‘Denier’ blogs

by Judith Curry

Judith Curry’s blog, Climate Etc., is an exception to the stereotype of denier blogs. Curry is a real climate scientist with strong credentials.  Committed to reason, evidence, and open inquiry, she is willing to examine legitimate points the climate skeptics may be making — as well as the evidence and arguments from mainstream climate science. – Society of Environmental Journalists

Here is the history of the Society of Environmental Journalists:

The Society of Environmental Journalists was founded in 1990 by a small group of award-winning journalists, including reporters, editors, and producers working for The Philadelphia Inquirer, USA Today, Turner Broadcasting, Minnesota Public Radio, and National Geographic. Today, SEJ’s membership includes more than 1,400 journalists and academics working in every type of news media in the United States, Canada, Mexico and 27 other countries.

SEJ’s reputation for excellence, service, and integrity has been built upon annual conferences hosted by distinguished universities, scores of regional events, unique publications, on-line services, in-the-newsroom training sessions, and an extensive membership network.

As a 501(c)3 non-profit educational organization, SEJ provides educational opportunities and vital support to journalists of all media who face the challenging responsibility of covering complex environmental issues.

Here is the SEJ mission statement:

The mission of the Society of Environmental Journalists is to strengthen the quality, reach and viability of journalism across all media to advance public understanding of environmental issues.

SEJ provides critical support to journalists of all media in their efforts to cover complex issues of the environment responsibly. Through combined efforts of board, staff, members, and appropriate partners, SEJ offers unique educational programs and services for working journalists, educators, and students, including annual and regional conferences; daily EJToday news service; quarterly SEJournal; biweeklyTipSheet and other publications; FOI WatchDog project; SEJ Awards for Reporting on the Environment; members-only listservs; mentoring program; website-based resources; and a lively membership network of journalists and academics.

SEJ also acts to raise awareness among philanthropists, editors, news managers, publishers, and other key decision-makers in the media on the value and importance of environmental news reporting.

SEJ has an article on Staying up-to-date on climate news.  The rationale of this article is:

The amount of climate news that environmental journalists may need to stay abreast of is vast, and new developments are breaking every day. The best way to stay current is to keep an eye on some of the many major online climate news sources. Here are nearly three dozen of the best. In choosing them, we have limited the selection for the most part to sources that are reliably accurate and reality-based.

The article organizes the news sources into the following categories:

  • General Daily Climate News
  • News from the Climate Wars
  • Just the Science
  • Policy, Politics, and Treaty Talks

I focus here on:

News from the Climate Wars

There is a war going on over manmade global climate change, and journalists are at the very front. Scientists who actually study climate largely agree on the basic findings that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing rises in global mean surface temperature and other climate changes. As greenhouse gas concentrations rise, climate change will intensify, threatening the stability of food supply, ecosystems, and human security. There are many proposed solutions for reducing emissions and adapting — but many of those solutions are opposed by corporations who make profits from greenhouse emissions and nations who see their economic growth as requiring more emissions. Fossil-fuel industries have spent millions in disinformation efforts to convince people not to “believe” in the science. These propagandists vilify both scientists and journalists — and rush forward to urge journalists to be “objective” by balancing truth with untruth. The following sources offer some help in sifting through the heaps of false, distorted, and misleading stories about climate change.

RealClimate

RealClimate is a robust climate science blog written by real scientists. It is generally objective, open-minded, evidence-based, and scientifically sound. In a mediasphere where disinformation often dominates, it serves as an antidote to inaccurate and distorted representations of what is actually being learned by legitimate peer-reviewed science. It responds fairly quickly to whatever climate-science misconception is current. Deniers hate it. Gavin Schmidt of GISS and Michael Mann of Penn State lead a team of roughly a dozen contributors.

InsideClimate News

InsideClimate News is somewhat unique. It describes itself as “a non-profit, non-partisan news organization that covers energy and climate change — plus the territory in between where law, policy and public opinion are shaped.” It is solution-oriented, which may give it a bit of progressive bias (it is a rebranding of the former SolveClimate.org). Also diagnostic is that it covers energy (the solution) as much as climate itself (the problem). The emphasis is on quality, meaningful journalism — as may be evidenced by the fact that InsideClimate News material is republished by Reuters, AP, The Guardian, Alternet, New America Media, and High Country News.

DeSmogBlog

DeSmogBlog describes its mission as “clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate science.” It is funded by Canadian PR magnate James Hoggan and others. Truth-based but fully engaged in the climate wars, it devotes itself to debunking the deceptions and untruths of the deniers and exposing their clay feet and corporate funding. Edited by Brendan DeMelle, it draws on an array of high-quality contributors such as Ross Gelbspan, Richard Littlemore, and Chris Mooney.

Skeptical Science

Skeptical Science is a blog that aims to reclaim the true principal of scientific skepticism from the climate-change deniers who have misappropriated the term. It systematically examines and rebuts the myths commonly circulated by the deniers. It is published by physicist John Cook, Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland — along with more than a dozen contributors from across the globe. It is translated into many languages. It is unaffiliated and runs on volunteer labor and donations.

Climate Science Watch

Climate Science Watch is a thoughtful blog that focuses on the broad realm of climate science policy. It is run by Rick Piltz, the whistleblower who exposed how the George W. Bush administration had oil lobbyist Phil Cooney rewriting the findings of climate scientists . Funded by foundations, it is affiliated with the Government Accountability Project (GAP ). Piltz tends to focus less on the science issues themselves than on the institutional, policy, and procedural issues that often systematically corrupt, distort, and suppress sound climate science.

Watts Up With That

Watts Up With That is one of the more civil and well-read of the denier blogs. It is not reliable as a source of factual information. It does not disclose its funding sources. Anthony Watts, its proprietor, has worked as a broadcast weatherman for years but has no degree.

Climate Progress

This blog is a department of the “Think Progress” blog of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which is an unabashed advocate of progressive positions. Blogger-in-chief Joe Romm is one of the most passionate participants in the climate wars, often leading the attack on the latest perceived fossil-lobby outrage. Romm has been known to over-do it, but the blog is worth reading for its hair-trigger newsiness alone. And when Romm makes a case, he often goes deep.

Deep Climate

There is a front of the climate wars being fought in Canada, and the main value of the Deep Climate blog is that it covers the Canadian front more deeply than any other source we know. It is a shame that its author stays anonymous, but he or she receives no funding — which may at least be a sign of good faith. The blog has been going since 2008, and the posts are pretty frequent and consistent for a volunteer effort. We deem it reliable.

Climate Etc.

Judith Curry’s blog, Climate Etc., is an exception to the stereotype of denier blogs. Curry is a real climate scientist with strong credentials. Among other things, she is chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Committed to reason, evidence, and open inquiry, she is willing to examine legitimate points the climate skeptics may be making — as well as the evidence and arguments from mainstream climate science.

JC comments:  Ok, it looks like we now have a new definition  of climate change denier:

Committed to reason, evidence, and open inquiry, she is willing to examine legitimate points the climate skeptics may be making — as well as the evidence and arguments from mainstream climate science.

And SkepticalScience seems to represent the true principle of scientific skepticism.

As far as I can tell, the SEJ is a reputable organization.  However, I find much of their article to be rather appalling.  Not to mention the fact that they left out a number of good blog sources, that are arguably better than DeepClimate no matter which side of the climate debate you sit on.

Your thoughts on which news and blog sources should have been included (and excluded) from this list?

Update: check out this astonishing post from the Guardian – Are climate sceptics the real champions of the scientific method?  Don’t miss the comments :)

498 responses to “‘Denier’ blogs

  1. WOW WOW they call the worst of the worst the best then call WUWT a denier blog no bias there oooh no.

    • After reading a few WUWT articles, and noticing that his references were articles he had written before, I concluded that as a ‘denier blog’ he left an awful lot to be desired: facts, reason, etc.

      • Maybe you need to read a few more as there are many contributors to the blog.

      • I just looked at several WUWT articles. Nothing to change my opinion about the quality of that blog. Bunch of posts about Kwajelein Island having sea level rising problems, and how they find it difficult to accept. Couldn’t possibly be AGW, no denier would accept that. They seem to miss that the south Pacific warming, due to less heat escaping (aka AGW) causes water to expand. It is amazing how all the deniers jump up with all kinds of trifling arguments. So, to the deniers, I say “…just like there are millions who deny evolution; but should the deniers be wrong about AGW, our legacy to our children might be an uninhabitable world. Can you live with that??”

      • Walter, I can see how it is GW, but how do you add the “A”? That is the biggest problem in climate science.

      • Actually, Walter I agree that WUWT is of variable quality. Some of it is worth reading, but some of it is just wrong headed.

      • Allen…the ‘A’ is added by the cubic MILES of coal mined and burned, along with the billions of BARRELS of petroleum pumped and burned, all within the last century and a quarter. The world environment was ill prepared to accept this assault, especially considering the impact of WWII and a burgeoning population with its demand for food, heat (northern climes), cement and steel. Quite frankly, I see no REAL alternative to dispute anthropogenic global warming. What I consider deniers are doing is diverting political willpower, which could work to accomplish a broadening of electric power sources (i.e. solar, wind, nuclear) that would benefit our civilization even without AGW.. However, should atmospheric CO2 have a tipping point, and the ‘deniers’ keep the discussion going, so that no affirmative action is taken AND the tipping point is passed it might condemning mankind to a world too hot to survive in !! Could you live with that possibility??

      • Walter,
        that is ALL you offer?? Where is the scientific foundation for linking what you cite to the increases (and decreases) in global temperatures?? The “A” is still missing. There has been NO proof that what is happening is anything outside of the bounds of previously experienced climate on this planet.

      • Allen…read ‘Energy for Future Presidents’ for a clear link of CO2 to earth temperature increases. And ‘Overheated’ by Matt Guzman for an understanding of potential disasters that may result from AGW. But,if you choose to ignore what burning fossil fuels implies: the greatest use of stored energy in about a century at a time when massive forests were cut down-remember that the choice, if made by worldwide politicians could result in humanity not being well represented in another century.

      • The United States seem to be doing pretty well with it forests in recent times.
        http://rainforests.mongabay.com/deforestation/2000/United_States_of_America.htm#07-growingstocks
        I agree, deforestation is important and significant. I suppose we could plant more trees here to make up for their loss elsewhere. For example, take farmland out of production, and plant trees on it.

      • I was thinking some more on the subject Walter Carlson, and the United States has made a lot of improvements with its forests and agricultural land practices. Are we complaining about other Countries that trail us in this area? Deforstation of the Amazon rainforest for instance. Troubling. It’s bad and sad too. The vast richness of plant and animal life is being threatened. What does the United States do about that? I don’t see any good options at the moment.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        Judith, the part I found most hilarious is that they left off Climate Audit, the ur-blog of people unwilling to take scientists who hide their work at their own word …

        In other matters:

        Walter Carlson | July 31, 2013 at 7:45 pm | Reply

        After reading a few WUWT articles, and noticing that his references were articles he had written before, I concluded that as a ‘denier blog’ he left an awful lot to be desired: facts, reason, etc.

        I just looked at several WUWT articles. Nothing to change my opinion about the quality of that blog. Bunch of posts about Kwajelein Island having sea level rising problems, and how they find it difficult to accept. Couldn’t possibly be AGW, no denier would accept that.

        First, there are not a “bunch of posts” about Kwajalein Island (which you might learn to spell if you’re going to discuss it), just two. Mine and one discussing Nils-Axel Morner’s claims.

        In my post, I said that Nils-Axel was wrong, because he was discussing 20 year trends, and the error bars were too large on 20 year trends to do that. I also provided a host of citations, facts, logical statements, and information about the situation.

        Now, if you had both complaints about my post, and balls, you would have raised your complaints at WUWT on my thread you found so wanting.

        Instead, you only had one of the two aforementioned items, so you go someplace else to whine about the quality of my work … pathetic. Man up, Walter, and come to my post, stop your handwaving and vague accusations, and point out exactly where you think I’m wrong.

        w.

      • Willis…
        Willis Eschenbach, blogger with a certificate in massage and a B.A. in Psychology.Has worked recently as an Accounts/IT Senior Manager with South Pacific Oil. A profile can be found at desmogblog.com/willis-eschenbach. Has produced no peer-reviewed papers on climate science according to the criteria set by Skeptical Science…
        With this kind of ‘bio’ I wouldn’t be critical of someone make a small spelling error.
        What would have been persuasive, in your WUWT story is comparing ocean temperatures. Not being a physicist, you probably don’t remember that sea water expands when warmed. You should have compared ocean temps with sea level. But your final result: “In short, there is no evidence for or against an acceleration in sea level rise in the three Marshall Islands records.” ignores the graphs you presented, wherein all temps show increasing trend over since 1995.

  2. That they didn’t mention http://climateaudit.org/ says all that is necessary to evaluate their position in the climate war.

    • Well, at least it doesn’t do much for their credibility … and it would be hard to omit CA accidentally, assuming the author at SEJ actually knew anything about the climate blogosphere.

      • They ignored the fair Lucia also.
        Obviously there is no place for people who have a background in statistics with ‘Climate Science’.

    • Absolutely, it is one of a kind. Specializes in statistics and is the one that has given me the most headaches; because I have had to educate myself so much just to follow it.
      Then, if one tries to volley between climateaudit and real climate, and spends enough time doing it, one might determine that Steve at CA is almost invincible. I may not be a worthy judge, but in contrast I can never find a short coming despite somethings that have been written about Steve M.

    • Why would they mention climateaudit? Climateaudit doesn’t post climate news.

      • Does Climate etc?

        Cheers

      • aren’t we looking at it?

      • Hard to understand this. Climateaudit is very frequently the forerunner of major blog memes, echoing in both skeptical and believer blogs. If you want to follow News of the Wars, you’ve surely got to watch out when McIntyre posts something.

      • Latimer Alder

        @lolwot

        It ain’t news when Gergis et all gets demolished piece by excruciating piece? Or Lewandowsky’s paper gets taken apart?

        Strange definition of news you use……

    • Philip Lee | July 30, 2013 at 2:45 pm |

      That they’re an organization of journalists, not goobers?

      The first hint was in their name.

  3. “The Society of Environmental Journalists was founded in 1990 by a small group of award-winning journalists, including reporters, editors, and producers working for The Philadelphia Inquirer, USA Today, Turner Broadcasting, Minnesota Public Radio, and National Geographic.”

    A cabal of liars and conmen explains a lot.

  4. Scott Scarborough

    You can find most of these blogs listed at Climate Depot. Then you can make up your mind yourself.

  5. Scott Scarborough

    JoNova is excellent also.

  6. Rob Starkey

    I have difficulty in agreeing with Judith’s description of SEJ as “a reputable organization” when they made the unsupportable claims.

    They claim:
    As greenhouse gas concentrations rise, climate change will intensify, threatening the stability of food supply, ecosystems, and human security.
    My question: What is the basis for this claim and when do they “know” this will occur?

    They claim:
    There are many proposed solutions for reducing emissions and adapting — but many of those solutions are opposed by corporations who make profits from greenhouse emissions and nations who see their economic growth as requiring more emissions.
    My observation: What corporations specifically do they believe will be harmed and what evidence do they have that these evil corporations have had any significant impact on the debate?
    They claim:
    Fossil-fuel industries have spent millions in disinformation efforts to convince people not to “believe” in the science.
    My question: What evidence do they have that fossil fuel companies have spent millions on “disinformation”?

    Judith- isn’t a reputable organization one that does not spread lies and intentionally mislead the semi-informed public? This organization seems to exhibit the opposite characteristics and seems to make advancing their agenda at the expense of truth apriority.

    In answer to sites that provide good reasonably unbiased information- The Blackboard comes to mind.

    • I thought the same Rob.

      One can say it is warming and that human activity is a cause, but the rest is pure speculation.

      Which probably explains why you never see anyone give any examples or reference evidence for “climate change will intensify, threatening the stability of food supply, ecosystems, and human security.”

      • Rob Starkey

        timing

        Those who are willing to tell others how they should be living seem to have many fears. As I understand it the primary AGW threat to food production is the threat that sea level will start to rise at a significantly increasing rate. By any measure there is ZERO evidence that this is occurring. I keep asking those who are greatly worried about climate change what is their greatest fear and what makes you believe the fear is likely to occur? There is usually no response or people just say that “they fear it will get worse sometime in the future.”
        They may be right, but it seems like a poor basis for government policy.

      • Rob,

        The reasons I usually see referred to regarding collapse of the world’s food supply are drought, flooding, heat waves and extreme weather.

        So far the food producers of the world are not keeping with the narrative. In the US corn, soy and wheat are expected to hit record numbers. The same with India and their rice crop and several other places as well.

        Funny how we are suppossedly experiencing all of the above conditions now, yet not seeing the expected impacts. When this is pointed out, we get told that it is what the future holds. Bad, bad weather now, impact to come later. In other words, the check is in the mail.

    • Rob…
      I think we all see what we want to see, to some extent. However, what I want to NOT see is mankind making his home unlivable. While scientists quibble about the 30 year trend, decadel analysis, CET characteristics, etc. NOBODY has answered my question: is there a CO2 tipping point?? Mining and burning cubic miles of coal and pumping out and burning billions of barrels of petroleum-has to have consequences which mankind could not anticipate a century ago. IF climatologists keep arguing over semantics, which model to use, etc, the POLITICIANS who make decisions about electric power generation will continue to avoid making those decisions !! So, as temperatures keep rising (11 of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1998), glaciers keep melting, a large variety of plants/bugs/animals keep moving northward, while politicians cater to coal/petroleum lobbyists and make no attempt to ameliorate CO2 generation nor requiring power plants to be wind/solar/nuclear, could we not be heading toward a tipping point that may doom mankind?? Now, I’m sure there are enough deniers here at this blob to jump all over my statements, just like there are millions who deny evolution; but should the deniers be wrong about AGW, our legacy to our children might be an uninhabitable world. Can you live with that??

      • Robert Austin

        Walter,
        You used the “d” word. Why should we even give you the time of day?

      • Walter,

        re: is there a tipping point?

        I don’t know. But I have good company, as no one else does either.

        Should we worry about there being one? Perhaps. But at what cost? Is the unknown possibility of such a tipping point existing justification for drastic action whose costs we do have some knowledge of?

        And if the tipping point hypothesis is valid, does not the possibility exist that we could be moving away from the tipping point which starts the next glaciation?

      • The loss of Arctic sea ice followed by lengthening clear seasons there would be a tipping point because of its effect on albedo which is a positive feedback. The tipping points are usually related to enhanced feedbacks like this. This tipping point is already underway.

      • “This tipping point is already underway.”

        Oh well, since it’s too late anyway, carpe diem? N’est-ce pas

      • timg56,

        You don’t need to worry about tipping points. Australia is going to save the world. We have a ‘Progressive’ government and they know how to fix it and intend to lead the world by example. Problem solved. Have faith!

      • Chief Hydrologist

        http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/detection-images/climate-cloud-mamseries.jpg

        The clearer tipping point is in more snow and ice from an open Arctic – cooler summer temps – the spread of snow and ice sheets – and a plunge of 10’s of degrees in places in as little as a decade.

        Here’s one.

        I answered Walter’s question about predicting tipping – an increase in autocorrelation. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucess21/00%20Thompson2010%20off%20JS%20web.pdf

        He doesn’t seem interested in knowledge but in pushing a particular message of doom. Funny really.

        He should call himself a climate catastrophist in the sense of Rene Thom.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Meant to add this one as well – http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucess21/00%20Thompson2010%20off%20JS%20web.pdf

        Happy reading – or not.

      • CH, yep, p414, tipping point number one – loss of Arctic summer sea ice. Thanks.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Actually – meant to add this one – http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/pnas.pdf

        With bifurcation we are looking at multiple feedbacks in a dynamically complex system – sea ice is the starting point and not the end point. To make any sense of it you need to keep the principles of complexity theory in mind.

      • Chief Hydro…thanks for helping me. Your ref contained the following: ” One such example is the end of the Younger Dryas event, about 11 500 years ago, when the Arctic warmed by 7 ◦C in 50 yrs.” AND, that was without the benefit of all the fossil fuel burned in the past century! And, lets not disregard several other inputs into this perfect storm: world population to exceed 8 billion by 2025, with China and India economies growing. Can our world feed and warm such population WITHOUT reaching an AGW tipping point?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        The Younger Dryas cooled before that 20 degrees C in places in months to years.

      • New platinum measurements were made on ice cores that allow conditions 13,000 years ago to be determined at a time resolution of better than five years, report Michail Petaev and colleagues from Harvard University. Their results are published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A 100-fold spike in platinum concentration occurs in ice that is around 12,890 years old, at just the same moment that rapid cooling of the climate is indicated from oxygen isotope measurements, at the start of a climatic period called the “Younger Dryas”. The Younger Dryas started and finished abruptly, and is one of a number of shorter periods of climate change that appear to have occurred since the last glacial maximum of 20,000 years ago. Each end of the Younger Dryas period may have involved very rapid changes in temperature as the climate system reached a tipping point, with suggestions that dramatic changes in temperature occurred over as short as timescale as a decade or so.

