Fake "ADDENDUM: Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States"

Eli has the details.

Coming soon "Addendum: The Warren Commission" - in which they conclude that Kennedy committed suicide.


More like this

Right, the previous thread has spilled off a discussion of Jastrow, Nierenberg and Seitz and their representation of a Hansen et al. figure. I have the feeling that the JNS paper may have appeared in multiple places, but the one I have access to is: There is a lot wrong with that abstract (…
Sarah (whose blog is rather emptier than James' so-called EB) is walking from Cambridge to the Sea to celebreate her age; and she invited company; so I joined her for stretch today from Ely to Littleport. It was a glorious day for it, sunny with just a light wind. It is a funny bit of the river…
Yes, its the wonderful Heartland / WUWT own-goal over the Chinese translations of HI's Climate Change Reconsidered. I have nothing to add except laughter, so you may as well read * BCL(SB), * Eli, * HW. Not edifying, true, but certainly amusing. Since I'm here I may as well put up something: can…
I thought I'd share a snapshot of my morning with you. For some reason, the internet seems like a good place for it. The paper promised to be about the evaluation of evidence in understanding the assassination of John F. Kennedy. What follows are the notes I took during the approximately 25…

What would be really delicious is if someone wrote up "Addendum: Mission Statement of the Cato Institute" (with the real authors in small print below the big headline) and sent nice glossy offprints to all of Cato's clients.

By American Idiot (not verified) on 17 Oct 2012 #permalink

This just in from the Times of Wattsupistan:

Watts now seems ready to accept the IPCC reports as gospel, as long as they agree with Wikipedis:

Gary says:
October 20, 2012 at 9:09 am
Are you deliberately looking for made up psuedo-facts like the one you suggest ,or actual pieces of real information?

REPLY: It is in the IPCC report. Also on Wikipedia:


The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.

The same logarithmic formula applies for other greenhouse gases such as methane, N2O or CFCs, with coefficients that can be found e.g. in the IPCC reports.[7]

I’ll look for your apology in the next comment. – Anthony"

[AW is always very keen to get people to apologise for him lying to them. I'm pretty sure that the CFC aren't in the logarithmic part of the conc range - which is part of why they're powerful, per molecule. But I don't think he's very good at, well, the science in any kind of depth - there's just a seizing at a few factoids.

I've corrected wikipedia's error. Now to find out what bozo wrote it in there. Hopefully not me :-) -W]