hypothesis has failed. But such is the hysteria surrounding the subject that they fear their careers could be damaged were they to speak out.

It will be a pleasure to see the climate soothsayers confounded, but it is upsetting to think that so much public money has been thrown away on this folly, not to mention the economically ruinous CO2 reduction policies that some Governments - the UK is one - foolishly embarked upon.

Oh well, the end of this bizarre period is in sight. And for that, at least, I suppose we should be grateful.

"It is now perfectly clear that the Modern Warm period ended over a decade ago and we are embarking upon a prolonged period of cooling"

Really? Where's that proof?

Wow, your question reveals the muddled thinking that has so clouded this subject. Where is your proof, you demand, as if we were talking about the Pythagorean theorem. But this is a topic that does not lend itself to proof. We can only observe, take note, and see if the facts support the hypothesis.

As we all know, they do not. So, how are we to respond? In any other branch of science we would simply say, 'Well, it was an interesting idea but the data do not support it. Time to move on.'

Yet the climate gang cling to the wreck of their failed theory, adopting increasingly desperate tactics to salvage their reputation. Currently, for example, they are employing 10-year averages to conceal the fact that temperatures peaked fourteen years ago. But they are merely singing to keep their spirits up. Deep down, I am sure the more honest of them know that it is over.

your question reveals the muddled thinking that has so clouded this subject.

Where is your proof? No, I demand what proved to you that it was clear.

However, you seem unable to find such proof, therefore the only conclusion is that you attained that "insight" through methods other than reasoning and evidence.

"We can only observe, take note, and see if the facts support the hypothesis."

So where is the observation that was so clear to you?


I am just getting through *How We Decide*, by Jonah Lehrer. Most fascinating is his discussion of the literature on the role of the prefrontal cortex in decision making and the evaluation of alternatives.

Highly partisan individuals engage the prefrontal region (crucial in the faculty of reasoning) *after* their choice is made; they don't employ reason to make a decision, they engage reason to *rationalize* one to which they're already comitted.

This is why Snowman, for example, fantasizes that [i]t is now perfectly clear that the Modern Warm period ended over a decade ago . . . and that climate scientists are employing 10-year averages. He believes these things--which are nothing more than the secondhand rantings of a hack (probably Anthony Watts although I confess I have not checked yet) because this is how he convinces himself he's being quite clever even though he's an illiterate fool.

Furthermore, a crucial feature of this "partisan mind" is the ability to refuse to engage any information which would refute the predetermined "truth". Thus, when asked to produce evidence of his claims, Snowman responds:

We can only observe, take note, and see if the facts support the hypothesis.

This is of course the exact opposite of a rational and honest answer, but to the deluded partisan mind (Snowman) it sounds like a clever one.

Just to affirm the point and to torture Snowman yet again:

Snowman, are you *now* ready to answer the direct questions from which you've cringed to date?

And he will of course cringe from that question as well. It is simply the nature of the partisan brain (and in Snowman's case, a quite dim one to boot.)

Thus will I add something to your list of other humiliations, Snowman (proven toady to Anthony Watts, cheerleader of fools, mathematical hack, complete coward): You're greatest value is that of the lab rat or rhesus monkey. You exist for no purpose but to illustrate the inherent weakness of which our species is capable.

We're watching you in your petri dish and taking notes, but little notice otherwise.

Addendum to the above post:

A lot of the same material discussed in Lehrer's book is also discussed in Drew Westin's *The Political Brain*, although the two books have different overall emphases.

Hi Skip. Your amusing attempt at erudition (that 'addendum' gave us all a hearty laugh and 'emphases' was rather entertaining, too) would be more convincing if you knew the author's name. It is, of course, Westen, not Westin.

Ah, the moronic hypocrite returns from hibernation. Hello snowman.

Letâs discuss your recent post shall we (#179)
â........The recent op-ed by a group of distinguished scientists in the Wall Street Journal confirms what has been obvious for years....â

Letâs check this âop-edâ shall we, and see how much credibility it has. While we are at it, we could also check the credibility of the source â the WSJ. Apart from being a rabid, denialist rag, the WSJ has zero credibility on this issue. Especially when an article signed by 255A copy of the article was published in scientists countering this op-ed piece was submitted and rejected. So much for telling both sides of the story â but what would you expect from the Murdoch press? But not to despair, the article be the 255 scientists was published in Sciencemag â a copy is here:

I think that is pretty telling in itself. The denier article is published in a denier newspaper, while the counter article was published in a real science magazine.