        The observations lend credence to earlier, disputed, reports that finds of microscopic grains of diamond and a mineral called lonsdaleite in lake sediments dated to the same time were identified with a possible meteorite impact. Those measurements resemble the most recent observations of remnants of the Tunguska meteorite impact in Siberia, reported last month. Sphere-shaped particles have also been identified at many localities in sediments dating to this event, most recently reported this month by a team led from Canada in the Journal of Geology. Such particles are characteristic of the rapidly heated and cooled splatter of material thrown up when meteorites hit Earth.

        While the platinum data and the spherical particles add to evidence for an impact event, doubters have pointed out that, as yet, no impact site has been identified.

        It has been suggested that debris thrown into the atmosphere in an impact tipped the Earth into global cooling at a rate as rapid as the global changes in climate in the reverse direction seen in the last century. Such rapid climate change makes it difficult for ecologies and societies to adjust: It is the fluctuation that has been invoked as the cause of the extinction of massive mammals (megafauna) like the mammoth, and native cultures such as the Clovis people in North America.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23536567

      • CH…
        The Younger Dryas cooled before that 20 degrees C in places in months to years….Which shows how quickly temperatures can change occur and what magnitude can be found. I would suggest that should global temperatures rise enough to melt the permafrost, releasing large amounts of methane would signal the end of humans mal-treating their home.

        Robert…You used the “d” word. Why should we even give you the time of day?
        What makes you think I would need to ask you that? I’m not sure that you would know, and I wouldn’t want to embarrass you.

      • Too bad the ocean will boil all the natives, when Guam reaches the tipping point.
        ================

  7. Thanks for being here, Professor Curry. IMHO the climate scandal is the tip of an iceberg that endangers the very basis of democracy.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  8. Judith, this has got to be a spoof.

  9. R. Gates the Skeptical Warmist

    I think even the term “denier blog” is rather ignorant and the folks at the SEJ should have a little more class (and knowledge of the issues) than that. Working in the journalism field, I am a bit ashamed by their ignornance. As a warmist, and a skeptic (in the broad sense), and thoroughly knowledgeable about the fields of both the environment and journalism, perhaps they should consult with me before writing another piece like this. I’d do it for free.

    • R gates

      You’re too cheap. I get so much money from Big Oil I will pay THEM if they let me write a piece.

      tonyb

    • Appreciate this RG.

      I don’t want to attack the motives of the folks at SEJ, but stuff like this is dissappointing. If this is what the work of “professionals” lools like, we are better served by relying on amatures.

      Whatever one thinks of SkS, its inclusion is to be expected. But DeSmogBlog? It might be considered an important source – by the 12 or so people who read it. And it is a bit interesting that Climate Progress, which technically no longer exists as its own blog, is included.

  10. Frank Shoemaker

    When they have to describe themselves as “award winning” (by whom and on what basis?) and toss around the word “denier” without giggling, you know that whatever is afoot, it’s not science.

  11. From what I just read, everything important is spelled correctly. Even more progress Doctor.

  12. If they divide the world between “deniers” and “science based” blogs, there is no point in thinking what they should have done … in case they were not childish (and worse). They are.

    Not worth talking about them. Only, maybe, to remember them we are still waiting for some peanuts of all those millions spent in disinformation efforts.

  13. With all due respect, while I applaud your rating among the blogs, I find that the SEJ is to real journalism what Cook and Lewandowsky is to real science.

    In other words, no relationship.

  14. Hi Judy

    I want to comment on the statement in the SEJ that reads

    “Watts Up With That is one of the more civil and well-read of the denier blogs. It is not reliable as a source of factual information. It does not disclose its funding sources. Anthony Watts, its proprietor, has worked as a broadcast weatherman for years but has no degree.”

    SEJ’s perspective is arrogant, misinformed and illustrates the failure of the journalism community to properly report on climate science issues.

    Anthony’s weblog is very much factual and is a solid source of climate and weather information. Anthony has also taken the lead in peer reviewed scientific papers. I am proud to be able to have worked with Anthony for several years, and look forward to continuing to do so.

    I am glad that you posted on the SEJ article, as it really shows how biased much of the media is.

    Best Regards

    Roger Sr.

    • I for one have missed your updates on your former website.

    • I do believe that he discloses his funding, which is minimal. It appears that they refuse to believe that a blog with that much traffic can be run without a large grant.

      • Yet they had no problem believing that Cook was all volunteer.

        They have a template they are following. it has nothing to do with reality.

      • Even more strange that they (thought they?) could establish that anonymous DeepClimate “receives no funding”

        Also notable how casual they are about how other ‘climate-industry’-defending blogs are funded!

    • “Anthony’s weblog is very much factual”

      seriously?

      • lolwot:
        Anthony’s blog is just as factual as SkS, in fact more so.

        SkS is so heavily censored that it has missed many extremely important papers that have been published in regards to sun cycles, hydro cycles, etc.

        One can post them there, but they never see the light of day and if you are tenacious, they just ban you period.

        And these are Peer Reviewed……but don’t fit the nemis that they project.

      • WUWT is a tabloid. It’s factually inaccurate because it pumps out posts too fast. Little quality control. I can spot errors in WUWT posts easily. I cannot say the same for skepticalscience posts which tend to be more dry and reasoned.

        As an example
        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/29/weather_forecast_model_is_imperfect_qed_climate_science_is_rubbish/

      • First off, you could not spot an error if it sat on your nose.

        Second, if you do spot an error on WUWT, you are free to bring it to the attention of the writer and request that it be corrected. That you have not indicates you are either lying, or they do not post a lot of errors (like all humans, they do post some – it is called not being perfect).

        SkS will never admit to errors because they heavily censor their comments. When their errors are so blatant as to be laughable, they merely “disappear” the post. I have yet to see a WUWT post “disappear”.

      • *which tend to be more dry and reasoned…and boring

      • lolwot,

        Do you realize you are starting to sound as if you’ve just stepped into the deep end of the pool and are foundering?

      • So take some speed reading and comprehension courses and stop whining.

      • WUWT is extremely uneven in its reliability. The links to news reports, accompanied by “spin commentary”, are first-rate and the amount of spin isn’t much more than one finds in many newspapers. The quality of original science articles varies dramatically with the guest poster: some appear to be horrendous, but some highly qualified people do provide guest posts. The better half of the material compares favorably with the environmental dreck polluting Scientific American (written by “reporters” associated with advocacy groups like Propublica and ClimateWire), which finally caused me to cancel my subscription.

        Given their short attention span, high-turnover, and “cheering section”, bringing errors to the attention of WUWT is difficult.

    • It is not reliable as a source of factual information.

      Translation:
      It is not a reliable source of information that I agree with.

    • We’ve got a little list …

  15. Count how many scientists are in Desmogblogs Denier disinformation database :(

    Very poor article by SEJ

    And as for the Skeptical Science description….

  16. Matthew R Marler

    RealClimate: It is generally objective, open-minded, evidence-based, and scientifically sound.

    I don’t agree with that. They consistently suppress posts that address what I call (after others) the “cavities” in the science, even when the posts refer directly to peer-reviewed publications..

    • RealClimate: It is generally objective, open-minded, evidence-based, and scientifically sound.
      Translation: You have the same bias that I have and I will scratch your back if you will scratch my back.

  17. “RealClimate is a robust climate science blog written by real scientists. It is generally objective, open-minded, evidence-based, and scientifically sound.”
    I though satire died when Henry Kissinger was award the Nobel Peace Prize?

  18. “Skeptical Science is a blog that aims to reclaim the true principal of scientific skepticism from the climate-change deniers who have misappropriated the term.”

    First of all, it’s principle, not principal.

    Second – Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha ha. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

  19. They lost me at the word “denier”.

    I have media credentials of my own, and based on what I’ve seen, very few can cover any technical subject with any adequacy. Heck, if they were smart, why would they sink $250k into a Columbia School of Journalism degree when the unemployment rate in field is probably 95%, and the pay correspondingly low?

    But their bias showed with the word “denier.”

  20. Matthew R Marler

    WattsUpWithThat: It is not reliable as a source of factual information.

    Lots of the people who post there supply links to actual data sources and published papers. Almost all critiques of the posts are themselves posted, and many of those are in turn critiqued. Anthony provides daily updates to lots of important data, such as the ENSO index, sea ice cover, sea surface temperature and such, complete with links to the curated data bases. As written, the quoted sentence is false.

    • “Almost all critiques of the posts are themselves posted, and many of those are in turn critiqued.”

      It’s insufficient. When critiques don’t get snipped by the moderators they tend to either be ignored, or the poster is personally attacked.

      Errors rarely get corrected in the posts and even if they do it’s far too late as another dozen posts have by then pushed it out of relevance.

      It isn’t reliable as a source of factual information.

      • Rob Starkey

        lolwot- it may be insufficent in your opinion, but that is not a factual error. If your comment(s) either get ignored or attacked by other commenters,- well you can’t say much about being ignored. If you are “attacked” and respond with facts and data that is one thing. If you get “attacked” by others for not agreeing with your perception of the risks of more CO2–isn’t that to be expected?

      • Matthew R Marler

        lolwot: It’s insufficient.

        That was why the sentence you quoted had been sandwiched between two sentences about linking to actual data sources.

      • WUWT is a good blog. It’s not the best or most reliable since guest posts are allowed and it does include a lot of speculative stuff. However, Anthony tries to be very honest and can be convinced when he has overstated things. I find it better than Skeptical Science in a lot of ways. At SkS they do try to summarize the current positions of the “consensus” but they are still mostly advocates, not truth seekers.

      • Just like your posting anywhere decrease the value of the main post?

  21. Matthew R Marler

    Skeptical Science is a blog that aims to reclaim the true principal of scientific skepticism from the climate-change deniers who have misappropriated the term. It systematically examines and rebuts the myths commonly circulated by the deniers.

    Aside from misspelling principle, this is benighted.

  22. “Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change.” – Skeptical Science. They seem to answer questions at this site. The above covers a question of how reliable are they? When I read through their answers, I am often struck by the level of certainty they use. In the above quote, “…form a reliable guide…” Reading that, I can say Okay, I know what to do now. Look at the model output and that’s where we are headed. They could use Qualifiers such as, Some, Most, or Many Scientists think that… Recent, a number of, many studies indicate…” Qualifiers perhaps indicate the middle ground, and they make me think of Standard Deviations and Confidence levels. To me, when people stop adding Qualifiers to what they say, it makes me wonder? Are they being reckless? Are they closing doors?

    • Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence that for decades now it is not really happening and it likely will never happen.

  23. SEJ – dross article by a dross organisation pretending to be providing information but really only interested in playing propaganda wars. Amazing that they don’t mention Climate Audit…..

    At least one of their members reads there:
    http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/02/april-fools-day-for-marcott-et-al/
    http://www.sej.org/library/sej-member-spotlight-andrew-revkin

    And SEJ used to know of CA:

    “Hopefully, the profile of Stephen McIntyre by The Wall Street Journal will be the last dying gasp of the skeptics. These people were created by industry money, but only flourish because of the ethic of “balance” that exists in journalism.”

    http://www.sej.org/publications/journalismmedia/has-balance-warped-the-truth

    7 years on and CA is still right on the pulse. Funny the SEJ don’t seem to know that.

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/07/26/guy-callendar-vs-the-gcms/

  24. LOL! What do journalists know about anything? They’re propaganda tools and nothing more. History teaches us there used to be journalists engaged in seeking the truth, but, I think they’ve gone the way of the dodo bird.

    Again, I’m slighted! Congrats on being included as a “denier” Dr. Curry. Wear the badge well. :D

  25. Steven Mosher

    Joshua will be along any second to ignore the bias in the article and focus on some nit he can pick with Judith.

  26. Steven Mosher

    here is a simple one

    Compare the description of Watts and Cook.

    Compare the description of the blogger and the funding.

    For Anthony’s funding go here

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/faqs/

    have a look at how john cook describes himself and his funding.

  27. They give a bad name to journalism.

    • It is impossible to give journalism a bad name and has been for some time

      “You cannot hope to bribe or twist (thank God!) the British journalist.
      But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there’s no occasion to.”

  28. Climate change is one part of the SEJ focus. A lot of sessions at the 2012 conference focused on fracking,
    http://www.sej.org/initiatives/sej-annual-conferences/AC2012-agenda

    My impression is they do fulfill an important service. It will be interesting to see how their sessions morph in the years to come.

    This is the audio from a panel one climate change reporting.
    http://www.sej.org/sites/default/files/webform/conf2012/CommClimateChange101912.mp3

    Early on the moderator indicates the SEJ position is the climate science is generally settled. The panel composition is also indicative.

    Moderator: Dave Poulson, Associate Director, Knight Center for Environmental Journalism, Michigan State University. He is very smooth.

    Panelists:
    Bill Blakemore, Correspondent, ABC News
    Max Boykoff, Assistant Professor, CIRES Center for Science & Technology Policy, University of Colorado-Boulder, and Senior Visiting Research Associate, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford
    Katharine Hayhoe, Director, Climate Science Center, and Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Texas Tech University
    Peter Sinclair, Producer of the Video Series and Blog “Climate Denial Crock of the Week” and “This is Not Cool”, a new series on climate for the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media

    One interesting point a speaker made to the moderator’s question: “isn’t this mostly a political issue that should be covered by the political journalists (not SEJ members)” the response was the political journalists failed in their coverage.

    • “Early on the moderator indicates the SEJ position is the climate science is generally settled.”

      What self-respecting organisation of supposedly independent journalists would have a “position” on anything?

      Says it all, really.

      I think Dr Curry and Anthony Watts should ask that their names be deleted from that list of rogues and scoundrels. People might think that they have something in common.

      I’d love to see a list showing the readership of all those blogs – I’m guessing that Dr Curry and Anthony were only included because otherwise the combined readership of their selected list would be embarrassingly low.

  29. It is rather amazing that listening to legitimate points the skeptics may be making causes the title of denier. I guess not listening to legitimate points the skeptics may be making is mainstream.

  30. And they classify desmogblog as truth based. Um, yeah, like the truths they posted about Hearland and the king of identity theft.

  31. UnReal Climate
    ” It is generally objective, open-minded, evidence-based, and scientifically sound. In a mediasphere where disinformation often dominates, it serves as an antidote to inaccurate and distorted representations of what is actually being learned by legitimate peer-reviewed science”
    I haven’t laughed so much for ages. Was the above written by the fragrant Hockey Team?
    What they say about this blog is ridiculous and the blog that has done so much to expose the can of worms that climate science is Climate Audit doesn’t get a mention. If the members of this organisation have the capabilities of the enviro journos in the British media then to be a member is meaningless.

    • I was thinking the same thing. They slime WUWT, just like a good hockey team player, but leave out McIntyre’s excellent blog. I’m not saying Steve is a denier, but he has certainly run his stat sword through various members of “The Team” more than once. And those wounds don’t heal easily or quickly.

      You have a good point. I bet these guys went to “The Team” for advice. I don’t know how good they are at reporting, but it doesn’t matter … they have a bright future in “marketing.”

  32. Given the blatant bias evident in their News From the Climate Wars, I suppose most of their blog choices make some sense. However, if they were ever to decide to clean up their act and honour their mission, they might consider dropping Real Climate and Skeptical Science, and adding Climate Audit.

  33. Rob Johnson-Taylor

    I find it difficult to argue against Don Easterbrook’s point of view on climate, whilst I’m not entirely convinced of global cooling I am find the arguments for anthropogenic global change with little merit, and I find the hysteria of blog sites and also of professionals against any who may not agree to AGW even more convincing of the fallacy of AGW. To quote an email from Prof Easterbrook to me “I never thought I would live to see the day when dogma would take over science once again and edge out rational thought and the scientific method–but it has happened (is happening). The important thing is to stand up for scientific values and reject dogma.”

  34. Direct links to each blog in the following classified shortlist of climate-related blogs can be found on the right sidepanel of Anthony Watts’ blog http://www.wattsupwiththat.com

    Humor/Satire

    Cartoons By Josh
    The Daily Bayonet

    Lukewarmers

    Climate Abyss – John Nielsen-Gammon
    Climate Debate Daily
    Climate Science – Pielke Sr.
    Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.
    Judith Curry
    Lucia’s The Blackboard
    Moshtemp – Steve Mosher
    The Lukewarmer’s Way – Tom Fuller
    Thomas Fuller – 3000quads

    Political Climate

    American Elephants
    Andrew Bolt
    Autonomous Mind
    Christopher Booker
    Climate Depot
    EU Referendum – Richard North
    Green Hell Blog
    James Delingpole
    NYT Dot Earth – Revkin
    Planet Gore

    Pro AGW Views

    AccuWeather GW Blog
    Collide-a-scape – Keith Kloor
    Real Climate
    scienceofdoom
    Stoat – Connolley
    Tamino’s Open Mind

    Skeptical Views

    1000+ skeptical papers
    Appinsys
    Australian Climate Madness
    Bishop Hill
    C3 Headlines
    Carlin Economics
    Climate Audit
    Climate Change 101
    Climate Conversation – NZ
    Climate Resistance
    Climate Sanity
    Climate Skeptic
    Climate Views
    CO2 Science
    Die Kalte Sonne
    Digging in the Clay
    Dr. Norman Page
    Dr. Tim Ball
    Ecotretas
    Friends of Science
    Haunting the library
    ICECAP
    Jennifer Marohasy
    Jo Nova
    Marcel Crok – De staat van het klimaat
    Master Resource
    Niche Modeling – David Stockwell
    No Frakking Consensus
    No Tricks Zone
    Small Dead Animals
    Solar Cycle 24 Board
    Surfacestations Gallery
    Surfacestations Main
    Tallbloke’s Talkshop
    The Air Vent
    The Chiefio – E.M. Smith
    The Cosmic Tusk
    The GWPF
    The Hockey Schtick
    The Next Grand Minimum
    The Reference Frame
    Tom Nelson
    Warren Meyer
    Warwick Hughes
    William Briggs
    World Climate Report

    Tools

    NCDC Hi/Lo Records lookup
    SOHO solar images
    UAH AMSU Daily Temps
    Weather Picture of the Day
    WFT – Interactive Climate Graph Engine

    Transcendent Rant and way out there theory

    Climate Progress
    Climate Realists

    Unreliable*

    Skeptical Science – John Cook

    * Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.

    • > Climate Abyss – John Nielsen-Gammon

      I asked NG about that. His reply was that to point to this discussion where Neven asked him the same question. His answer is:

      Neven – You must be referring to Watts’ blogroll. To answer the question properly, I need a definition. The first two google hits agree that the original definition is: one who thinks that the world is warmer than it would otherwise be due to anthropogenic gases, but doubts that the impact will be extreme. I agree with the first part, but take exception to the second. The word “extreme” is a bit fuzzy, so I’d put it this way: I think it likely that the eventual impact will be so severe as to reflect disgracefully upon the human race.

      There doesn’t seem to be a better category for me in Watts’ taxonomy, though. ‘Political Climate’? Definitely not. ‘Pro AGW Views’? No, I’m opposed to AGW. (Think about it.) ‘Skeptical Views’? In a normal world, yes, but the word ‘skeptic’ has become loaded with other meanings. Surprisingly, ‘Tools’ would be most apt, but only MIT graduates would know why. – John N-G

      http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/05/something-for-everyone-fall-et-al-2011/#comment-1120

      Are there many people here that are Pro-AGW here, except Koldie?

      • That’s vintage 2011, BTW.

        When will Tony make the appropriate correction to his IA?

      • Steven Mosher

        ” The first two google hits agree that the original definition is: one who thinks that the world is warmer than it would otherwise be due to anthropogenic gases, but doubts that the impact will be extreme. ”

        Then he missed the original definition which had nothing to do with impacts.

        The original definition had to do with attributing a portion of GW to Humans.

        less than 50% was lukewarmer.

      • More reason for Anthony to revise his classification on his main page.

        He could also include a floating tip providing a description for the term.

      • Steven Mosher

        sadly,

        as you and N-G should know meaning is not determined by first use.

        So;

        A) he tried to determine meaning by first use
        B) he got first use wrong
        C) and its beside the point since meaning isnt determined by first use.

        Lukewarmer means there is less than a 50% chance that the ECS is above 3C.

        look it up

      • Rob Starkey

        There is less than a 50% chance that ECS will be known +/- .5C within the next 25 years. Condition- at least 95% of a minimun of 30 “climate scientists” surveyed would have to agree on the number.

        Care to make a wager?

      • Has NG ever been a lukewarmer?

        Tony’s misrepresenting NG’s position.

  35. It sounds like descriptions of Coka-Cola and Pepsi written by Coka-Cola.

  36. Mark Bofill

    Well it’s good of Society of Environmental Journalists to let me know, I had no idea! Not pretentious at all are they.

  37. “Appalling” is exactly the right word choice, Judith. I’d add “sad” to that, along with “pathetic”, “woeful,” and “embarrassing.”

    What many refuse to acknowledge is that this is a PR war, not a science war, at least in the short to intermediate term. Those of us of a skeptical bent would benefit from remembering that.

    • “What many refuse to acknowledge is that this is a PR war, not a science war, ……Those of us of a skeptical bent would benefit from remembering that.” – pg

      I think it’s pretty clear that the ‘skeptics’ have never forgotten this for a second.

  38. “Minnesota Public Radio”

    I was a contributing member for twenty-five years. Even volunteered for the pledge drives. Now I can’t bear them.

    You have to question the integrity of an organization who accepts multi-million dollar grants from the Kendata (uber-left Tides Foundation) to finance “sustainability coverage”.

    But you have to hand it to them: pay-for-views is a great business model.

    • GregS I listened to them at one time. Then came a gradual transformation. If you currently reside in MN, may I ask how close you are to Mankato or St. Peter?

      • It is hard to say who changed more. I think it is a natural consequence of age to drift away from the college mindset of public radio, but then their newroom drifts further toward advocacy every years.

        We are in the Owatonna area.

    • Greg S, I am east of St. Peter. If you should ever want to solve the worlds problems (plus or minus) Pick a time or two and a place in Owatonna

  39. I agree, it’s pretty weird to classify “Etc” as a denier and then to deny that you are a denier. I think what they may mean is not that this site is a climate-change denier, which it is not, but that it is a climate-catastrophe denier. Does that make sense? Does it imply that they think that denying climate catastrophe is the same as denying climate change?

    BTW, I often see mention that this or that “denier” blog is funded by fossil fuel interests, which I do not doubt is often the case. Is there are similar accounting of supporters for climate change sites that are wholly or partly funded by people who stand to make money from clean energy or energy efficiency technologies?

  40. A shocker from the Guardian:

    Are climate sceptics the real champions of the scientific method?
    http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/30/climate-sceptics-scientific-method

    • The present discussion would be too one-sided if we would just cut the skeptics off.

      I’m, however, not certain of, how climate scientists would behave in absence of climate skeptics. Would the scientists voice to a larger extent some of the skeptic views, if we wouldn’t have the skeptics doing that?

      • No, I suspect that the scientists caught out in climate gate would be far less accountable and dogmatic than they currently are without the skeptics.

      • Some of the scientists would be activists to the same extent they are now, but much of the internal pressure on others and many of the specific wrong practices brought up by the climategate did develop from the polarization of the views that was true already then.

      • “I’m, however, not certain of, how climate scientists would behave in absence of climate skeptics”
        Read the CRU emails Pekka

        http://yourvoicematters.org/cru/

        I like this:-
        From: Phil Jones
        To: Eystein Jansen , Jonathan Overpeck
        Subject: Re: Climate Audit
        Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 13:48:31 +0000
        Cc: Keith Briffa

        Dear All,
        A lot of good points raised by the horizontal Eystein. Keith is
        hoping to do something on the recent tree growth issue.

        What this sad crowd (nice words – I’ll use the phrase again) don’t
        realise is that the satellite data now agree with the surface. This is
        said in Ch 3 and will come home more forcefully once the CCSP
        report on vertical temperature trends comes out. This should be
        April or May according to Tom Karl who is overseeing it all. I say
        should as it apparently has to be approved by the White House!
        Peck will know why this is and the expertise of the people doing
        the approval!

        I can say for certain (100% – not any probable word that IPCC
        would use) is that the surface temperature data are correct.

        McIntyre is determined and the blog does influence people, unfortuately
        the media. As you say as issues are partially closed, they will move on
        to others.

        Cheers
        Phil

        Compare the 100% correct HADCRU3 with the 150% correct HADCRU4, SH ‘measurements’.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1940/to:1970/plot/hadcrut3sh/from:1940/to:1970

      • PP,

        I assume they’d behave in a similiar manner to all the other scientists in all the other fields, who apparently don’t need to be berated as ‘liars and frauds’ by legions of online keyboard warriors.

      • Wow, I like the way Pekka tries to blame sceptics for climategate scientists bad behaviour.

        Pekka, the presence of sceptics wouldn’t matter, because the reality of climate scepticism is nothing like the distorted view of climate scepticism that was running around the heads of the climategate crowd.

        It was the distorted view and paranoia that drove their bad standards and practices, not the real world.

      • Spence_UK,

        I do not blame skeptics, I’m asking whether the climate science community would have behaved differently in absence of the fierce animosity some members of that community had with skeptics. I speculate that the mutual animosity of some created a “common foe” and based on that pressure for keeping the normal scientific disagreements hidden from public fora.

    • Indeed:

    • I still don’t understand the idea that climate science is not a science because it doesn’t have falsifiable hypotheses. Surely a 50-year climate projection under a forcing change is a falsifiable hypothesis. It just takes longer to verify, but it is falsifiable. A past example is when Hansen produced a prediction in 1981 that said there would be warming and it would become noticeable above the noise level in the 1990’s. This was falsifiable, but wasn’t falsified. In fact what would have been falsified is a prediction that the global temperature stayed within the previous mean range from the 80’s through the 90’s.

      • Did you look at the 1981 paper that I mentioned? That had a sensitivity closer to today’s consensus average and pretty much nailed the rise. The other point is that the null hypothesis would have been falsified too because the rise is above the noise level of the measurements up to 1980, occurring about as quickly as expected.

      • Steven Mosher

        “I still don’t understand the idea that climate science is not a science because it doesn’t have falsifiable hypotheses.”

        Yes many of them fail to distinguish between falsifiable in principle and in practice.

        However, sometimes moves like “the missing heat must be somewhere” does look a bit tenuous..

      • Yep. After getting sucked up by the ocean, that heat’s pretty darn tenuous alright.

    • David Young

      I agree with Judith. Skeptics merely provide the check and balance in climate science that is provided in medicine internally. The problem is climate science is so politicized, and was before skeptics were a real factor, that an external check is needed. There is the confounding factor that a lot of people who go into climate science are already sure mankind is the problem before they start college.

      I continue to be amazed by the “mainstream” climate blogs like Stoat, where there is theological concentration on maintaining the focus on the message. As Kaufmann says of St. Thomas, he knows it all and proves it all from the most trivial question to the nature of God and the universe. The only questions where there is genuine discussion are trivial ones, such as “does exact bit reproducibility matter?” That’s a really trivial question compared to the more important ones that could be discussed. St. Thomas explains what he is about in his work. Reason cannot substitute for faith. But faith leads one to seek out intellectual reasons for what is believed already. This is the case at Stoat where W uses the Nurse Ratchet technique. Each paragraph in a disagreeing comment (sometimes every sentence) gets a dismissive insertion by W himself, the ultimate arbiter or truth. And scientists like Schmidt appear to like this technique and to participate in it. The peanut gallery is essential at a site like this. They do the dirty work of name calling and sarcasm that the host makes a pretense of avoiding.

      This is par for the course in politics, particularly corrupt politics. It has no place in science. Judith is more relaxed and allows a wide range of opinion. That can be distracting to the weak minded like Webby, but its far better than the theological approach.

      • The Young does not understand how to communicate science via first-order physics. That’s why the Stoat placed you in the dunce corner. He couldn’t deal with someone talking word salad, while most readers understand that the forcing is the thing, and that leads to a bounded response in a known direction.

        The only thing unbounded is the absurdity of commenters such as the Chef who believe forcing of the GHG variety can lead to the cooling of the planet based on some chaotic squirrel theory.

        He says this time and time again and bases it only on his innate knowledge. That is the 3% we are dealing with, knee-jerk contrarians trying to mess with our collective minds.

      • David Young

        Yes, It is obvious that W is politically motivated and wants to steer and frame the conversation in a particular way. My post was accepted by James’ Blog where I’ve been making this point about politization and how it makes real scientific discussion impossible. Stoat now serves as the 5th example I’ve found very easily. You don’t even rate a mention because of lack of substance or seriousness. It’s not just skeptics who are guilty of this as I’m sure in your lucid moments you realize.

        My comment is technically correct and was rejected by W because it tended to call into question the dogma that climate was “stable” and a unique function of forcings. However, even in his previous post on the subject, W hedged this assertion with all kinds of qualifications. If you look at the technical paper you will see color pictures to help you sort out the “word salad.” That’s a problem with ignorance, you can’t tell the difference between rigorously correct and meaningful statements and drivel.

        I’m not even going to rehash the problem with global conservation of energy as a constraint, its a very weak one as anyone who has computational experience knows.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Warming can indeed cause abrupt cooling – presumably related to THC circulation. Unless webby thinks that warming can cause an increase in THC?

        e.g. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/legrande_01/

        I have quoted Wally Broecker several times recently.

        ‘The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.’ http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2246

        It never sinks in that this this is just such mainstream science. Instead we have with webby such impenetrable ignorance that it is a source of much astonishment to me. Simplistic, superficial and trivial is the best that can be said of webby. It is nothing like climate science – it is nothing like science at all.

      • Except that is not exactly what they are saying. They are saying in the case of high CO2 levels a slowdown/shutdown can cause regional cooling, but that the GMT could actually continue to go up.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘Evidence for global teleconnections via the ocean and atmosphere is found throughout marine and terrestrial climate records at glacial–interglacial, millennial, centennial, and shorter time scales; however, their mechanisms are still enigmatic. The examples of linkages between the North Atlantic and several low and high latitude areas at millennial and shorter time scales are reviewed with special emphasis to oceanic teleconnections and feedbacks. Paleo-observations and modeling results suggest that changes in the THC mode exert significant control on the spatial and temporal variability of heat and moisture exchange between the ocean and atmosphere and hence on the global climate at orbital and sub-orbital timescales. The widely debatable “bipolar seesaw” and “eddy” hypotheses were proposed to explain the anti-phase millennial-scale temperature changes in high northern and southern latitudes. The assumed coupling between weakened upwelling in the North Pacific and reduced NADW formation during the stadials of the DO cycles still needs further investigation. The atmospheric teleconnections operate mainly on short-term scales via the major wind systems, ENSO, NAO, and other oscillations.’ http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-90-481-2415-2_7

        Was the 8.2 ky event regional or global? How does this interact with other feedbacks especially ice sheets?

      • “I’m not even going to rehash the problem with global conservation of energy as a constraint, its a very weak one as anyone who has computational experience knows.”

        Computation is separate from the actual physical theory. This is some sort of fantasy world you live in.

      • Webby, What I said was that conservation of energy is compatible with many many possible solutions. Do you have a response that is a real response?

      • Young Foo,
        If you say that it something is compatible with computational physics, it has to be compatible with some analytical variation. Otherwise, it is just an artifact of your inability to describe real physics mathematically.

        Read up on modeling and Church’s thesis
        http://www.lce.esalq.usp.br/aulas/lce164/modelos_modelagem.pdf

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%27s_thesis_%28constructive_mathematics%29

        And thanks for allowing me to recall the Rosen article for my citation list.

      • Webby, I looked at your 2 references and they seem to me to say very little relevant to computational science. I guess Rosen’s conclusion is that modeling will remain an art. Every modeler already knows that without recourse to mathematical logic. If you look at AIAA-2013-0063, you will see concrete evidence that conservation of energy is a very weak constraint. It even contains color pictures so you don’t have to worry about “word salad.” These 2 references you gave me are the final straw in my dealings with you. I believe you are a warmist version of Doug Cotton and are a climate clown who reads meaningless publications in the grey literature that have little relevance to science. You are a particularly nasty one who like personal insult and slander too.

      • David,

        In some calculations energy conservation is a weak constraint, in some others it’s decisive. When the main result of the calculation is the rate of warming, it’s to be expected that it’s an essential constraint.

      • I’m not too sure about that Pekka. The examples in the cited paper show that you can get differences in total forces of factors of 2. The dynamics do strongly affect the diffusion of heat in any fluid dynamical system. I think I know what you are saying: ultimately everything gets converted to heat and heat diffuses. Yes and no would be my response, but its more complex.

        BTW, I agree that simple energy balance models can be useful. But they need feedback responses and those are very complex and depend on dynamics.

      • Young specifically said there was something particular about computational physics that makes the energy constraints less important. Why he suggests that a computational model would be different than an analytical model only he knows. I was simply giving him a reference to a paper that talks about some of the difficulties in dealing with computational math.

        I also am aware that researchers such as Rosen speculated that certain behaviors might be specified in a form of math that we do not yet understand. That gets into category theory and Church’s hypothesis.

        I bring this up because Young is operating at a level that practical scientists don’t come across too often.
        For the life of me, I can’t figure out why “computational experience” has any role in the assertion that global energy is not important as a constraint.
        I change the sun’s output by a 10% increase and those with “computational experience” won’t detect any warming? That seens incredibly odd.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        In the non-equilibrium thermodynamics of the Earth system the energy pathways are extremely complex and result in internal processes that substantially change the energy dynamic of the planet over time. While energy is of course conserved it says very little about the extensive properties of the system – the diverse energy pathways – or how these manifest as physical processes that change how much energy is entering or leaving the system.

        We are talking here macroscopic thermodynamics and certainly not statistics of something or other trivial. Or biological models – as interesting as these are.

        I was interested in this from webby. Actually intellectual vertigo might be a better description.

        ‘I also am aware that researchers such as Rosen speculated that certain behaviors might be specified in a form of math that we do not yet understand. That gets into category theory and Church’s hypothesis.

        I bring this up because Young is operating at a level that practical scientists don’t come across too often.’

        I bring this up because webby is operating at a level of pseudo mathematical babble unique in the history of the world.

        This one I am actually enjoying reading.

        http://jdsweb.jinr.ru/record/51856/files/Understanding%2520Non-equilibrium%2520Thermodynamics.pdf

      • If the sun increase its radiative output by 10%, the Chief would be at a complete loss to estimate the warming of the earth. Instead he would babble on about chaos and complexity.

  41. “is willing to examine legitimate points the climate skeptics may be making”

    MAY be making. I can’t say you guys ARE making legitimate points. But you MAY be, I’ll give you that.

    • Well lolwot, in all the comments you’ve made on this blog, I can’t say you’ve made any legitimate points. But you MAY be at some future time.

    • lolwot,

      I will repeat a piece of advice I gave from another post.

      If you don’t already live there, you should consider moving to Colorado or Washington. That way you can legally purchase the stuff you’ve been smoking.

      • David Springer

        Umm… not until January 2014 for Colorado without a scrip. Interesting situation they got going legalizing recreational marijuana use. Even in Amsterdam (been there, done that) it’s technically not legal.

      • If we legalized all recreational drugs we would have a lot less police to deal with. I mean, they wouldn’t be busting into the wrong house, scaring the bejesus out of innocent people and shooting innocent dogs.

        Also, it would keep a lot of people out of jail – more savings of our meager printed money.

      • jim2-legalized all recreational drugs– Well, I suppose that might be considered to be an eugenics technique.

      • David Springer

        re; legalizing all recreational drugs

        It was like that in the US until about the turn of the 20th century. We survived. Some might even say prospered.

        Hard to believe, isn’t it?

      • When you live in a world where people hate your freedom, it is only natural to declare a war on recreation? The poll numbers said…

      • Poll numbers?

        http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jul/31/ppic-poll-california-environment-fracking/

        Well, granted it’s a poll by an activist group with a political agenda, but it does tell us Frank Luntz’ strategies didn’t keep California from deciding the government must act on Global Warming, they just delayed it for a decade. And where California goes, you know Texas follows 50 years later.

      • Sorry Bart, you must have watched the Match Game too.

  42. Skeptical Science is a blog that aims to reclaim the true principal of scientific skepticism from the climate-change deniers who have misappropriated the term.

    Would that be Principal Skinner by any chance?

    • David Springer

      Good one. But I’m afraid the usual suspects won’t get the joke. Like global warming it’s over their head.

      • David, many years ago, I thought that the US civil rights documentary series “Eyes on the Prize” was the stand-out tv program of the year it was broadcast in Australia. The following year, my choice was “The Simpsons”, one of the best (or the best) tv portrayals of family life. Dysfunctional? Which family doesn’t have a dysfunctional element?

        As for action-consequence Skinner, I think that we can change our conditioned responses. But perhaps I’m thinking outside the box.

      • David Springer

        I see I need to give y’all a hint.

        Two words. Principle. Principal.

    • Of classical conditioning fame? It seems to be the case – yes. Have to tell everyone to get get back in their (Skinner) boxes!

  43. Another mention:

    Here’s a look at what is facing my homestate of Arkansas:

    The US Department of Agriculture designated the entire state of Arkansas as a primary natural disaster area due to drought conditions in the summer of 2012.

    In July 2011, President Obama declared a major disaster area in Arkansas due to severe storms and flooding, which affected nearly 400 residences and required $8.2 million in federal assistance for cleanup.

    In Arkansas, there were close to 2,700 hospital admissions for asthma in 2011, with an average charge of over $14,000 for each stay.

    Warmer spring temperatures may make ragweed, which can cause hay fever and trigger asthma attacks, bloom earlier. Rogers experienced a 12-day increase in ragweed pollen season between 1995 and 2011.

    See the rest of the state-by-state report here.

    via The Dish

    http://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/map-climate-change-deniers-congress.html

    • Willard, I do believe that many of our problems have been due to land use.
      I would expect that drainage of a huge amount of our wetlands in MN would be one of many factors effecting you and everyone along the Mississippi.
      I also am quite sure land use has had some effects on regional weather.
      Much of it to make quicker changes and I would think that might be an area of requiring much more study.
      However, I cannot express adequately the degree to which the drought in the 1930’s absolutely decimated farming and more in the United States.
      I am in the process of gathering information from across much of the country of what the actual conditions were for nearly a decade.
      Aerial Maps in MN show the majority of lakes down 15 to 25 feet for years on end. The majority of lakeland was dry. Attempts were made to farm lakes, but it was usually too alkaline. Fires occurred from trees and other vegetation that had started growing in areas where the ordinary depth of lakes are now 15 ft. This drought lasted for years in more than half of the country and was a significant factor in the depression. People across the country would work for food and water and a place to lay down at night.
      Nothing in our current situation comes close to those conditions.
      I am at a loss as to why those who talk of weather history have marginalized that time so much.
      I also believe the temperature record of that time relative to today was drastically changed too much in the homogenization process.
      Anthony Watts has been discussed hear, one might take a look at his work regarding United States Temperature records..

    • Interesting, 400 residences and 8.3 million is cheap, probably mobile homes. $14,000 per stay for asthma is pretty high. 4.3 days at $1500 per day is only $6450 per stay plus treatment which is generally not that expensive, oxygen and IV drugs. 2700 hospitalization per year for asthma is actually below the national average.

      So there is a drought year, the farmers collect the crop insurance and sell the corn for silage, a mobile home park floods and a 12 day increase in ragweed season brings the asthma cases per year up to nearly the national average. Despite all that, Arkansas is a climate change denier state.

      • Yup. See no evil, hear no evil, Capt’n:

        Enjoy this aerial footage of the Arkansas dilbit spill. Its all your going to see.

        Brian Merchant at Motherboard:

        Exxon Mobil’s Pegasus pipeline just ruptured and spewed toxic oily muck all over Arkansas. It ran like a river through the suburb of Mayflower, pop. 2,000. Now, Exxon has publicly decreed that it will clean up all of the oil it spilled. Which is kind of strange, because officially, according to Exxon, there was no oilspill. Technically, there was no oil in the pipeline in the first place.