So â on to the article itself. Itâs obvious from the counter article that the denier op-ed piece has no credibility. But why is that? Well, itâs because the authors of the piece have no credibility. Letâs have a look at who these 16 âdistinguished scientistsâ actually are:

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris;
In 1996, Allègre opposed the removal of carcinogenic asbestos from the Jussieu university campus in Paris, describing it as harmless and dismissing concerns about it as a form of "psychosis created by leftists"

J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting;
J. Scott Armstrong is an author, forecasting and marketing expert,and a professor of Marketing at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University;
Dr. Breslow is a past president of the American Heart Association and is a senior attending physician at The Rockefeller University Hospital, where he also served as physician in chief in the early 1990s. (so heâs a medical doctor).

Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; (and is now retired from ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company)

Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences;
EDWARD E. DAVID, JR., is an electrical engineer, Dr. David previously served as White House Science Adviser (1970-1973) and was formerly president of Exxon Research and Engineering Company and research director of Bell Telephone Laboratories.

William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton
William Happer is a physicist who has specialised in the study of optics and spectroscopy

Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.
Michael Kelly studied Mathematics and Physics to MSc level at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand, and completed his PhD in solid state physics at Cambridge in 1974. After a further seven years as post-doc working on the electronic structure of metals and semiconductors, he joined the GEC Hirst Research Centre in 1981.

James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University
Professor McGrath's current research interests are focused in the area of synthesis and characterization of high performance matrix polymers and structural adhesives, high-temperature polymer dielectrics for computers, fire-resistant polymers and composites; and new directly copolymerized sulfonated aromatic copolymers for proton exchange membranes (fuel cells).

Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences
A Harvard graduate and applied physicist

Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Antonino Zichichi (born October 15, 1929) is an Italian physicist who has worked in the field of nuclear physics.

Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne
Not a scientist at all.

Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator
A geologist.

So 12 of them work in fields completely unrelated to climate science, with several of them having close ties to the fossil fuel industry. So we can disregard them. What about the rest?

William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Kininmonth is a science adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute
Hmmm â the SPPI. Looks like this guy is a mate of Monckton and Willie Soon et al. Any credibility he may have once had is no gone.

Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem
In 2002, Shaviv hypothesised that passages through the Milky Way's spiral arms appear to have been the cause behind the major ice-ages over the past billion years.
Yeah â cosmic rays and spiral arms. A nut job.

Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT
Enough said.

That just leaves this guy:
Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service
He has said: The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate "realistic" simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic.

Over to you snowman.

Yes, that is precisely the point, Mandas. They are independently-minded members of the scientific community, not part of the climate gang. By your way of thinking only acknowledged bank robbers could offer an opinion on crime.

And kindly spare us that childish twaddle about denialist rags. With advocates like you pushing the cause, Mandas, it is no wonder the climate scam is collapsing.

It is, of course, Westen, not Westin.

Why thank you for the correction!

But . . . "of course?" "Of course?"? LOL. What are you implying, Snowman, that actually *read* it? LOL.

The only "amusing attempt at erudition" is from a man who thinks spelling the author's name right is better than having read the book(s)--which you didn't (you're illiterate) and I did.

And of course you didn't answer the question. You're a coward.

Now here's the part where you have to fire up your prefrontal cortex and rationalize away why you can't answer a direct question. Please tell us what you come up with. Oh, Please! Why should you selfishly keep your absurdities to yourself? Everyone wants another laugh at your expense. We all loved your commentary on trend lines and we're hoping you can match it! LOL.

"..... They are independently-minded members of the scientific community, not part of the climate gang. By your way of thinking only acknowledged bank robbers could offer an opinion on crime....."

That is probably the most laughably deluded thing I have ever read! Only snowman would label someone who doesn't know what they are talking about 'independently minded'.
By the same logic, I, skip and coby are 'independently minded' and are just as qualified to offer an opinion on climate science. Come to think of it - we ARE just as qualified to offer an opinion on climate science as those people. So tell me, why would you accept their word over mine, given both of our qualifications?

"......And kindly spare us that childish twaddle about denialist rags....."

The WSJ and the entire Murdoch press are denialist rags. And only a denier like snowman would prefer them for his science over a reputable science journal. But I guess that's just par for the course isn't it?

Oh, and of course that's "skip" with a "ski", "Coby" with a "cob", and Mandas, with a "man". LOL.

I can spell them; I must understand them! Why read them?

Hey Snowman: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you can spell "Duhstyuvskee". Does that mean you actually read and understand *Cryme N Puneeshmunt*?

What a ddummshitt.

"an article signed by 255 scientists countering this op-ed piece was submitted and rejected. So much for telling both sides of the story â but what would you expect from the Murdoch press? But not to despair, the article be the 255 scientists was published in Sciencemag â a copy is here:"

My bet is that snowman will avoid all reference to this letter and its contents, choosing instead to rely on empty rhetoric - it's all he has to rely on. Snowman has so much time to read the latest crackpottery and disseminate it to his favourite haunts in the hope that others are as myopic as him, but somehow can never get round to reading (understanding?) anything that doesn't support his own brand of wingnuttery.

I expect he gets his information on vaccines from Michelle Bachman & his nutrition advice from Gillian McKeith. After all, being 'independent' is much more important than being correct.

Addendum (see I can do it too!):

This from Peter Norvig is apposite to the current discussion (h/t Willard @ Bart's)

His final reaction:

"My final main reaction to reading these 59 abstracts is that an amazing amount of research went in to building up this consensus on global warming, but I hadnât heard much about the specifics. This is partly my fault, but is also another failing of the press. Reporters think (with some good reason) that the public is not interested in hearing about Analysis of some direct and indirect methods for estimating root biomass and production of forests at an ecosystem level and so they never cover such things. But by failing to talk about the years of research and the building on the works of others that go into producing a paper like that, reporters give all ideas equal footing: a half-baked whim with no evidence gets equal footing with a proven theory with hundreds of confirming studies, because it is too complicated to talk about the confirming studies."

What's this? Under attack from Skip and Mandas and now Chris joins in the fun.

It's remarkable, Chris, that you are so devoid of critical faculties, so unable to conduct any sort of textual analysis, that you are actually impressed by that vacuous piece of self-justifying nonsense published by 255 'scientists'.

I hardly know where to begin, although the preposterous attempt to associate climate propaganda with the age of the earth or evolution might be as good a place as any. I particularly liked, too, the Orwellian ring of the second sentence: 'All citizens must understand......'. Overall, the empty assertions and foot-stamping tantrums of the diatribe (it's just SO unfair that we don't get the respect we deserve) stand in sharp contrast to the pithy and concise op-ed rightly published by the paper a few days earlier.

But back to Mandas. I note, Mandy, that one of my comments was the most laughably deluded thing you had ever read. But hold on a minute: surely it was barely a month ago that the most laughably deluded thing you had read were the remarks about the variation in the earth's orbital speed. It turned out that you had no idea what you were talking about then. And now? Plus ca change (as Skip would doubtless say).

And speaking of Skip, the more I read his rants the more familiar they sound. I suppose it is because we all know the type: the third rate 'academic' at some hick college, puffed up with self importance and quite hilarious in his pomposity. That, at any rate, is how I have generally viewed him. But when I look again at his latest ravings I am having second thoughts. Prefrontal cortex? Rhesus monkeys? Petri dish? Maybe I have done the poor fellow an injustice. Perhaps he is simply quite mad.

"They are independently-minded members of the scientific community"

But this doesn't MAKE them right.

Even though you so desperately want it to.

"What's this? Under attack"

Odd how you don't seem to care putting all the climate scientists under attack. That doesn't even rate a mention.

Maybe you're being told you're wrong and deluted because you're wrong and deluded?

Ever considered that? Even as a thought-experiment?

PS you still avoid every single question, don't you.

It's remarkable, snowman, that you are so devoid of critical faculties, so unable to conduct any sort of textual analysis, that you are actually impressed by that vacuous piece of self-justifying nonsense published in the WSJ by a small number of inexpert 'scientists'.

You "hardly know where to begin" because you demonstrably have no real understanding of the subject and, as expected, fall back on empty rhetoric, focusing on but one half a sentence. I find it interesting that you find 'Orwellian' the notion that ordinary people should be educated and understand the issues at hand. Is it because you don't others also shouldn't or should we all be good little citizens & let our betters do all the thinking & decision making for us? Are you the dog in the manger or the fetlock tugging peasant?