        That’s because if that pipeline was carrying oil, Exxon would have had to pay eight cents per barrel it pumped into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The fund was set up by a 1980 law enacted to ensure there’s enough cash on hand to cover the costs of cleanup when, say, a giant pipeline ruptures and spews crude oil all over people’s houses. But, in a little legal slight-of-hand, tar sands oil, or bitumen, is not technically classified as oil. And that’s the stuff that was flowing through Exxon’s pipeline.

        http://climatecrocks.com/2013/04/05/no-oil-spill-in-arkansas-all-well-on-eastasian-front/

      • Willard, there is another post with links in moderation, but since there are always two sides to a story,
        “The Pegasus pipeline rupture that occurred outside of Little Rock, Arkansas was a truly unfortunate event. But despite the inconvenience put upon families in the area, the industry’s reaction shows just how far American pipelines and environmental responses have come in the last seventy years. If anything, the incident spotlights our need to invest in modern energy infrastructure like the Keystone XL pipeline.
        The section of Pegasus pipeline that ruptured dated back to the 1940s. Since then, pipeline technologies, procedures, and materials have significantly advanced. The response to the Pegasus leak shows just that. By afternoon of the same day, witnesses said they could no longer smell the oil or see it on the nearby lake. Hazmat teams were also quickly working to contain and repair contaminated areas. This immediate response shows just how seriously industry takes the environmental concerns associated with moving thousands of barrels of oil across the country each day. The speed employed to contain the mishap shows how effective and responsive the industry can be when accidents do occur. Fortunately, the Keystone pipeline will take unprecedented safety measures, making incidents like the one in Arkansas even less likely. The Keystone pipeline will have 20,000 leak sensors along its 2,147 mile route, capable of activating automatic shut-down valves at the first indication of a leak. On top of that, TransCanada has worked with the Administration to meet 57 safety conditions geared to protect the environment. These include $200 million in liability insurance, tough inspection protocol, and unprecedented rigor in the pipeline’s design and construction. Even so, detractors remain steadfastly opposed to any new pipeline construction. But the point has been made time and again: failing to construct the Keystone XL pipeline will not stop production of the Alberta tar sands. Instead, the oil will be transported to U.S. refineries by truck and tanker. Arguing against Keystone is akin to arguing that advanced sensor technology, clear liability in case of an accident, and thoroughly studied pathways are all less safe than the same crude oil traversing even greater distances at the hands of thousands of different drivers and captains. In truth, these other modes of transportation are much more vulnerable to environmental conditions ranging from weather to construction to unsafe drivers. The Pegasus pipeline leak should not discourage America from investing in its energy future, starting with Keystone. That one section of broken pipe, built seventy years ago without the technology or legal safety framework available today, does not reflect decades-worth of pipeline safety improvement. Let’s hope that the decision makers in Washington, D.C. also weigh the Pegasus incident as an opportunity to reflect on the many advances that have positioned America as a safe and productive energy producer and exporter.”

        http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2013/04/is-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-to.php

  44. Another:

    Climate change deniers should not be given a place in business coverage at a time when industries from agriculture to insurance are making real financial decisions dealing with its impact, according to some of the nation’s top business journalists.

    Last month Media Matters reported that more than half of the climate change segments on CNBC this year cast doubt on man-made climate change. That network’s coverage drew criticism from top business journalists who said such coverage does not serve their viewers.

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/07/03/business-journalists-climate-change-deniers-hav/194736

  45. In the Salon, five hours ago, I was a climate change denier:

    Think Turkey and Brazil. Think Arab Spring, and the uprisings against austerity all over Europe. Think the student movements from Quebec to Chile. Think Occupy. These were collective uprisings that drew lines and demanded that people decide which side they were on. It’s our role to prepare for these kinds of “which side are you on?” moments for the climate by training and practicing, by re-focusing on the issues that connect us, by building institutions that can support us in long-term struggle. We don’t stop our other organizing or drop the many other pieces of our lives; we organize the people with whom we already stand in order to seize these moments when they come — to tell stories, take spaces, and challenge enemies of the climate.

    http://www.salon.com/2013/07/30/i_was_a_climate_change_denier_partner/

    • That’s right. Think Occupy. Afterall, they accomplished so much.

    • Steven Mosher

      sadly the kid didnt check what others said about him before his
      “conversion”

      http://www.occupy.com/article/naomi-klein-fight-hell-climate-justice

      “”If I had a role in Occupy Wall Street, it was to try to push the climate issue,” Klein said. She told me about Yotam Marom, one of the many OWS organizers she’s met in New York. “Yotam, who’s an amazing organizer, was one of the more resistant” to integrating climate into his worldview, she said. Not that he didn’t think it’s important, “but he just couldn’t find a way to connect.” She’s found this fairly typical.

      “For a really long time,” said Klein, “lefties thought climate was the one issue they didn’t have to worry about, because big, rich green groups had it covered. And now it’s like, actually, they really don’t. That was a dangerous assumption to make.”

      But she had just spoken to Marom again the day before. “Obviously, Sandy has changed the game for New Yorkers,” she said. Marom told her he was writing an article that would be a kind of “12-point recovery program for leftists, about what they need to do to engage with climate.”

      “But he said something so insightful,” she told me. “When he thinks about why he was resistant, he realized that if he accepted the reality of climate change, truly accepted it into his body, his soul, then he would have to drop everything he was doing. And he doesn’t want to drop everything he’s doing.”

      What Klein is trying to say to those like Marom is that they don’t have to drop everything. “In fact,” she said, “you need to do it even more.”

      “Climate change lends urgency to our fights for social justice, like nothing else before,” Klein said. “We have to win these battles against free trade, we have to win these battles to re-localize our economies. This isn’t just some little hobby.”

  46. Marketwatch, for Adam Smith’s sake!

    Seriously, which side are you on? Profits or planet? Yes, we can help you decide … before you vote. Ask yourself, will you vote for someone who believes in profits before planet? That short-term free-market capitalist profits are really what matters in today’s dismal economy? And all the long-term costs locked in talk about planning for climate change, global warming and preserving the environment are just some wishful thinking costs invented by a tree-hugging liberal conspiracy.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-test-are-you-a-capitolist-climate-denier-2013-07-24

    • David Springer

      Adam Smith is SOOOO 18th century. Get with the program. Nash Equilibrium formulated in the 20th century replaced the Adam Smith every-man-for-himself theory of capitalism.

      • > Nash Equilibrium formulated in the 20th century replaced the Adam Smith every-man-for-himself theory of capitalism.

        Citation needed.

      • Willard,

        Your citation probably was flushed along with the rest of poo you’ve posted on this thread.

        Links to business journalists offering their opinion on climate, insurance companies as proof warming is threatening, game changers like the 30 protesters outside Google HQ.

        Are you ok? You use to post relevant comment.

      • Steven Mosher

        here willard

      • Steven Mosher

        you better get with the program or Dr. Lew and his ilk will wire you up for some of this… Joshua will be glad we can get rid of your confirmation bias this way since you arent open to evidence..

      • Capitalism. Theory of.

        Not how to get a date by.

      • David Springer

        That was a short clip from a movie based on the life of John Nash. He eventuanlly won a Nobel prize for that theory about “getting dates”. Maybe try a little research on your own. Oh wait, you need to be spoon fed. Please don’t make a face and spit it out. An enclopedia is usually a good place to start. click me

      • You claimed that the new capitalism was based on Nash theorem, Big Dave. Now, give us a cite to back up this claim.

        Only Chuck Norris’ presence brings its own citation.

        Right that down.

      • Thanks, John.

        Does it mean that modern capitalism can be modelled like a non-cooperative game?

        Glad to know that Big Dave does not believe in binding agreements.

      • willard, You need, if you ask the General-Moters-Bond-Holder.

      • David Springer

        John Vetterling | July 31, 2013 at 11:56 am |

        “Try http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1994/press.html

        I suspect that’s too advanced. In order to compare to Smith’s invisible hand one first has to know what Smith’s invisible hand is.

      • David Springer

        Binding agreements between competitors is called ‘collusion’ Willard. It’s generally illegal.

        I hesistate to try an encyclopedia again because you just keep making faces and spitting it out but here it is nonetheless:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion

        Try to read at least the first paragraph. It isn’t rocket science.

      • Steven Mosher

        slow down dave you might be taxing willard’s googleFU.

      • David Springer

        Hey Willard… I’m curious if this

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Books_of_the_Western_World

        was something in the home where you grew up?

      • > Binding agreements between competitors is called ‘collusion’ [...]

        Yet some call these contracts, Big Dave, what binds property rights, which of course may appear as little details to Chuck Norris, who’s above anything, but not to us.

        A model of capitalism that can’t describe what’s happening every nanoseconds or so on Wall Street would be a bummer, no?

        PS: Look for (Lancaster, 1973). Enjoy its title.

      • The movie clip from A Beautiful Mind gets the beautiful and simple concept of Nash Equilibrium exactly wrong. NE is an individualistic and non-cooperative concept that holds when every strategy chosen is a best response to every other one. In the movie, if strategies were defined as which woman to target, then no one going for the most attractive could NOT be a NE, because if no one else goes for her your best response would be to hit on her.

      • I think clip might represent a bargaining problem, which could be tackled using Nash equilibria:

        There are many Nash equilibria in the Nash bargaining game. Any x and y such that x + y = z is a Nash equilibrium. If either player increases their demand, both players receive nothing. If either reduces their demand they will receive less than if they had demanded x or y. There is also a Nash equilibrium where both players demand the entire good. Here both players receive nothing, but neither player can increase their return by unilaterally changing their strategy.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bargaining_problem

      • No Williard, it is not a bargaining problem and bears no resemblance to one in the reference you cited. Furthermore, the Nash Equilibrium for which Nash was Nobelled, and which is purportedly what the clip is about, is not his (here irrelevant) axiomatic bargaining solution. Finally, there are many games with multiple NEs, and the bar game might have been one, but we can rule out the solution in the script as a candidate NE because it violates the basic best-response principle. They just got it wrong in the movie (which I’m sure the filmmakers don’t care about).

      • David Springer | July 31, 2013 at 4:31 pm said: ”Human digestive tract is 10x body length. Connect the dots. I also suggest you compare your “canine” teeth sometime to a real member of the canis family”

        David, human cooks the meat, to suit vegetarian stomach; they don’t prefer it as other carnivore raw..

        i prefer my stake only warmed on the fire – just cut his horns and wipe his ass, I’ll eat him

      • David Springer

        It’s a movie about Nash’s life not an economics class fercrisakes. DocMartyn said the insulin shock scene isn’t accurate. Probably because it’s a movie not a medical class. Duh. Go to the wikipedia article on Nash Equilibrium I offered at the top of this thread.

      • David Springer

        @Stefan.

        Try offering a dog cooked chicken and raw chicken. You’ll discover they prefer it cooked for the same reason we do; it tastes a lot better.

        Don’t give the dog cooked chicken bones. Cooking makes the bones brittle and dangerous to wolf down. I give my dogs raw chicken quarters frequently because it’s high quality and less expensive than top shelf processed dog food. Walmart sells 10 pound bags of chicken quarters for under $6 USD. If you feed entirely raw you need to add organ meat in the same general proportion as a whole bird for full nutrition.

    • Given my ancestors went to all the trouble of providing me with a large brain, opposable thumbs and a desire for warmth, food and soft toilet paper, I am in favor of profits before planet.
      We didn’t rise to the top of the food chain to become Zoo keepers and we have canine teeth and a meat digesting gastric tract for a reason.

      • > we have canine teeth and a meat digesting gastric tract for a reason.

        I thought we had a brain for that.

      • willard,

        Didn’t you know – climate skepticism is a gut thing.

      • DocMartyn | July 30, 2013 at 8:23 pm |

        According to OECD, industrialized nations have over the past 4 years dropped CO2E emissions, and overall and in 3 of the 4 years had positive economic growth.

        Gives the lie to the myth that you need to burn, baby, burn.

      • They say they may be able to ‘resurrect’ Detroit, in other times too…

        http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/31/woolly-mammoth-dna-cloning

        scientist continue to use words they like, incorrectly. It is fun & seems to pay well.

      • David Springer

        DocMartyn,

        Well you’re sure a long ways from a veterinarian. A “meat digestive tract” is short. Rule of thumb is 3-6x body length. Herbivores have a long digestive tract. Rule of thumb 10-12x body length.

        Human digestive tract is 10x body length. Connect the dots.

        I also suggest you compare your “canine” teeth sometime to a real member of the canis family to correct your mistaken belief that there’s a lot of similarity.

  47. Grist, a gimme:

    Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter Elizabeth (Liz) Cheney has announced she will run for U.S. Senate in Wyoming. This could mean a brutal primary with the current sitting Sen. Mike Enzi. Enzi is no climate warrior, even though the state faces a doubling or tripling of wildfires if we don’t slash carbon pollution soon.

    So how would Cheney address “the global threat of our time,” climate change? Well, her social media strategy on climate echoes Sarah Palin’s — take a picture of snow and make fun of it.

    http://grist.org/climate-energy/like-father-like-daughter-climate-denier-liz-cheney-to-run-for-senate-in-wyoming/

    • David Springer

      Cool. When the usual suspects start Cheney-bashing we can accuse them of being bigots who hate families containing lesbians.

      No wait. I’m thinking that would produce cognitive dissonance but the usual suspects have no cognitive faculties to begin with. Nevermind.

    • Willard, “even though the state faces a doubling or tripling of wildfires if we don’t slash carbon pollution soon.”

      Par for the course, if we slashed carbon today… Utopia. Cutting carbon also cures erectile dysfunction.

  48. Some flippin’ from The Official blog of Australia’s (AEC registered) NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics party (NCTCS):

    Michael Mann: Science Denier? or Deceiver?

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-consensus-settled-science-and-real.html

  49. Dr. Curry

    I applaud your placement amongst the more reasonable scientific types. I concur. I no long struggle with addressing what Gavin Schmitz says at Real Climate as I regard him as a brilliant but self deluded individual. I took my lumps at RC and moved on. No real science. Advocacy yes. Science no: i.e., no self doubt.” No, I don’t know.”
    More’s the pity as there are a host of very knowledgeable people who populate the blog, only, they can’t bring themselves to incorporate doubt, uncertainty, and all the other caveats that reflect science as I know it.

    I literally gag on the sentence that says John Cook is a physicist as his whole life has been one of preening and self aggrandizement. His blog reflects such a posture and plumage.

    As for the rest? I am ignorant. I didn’t see the Blackboard mentioned and its focus on statistics which has a certain fascination for me.

    Again, I languish in the shade of other’s who it seems are brilliant and articulate although carry the baggage of consensus climate change.

    I do not feel emancipated, just disheartened that the consensus team has a voice disproportionate to the science they claim.

    • “I do not feel emancipated, just disheartened that the consensus team has a voice disproportionate to the science they claim.”
      +1

  50. Vintage 2013-07-23, People Are Angry About Google’s Fundraiser for a Climate-Change Denier, Slate magazine:

    Silicon Valley’s forays into D.C. lobbying are getting clumsier. First it was Facebook, which ended up supporting oil drilling in the Alaska wilderness (because it needed allies for its immigration reform push). Now it’s Google, which held a fundraiser earlier this month for Republican Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, who believes that climate change is a “hoax” and a “conspiracy.”

    By amazing coincidence, Inhofe has also received a perfect rating from the Big Oil lobby group the American Petroleum Institute, and he has received $2.4 million in campaign contributions from the energy industry over the course of his career, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2013/07/23/google_political_contributions_fundraiser_for_climate_change_denier_james.html

    • David Springer

      Google is frickin’ awesome.

      Don’t be evil.

      • No need to do evil when you can fund others to do that for you:

        Google’s explanation? “We regularly host fundraisers for candidates, on both sides of the aisle, but that doesn’t mean we endorse all of their positions,” a spokesperson wrote. “We share an interest with Senator Inhofe in the employees and data center we have in Oklahoma.”

        What exactly does Google need Inhofe to do for its Oklahoma operation, which the company is expanding? Inhofe isn’t explicitly relevant to Google’s other interests. He doesn’t lead any pertinent committees, he opposed net-neutrality rules and he’s against comprehensive immigration reform, which Google is pressing for in order to get an expansion of visas for high-skilled employees. Perhaps a general interest in corporate welfare brings the two together, but Inhofe is pretty small fry in the pool of business-friendly Republicans.

        Hypocritical as it seems, Google’s Inhofe lunch is yet another indicator of the growing entanglement of Silicon Valley with Washington’s unsavory underbelly. Contradictions between the tech industry’s left-leaning, “progressive” brand and its political activities are perhaps best expressed by Mark Zuckerberg’s FWD.us (supported by Google CEO Eric Schmidt) doing anything it can to influence immigration reform in the industry’s favor, including running ads in support of the Keystone XL pipeline. (Rebecca Solnit and George Packer have described the effects, from local to global, of the tech industry’s ambitions at some length.)

        In Washington, Google leads the computer and Internet pack. The company was the biggest single donor at the annual fundraising dinner for the Competitive Enterprise Institute in June, kicking $50,000 to the libertarian group that shares privacy interests with Google, but also has invested massive resources to downplay the seriousness of climate change.

        http://www.thenation.com/blog/175249/google-hosts-fundraiser-climate-denier-james-inhofe

        The Nation: right that down.

  51. Mother Jones, vintage 2013-07-25, Poll: Young Voters Call Climate Deniers “Ignorant,” “Out of Touch,” “Crazy”

    Republicans in Congress who reject the science behind climate change could soon be reduced to political fossils, with new polling on Wednesday suggesting three-quarters of young voters find such views “ignorant, out of touch or crazy.”

    The bipartisan poll conducted for the League of Conservation Voters found solid 80-percent support among under-35 voters for Barack Obama’s climate change plan—and majority support even among those who oppose the president.

    On the flip side the poll found three-quarters of voters, or 73 percent, would oppose members of Congress who stood in the way of Obama’s climate action plan.

    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/07/poll-young-voters-climate-lcv

    • David Springer

      Wait until said children discover that the increase in energy cost, which is reflected in the cost of just about everything, will force 66.873% of them to move back in with their climate denier parents. Ha.

    • Doesn’t bode well for our future or for freedom. The dumb-in down of America is almost complete. I fear the Willard’s of the world are winning. Very unfortunate indeed.

      • Quite right, Bob.

        Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.

      • No doubt. KIds ain’t like they used to be. In fact, they haven’t been for decades, if not centuries.

        I remember when seen but not heard was the standard. Women knew their place then too – barefoot and pregnant.

        And blacks knew their place, also. None of those arrogant and uppity blacks like Obama.

      • fascinating little twist in the wording. The excerpt (correctly quoted by Willard) :
        The bipartisan poll conducted for the League of Conservation Voters found solid 80-percent support among under-35 voters for Barack Obama’s climate change plan.
        The actual line from the poll:
        80% support the President taking action to address climate change

        The idea of taking some sort of action got turned into “support” … “for Barack Obama’s…plan.” No breakdown is given for who called by party affiliation or question wording. The poll was conducted by a hard-core advocacy organization – http://www.lcv.org/
        “Join our movement to fight…!” is Willard’s idea of “non-partisan,” apparently.
        But anyhow, I “support” the president’s current plan (as it’s actually implemented)- go slow on wind/solar, frack baby frack, issue permits for new nuke plants, pat the zealots on the head with meaningless speeches about the urgent need for some future president to issue regulations someday.

      • Aristophanes might have anticipated what we hear in the Clouds.

      • David Springer

        Joshua | July 31, 2013 at 11:49 am |

        “I remember when seen but not heard was the standard. Women knew their place then too – barefoot and pregnant.”

        That standard went out the window in the 1960’s. You weren’t even born by then. What a poseur.

      • Poseurs are a plague since communication becomes so cheap nowadays:

        http://xkcd.com/1227/

        Must be the pace of modern life.

      • Steven Mosher

        hehe willard.

        the writer of the 1908 blurb, never saw a restoration comedy

      • > That standard went out the window in the 1960′s.

        Indeed, which must be “decades, if not centuries” ago.

      • David Springer

        willard (@nevaudit) | July 31, 2013 at 4:51 pm |

        “Poseurs are a plague since communication becomes so cheap nowadays”

        Not communication. The cost of anonymity is so cheap. Used to be if you wanted to fool anyone into thinking you’re a single M.D. you had to at least acquire an expensive car and throw money around carelessly in a bar where no one knows you aren’t a doctor. In the online social world I invented everyone can drive a Porsche and it’s an open bar… ;-)

  52. “SEJ’s reputation for excellence, service, and integrity..”

    Journalism…now with excellence, service and integrity! Get that SEJ glow of confidence today! Help is just an RSS away, when you’ve got SEJ! We even show you denier sites [smelly, use sparingly], so your opinions will have that lovely rounded shape and layered texture. Your friends will be amazed by your new smugness, bloviations and moralistic posturings! The authority of your factoids will amaze!

    The Melbourne Age or the Guardian…Which twin has the SEJ?

  53. wattsupwiththat.com has a global traffic ranking of 26,614 in the world. This site is estimated worth of US Dollar $ 294,480.00
    Daily Unique Visitors: 34,076
    Daily Pageviews: 204,456

    judithcurry.com has a global traffic ranking of 158,240 in the world. This site is estimated worth of US Dollar $ 40,800.
    Daily Unique Visitors: 5,445
    Daily Pageviews: 27,225

    rankexploits.com has a global traffic ranking of 353,512 in the world. This site is estimated worth of US Dollar $ 13,500.00
    Daily Unique Visitors: 2,245
    Daily Pageviews: 8,980

    – – – – – – – – – – — —

    realclimate.com has a global traffic ranking of 26,033,815 in the world. This site is estimated worth of US Dollar $ 8.95
    Daily Unique Visitors: 17
    Daily Pageviews: 34

    desmogblog.com has a global traffic ranking of 211,402 in the world. This site is estimated worth of US Dollar $ 22,680.
    Daily Unique Visitors: 3,754
    Daily Pageviews: 15,016

    skepticalscience.com has a global traffic ranking of 107,364 in the world. This site is estimated worth of US Dollar $ 60,000.
    Daily Unique Visitors: 8,025
    Daily Pageviews: 40,125

    • Thanks doc, what is your source for this (when I look at such things, i look at Alexa). these stats look pretty different from alexa, i just noticed that you did stats for realclimate.com (should be realclimate.org; .org has much better stats).