One last thing - fixed this for you: "the pithy, concise and factually incorrect op-ed"

Hah, though the image of poor dumb snowman tugging at the fetlocks of his goat-legged overlords is a pleasing metaphor I of course meant forelock.

The trouble with arguing with you, Chris, is that you are too thick and unimaginative to make it any fun. You keep repeating my words, substituting my name for yours, and think you have done something rather droll. Really, Chris, you need to up your game.

And as for the cognitively-challenged Wow, the less said the better.

Aah snowman I thought you'd be pleased I'd fixed up your quotes for you. After all mindlessly regurgitating other peoples screed is your modus operandi. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery (though I admit I'm more in the Fluck & Law school on this matter).

Of course, whingeing about the style of argument is so much easier than attempting any substance. I'd have a go at the substance of your arguments of course but they are as gossamer - a profound lack of understanding evidently hampers any attempt to put weight behind any of your posts.

"You keep repeating my words, substituting my name for yours"

And even you won't accept those answers, so why do you expect everyone else to do so?


So Snowman (that's with a "snow" . . . of course. LOL.):

What's the answer to the question? Did you actually *read* West*en*. Hehe.

Oh that's right--you don't read. What a shame it is to you that a pompous third rate academic is your better in every exchange.

I repent of my previous admonition that you be silent. We're laughing at you--heartily--so every time you post is a new guffaw.

Btw: what's a "trend", Snowman? Do you want to tell us in your own words anew or shall I quote them? LOL.


No pithy retort before UK bedtime?

Snowman must be resting his prefrontal cortex--it has a lot of rationalizing to do.

Well done snowman. I thought your posturing about my supposed failure to acknowledge my error was one of the most hypocritical things I had ever read (Fox News commentary notwithstanding), but even you have exceeded your own standards with your criticism of Chris at post #193:

"......It's remarkable, Chris, that you are so devoid of critical faculties, so unable to conduct any sort of textual analysis, that you are actually impressed by that vacuous piece of self-justifying nonsense published by 255 'scientists'...."

So Chris is 'devoid of critical faculties' for being impressed by a piece signed by 255 scientists? Now, let's just compare this to YOUR comments at post #179:

"....The recent op-ed by a group of distinguished scientists in the Wall Street Journal confirms what has been obvious for years...."

Note the syncophantic forelock tugging from the denialist hypocrite. 16 non-scientists and fossil fuel industry shills write an op-ed piece in the WSJ, and snowman has a denialist orgasm - uncritically accepting everything they say, and even calling them 'distinguished' in the process. 255 scientists write a piece in a science magazine, and suddenly snowman - a man with no science education past high school - thinks that Chris is 'devoid of critical faculties' and 'unable to conduct any textual analysis' for accepting what they have to say. Wow snowman, that's breathtakingly hypocritical, even for you! You're not very good at applying the same standards to yourself that you attempt to apply to others are you?

I have a challenge for you snowman - but of course I know as per your usual modus operandi that you will simply ignore it and continue with the usual dross you write. How about you follow some of your own advice, and use your self proclaimed 'critical faculties' and 'conduct a textual analysis' of the WSJ piece? But of course, I bet you won't, for two reasons. Firstly, you are incapable. Secondly, if you were capable, and did so, it would destroy the illusory worldview that you have constructed in which to hide your fragile ego.

Oh, and snowman, let me get you started on your textual analysis. Here is a quote from the op-ed piece:

".....A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet...."

And this is what "...Yale economist William Nordhaus..." has to say about that particular quote - supposedly citing his work:

".....The piece completely misrepresented my work. My work has long taken the view that policies to slow global warming would have net economic benefits, in the trillion of dollars of present value. This is true going back to work in the early 1990s (MIT Press, Yale Press, Science, PNAS, among others). I have advocated a carbon tax for many years as the best way to attack the issue. I can only assume they either completely ignorant of the economics on the issue or are willfully misstating my findings...."

Now, please tell us again what you think about these 'distinguished scientists'. You know, the ones who misrepresent the work of others?

mandas thanks for the exposition on what I was getting at in #195. I expected it to soar over snowman's head but I'm glad someone saw the point.

Though I should mention that I've not read the sciencemag article. I can see the gross deficiencies in the WSJ guff-piece without needing to have them pointed out to me.

Yes Chris. Something else that the snowman has failed to realise is that the WSJ op-ed piece, for all its faults, actually accepts that the planet is warming and that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible. It's just that they think - in different parts of the article - it isn't increasing that much; or that warming and additional CO2 are good things and that we shouldn't do anything about it.

I wonder if he actually read the article close enough to realise that. I'm guessing not, because his post #179 says the total opposite to the WSJ op-ed piece. I guess if you are a denier, you don't read what you are referring to if you think it supports your case (do you read anything??!!)

(do you [Snowman] read anything??!!)

Maybe he does; maybe he doesn't. One thing I know for sure is Snowman (that's with a "man" *of course* LOL) did *not* read Wesstuhn. LOL. What a tool . . .

"or that warming and additional CO2 are good things and that we shouldn't do anything about it."

Does the sciencemag article cover the subject of vernalisation?

It would appear that the snowman has crawled back under his rock again. What's the matter snowman, haven't been able to think up a pithy ad hom to use against us?

In the interim, I thought I would try and track down the source of some of snowman's information so we all know where he is coming from. It's one of the traits of deniers like crakar and snowman - they never reveal their sources. They like to claim that they are smart, and that the information they present is a product of their own reasoning. But you and I know differently. They are just plagiarising morons who never had an original thought of their own, and who rely on other deniers writing on blogs or in newspapers for their information. They don't have the intellectual capacity to read real science articles or journals, which is a pretty telling critique of the denier ethos.

So for the sake of clarity, I did some searching for the source of snowman's original post in this latest discussion. And guess what? It was from an article written in the UK Telegraph, by that paragon of journalism, James Dellingpole. The article is here:…

Note the quotes (from snowman):

"..... It is now perfectly clear that the Modern Warm period ended over a decade ago and we are embarking upon a prolonged period of cooling......"

From the article:

"....the thing we really need to fear right now is not global warming but global cooling...."

From snowman:

".....The recent op-ed by a group of distinguished scientists in the Wall Street Journal confirms what has been obvious for years...."

From the article:

" op-ed in the Wall Street Journal signed by 16 distinguished scientists...."

From snowman:

"....but it is upsetting to think that so much public money has been thrown away on this folly, not to mention the economically ruinous CO2 reduction policies that some Governments - the UK is one - foolishly embarked upon...."

From snowman:

"....which has led to the squandering of billions of pounds on an entirely unnecessary scheme to "decarbonise" the UK economy....."

Post #179:

".....It will be a pleasure to see the climate soothsayers confounded...."

From the article:

".....And where did "Nostradamus" Viner go?...."

From snowman:

"....How long will it be before the usual academic climate alarmists admit they were wrong? Well, as one British journalist recently put it, hell will freeze over first...."

From the article:

".....When are all those "climate" "scientists" at institutions like the University of Easy Access finally going to eat crow? Actually this question is entirely rhetorical since I already know the answer: when hell freezes over...."

So snowman, good job! At least if you are going to plagiarise someone else's work, could I ask two things please?

Firstly, that you at least acknowledge your sources so we can deal with the original morons, and not waste our time trying to present evidence and facts to a mindless galah who is simply repeating what he has read or heard without any understanding.

Secondly, could you use reputable sources, and not idiots like this guy:

There's a good chap!

Yeah I found that pretty amusing too the last time Snowman just regurgitated Wattstalk:…

It's sort of like playing a very restricted but still entertaining version of the game Clue. It's always "Snowman, with the bullshit, from . . . ."--and that's the part we have to figure out. Well done on this one, mandas. I had just assumed it was Watts but hadn't checked yet.

Mandy, you really are a strange fellow. You claim to detect something sinister in the fact that I have discussed matters that have been mentioned countless times by any number of people.

Take your first couple of paragraphs. I said that it was clear we were entering a period of cooling. Ha! you triumphantly shriek, so did James Delingpole. But so have innumerable others with increasing frequency, and the same could be said of all the other points. I referred to the op-ed and a group of 16 distinguished scientists. So did Delingpole. But so did everybody else. The internet has been full of it since the op-ed appeared. You must know that. I referred to the waste of funds. But everybody in the UK talks about that. In fact, people talk of little else.

But you've got me on one point. When I quoted the remark about hell freezing over before scientists would admit they were wrong, I said only that a British journalist had made the joke and didn't mention a name - a grave sin, to be sure.

Mandy, can't you see what an obsessive you have become, spending your days searching for references in the hope of scoring a couple of pathetic points? You are not quite as unhinged as Ian Forrester, but I fear there is a real danger you may be heading in that direction. You need to get a life. You spend too many hours here. Think of those goats.