      • Also, where do I collect my $40K?

      • David Springer

        I think you should be subject to a property tax for the estimated market value of your website. Screw a carbon tax. The amount of hot air that will vanish with a blog tax might actually stop global warming. Oh wait, it’s already stopped. Nevermind.

    • David Springer

      If Watts would sell it for $300,000 and sign a non-compete it would behoove the usual suspects to pass a hat around and collect up enough money to buy him out, while they all still have jobs and hats, which Watts’ continued existence threatens daily.

      Just sayin’

    • Doc, you checked realclimate.com? Try realclimate.org.

    • Steven Mosher

      • I had the same insulin shock procedure done when I was a kid; it is unpleasant, but not at all like shown on the clip.
        As you burn through your glucose you feel very powerful, and hot, you have about 5 minutes of being hyper-metabolic, before you crash.
        When your glucose disappears you lose all ability to move, you muscles don’t work and your brain begins to shut down, but does so in stages as it tries to maintain consciousness, you are as weak as a kitten, but want to rip the head off the doctor.
        Like electroconvulsive shock therapy, it does reboot the brain.

  54. “Scientists who actually study climate largely agree on the basic findings that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing rises in global mean surface temperature and other climate changes. As greenhouse gas concentrations rise, climate change will intensify”

    OK, but how can any scientist reconcile history with the above. Any scientific claim of monotonic increasing global temperature is cofronted by two periods when temperature actually fell or remained constant:1940 to 1970 and 1999 to the present. These two periods were not predicted by the models and have not been explained by the modellers. There is a scientific explanation of these two periods: see my website underlined above.

  55. John Carpenter

    Heh, no mention of the ‘idiot tracker’?

    • Here you go, John:

      “[I]ntolerent moderates” — journalists who have chosen to define themselves as independent-minded thinkers ready to castigate both sides. The intolerant moderates accept that climate change is happening and action is necessary, but struggle to occupy a middle ground condemning the excesses of both sides. Since the excesses in the climate debate are not at all equally distributed between science deniers and the concerned, this positioning often leads to tepid critiques of climate deniers coupled with energetic castigation of the other side for minor, or, as in this case, nonexistent sins.

      http://theidiottracker.blogspot.ca/2013/05/the-intolerent-moderates.html

      I feel lukewarm about the expression “intolerant moderates”.

      • John Carpenter

        Yeah, Robert really cracks me up with all his definitions and categorizing. I guess that category put him on the black list… Or it could be nobody goes there.

      • “A pox in both houses”, like Marlowe used to say, seems more effective. But then:

  56. The funny part is that the SEJ, which a) functions as a more-or-less-open conspiracy to bias public information in the direction of green activism, and b) accuses all dissenters from its party line of being funded by a cabal of fossil-fuel villains, complains that non-greens are “conspiracy theorists.”

    SEJ was formed and exists to promote activist environmental policy. You need only go one level below its PR self-description, looking at work products like the one Prof. Curry cited, to see this. Not shocking–at a minimum, almost everyone who decides to specialize in “environmental journalism” is motivated by the belief that public discussion of these issues is crucial. But in order for this to be a subject for legitimate public discussion, there must be a public interest at stake, which means that there must be a need for extensive regulation and policy. If these were all inframarginal issues easily taken care of by the “normal” progress of economy and technology, no one would need environmental journalists.

    At a maximum, most of the people who seek out this profession may be green-oriented activists and sympathizers to start with. Somewhere between the minimum and the maximum we get the outcome–SEJ is the quasi-organized manifestation of the unorganized selection process into environmental journalism.

  57. Committed to reason, evidence, and open inquiry, she is willing to examine legitimate points the climate skeptics may be making

    Thank you!… :)

  58. Fossil-fuel industries have spent millions in disinformation efforts to convince people not to “believe” in the science.

    For comparison:…
    “A searing new report says the environmental movement is not winning and lays the blame squarely on the failed policies of environmental funders. The movement hasn’t won any “significant policy changes at the federal level in the United States since the 1980s” because funders have favored top-down elite strategies and have neglected to support a robust grassroots infrastructure. Environmental funders spent a whopping $10 billion between 2000 and 2009 but achieved relatively little because they failed to underwrite grassroots groups that are essential for any large-scale change,the report says.”

    http://www.alternet.org/story/154290/why_the_environmental_movement_is_not_winning

  59. Obviously, it would serve them well if they actually researched the blogs they “report” on.

  60. Articles written by people in the middle percentiles of the 97% come across as extreme here. This is just the latest example of moderate statements on climate change and skeptics being treated as extremist pronouncements by the denizens. They need to read more widely to be exposed to the median view more and see that this is a typical centrist article.

  61. Your thoughts on which news and blog sources should have been included (and excluded) from this list?

    Add Tom Nelson. Lots of wit on that site…

  62. Doug Badgero

    The kindest thing I can say is that their exclusion of CA belies their actual ignorance of the science. SM does not aggregate the science for them and he does not tell them what to think. You actually have to seek to understand the specific issue being discussed. Then you have to determine were that issue fits into the climate debate. That is way too much work for journalists.

  63. Perhaps more directly responsible for more words on more “Denier” blogs than any other is http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/frank-luntz-house_n_3456160.html

    Who?

    Frank Luntz is the man who advised George W. Bush in 2002 to replace “global warming” with “climate change”.

    He’s the strategist whose idea it was to say “CAGW” when discussing anything remotely connected to the greenhouse effect or increasing CO2 levels, and when the topic isn’t remotely connected to those, to move it toward “CAGW” as quickly as possible.

    You’ve surely noticed that spindoctoring used by manacker and others?

    “Cheap energy” — Frank Luntz linguistic strategy. It doesn’t have the negative connotation of “oil, gas and coal subsidies to the biggest most profitable multinational corporations from American taxpayers.”

    “Energy exploration” — Frank Luntz linguistic strategy. It sounds less like a violation than “oil drilling” or “strip mining”.

    Saying “energy” when you mean fossil fuel — Frank Luntz linguistic strategy. Confuses people into forgetting there are such things as nuclear, wind, solar, and so on.

    “Carbon tax” — Frank Luntz linguistic strategy. Makes people think privatization that puts money in their pockets is costing them money somehow.

    “True subsidy” — Frank Luntz linguistic strategy. Meant to imply other ways to give gifts to rich multinationals are okay, so long as they aren’t direct cash payments in the form of checks written by the Secretary of State.

    Using words to reframe the discourse so it’s impossible to even think in terms that overcome your premise.. well, that used to be called “Orwellian”.

    But Frank Luntz has redefined Orwellian so it doesn’t mean that any more, among his readers.

    And Frank Luntz’ readers?

    The people who write, edit or publish in the conservative media, and conservative — read “Denier” blogs.

    Oh, yeah. It was Luntz who pushed to adopt and own “denier”, to encourage its use among the detractors of conservative bloggers and media, as it is seen as too harsh a criticism for the activity of denial.

    • Luntz also said, “People are much more interested in seeing solutions than watching yet another partisan political argument.” This seems to be in reference to global warming, and you can find the link on his Wikipedia page. He’s good at using words in a political context. And you provided some interesting history. Maybe he captured a lot with his quote. Not another partisan political argument.

      • Ragnaar | July 30, 2013 at 10:17 pm |

        Interesting that when Professor Luntz makes observations about people’s tendencies, he means it in a social engineering sense.

        So if Frank Luntz congratulates people for their desire to see solutions, he likely means he’s providing his political partisan clients with a means to manipulate that tendency toward their own ends.

        So, yes, another partisan political argument that comes at you sideways, because that’s the way spin works.

    • I agree with your use of the word, Spin. Would we agree that Luntz was good at finding small marginal advantages for his clients? He also seemed to have the opinion that some on the right were hurting the cause. He mentioned Limbaugh giving flak to a moderate, for on one issue, being a moderate.

      I for one wish that President Bush would have handled this issue better, the Global Warming one. We are stuck with dealing with a lot of political history. In his recent speech, President Obama mentioned Carbon Pollution a number of times. I think that was spin.

      Without a compound of Carbon, CO2, it’s kind of difficult to have life. We happen to be Water and Carbon. I know Coal has its downsides, Mercury content for one.

      “People are much more interested in seeing solutions…” – Luntz. If what he said is true, it’s about working with that reality I think. If someone were to reply, it’s too early solutions as we don’t have the answers yet, I’d tend to agree. In that case, what the people want is still there. Maybe the best we can do at that point, is hold onto the peoples trust as we wait on the answers.

  64. The website stats are interesting but IMO the daily number of unique visitors is probably more indicative of influence.

    Judith’s site has a phenomenal number of comments but AFAI can see, the overall number of regular contributors is relatively low.

    A case in point is the Denizen’s page on Climate etc, where it seems that only a few of them comment on a regular basis. In fact, the more prolific commenters on Climate Etc have not posted on the Denizen’s page at all.

  65. RealClimate is and the ludicrously named Sk.Sc are each essentially nothing more than a toilet and comic book.

    • P.S. Think I heard that in a Richard Lewis conversation about the George Bush Presidential Library.

      I go both ways you see.

  66. Who? Gilbert Plass, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/abstract
    “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change” that was in the 50s

    Climate Change: Are we on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming, Wally Broeker 1975

    Climate Disruption, 2010 the White House based on John Holdren’s recommendation.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1312874/White-House-changes-global-warming-global-climate-disruption.html

  67. JC Comment

    As far as I can tell, the SEJ is a reputable organization. However, I find much of their article to be rather appalling.

    I agree the article is appalling. If SEJ was reputable a trash article like this would nit have been published. The warmist bias throughout shows SEJ is just part of the doomsayers cheer squad. It is a warmist advocacy group.

    Fancy saying Real Climate and Skeptical Science are reliable. What a joke. And why didn’t they mention Climate Audit?

  68. It is a concern that the “go to” body on global warming for “more than 1,400 journalists and academics working in every type of news media in the United States, Canada, Mexico and 27 other countries” (1) appears to fully accept that global warming etc is a serious threat, and (2) classes the honourable Judith Curry as a “denier.” Their selection of “good” blogs shows a serious warmist bias and, as other posters have noted, omits such excellent sources as Climate Audit.

    Journalists have, to an extent and with varying degrees of quality and effectiveness, a role as “guardians of the guardians.” Many studies have found that a large majority of journalists in English-speaking countries (at least) are politically to the left, so that they are more likely to accept the “progressive” CAGW line. The information on the Society of Environmental Journalists makes it seem even less likely that the main-steam media could ever present an impartial assessment of the science of global warming and related climate issues.

  69. Jo Nova got an honourable mention above for her worthy blog. In support of that, here is her article from today’s Australian:

    Carbon credits market is neither free nor worth anything by: Joanne Nova The Australian , July 31, 2013 12:00AM

    The paradox du jour: people who like free markets don’t want a carbon market, and the people who don’t trust capitalism want emissions trading. So why are socialists fighting for a carbon market? Because this “market” is a bureaucrat’s wet dream.

    A free market is the voluntary exchange of goods and services. “Free” means being free to choose to buy or to not buy the product. At the end of a free trade, both parties have something they prefer.

    A carbon market is a forced market. There is little intrinsic incentive to buy a certificate for a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. It says a lot about the voluntary value of a carbon credit that when given the option to pay $2 to offset their flight emissions, 88 per cent of people choose not to. A few do it as a form of green penance to assuage guilt, and others do it for their eco public relations campaign or branding.

    To create demand for emissions permits, the government threatens onerous fines to force people to buy a product they otherwise don’t need and most of the time would never even have thought of acquiring. Likewise, supply wouldn’t exist without government approved agents. Potentially a company could sell fake credits (cheaper than the real ones) and what buyer could spot the difference? Indeed, in terms of penance or eco-branding, fake credits, as long as they were not audited, would “work” just as well as real ones.

    Despite being called a commodity market, there is no commodity: the end result is air that belongs to no one in particular that has slightly less of a trace gas. Sometimes it is not even air with slightly less carbon dioxide, it is merely air that might have had more CO2, but doesn’t. It depends on the unknowable intentions of factory owners in distant lands.

    How strange, then, that this non-commodity was at one time projected to become the largest tradeable commodity in the world – bigger even than the global market for oil. In 2009, Bart Chilton, chairman of energy markets at the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission, estimated global carbon markets would be worth $2 trillion within five years.

    The UN may claim that carbon is “tracked and traded like any other commodity”, but if I buy a tonne of tin, I either get a tonne of tin or I get $20,000 because I onsold it. Fraud is easy to spot.

    Unfortunately, fraud has been a big, ongoing problem with emissions trading. This market needs auditors, and the auditors need auditing (the top two auditors in the EU emissions trading scheme were suspended in 2009 for irregularities). The EU has already lost €5 billion to carbon-trading value-added tax fraud. The mafia is laundering money in Italy through renewables schemes, and after one tax loophole was closed, market volume in Belgium dropped by up to 90 per cent.

    The carbon market also depends on the honesty of people claiming: “We wouldn’t have built that dam without that carbon credit.” How would we know? The Xiaoxi dam in China was already under construction two years before the owners applied for credits “to build it”.

    Since an ETS exists by government fiat and has no intrinsic value without it, it is technically a fiat currency rather than a tradeable commodity. Supply and demand is set by bureaucrats in the EU. If the price is too high, politicians will issue more credits, and if it’s too low they will delay them (as the EU is planning to do). Bureaucrats can also give exemptions to trade-affected industries (or their friends, and to their fans in marginal seats).

    Those who say that a carbon market is “like” other derivatives markets are wrong. Derivatives markets are sometimes quite disconnected from actual products such as pork bellies or gold bars, but eventually the supply and demand for real goods will determine the price. In some places the size of the derivatives market exceeds that of the commodity market, but that’s a reason to question those schemes, not to set up a market in an atmospheric nullity or something as frivolous as an “intention” not to build a dam.

    So, who profits from the carbon market? The brokers in a carbon market – almost every large investment bank – make money on every trade. The global carbon market turned over $176bn in 2011. These groups have been lobbying for a market, not a tax, and the reasons are obvious.

    Most of the key factors in a carbon market are misnamed. The market is not free. An essential plant fertiliser is called pollution. The aim of the market is not to make clean energy but to change global temperatures by an amount that rounded to the nearest degree, equals zero. The US has no market but has reduced emissions (largely thanks to shale gas), while any reductions in EU emissions were largely due to falling gross domestic product. Yet the government wants to join the EU scheme.

    Ironically, the reason for having any carbon scheme at all comes from monopolistic research. There are virtually no grants specifically available for sceptical scientists, but funding galore for unsceptical ones.

    We need a free market in science before we even discuss the need for a free market in carbon.

    But don’t hold your breath – the global warmers prove to be mostly global hypocrites.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/carbon-credits-market-is-neither-free-nor-worth-anything/story-e6frgd0x-1226688353428

    • I trust that the SEJ would agree that Jo’s article would “offer some help in sifting through the heaps of false, distorted, and misleading stories about climate change.”

    • I hope your post doesn’t send Bart over the edge. He believes that carbon taxes are part of the free market, don’t cha know.

      • Bart’s just looking for a hand-out. He has deluded himself into believing that the world (the “free-loaders” in his parlance) owe him money, but he can’t really explain why..

        Curious logic at work.

        Max

      • jim2 | July 30, 2013 at 10:30 pm |

        Pfft.

        Like you or I know or care what happens on the far side of the world from civilization. They don’t even really speak American over there. They just do a remarkably convincing imitation of American.

        And as manacker’s still having his own language problems, it’s “Free Riders”. Look it up.

        “Free-loader” is American for ‘European’.

      • Oops!

        It looks like Bart did go “over the edge”.

        But he still cannot explain his concept of “free riders” and why anyone owes him any money.

        What’s he done to earn it?

        Max

      • manacker | July 31, 2013 at 2:41 am |

        Another page from the Frank Luntz playbook: if you can’t defeat a point on reason (and you shouldn’t try, since only 20% of decision-making is based on reason, and 80% on emotion), paint the proponent of the point as emotional, because paradoxically emotional decision makers distrust emotional people.

        You keep following the playbook so closely, someone’s going to catch on that you’re just a playbook quarterback, with no real understanding of the deeper theory.

        Which more or less characterizes the comprehension of climate theory you present, too.

        If you need a definition of ‘free rider’, then read a book on economics.

        If you need an explanation of compensating the owner of a resource for its use, then move the heck out of that Socialist haven you live in and experience Capitalism first hand for a few years. It’ll do you good.

      • David Springer

        Bart R | July 31, 2013 at 2:54 am |

        “If you need an explanation of compensating the owner of a resource for its use, then move the heck out of that Socialist haven you live in and experience Capitalism first hand for a few years. It’ll do you good.”

        What resource do you believe that you own, Bart? Air? Don’t make me laugh.

      • David Springer | July 31, 2013 at 9:04 am |

        Tell you what, if you don’t think there’s such a thing as personal private right to air, try doing without it for a few minutes.

        Air has a composition that is a distinctive trait, just like Coke and Pepsi have their respective recipes. You adulterate someone’s coke, David Springer (not that I’m saying you make it a routine habit or anything), and pretty soon you will learn all sorts of things about private rights.

        Just because nations in the past treated air as a shared Commons is no reason for the practice to continue. Nations in the past also did the same for mobile communication frequency. You want to go around interfering with those frequencies now as if no one owned them?

        The composition of the air, through the carbon cycle that maintains its CO2 component, is:

        1. SCARCE – we know this because the level of CO2 is 43% above its historic peak of 280 ppmv, dating back the better part of 2 million years, and 70% above its historic median of 230 ppmv.

        2. RIVALROUS – we know this because analyses show the CO2E emitted today by someone will largely continue to affect the CO2 intensity for at least their lifetime.

        3. EXCLUDABLE in lucrative trade – we know this because we know the carbon content of things that get sold to be burned and otherwise put into the air, and those sales are part of exchanges every owner of air rights has an interest in. The governments of the world are all signatories to trade treaties involving standards of weights and measures including such carbon inventories, so it won’t cost a penny to monitor these sales to ensure fairness to the proper private owners.

        4. ADMINISTRABLE by simple means – there’s already retail sales tax and payroll tax in place in 95% of the world, or like systems. From the example of BC, we know it would actually cost _LESS_ to piggyback a fee and dividend system on top of these systems because of the reduction of tax churn and increased subscription by people who used to work under the table but now prefer the lowered taxes under revenue neutrality.

        The question of what price to set is not some ridiculous politburo-style EPA-expert dictated $38/ton, but the price that maximizes returns to the private owners of air rights. That is a matter for Congress, which is shirking its job and thus ensuring corporate communism wins.

      • k scott denison

        BartR, please let us know which molecules are yours and we will leave them alone. In return, I assume will respect my right to alter the composition of mine to my liking.

      • David Springer

        k scott dennison

        Brutal.

        Can’t wait to see the comeback, if any.

        LOL

      • A bit on the atmosphere as a commons as Bart R has indicated. We’ve been on that subject since 1955 according to the EPA. The attribute of it being a commons means that we have governments step in and decide things. To protect the commons. It’s the best we have for now.

      • Ragnaar | July 31, 2013 at 6:40 pm |

        So you really prefer the EPA to set the price of the carbon cycle, and keep the money itself, over the Market setting the price, and the money going to the owners — including you?

        See, I’ll never understand what can make a man prefer the yoke of tyranny on his neck like this, who isn’t European. But then, I have yet to read 50 Shades of Grey.

      • David Springer | July 31, 2013 at 4:36 pm |

        Brutal? You’ve been away from Buffalo too long. Your standards for invective has slipped. Maybe the heat’s gotten to you?

        k scott denison | July 31, 2013 at 3:45 pm | makes an offer of barter that is plain and simply all I’m asking. But he’s a stranger to me, and the little I’ve seen of him does not engender the sort of trust in his integrity to credit him so much discretion in his power over my molecules — and I certainly don’t trust the judgement of a man who’d give me such trusted power over his. Repeat that 330 million times or so for all of America, and you must see barter isn’t going to fly.

        So we do like we do for butcher’s scales and bags of flour and the weight of buckshot sold by the bucket: use the government to enforce standards of weights and measures, and use the government’s fiat currency in place of barter. Makes the whole exchange more efficient and honest.

        Not that I’m distrusting all 330 million Americans just because of k scott denison | July 31, 2013 at 3:45 pm | .. but you have to admit, you wouldn’t let him control your air, either, or we’ll know you’ve been in the heat too long.

      • > You’ve been away from Buffalo too long.

        Big Dave still got his wings.

      • I’d rather they wind down the Carbon Markets. I am not in disagreement with you. It’s the implementation problems. Political resistance. As many examples as we can come up with for less than optimal outcomes arising from Commonly owned property, it doesn’t seem to affect much change. Did you catch my earlier remark? People will forever argue about the use of the commons.

      • Ragnaar | July 31, 2013 at 11:12 pm |

        The Carbon Markets?

        Enh. They’re too insignificant as they stand to do anything, especially to defend themselves from being used for fraud and pixie dust.

        The Carbon Cycle Market? That only exists in British Columbia, and even there it’s not a complete implementation, as it lacks the price mechanism of the Law of Supply and Demand.

        But it is improving the BC economy and driving down carbon emissions, and more successfully than any other program of any size in the world.

    • Carbon market:

      It’s a so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no-one.

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-15/abbott-dismisses-ets-as-market-in-an-invisible-substance/4820564?section=act

      • Free market

        Whenever you buy one product rather than another, you are voting for the success of some manufacturer. And, in this type of voting, every man votes only on those matters which he is qualified to judge: on his own preferences, interests, and needs. No one has the power to decide for others or to substitute his judgment for theirs; no one has the power to appoint himself “the voice of the public” and to leave the public voiceless and disfranchised.

        http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_market.html

      • We’re not to fond of Rand today? Thanks for the Garbage and Gravitas article. Jolie and Pitt? It was an interesting take on Rand. I suppose she attracted a lot of criticism and that will continue. Nice book sales though. I think one of her best points was about the Creators. Who is it that provides value? I am not talking about a pyramidal situation. It could be plumber, a floor fixing guy, a person that fixes your computer, or a Science teacher. And then to perhaps place a high value on those people. To be able to recognize value.

        Got me think though about von Mises though:
        http://mises.org/daily/5892
        Article by Dr. David M.W. Evans. Might be boring though.

      • I read all of Ayn Rand (the Amanda Bynes of the Great Depression) in high school. I have to admit, to my twelve-year old self, she wrote fascinating fairy tales, but they were lacking. Incomplete. Didn’t go far enough.

        I suppose she spent too much time being out of her gourd to get all the way in her reasoning and ever complete a whole thoug

  70. Reny Madigan

    For the curious:

    Alexa Stats

    Note: search terms that are references to the target site have been excluded when documenting top search term

    Realclimate.org
    Global Rank: 168,851
    Top Search Term: Greenland melting

    Insideclimatenews.org
    Global Rank: 293,027
    Top Search Term: Turkey regulatory authority

    Desmogblog.com
    Global Rank: 211,402
    Top Search Term: Global warming contact information

    Skepticalscience.com
    Global Rank: 107,364
    Top Search Term: Graph goin down

    Climatesciencewatch.org
    Global Rank: 1,542,592
    Top Search Term: 50year hot

    Wattsupwiththat.com
    Global Rank: 17,781
    Top Search Term: Frequent ier roundup

    Thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/
    Unable to get Alexa stats. Instead the main site, thinkprogress.org is overlayed.

    Judithcurry.com
    Global Rank: 158,240
    Top Search Term: Spin down climate models

  71. “Your thoughts on which news and blog sources should have been included (and excluded) from this list?” – JC

    There is no “should” – they stated that they were providing a few links that might give “some help”, there was nothing explicit or implicit that they were giving an exhaustive, comprehensive or representative list.

    And “appalling”??

    I thought that they were petty damn generous to include WUWT in a list meant to “help in sifting through the heaps of false, distorted, and misleading stories about climate change.”

    Unless WUWT was there to help identify what “false, distorted and misleading” looks like.

  72. The warmists keep saying they don’t understand why their communication isn’t working. Just the other day I clicked on Dan Kahan’s link in Judith’s blogroll and commented there for the first time. He was looking for opinions on communication. He evidently can’t find a way to communicate with the average person about AGW and tries lay it off under a blizzard of word salad related to some sort of cultural cognition gap.

    Being one of the hoi polloi myself, I figured he might welcome a measured comment from such as myself to aid in improving to his knowledge of how the average person thinks. Basically it boils down to the fact that anyone who isn’t well-off should care very little even if AGW happens to be true. Especially if the government is going to take money from them under the guise of stopping it. In other words, self-interest and economics trumps all.

    I wasn’t even expecting a reply, but I sure got one. Certainly not the type I would expect from someone purporting to be interested in communicating. That is, after all, a two way street.

    He started with a couple of inane questions. Told me to forget the realities of death and paying to reduce global warming, and proceeded to call me inconsequential. He then tried to educate me on the minimal value of voting.

    I was quite taken aback by his response. This guy is supposed to be some well known academic mucky muck? It never ceases to amaze me to see how far academic standards and decorum have fallen during my lifetime.

    I proceeded to write one more measured comment in reply. He has yet to respond. Frankly, I looked around his site and it doesn’t seems worthwhile to stop at.

    Anyone interested can read the exchange starting about 7-8 comments from the end of the thread linked here.
    http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/7/27/weekend-update-the-distracting-counterproductive-97-consensu.html?currentPage=2#comments

  73. Paul Vaughan

    RealClimate DELETES comments about natural variation.

    http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/6451/1xx.gif

    Unforgivable.

    • Paul Vaughan

      “Watts Up With That is one of the more civil [...] denier blogs.”

      The problem there is that 2 “special” guests are allowed to cross a line so deep into uncivil territory that any sensible person would just walk away.

      I encourage all sensible parties to aggressively boycott interactions with the 2 “special” dark operatives.

      Sincerely

      • David Springer

        Well one of those special less-than-civil authors is undoubtedly Willis Eschenbach. Who is the other?

    • RealClimate deletes any comments that conflict with its own view.

      It is a total waste of time.

      Max

      • Closed society “C”words that have no place in science:
        #certainty
        #consensus
        #censorship
        #controlling the message
        #conditioning

        Open society “S” words that do:
        #scepticism
        #scientific method of conjecture and refutation
        #Socratic intellectual honesty accepted, the recognition
        of ‘how little you know.’
        #Sharing methodology, suffering criticism.
        #Scrupulously specifying probems and doubt .

      • …..but RC moderation!!!!

    • Remember natural variations include GHGs released from volcanic episodes causing the warmer paleoclimate periods. If you can put your natural variations in that context it should be OK because those are accepted in AGW. The PETM was also a natural variation that might have included a large methane release and a lot of warming too. Certainly these natural variations are important, and you have to quantify your own in those terms for them to have any meaning.

      • Jim D

        Yeah.

        And natural forcing (or variation) also include a whole lot of factors for which the mechanisms are still unknown or uncertain.

        That is one reason why there is great uncertainty in attributing past climate change or projecting future climate developments.

        The unknowns still far outweigh the knowns.

        Max

      • Just trying to help. It is a benefit if you can ascribe a cause to your natural variation, otherwise it just looks like statistics.

      • Jim D

        Anyone who ASS-U-MEs that climatology knows everything about what makes our climate behave the way it does is either ignorant or arrogant (or both).

        Don’t fall into that trap.

        Even well-known experts, such as Richard Lindzen, are not so arrogant that they would make this assumption.

        Max

      • Paul Vaughan

        Put the politics aside.

        Please: Take the time and make the effort necessary to become capable of interpreting sensibly before attempting commentary.

        SCD measures RATE of coupled processes, regardless of what they are.

        That’s the beauty.

        You don’t need to be capable of physically modeling and explaining everything happening in a car to know that the tachometer gives a meaningful indicator of coupled mechanical processes!

        Sensible interpretation:
        It’s about pumping rate & persistence.

        Everyone is brainwashed to expect complicated, but it’s simple.

    • “RealClimate DELETES comments about natural variation.
      http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/6451/1xx.gif
      Unforgivable.”
      How dare they!!!
      Delete comments on their own blog!
      The nerve!!
      Bring my smelling salts!

      • Michael

        RealClimate censors out any comments that go against the personal beliefs of Schmidt/Mann et al.

        Sure, it’s their blog.

        It just isn’t a very interesting one, as a result of its censorship policy.

        Our hostess runs a better operation here.

        Max

      • You don’t get deleted here Michael, nor do I expressing
        contrary views to you. Judith Curry is an upholder of open
        society values integral ter ‘doing science-investigation’ and
        ter critical review.
        BC

      • Beth ,

        Comments get deleted here.

      • “censorship” – max

        Oh, poor little max, repressed by the big bad RC!

        It takes a very special kind of stupid, a really narrow minded, intolerant stupid, to take a serious topic like censorship and pretend that someone exercising their prerogative to limit what others post on their blog, is “censorship”, all so you can use it as a weapon to attack them for not sharing your dogmatic fringe views.

        Grow a pair, you denialist dunce.

      • Try getting a brain Michael. Everyone has been very cordial with you. Yet you get abusive. Testing Dr. Curry?

      • manacker | July 31, 2013 at 4:04 am | Michael

        RealClimate censors out any comments that go against the personal beliefs of Schmidt/Mann et al.

        Sure, it’s their blog.

        It just isn’t a very interesting one, as a result of its censorship policy.

        Our hostess runs a better operation here.

        No she does not.. She used to, but she has had a change of mind for some reason..

        The comment about her above “Committed to reason, evidence, and open inquiry, she is willing to examine legitimate points the climate skeptics may be making — as well as the evidence and arguments from mainstream climate science.”

        Is a joke, as she appears to think it is too by her comment of it.

        Not that she was ever open to discussion, she avoided it, but she did at least publish other views.

        How she can still consider herself a scientist when I have given NASA’s traditional physics contradicting the Greenhouse Effect energy budget claim of “shortwave in longwave out”, which shows it is a science fraud, when she refuses not only to discuss it, but censors all my posts from traditional physics, is a puzzle.

      • Myrrh, your posts are moderated because they are extremely lengthy and repetitive, you have said the same things here hundreds of times. Keep your posts short and they will get through

      • Michael,

        Being a clever donkey doesn’t change the fact you’re still a donkey.

        How is it you are not clever enough to recognize the difference between an open forum and a highly regulated site which deletes uncomfortable comment.

        Oh yeah, because you are a donkey.

      • “How is it you are not clever enough to recognize the difference between an open forum and a highly regulated site…”

        You could be on to something there tim.

        See if you can explain it to Max.

      • RealClimate censors out any comments that go against the personal beliefs of Schmidt/Mann et al.

        Even accepting the self-victimizing claim that blog moderation amounts to “censorship” this statement is factually incorrect.

        A “rational skeptic” would not make such an obviously false statement. It is easily checked, and easily proven wrong, with abundant examples.

        A “rational skeptic” might easily have feelings similar to yours, manacker, feelings of victimization, but a “rational skeptic” would recognize his own confirmation bias and other influences that would tend to distort his analysis, and at least attempt to control for those biases.

      • In what sense should we expect someone to be rational, when he declares that he is a “rational skeptic”.

        That might mean that he tries to influence others as much as he can using all means available. That’s certainly one form of rational behavior.

      • David Springer

        Comments get deleted here. But none because of technical merits as judged by Curry as far as I know. Possibly some due to tiring, tedious, verbose repetition of crank science such as that offered by Myrrh, Doug Cotton, Oliver O’Manuel, and a few other moonbats whose names escape me. Schmidt deletes civil non-repetitive comments because he disagrees with the premise. That’s too bad. He could possibly be relevant if he wasn’t such a close minded boor with delusions of infallibility.

      • “How is it you are not clever enough to recognize the difference between an open forum and a highly regulated site” – Springer

        Now that’s some industrial strength projection.

      • Pekka –

        That might mean that he tries to influence others as much as he can using all means available. That’s certainly one form of rational behavior.

        Fair enough. That statement is like David W’s argument – which I also think is valid – that a determination of rationality can include fallacious reasoning. I was not careful enough in my analysis. Manacker’s argument can be rational even if it relies on obviously false premises.

        But although using obviously false statements in an attempt to influence people might be rational, I doubt that in referring to himself as a “rational skeptic,” manacker is making such an argument.

      • cut and paste fail;

        “a close minded boor with delusions of infallibility.” – Springer

      • Schmidt deletes civil non-repetitive comments because he disagrees with the premise.

        Perhaps sometimes – but certainly not always (as you seem to suggest and as manacker erroneously, claims).

        There might be any number of criteria that he uses when deleting or editing “civil, non-repettiive comments” that have sound technical merit – with the understanding that “technical merit” is inherently subjective here.

        What exposes manacker’s lack of skepticism is a willingness to assert cause and effect without controlling for abundantly obvious counter-examples. There is enough ambiguity in your comment to allow for you not having fallen into the same “skeptical” (as opposed to skeptical) trap.

        Your statement might imply that he deletes any civil non-repetitive comments because he disagrees with the premise, or that he does it sometimes and deletes comments for other reasons as well. So your statement is not as obviously “skeptical” as manacker’s. But still, I’d say that you are making a conclusion about cause-and-effect, without appropriate qualifying language, for which you can’t justify your confidence.

        Maybe the only criteria that he uses are technical merit (from a perspective different than your own), repetitiveness, shallowness, employment of arguments he finds to be overtly fallacious in nature, etc.)

        I don’t know. I wouldn’t find it hard to believe that he might do as you suggest. It would be entirely consistent with what we know about the nexus of human nature, attributes of human reasoning, and contentious issues such as the climate debate. A similar explanation would seem entirely plausible for much of Watts’ decision–making about moderating his blog.

        Judith does, indeed, stand out as an exception in that regard; although certainly there have been times when I felt her application of moderation criteria were inconsistent – it’s hard to think of examples when it seemed to me, at least, her moderation was based simply on disagreement with the opinion being expressed. In fact, the only example I think might be applicable was when she deleted a comment of mine about Lindzen’s tribalistic analogies comparing environmentalists to eugenicists. Still, I couldn’t possibly have enough evidence about the actual criterion she used in that example, and so for me to make an assertion – with the confidence of your assertion for something that you couldn’t actually possibly be certain about – would be an example of “skepticism.” Thus, I qualify my speculation. Write that down.

      • The other factor to consider is the effect of whatever moderation policy is enacted.

        An informative example would be to read the entire comment threads of the latest posts at CE and RC.

        One reads like a juvenile food fight and the other like a cutting edge e-salon where people want to talk about science.

        Attentive types may be able to correctly guess which is which.

      • John Carpenter

        “One reads like a juvenile food fight and the other like a cutting edge e-salon where people want to talk about science.

        Attentive types may be able to correctly guess which is which.”

        So where do we find Michael hanging out? Priceless how judgmental comments like that one make the author look to observing bystanders since one can only infer that taking part in the juvenile food fight and not at the cutting edge e-salon is just a sophmorish anti science waste of time.

      • Steven Mosher

        Joshua

        “Joshua | July 31, 2013 at 8:26 am |
        RealClimate censors out any comments that go against the personal beliefs of Schmidt/Mann et al.

        Even accepting the self-victimizing claim that blog moderation amounts to “censorship” this statement is factually incorrect.

        A “rational skeptic” would not make such an obviously false statement. It is easily checked, and easily proven wrong, with abundant examples.

        #############

        the statement is an exaggeration

        First we have evidence from the climategate mails that they engaged in this kind of behavior. Second, on numerous occassions I have submitted on topic, non accusatory, simple questions or comments to RC. most of the time these comments get through. But there are occasions where certain comments are not allowed. even certain questions are not allowed. In the end, folks just stop visiting after this happens a few times.

        I used to go to SkS as well, similar stuff..

        in my experience its rare, but it happens to enough people that exagerated versions of it get spread around. Bottom line you cant tell by looking at the record of recorded comments how many get rejected. For that you either need personal experience or faith in the reports others make.

      • neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/yesbutrcmoderation

  74. As far as I can tell, the SEJ is a reputable organization.

    Maybe reputable, but certainly not objective or unbiased. They appear to simply be parroting the IPCC “consensus” party line.

    Max

    • As I mention above, in the spectrum of the 97%, they would be centrist. It is you who would be on an extreme wing to most others.

      • Jim D

        Your alarmist viewpoint is hardly that of an “objective” centrist.

        Max

      • To me, the centrists look to be reasonable, but not to you. That is the difference.

      • Max,

        It’s funny how the people on the fringes think everyone else is biased.

      • Speak for yourself, Michael.

      • Jim D

        I’d consider our hostess here as a “centrist” and, yes, I pretty much agree with essentially everything she has written here and elsewhere or testified recently before congressional committees. How about you?

        Max

      • “Speak for yourself, Michael” – Max

        Max speaks loudly for himself.

        ON SEJ; – “but certainly not objective or unbiased”.

        Then on Jim; – “Your alarmist viewpoint is hardly that of an “objective” centrist.”

        The misuse of “objective” and “biased” is interesting. Sounds so much more reasonable than – ‘I don’t like your views’.

      • “yes, I pretty much agree with essentially everything she has written here and elsewhere or testified recently before congressional committees.” – max

        Max agrees that CS could be as high as 10C.

      • Michael,

        Not half as funny as a talking donkey who thinks he can offer meaningful commentary.

      • Tim,

        you’re such a wit!

      • Michael Tobis comments on the objectivity with special regards to how the statistician Nate Silver is viewed by some:
        http://planet3.org/2013/07/29/nate-silver-and-objectivity-vs-objectivity/

        “This is what I like to describe as the difference between objectivity and “objectivity.” Objectivity is the belief that there is a real world out there that’s more or less knowable; the “objectivity” that journalists practice holds that it’s impossible to know what’s real, so all you can do is report the claims made by various (powerful) people.”

        Deniers hate the methods of someone like Silver, because he uses the properties of statistics to reveal hidden truths. Garden-variety deniers rely only on the current data and believe that anything more than this is considered Voodoo Science (to use Robert Park’s phrase). The best of the science-aware journalists understand objectivity.

      • thx for this ref, i can use it in a planned future post

      • manacker, I think a 4 C total AGW effect by the end of the century is a middle estimate for me, probably not for Judith, but I haven’t seen one, so it is hard to judge where she stands, and we can’t tell whether she is centrist, or has just completely stepped off the scale due to doubt and uncertainty overwhelming any possible estimate.

      • “There is no such thing as objective reality.”

        This is a core tenet of progressivism.

        Postmodernism – “Postmodernism is a tendency in contemporary culture characterized by the rejection of objective truth and global cultural narrative”

        Legal realism – There is no such thing as objective law, law is about
        power.

        Multiculturalism – there is no objectively standard against which to judge societies (except Christianity, Judaism and conservatism, which are intrinsically evil.)

        CAGW (aka post modern science) – Peter Gleick, Stephen Schneider, ’nuff said.

        Progressive politics in all its variations could not exist without post modern “deconstruction” of the objective reality of human history and accomplishment.

      • Michael,

        not a wit, just a smart ass.

        Beats being a jack ass. Even a talking one.

      • Jim D | July 31, 2013 at 8:16 pm : ” I think a 4 C total AGW effect by the end of the century is a middle estimate for me”

        Jimmy boy, you are still paranoid about the phony GLOBAL warming; did you ask for any psychiatric help for your problem?

  75. Considering just the comments section of this blog is enough to classify it as 3% denier territory. There are over 70 commenters with alternate theories, each of which is fundamentally flawed.
    http://tinyurl.com/ClimateClowns

    Pick any one of those listed as someone to rally around, and you will go nowhere fast.

    It is no wonder that environmental journalists would describe blogs such as this one and WUWT in the way they have. You are known by the company you keep and these sites are infested with krackpots and kranks. See the P. Vaughan character commenting right above this comment. I rest my case.

    • WHT

      ADD IPCC and its “CAGW premise” (as outlined in its AR4 report) to your list of theories “which are fundamentally flawed”.

      It’s a loser, Webby, as is becoming apparent.

      Max

      • Manacker,
        You haven’t been paying attention in class. Go to the corner with your dunce hat on.

        IPCC just aggregates ideas. Frank Luntz, the focus group pioneer, fabricated the term CAGW for maximum denier effect.

        Interesting that 3% is like having a single student failing out of an average classroom size of 30.

      • Colour me old fashunned, Web Hub Telescope, if that’s who u r,
        but in my book, if yer malign others, yer should be man or woman
        enuff ter put yer name to it. Beth the serf on Belinda’s computah.

      • Maybe you should not be so childish and consider dropping the tiresome Aussie Ocker slang.

      • David Springer

        WebHubTelescope (@whut) | July 31, 2013 at 6:08 am |

        “IPCC just aggregates exaggerates ideas.”

        Fixed that for ya!

        No thanks necessary. :-)

    • WHT does me a great honour to include my name with all the others on this list of yours because they are real people who put their names and reputations on the line as opposed to those who choose to snipe under the cover of anonymity. He has probably just doubled the total number of page views to his lonely little blog, from possibly 6 to about 12.

      • Well here we all are, Peter, he’s gotta little list, he’s got us on
        his list, tra la! Come the culchural revo-lu-shun we’re targiited
        fer re-ed-you-ca-shun or … (
        https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1TbosA_JLgwcjj6SfOqmvQu4oEgkWNQOw7XgvxvUZoJE
        A serf

      • So how does that make you feel being categorized correctly with 70 other krackpots and kranks? You certainly aren’t real scientists.