Oh, hang on, I've just looked again at your post and see what put the idea in your head. Delingpole mentioned Nostradamus and I referred to climate soothsayers. But if you look back through my earlier posts you will see that I have described them that way many times. (In fact, I was rather pleased with the description; perhaps I should admonish Delingpole for copying me.)

Actually, Mandy, I wasn't intending to post tonight because I am going away early tomorrow on business and won't be back in London for some while. However, I didn't want to disappoint you. I know that as far as you are concerned a day without Snowman is, so to speak, a day without sunshine.

I have discussed matters that have been mentioned countless times . . . --Snowman (with an "s" of course. hehe)

Yes--by idiots. You just paraphrase their stupidity because you have no capacity for independent and rational thought.

Snowman . . . with the bullshit . . . from . . . . ?

So Snowman: What's a "trend"? LOL.

Get over it snowman.

You have been caught out plagiarising the words of a discredited hack. We have always known that it is your modus operandi to regurgitate the opinions of others - not having sufficient intellect to form one of your own - but on this occasion I have simply identified whose opinion you have offered up. Perhaps the reason you are attempting to fudge the issue is because everyone knows Dellingpole ("...I don't have the time or education to read science....I am an interpretor of interpretations....") completely lacks any credibility - so I can understand your embarassment for using him.

But it's really straightforward. In future, try to act with a modicum of ethics and reference your sources. I know that's very difficult for someone like yourself - a demonstrated hypocrite - but give it a go. As I said, I would much rather deal directly with the originator of the material, rather than someone who simply parrots what he has read without even the slightest understanding of either the article on question or the issues behind it.

Snowman, thank you for responding to my earlier post.

I was at pains to explain that all the evidence I have found so far is well explained by the AGW theory. You responded with a claim that the Earth is going to cool, due to a Solar minimum, but you provided no evidence. Can you provide a link to the original research that supports your claim? Being a true sceptic, I am keenly interested in evidence obtained "from the horse's mouth", as it were. There are numerous places I can look to get evidence from the other end of the horse i.e. from wild claims and arm-waving unsupported by reputable science.

I am sorry the other posters subsequently have poked fun at you and I am sure you can score a major victory over them, if only you can show me the peer-reviewed, original research that will make all the other evidence I have found utterly useless and discredited. I look forward to your alternative theory that fits the evidence even better.

I wait, but not with bated breath as I turn blue after only a few minutes.

A commendable try, owl, but a couple of years of enduring this fool will change you, if you have the stamina for it. When I first started engaging on this forum a few years ago I also initially tried to plead for others to take a more amicable tone with Snowman and his ilk.

I was young and foolish. They were right and I was wrong. He deserves--and will richly receive--the abuse and humiliation his posts merit.

Notice how he refuses to answer direct questions? He has no honor or honesty. He has even previously admitted that this is not a factual debate for him. Have as much fun as you are able trying to reach him with reason. You'll tire of it soon enough, I am sad to predict.


I fear you missed owlbrudder's sarcasm. At least that's what I think it was.

Interestingly it is beginning to emerge (at Rabbett Run) that at least one name as given in the WSJ piece is spelled incorrectly (Antonio Zichichi should be Antonino) and several affiliations are also incorrect* did these 'distinguished' non-experts even read the screed that their name was put to?

* affiliations as given in quote marks, actual affiliations in brackets.

Claude Allegre, "former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris" (former director, Institute of Geophysics, Paris)

William Kininmonth, "former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology" (Acting Science Administrator in charge of the National Climate Centre at the Bureau of Meteorology)**

James McGrath, "professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University" (Ethyl Corporation Professor of Chemistry, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University)

Henk Tennekes, "former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service" (former director of research, Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute)

**As our Australian friends know the National Climate Centre does no research, they are responsible for data archiving and distribution.

skip, mandas, I have to admit to having my tongue somewhat in my cheek. Having said that, I do try to be a genuine sceptic (British spelling) and I am prepared to revise my world view in the light of compelling evidence. The tongue being in the cheek meant that I have little expectation of Snowman, or anyone even better qualified, coming up with an alternative theory that explains all the evidence. If I am wrong, if a new theory surfaces, I will be the first to apologise to Snowman.

Will no-one take up the challenge? Is it too hard to disprove AGW? I am not a scientist, so I should be easy to fool.