        The sad fact is that they just can’t get it through their thick heads that there are billions of people on this planet, and only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction read these kinds of sites and could give a darn about anything except for their own welfare.

        The Aussie losers such as Peter and Beth long for some connection to other Larrikins.

        Those are the statistics, a bunch of Aussies who feel it is their cultural heritage to mock authorities — you might as well deal with it.

    • Webby says i have a theory. Please clarify what it is

      He also days. ‘Brown claims the painting was of a lowland area in Belgium.’

      Where did I claim that?

      . I provided the reasons that paintings such as this are used. The same painting is used by many historical climatologists. Such a painting is used as the cover for his book ‘the little ice age’ by professor Brian fagan.Why don’t you tell him to stop using such paintings as well? Why are you frightened of history webby?

      Tonyb

      • Oh I don’t know, it basically amounts to saying stupid stuff all the time:
        http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/27/open-thread-weekend-26/#comment-353405

        Tony is a good illustration of how the deniers are not monolithic in their crazy alternative theories. He sets himself apart by using anecdotal information to try to “prove” things. Using anecdotal data is not taught in science class for a reason. Perhaps Tony can explain why as a homework problem.

      • Web

        Exactly what is your quoted comment of mine at 6.30 meant to prove?

        The climate has been doing what I said.

        CET shows the climate has been warming for some 350 years. BEST confirms that from the start of the record. Are you a denier of global warming Webby? I think we need to be told what YOU think has been happening.

        As for Historical climatology, here is the definition of it.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_climatology

        Ps Once again could you clarify what my ‘theory’ is? Please also confirm my reference to Belgium in the manner you cite it.

        tonyb

      • Tony,

        BEST doesn’t confirm that. The large error bars are not there in vain. They tell about the sparsity of data. That means also that what BEST shows is not independent of CET but significantly influenced by CET. The additional data is in addition from areas whose temperatures are correlated with those of England more strongly than the global average is.

        Thus BEST is consistent with CET but does not confirm that CET gives a correct picture of the development of global temperatures.

      • This is the full transcript of what was supposed to be stupid but the Chief hit the nail where the the only stupid remark was made by WHT himself.

        “WebHubTelescope (@whut) | July 27, 2013 at 5:26 pm |
        TonyB can not even reason properly without completely muddling his argument

        He wrote this
        ” It seems to have been getting warmer-in fits and starts- for 350 years. Prior to that it was cold and prior to that warm.”

        So it has been getting warmer for longer than 350 years?

        Please stay away from technical subjects.

        Chief Hydrologist | July 27, 2013 at 5:41 pm |
        http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/04/21/blogs/dotkaufman.html

        Seriously webster – add something useful or consider yourself an inconsequential twit. The temperature record technical? You’re an idiot with bells on.”

        Looks like he should be seriously considering whether he should refrain from being a clown himself, however, while there are some on this list that evoke some humour, WHT is absolutely devoid of it and is a crashing bore.

      • Pekkasaid

        ‘That means also that what BEST shows is not independent of CET but significantly influenced by CET. The additional data is in addition from areas whose temperatures are correlated with those of England more strongly than the global average is.’

        So we are agreed that the Global BEST temperature is influenced by CET data and that other records in BEST are also correlated with CET? So calling CET a ‘global’ average (or perhaps NH) is correct in regards to the information being used in BEST, especially in the early part of the record?
        tonyb

      • Peter

        We must be charitable and assume that In Web’s neck of the wood the concepts of getting warmer or getting cooler are considered too technical to be understood unless you are a climate scientist.
        tonyb

      • People responsible for BEST decided that the data available is indicative of global land temperatures within the stated error range. It must be understood that in this kind of situations there’s probably a strong autocorrelation in the error of the estimate, i.e. the early temperatures may well be systematically close to the upper limit of the range (or the lower limit).

        It’s also clear that the early results are strongly dependent on assumptions that are plausible but cannot be proven as there’s no way of testing those assumptions.

      • Pekka

        So you are basically agreeing with me as far as I can see.

        CET is a useful indicator of temperature changes far beyond our shores. I fully adhere to-and always have-Hubert Lamb’s maxim that as far as historic records are concerned ‘we can understand the (temperature) tendency but not its precision. To believe we know temperatures to tenths of a degree is sheer hubris.

        tonyb

      • Does the bit with “hubris” come from Lamb, Tony? Your ending ” is missing.

      • Willard

        LOL. I have cited it so many times I thought everyone could recite it by heart….It ends;

        …but not its precision.’

        tonyb

      • Steven Mosher

        If you got to freely choose a place to have a long record, the UK would be towards the bottom of the list.

        Thats just the math of it

      • Mosh

        Explain your cryptic 12,24 other than that you don’t like Manley

        Tonyb

      • Steven Mosher

        “Pekka Pirilä | July 31, 2013 at 9:16 am |
        People responsible for BEST decided that the data available is indicative of global land temperatures within the stated error range. It must be understood that in this kind of situations there’s probably a strong autocorrelation in the error of the estimate, i.e. the early temperatures may well be systematically close to the upper limit of the range (or the lower limit).
        #################3
        YUP

        It’s also clear that the early results are strongly dependent on assumptions that are plausible but cannot be proven as there’s no way of testing those assumptions.”

        YUP

        ##########################3

        Yes, its hard for people not to be mesmerized by the line on the graph and they come to believe that the line in the middle of the error bars is some kind of preferred truth rather than just our best estimate given the data and the governing assumption of temporal uniformity in the spatial correlation field.

        As a side note, we are in the process of updating the estimate given some new data and some method improvements. Of course the early wiggles change which will cause some heads to explode.

      • Mosh

        Muddier and muddier. More and more cryptic. You mention the UK then specifically deconstruct BEST.

        If I understand you correctly you intend to tamper with historic records. Are those the UK historic records?

        If so I am close to the met office so can I reserve a seat?
        Tonyb

      • “the early wiggles change”

        You mean you change data after the fact? ;)

        Andrew

      • Steven Mosher

        Simple Tony.

        It has some of the higher residuals after removal of the deterministic components of temperature. Certainly not the highest, but clearly not the optimal place.

        WRT to correlation its better, but there are many places with records that cohere better to their regions and the ROW. Some quite surprisingly so.

        Of course there are other places that are worse, peru for example.

        All is not lost however, working on a solution.

      • PD reveals the truth. To a non-scientist, real science is a bore. He came here for entertainment and is disappointed to learn that scientific communication requires some precision, and not the qualitative anecdotes that he could get from an Old Farmers Almanac.

      • Steven Mosher

        err you still dont get it.

        represent the temperature at a function of a deterministic component
        and a random component

        T = C = W

        where C is climate and W is weather.

        By climate (C) we mean those elements of temperature that are deterministic. For example: if I tell you the altitude of place A is
        0, and the altitude of place B is 25,000 feet which is warmer?

        Or if I tell you the place is at 0 latitude or 60 degrees north which is cooler.

        The deterministic component of the temperature is a function of the following ( not a complete list ), the latitude, the altitude, the albedo, the emissivity, the topology, the surrounding area ( ocean or land)

        Currently we use the data from all stations to model the determininistic
        contribution at each location ….vaguely T = f(alt,lat) that is, you give me the latitude and altitude and I’ll give you an estimate of the temperature ( per season of course ).

        Removing this deterministic component gives you a residual and the residual is ‘the weather’ the stuff that is left over after you remove the part of the temperature that is caused by the enduring physical causes of temperature. The UK happens to have a large residual.
        which one can imagine, is due to some unique geographical features it has. These unique features ( its a frickin island) mean that its going to be less informative when it comes to predicting the temperature in other places.

        With respect to correlation you can find other places that exceed the 20 year .9 correlation and the annual .6 correlation. and yes, you can find places that are worse.

        so, the reason why I say if you HAD a choice you would pick a different place to have a long station is that it has some unique features that make it less representative than other places. Still we can learn from it, but not worship it. Thats the point. Its a historical treasure, but were it located in a place that was more representative the information contained in it would generalize to wider parts of the world.

        Hopefully by adding some features to the deterministic components beyond latitude and altitude one could make it more useful and more generalizable. The issue ISNT changing the record. The issue is extracting MORE information from the record..

      • Mosher’s statistical tricks make not a whit of difference to the actual CET records, or to the historical data compiled by Tony and others.

    • David Springer

      Hey webby, have you hugged your groupthink today?

      LOL – clown, heal thyself

    • Although not a commenter on this blog, WHUT might consider adding Dr. William Happer to his ClimateClowns list.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html

      • I only consider commenters that contribute wild theories to this blog and that number is past 70. That’s what makes it so bizarre. Can you imagine a electrical circuit discussion forum and find that 70 members in the forum think that Ohm’s Law is wrong and so supply an alternative model?

      • well. WHUT, what law are posters deeming wrong? I am curious to know what law has been violated.

      • WHUT, it’s the warmists who think that ‘Ohm’s Law is wrong’. They seem to know very little of the basic heat transfer.

        “In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.”

        The most important component of climate science is careful, long-term observations of climate-related phenomena, from space, from land, and in the oceans. If observations do not support code predictions—like more extreme weather, or rapidly rising global temperatures—Feynman has told us what conclusions to draw about the theory.

      • David Springer

        Ohm’s law can be tested. As soon as you can double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as easily as you can double an applied voltage and we observe an identical result in every case then I’ll let you get away with comparing the two. I’m still undecided whether you have a problem with blurting or you’re a bright liar for what you believe is a noble cause. Like lying for Jesus only different. But not much. Not really.

      • @WHUT July 31, 2013 at 10:51 pm: “I only consider commenters that contribute wild theories to this blog…”

        Do you consider the following (contributed by a commenter to this blog) to be a wild theory?
        “If all other things remain equal, it is clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet. However the real difficulty is that nothing remains equal, and reliable prediction of the impact of carbon dioxide on the climate requires that we better understand natural climate variability.”

      • Ref: JCH | August 1, 2013 at 10:22 am |

        The following claims CO2 lags temperature (if you don’t like that source there are plenty of others).
        http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/11414-co2-follows-temperature-rises.html
        and this chart over the past 600M years disagrees with the premise that CO2 is the main driver of temperature:
        http://www.americanthinker.com/%231%20CO2EarthHistory.gif
        Since the climate stopped warming 15 years ago CO2 has gone up roughly 5-10%. I can claim you picked a piecewise correlated time frame.
        Correlation doesn’t prove causation.
        Until I see something better, I will go with the wild theory that:
        “If all other things remain equal, it is clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet. However the real difficulty is that nothing remains equal, and reliable prediction of the impact of carbon dioxide on the climate requires that we better understand natural climate variability.” Making unsupportable declarative statements does nothing to advance the debate or convince others.

      • First realize that if you have 70 alternate theories, each one purporting to be the answer, you better choose wisely, but you have to choose.

        So who on the list PMHinSC are you going to choose that meets your rather empty “nothing remains equal” criteria?

        Choosing natural variability probably means that you will align yourself with Girma, he he

      • @whut) August 1, 2013 at 12:55 pm: “First realize that if you have 70 alternate theories, each one purporting to be the answer, you better choose wisely, but you have to choose.”

        That is a false choice; I don’t have to choose until the scientific process is satisfied. Your theory may prove to be correct, but there is currently no compelling data to support it. I also know of no data to support “runaway” or “catastrophic” climate change. I won’t be surprised to find that the final answer may be a combination of theories; X% Natural and Y% Anthropogenic (CO2, aerosols, albedo, etc.). I can only assume that people fixate on CO2 while ignoring water vapor (a more potent GHG), black soot, albedo changes from land use, and natural variability because we talk about what we know and tend to ignore the rest. And although I read the opinions in this blog (including yours) I also listen to people like Dr. William Happer and our hostess, Dr. Judith Curry.

      • ” I can only assume that people fixate on CO2 while ignoring water vapor (a more potent GHG), “

        The agreed on 3C estimate for doubling of CO2 includes water vapor. The rationale is that water vapor increases due to outgassing from elevated temperatures, and then this creates a moderate yet self-limiting positive feedback.

        So PMHinSC, your premise is completely wrong, and so you are back to square one by not having a valid theory,

      • “The rationale is that water vapor increases due to outgassing from elevated temperatures, and then this creates a moderate yet self-limiting positive feedback.”

        We’re supposed to reorder the entire world economy on a rationale?

  76. I looked at SEJ’s IRS form 990 which is easily available from their website. My quick overview is they get significant doner contributions and a lot of that money ends up subsidizing conferences. ( < My assumption) For example bring the price down for the participants of their conferences. They also have significant spending on what I'll generalize as communications, newsletters and their website for instance. I sleep better at night when a 501(c)(3) spends a high percentage of it's money, On Mission. They report the above as Program Service Expenses (On Mission, Good Expenses) and I have no reason to doubt that. They do spend a lot of money using that all purpose phrase, Consulting. Maybe they pay their conference speakers? Their statements are audited because they exceed X amount of revenue per year. Their On Mission or Program Service Expenses looks good to me, as you want the ratio of On Mission to Total Spending to be high, closer to 1. I hope it's Okay to put this information here, if not I apologize. All 501(c)(3)s with revenues above a certain level must make available their form 990 information.

  77. Chief Hydrologist

    If you get your science from blogs or journalists – it is a sad state of affairs indeed. At this stage there are probably not 3% of scientists who are drunkenly floundering about under the right climate lamp post. Not sure which of the 97% these are but I am sure they will sort themselves out by and by. All the rest are utterly wrong and blogs and journalists you can almost guarantee are 99.9999999% cr@ p.

    Too bad we are not in the wild west. We could shoot them all and let God sort them out.

    If we accept that carbon mitigation is a good idea – and I do as a good little climate catastrophist in the sense of Rene Thom – then progress is painfully glacial and likely to go into reverse as the world fails to warm for another decade to three at least – and I tend to discount ad hoc rationalizations of ‘the pause’ from blogs, journalists and those who were – until recently -abjectly ignorant of its evolution and usually abusively in denial of its existence. Many of them still are – abjectly ignorant and abusively in denial that is. Go figure.

    These a few obvious approaches to carbon mitigation.

    1. Energy Innovation

    This is a no brainer – and certainly seems to be engaging the minds of technologists globally. Clever little technological pig/monkeys that we are – this seems well under control and one or any number of technologies have commercial potential in a capitalist framework. I would restrict government involvement to stumping up for energy technology prizes or budget limited ‘no regrets’ actions tendered out as carbon mitigation is the usual way of maximizing bang for buck government tenders.

    2. A Multi-Gas Strategy

    Mop up the quite significant balance of emissions through social and environmental policy – population, development, health and education, ecological restoration, farm soils conservation – a host of approaches with multiple ‘no regrets’ objectives.

    This seems really quite simple in principle and uncontroversial. I suppose I must be wrong then.

    • What your sensible recommendations won’t do is drastically reduce emissions within 10 or 20 years, as the “97%” demand.
      Go explain to them that their goals are impossible to acheive, no matter what you do, or what Obama or Merkel promise or try to do.

    • Chef said:

      “Too bad we are not in the wild west. We could shoot them all and let God sort them out. “

      I see. A tough-guy Aussie Larrikin sort, someone who styles himself as a Paul Hogan “that’s not a knife” type.

      Some curious journalist should investigate why so many of these denier blogs and krackpot climate theories emerge from Australia. It is a statistically significant fraction, perhaps related to their cultural penchant to mock authority and act-out like would-be bullies.

    • RC Saumarez

      I absolutely agree with your views on energy. The problem is that we now have an “eco- political class” who will oppose any solutions that actualy works. This is underpinned by a lack of understanding of the realities of energy: How much energy does it it need to move a train from A to B, how much energy is needed to make a ton of steel, how much energy is required to keep our sewage system working…….., how much energy do you get from a wind turbine?

      As one one example of this in the UK, an energy minister has proposed large scale investment in solar energy. The fact that Spain and Germany are backpedalling from solar energy as fast as they can, despite being south of the UK doesn’t seem to bother people.

      I would suggest subsidising pinapple plantations in Greenland for use as biofuel might be the way forward.

      • “This is underpinned by a lack of understanding of the realities of energy: ”
        Yes.
        And also an inability to grasp quantities or magnitudes (or the meaning of numbers in general).

  78. Pingback: Society of Environmental Journalists … lockstep in an appalling beat of bias? | The View From Here

  79. What strikes me the most as also symptomatic is how, despite allegedly being about the climate wars and about describing two sides, the whole geo-solar-proxy isotopes field is defined away. (There should be a better term for this parallel community; I use Climatology as working name as opposed to Climate science). So deeply entrenched are these journalists in the numerical-modelling approach touted as ‘climate science’. There is at least Hockeyschtick, there is Vahrenholt & Lüning.

    • …and climatesense-norpag

    • >this parallel community; I use Climatology as working name as opposed to Climate science

      Actually, Holocene Geology might be the proper term, in line with Quaternary Geology. I’ll bring it up with them.

  80. Say Michael,
    lots of !!!! but yer not dealing with issues of acceptance of consensus
    and censorship.
    Bts

  81. SEJ writes: “Watts Up With That is one of the more civil and well-read of the denier blogs. It is not reliable as a source of factual information.”

    I am a regular contributor at WUWT. I present data–and occasionally climate model outputs. We know climate model outputs are not factual information. They’re computer-aided conjecture. Is SEJ saying that data is not factual information?

    • Do not heed robots!
      Beth the cowgirl yee ha!

    • Bob

      You should realise by now that some people do not like factual data and they also do not dislike historical data. Put the two together and warmists start frothing at the mouth. Those who do not put their proper name to their posts froth more than others.

      tonyb

    • Bob T… + 1

      I’ve been at WUWT from it’s beginning (used to comment as Sonicfrog), and I even surveyed the weather station in Yosemite! Yeah…. I know…. Sacrifices had to be made because hiking into Yosemite for any reason is such a burdensome thing! i am always amused when i come across statements that there is no science or scientific value at all of WUWT. Just the fact that people surveyed the surface stations, even if there was not a large, game changing, disparaging effect seen from poor station set-up / location, that is still very valuable research. That knowledge adds to the data. And though it’s not mainstream at this point, WUWT featured cosmic ray hypothesis long before any papers were published.

      So WUWT, and other sites, are trying to poke wholes in AGW theory….. Good! To prove scientific integrity, you MUST have that push back! There are more than a few physicist who are very actively trying to find wholes in Einstein’s theory of relativity! Yet they aren’t being labeled as “deniers” or “contrarians”. What makes AGW so special that it can’t be challenged, and that offending papers must be blocked from being published by “any means possible”?

      BTW. I’ve been following the climate change debate / discussion since 1992, when I had the priveledge of seeing the wonderful Carl Sagan .Back then, you could disagree with some of the scientific conjectures being used to build AGW theory – extra CO2 will turn Earth into Venus was very prominent at the time was, and quite a stretch given the differences between the two planets.

      • I bet if Feynman were teaching climate science, he would start out by asking the class what would happen of the atmosphere was suddenly up to 4000 PPM CO2.

        That is the hallmark of teaching first-order physics — one goes for the rails.

        Willard described Feynman’s demonstration of the bowling ball acting as a pendulum. He did trust physics and was confident enough to get close to the edge to show he trusted physics.

        Yet we see kranks like the Chief Hydro on this site who say that increases in CO2 will just as likely lead to a cooling of a planet. Feynman would tear someone like that to shreds. He would use the number of 4000 PPM CO2 and start walking that down. Carl Sagan would use a similar approach. That’s the way that physicists reason in many cases, by a firm belief in first-order physics combined with extrapolation.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        What we have instead is the example of leading – and contemporary – climate scientists.

        ‘Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.’ http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full

        What we have in any sort of reality is minor changes in forcing superimposed on an abruptly changing climate system.

        ‘The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.’ http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2246

        So while we are in a cool planetary mode – prediction for the future beyond that is impossible. Something that has been known for some time.

        ‘In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.’
        http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm

        There are climate shifts at all scales – but one key seems to be thermohaline circulation. This is one way that warmer temps translate into shifts to cooler temps. An open Arctic increases snow and ice – this melts in the melt season freshening Arctic water and causing THC to decline. This in turn causes NH temperature decline, the spread of ice sheets. etc.

        Abruptly changing climate has unquantifiable risk as Wally Broecker has said for a long time.

        Webby’s new analysis goes beyond simplistic climate trivia to utter nonsense. He is an incredible twit.

      • David Springer

        WebHubTelescope (@whut) | July 31, 2013 at 3:15 pm |

        “I bet if Feynman were teaching climate science, he would start out by asking the class what would happen of the atmosphere was suddenly up to 4000 PPM CO2.”

        I’d answer Feynman’s question with a question. He was Jewish so that’s fair play. My Q: What would happen to you if your stomach suddenly had 4000 milliliters of water in it?

        FYI: LD 50-50 of water is 90ml/kg. Connect the dots.

        Feynman wouldn’t ask such a stupid question. That’s not going for the rails it’s going for the derails. Duh.

  82. “They’re computer-aided conjecture.”
    +1.
    Or computer aided prophecy.

  83. Pingback: On the Misinformation about WattsUpWithThat from the Society of Environmental Journalists | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  84. It’s really quite simple. I’ve been censored on skeptic blogs for words. I’ve been censored on alarmist blogs for ideas. This is a reliable sign of the artificial imposltion of a false narrative on human consciousness.
    =========================

  85. RC Saumarez

    I always enjoy a good climate rant on the Guardian.
    The most touching thing about them is the way that they regard anyone who might have some scientific curiosity is classified as a “flat-earther”, “denier” (of what?), non-scientist etc.

  86. A few words about Climate Etc. moderation seem to be in order.

    Comments are deleted if they are highly insulting to an individual, and the comment has no substantive content (the only reason for the comment is to insult someone). I generally allow a substantive comment from a ‘regular’ to call someone a twit or whatever.

    Several individuals are in moderation, for posting either endlessly repetitive comments (almost always off topic) or lengthy comments on the same topic, regardless of the topic of the thread.

    Other than that, the moderation here is very light. Note I am often criticized for my light moderation. Several months ago, the ‘food fights’ would get pretty thick, but that seems mostly to have calmed down.

    • Max,

      OMG! “Censorship’!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • I assume Michael is offering his best arguments here. For …. ehrm … well, that’s not entirely clear. But presumably that RC may and actually do whatever pleases them …

        Who can argue with that?

      • Max can – it’s CENSORSHIP!.

        That’s BAD!

    • Judith, your moderation is very light and positively invisible compared to that at several of the blogs in the head post. I especially admire that you leave in attacks on you or your blog – by letting them stand or fall on their own merits, you demonstrate the spirit of true inquiry.

  87. “There is a war going on over manmade global climate change, and journalists are at the very front.”

    So much for objectivity then …

    Pointman

  88. In other news, the society of professional baseball writers says baseball is the most important sport out there and anyone who thinks otherwise is living in denial.
    Somehow they are all good friends with the society of soccer writers, which believes soccer is the most important sport out there and only deniers disagree.
    Both groups have the stats to back up their claim. It’s a journalism thing.
    What’s really going to be fun to watch is the battle between their liberalism and the cause du jour. If it comes down to CAGW v nukes or (as is happening in Europe) massive subsidies for windmills v funding for the welfare state… well, then: Monsanto! Monsanto! GMO!

  89. I believe it was a misspelling as they may have meant “diner blogs” as you provided a robust meal for intellectual consumption.

    • It had been raining for a long time, a slow, cold rain falling out of iron-colored clouds. They had been driving since morning and they still had a hundred and thirty miles to go. It was about three o’clock in the afternoon. “I’m getting hungry,” she said. He took his eyes off the wet, winding road for a fraction of a second and said, “We’ll stop at a dog wagon.” She shifted her position irritably, “I wish you wouldn’t call them dog wagons.” she said. He pressed the klaxon button and went around a slow car. “That’s what they are,” he said “dog wagons.” She waited a few seconds, “Decent people call them diners,” she told him and added, “Even if you call them diners, I don’t like them.” He speeded up a hill.

      A couple of marred hamburgers. Let James Thurber’s mind alone.
      ===============

  90. As usual, journalists congratulate themselves (award-winning) for being excellent transmitters of information when they largely misrepresent reality by omission of facts, repetition of half-truths, and outright publication of falsehood.

  91. If Skeptical Science is on the list, why not The Onion?

    From The Onion Book Of Known Knowledge

    Global Warming, gradual heating of the earth’s temperature caused largely by mankind’s emission of greenhouse gases, and a process that can only be reversed if, oops, never mind, because we actually just now passed the exact point of ever being able to undo the horrifying effects of climate change. According to climatologists, rising CO2 levels must be contained before it is too late, which it now is, or the world populace will experience severe food shortages, widespread drought, and the mass extinction of thousands of plant and animal species. Climate change is also believed to be responsible for the thawing of the polar ice caps—the melting of which is irreversible as of eight seconds ago—and will in turn lead to the incomprehensibly destructive flooding of the entire Eastern Seaboard of the United States in 60 years. Well, 59 years, 364 days, 23 hours, and 59 minutes. In order to reduce one’s own impact, experts recommend using energy-efficient products, carpooling to work, and not relying on air-conditioning so much, though they may as well recommend taking out a gun and shooting yourself in the f**cking [altered] head right now, because by the time you finish reading this, any fleeting hope of somehow changing this collision course with global destruction will be forever lost, and we all need to face the fact that everyone and everything we’ve ever loved will soon be annihilated by the raging forces of nature, and that civilization itself will either be wiped out or plunged into anarchy as we all stand by helplessly, waiting to drown, die of starvation, or burn to death.

    http://www.theonion.com/topics/global-warming/

    • Bernard, is that you?

    • > If Skeptical Science is on the list, why not The Onion?

      Because the consequent is true whatever the antecedent:

      According to Armstrong, he was forced to reconsider every single detail of the monumental journey after watching a few persuasive YouTube videos, and reading several blog posts on conspiracy theorist Ralph Coleman’s website, OmissionControl.org.

      “It only took a few hastily written paragraphs published by this passionate denier of mankind’s so-called ‘greatest technological achievement’ for me to realize I had been living a lie, ” said a visibly emotional Armstrong, addressing reporters at his home. “It has become painfully clear to me that on July 20, 1969, the Lunar Module under the control of my crew did not in fact travel 250,000 miles over eight days, touch down on the moon, and perform various experiments, ushering in a new era for humanity. Instead, the entire thing was filmed on a soundstage, most likely in New Mexico.”

      http://www.theonion.com/articles/conspiracy-theorist-convinces-neil-armstrong-moon,2796/

    • Classic.

      Sort of ironic how it is pretty much what we hear from certain climate scientists and the folks like lolwot and Jim D among others here.

      • Indeed, the main problem left is damage control. Mitigation is out the window. Truth in humor there.

  92. The SEJ could be safely directed to ScienceofDoom and the Blackboard. ClimateAudit is awesome, but has some much impact that one must read Steve’s critics before deciding what to trust. Bishophill is usually reliable and Montford usually tries to limit exposure to dubious science.

    No journalist should trust a website that frequently censors opposing views. Ethics require journalists to seek sources from both sides of an issue and present the public a fair summary of both sides of an issue. Consensus science dominates access to the main-stream media, so ethical journalists need to seek out opposing views. Activists at RealClimate and SkS appear to be mostly interested in re-telling scary stories that have already appeared in the MSM.

  93. Vintage 2013-04-24, another mention of the D word, this time on a website selling the book Comprehending the Global Warming Crisis:

    In the latest attempt to spin doubt about the science, many skeptics and deniers are trying to argue that we’ve stopped using the term “global warming” and started using the term “climate change” in its place. Why would we do that? Well, because the world stopped warming more than a decade ago, or so the skeptics and deniers would have you believe.

    All that Bart R said, but now in Colorama.

  94. I used to respect the “denier blog” Principia Scientific International (PSI) but now it seems they have been just about taken over by a certain Alberto Miatello who has written this article …

    http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/259-new-climate-model-trumps-flat-earthers-of-greenhouse-gas-science.html

    Seven of them have apparently “helped” with the article which is now supposed to represent their “important new energy model” but is in fact full of errors as several commenters have pointed out.

    But then, in the comment thread which I’ve been watching from the start, they have deleted without explanation several comments which I had read and which clearly and correctly pointed out the author’s errors. I have added a comment of my own which (in case it gets deleted) reads ..

    There is an obvious error in the calculations in this article, because the mean Solar radiation over the whole surface of Earth is most certainly not over 400W/m^2.

    It seems the author has overlooked the fact that, when the Sun’s rays strike the surface at an acute angle, then the intensity is reduced because the energy which passes through a 1m^2 cross-section of the radiation then falls over a larger surface area. For example, if the angle is 45 degrees then the surface area is 2m^2 based on the square of the cosine.

    The overall effect is that the mean intensity is reduced, not by 50% due to half the globe being in darkness, but by about 75% due to the additional fact explained above.

    PSI is barking up the wrong tree in trying to explain surface temperatures using calculations based on incident solar radiation, because the Earth’s surface does not act like a gray body with emissivity 0.88 or whatever. If it did, the Sun could heat the equatorial regions to nearly the boiling point of water, as happens on the Moon.

    I agree with Rojclague below. I trust this comment will not be deleted as I have seen several others with opposing views to the author have been without providing any reason. In my view they were valid comments.

    • JeffN, “PSI is barking up the wrong tree in trying to explain surface temperatures using calculations based on incident solar radiation, because the Earth’s surface does not act like a gray body with emissivity 0.88 or whatever. If it did, the Sun could heat the equatorial regions to nearly the boiling point of water, as happens on the Moon.”

      I don’t put much stock in PSI, but actual incident solar is a consideration when designing a solar pond. Near the equator on a clear day the incident insolation can be over 1000Wm-2 which can produce a water temperature of 91C in a solar pond with convection and latent heat loss limited. Without limiting convection and latent heat the water surface temperature can reach ~30C.

      When using the cosine TSI at 45 degree the maximum incident insolation would be 0.707*TSI adjusted for local albedo at local noon. So a solar pond at 45 degrees latitude could produce a temperature of ~60C in spring or fall and about 80C in summer. Surface temperature would depend on the rate of heat loss over the 24 hour period, not the “average” TSI(1-a)/4, just like a solar pond.

      The point he is probably trying to make is that convection, latent heat and ocean/atmosphere heat transport play a very significant role, which is correct, but they generally lose it after that point. Anyway, there is a different relationship that needs to be considered between “surface” and sub-surface incident insolation.
      http://www.lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Lunar_Temperature

  95. This is a society of *journalists* – some of the most left/alarmist biased folks around. That they would write such utter garbage is absolutely predicable – heck, it’s settled science to predict it :-)

    Note how they uncritically use the word “denier” – a pejorative term picked for its negative connotations and because it isn’t “skeptic” – a respectable term in science.

    I once checked if a person going through Columbia through to a Masters in Journalism would have to take any physics based or numerical science. The answer is no! Journalists, today, are herd following people ignorant of almost everything except politics.

    Now consider “environmental journalists.” Anyone want to bet how many chose that subspecialty because they were green true believers to start with?

    • It might have been CJS which agonized a few years ago whether or not graduate students in journalism should know what regression analysis is and does.
      ============

  96. Pingback: Tamsin on scientists and policy advocacy | Climate Etc.

  97. I think the term “Denier” is constantly morphing. I used to think that it was meant as a a term for a denier of AGW. Then they also started using it as a term for those who denied cAGW. Now I think it means that you, “deny that the science is settled”.

    • Some people use the concepts so liberally that soon almost everyone both agrees on AGW and is a denier.

      When the concepts are used in support of some policy stance they may get almost any meaning.

  98. Walter Carlson commented on ‘Denier’ blogs. said: ”the ‘A’ is added by the cubic MILES of coal mined and burned, along with the billions of BARRELS of petroleum pumped and burned, all within the last century and a quarter”

    Walter, in the 18th century the CO2 was depleted to the critically low level for crops and vegetation. now heed to rejoice that is better amount of it in the atmosphere – needs a bit more for best prosperity of crops / trees. now are 7billion people, needs more trees /crops.

    who is the clown to say that in the 18th century was best amount of CO2, If you don’t know what’s the best amount, ask the trees, not the big city greens. Cities have sufficient amount, but not the bush, where CO2 is desperately needed. cheers!

  99. patrioticduo

    I get so sick and tired of being called a denier when I am no such thing. Being called stupid, when I am not. Being in bed with big oil when I am not. Being a right wing extremist basement dwelling white man, when I am not. Being an earth hating, polluting belligerent, when I am not. Being a WUWT sycophant looney tune when I am not. The list is so long I am surprised I am not guilty as charged and safely domiciled in some GULAG facility. I am guilty of SO MUCH! And all I really want is for the scientists to wind back their hyperbole and political advocacy and get back to proper scientific method.

  100. Pingback: Interior Secretary Doesn’t Want Fairies, Goblins, Or Climate Change Deniers In Her Department! | suyts space

  101. “Scientists who actually study climate largely agree on the basic findings that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing rises in global mean surface temperature and other climate changes. ”

    So ‘scientists’ agree on something everyone knows has yet to be adequately measured.

    Welcome to Dark Ages II.

  102. Stephen Pruett

    I noticed Hockey Schtick (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com) wasn’t mentioned. It is an excellent blog because it focuses on mainstream, peer-reviewed journal articles which show that many real, mainstream climate scientists routinely report results that are inconsistent with CAGW, at least within a time frame which would require rapid action. Just take a look at the archives. Of course, climate journalists wouldn’t like this because it shows that the picture is really full of uncertainty and ambiguity, and that won’t sell papers.

  103. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?

  104. A CLIMATE ALARMIST CLI FI NOVELIST NAMED RAYMOND WELCH HAS A BLOG POST ABOUT CLIMATE ETC ISSUES HERE: MIGHT MAKE A GOOD THREAD ONE DAY FOR COMMENTERS TO SEE AND COMMENT ABOUT PRO AND CON? fwded by DANNY BLOOM, the CLI FI GUY

    LINK

    http://achangeintheweather.com/2013/08/05/silly-me-the-climate-alarmist/

    RAY WECL WRITES: “I’ve been spending some time looking at Dr. Judith Curry’s blog, Climate Etc. It’s a haunt for climate skeptics. That appears to be its purpose—to entertain challenges to the theory of anthropomorphic climate change in an objective manner.

    Many of the comments appear intelligent and well-reasoned, within the narrow scope of the chosen topic. And I think Dr. Curry is trying to be even-handed, although some of the comments carry the tone of impatience and scorn that marks much skeptic argumentation.

    But I can’t quite put my finger on the point of most of the discussions.

    Largely, they seem to be of the angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin variety: excruciating, at-length micro-parsings of highly delimited sub-issues, some scientific, some sociological, some political. There doesn’t appear to be any outright climate change denial, but the drift is, people who are concerned about an imminent climate disaster are alarmist. The comments argue from fear that we might do anything to upset the social or economic status quo. To many of the commenters, it’s not clear how bad the problem is, or if there’s a problem at all.

    One thing the commenters don’t do is offer any comprehensive theory that ties together the macro phenomena of the disappearing ice cap, the rise in atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial temperatures, the retreat of the glaciers, the lengthening growing seasons, and the distortions in the jet stream, let alone one that’s more compelling than the greenhouse gas hypothesis. If that were the point, I could understand and embrace it.

    TerrainI’m sure some of the more derisive of them would find my Terrain essay contemptible. My pessimism about solving the climate crisis in the face of this contempt is a central theme of the piece.

    None of the skeptic quibbles are on the same scale as the planetary manifestations, physically or temporally. The Arctic ice cap has lost 80 percent of its mass in less than 40 years. Does one really have to debate whether this is alarming, or that it is very likely to have grave implications? The only way it couldn’t is if there were an alternate explanation that comprehended the other phenomena. At heart, the skeptics are almost debating whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or whether humans have increased the atmospheric content of it by 40 percent over the last two centuries. In other words, their arguments fly in the face of the obvious. It’s still denial, tricked out in thin, skimpy veils.

    At the end of my essay I say, “I would love to be proven spectacularly wrong, grandiose, and obsessive, to have wasted the balance of my life in thrall to a false and grindingly self-destructive idea. It is a humiliation I would welcome.” But quibbles about how much methane is venting from the tundra or whether Paul Erlich should be taken seriously don’t disprove that we’re disrupting the climate and melting the ice cap, or that we should do nothing about it.

    Meanwhile, my alarm stands unabated.

    • He’s as confused as you are, Danny.
      ==============

    • Yes, climate alarmists are silly.

    • Ronald Welch is an interesting voice in all this, worth reading

      • Heh, anyone not understanding attribution will find very interesting the confusion of others about it. What I find ‘interesting’ is the confidence of those confused that they are not confused about attribution.
        =================

      • kim | August 6, 2013 at 9:55 am |

        This “attribution” dead horse you keep beating, could you point to any attribution in science anywhere of any type in your view more solidly supported in any significant way than human causes for unnatural climate kinetics by forcings?

        Any at all?

        Anywhere?

        Ever?

      • It’s simple, honey; if we did it, we may soon need more, because it would be a lot colder now than without us. If we didn’t do it, then anthroCO2 is a weak forcing.
        ==============

      • kim | August 6, 2013 at 10:16 am |

        Not a valid answer.

        There’s zero evidence the tilt of the Earth would lead to a catastrophic dip for the next 20,000 years. “A lot colder than now” is on the order of what, one degree because instead of dropping from 280 ppmv to 279 ppmv as a result of 1/200 the downward cycle’s passage in time, the level of CO2 went up by 43% in the same phase of the change of the Earth’s tilt, and from that you surmise that somehow sensitivities ought be comparable?!

        Are you truly that math deficient?

      • Pick a sensitivity that frightens you. Now calculate how much colder it would now be without man’s input.
        ========================

    • Gulf Stream transport went down from the MWP to the LIA. It then went back up. If it goes down again he may get his wish but he may not like it.

  105. Danny, your friend Ray does seem a bit tense, and does have the oddest opinions about skeptics. He is very concerned about Arctic ice? You could show him this picture – since he doesn’t like excruciating parsings etc – of what Arctic ice did before it lost mass after 1979:
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/zhang/PIDAO/icevol_nao.gif

    This picture, by someone very popular with alarmists – a fellow called Jones from East Anglia – gives an idea of the plunge of Arctic temps after the late 50s, before they rose after the 70s:
    http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_PART4_CLIMATICEVENTS_files/image022.gif

    You are probably aware of the well reported melts early in the 19th and 20th centuries, but Ray may not know. The Royal Society and the WaPo may be viewed by him as credible sources.

    This from the RS in 1817: “It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated….”

    Of course, by the iced-up end of the 19th century it was a very different story. Yet what goes around comes around. Even Ray may have seen the famous WaPo article from 1922, but just in case:
    http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

    Fortunately, Ray does not seem to have bought into the rising seas alarm. Just as well, eh? So silly to worry about a phenomenon that began in the late 1700s, ignoring all those ups and down of Arctic ice. Seems that the biggest decadal rises were all before the 1860s. I’m sure you’ll be able to point him to the Jerejeva study and so on, if he is a bit tense about sea levels.

    Of course, as a complete skeptic I have no idea why any of this is happening, and will go so far as to say that it seems nobody does. So I doubt that I can resolve Ray’s biggest quandaries, but I hope this helps Ray to understand the bases of climate skepticism among common lay people like me, as he does seem a very earnest type, hungry for some good news about anything.

    • mosomoso | August 6, 2013 at 4:25 am |

      Huh. Comparing an 80% drop to a 0.8% drop?

      I can see your point.

      • 80%? Huh? 0.8%? Huh? And he sees some point I made?

        Anyway, Danny, you’d still have trouble growing sub-tropical crops – clearly documented in Chinese records during the Song – as far north as they did in the MWP. Climate never was stable or nice, but tell Ray to enjoy this little upward bump in the holocene. The climate’s not terrific…but it’s usually worse between bumps. Should have heard them carry on when things got a touch icy back in the 70s. Prominent coolist of the day, Steven Schneider, insisted it might not be a good idea to nuke the ice sheets or blacken the poles with soot, even though it could be done. He thought there might be side effects!

        I’m told there are people who want to manipulate or somehow “stabilise” the climate by placing vast sums of money in the hands of scoundrels who were not locked up after 2008. If the exercise is effective, I’d rather they brought back the 1970s than the 1930s or 1990s. But that’s just me.

    • mosomoso | August 6, 2013 at 10:57 am |

      Oh yes, the subtropical crops fraud again.

      In the height of northern latitude summers, almost any seed in the world might sprout and grow through the height of the warm season, if cultivated intensively. Song dynasty farmers were as advanced as any in the world today in terms of crop management and output, and had many times the labor to commit to the enterprise. Heck, even Vikings eked out a few narrow Greenlandish harvests in worse conditions. The same crops were grown in England in the LIA as are claimed for the MWP.

      What a crock.

      • Of course. It’s just that those Ming farmers lost the knack, and those Vikings got lucky “eking”. Then they stopped eking because they were gone.

        I dare say Northern Europeans peasants didn’t experiment much with new crops in centuries past. But don’t you hate it when a glacier eats your village? I hate that.

    • mosomoso | August 6, 2013 at 11:20 am |

      Cultures change with time and conditions.

      Historically, some of them because of cold spells that result when the Gulf Stream wanders away from the coast, some because of war or changing tastes. The Vikings were hardworking whalers; when competing whalers did it better, cheaper, nearer markets, they moved their families off their Greenland outposts with their meager supplemental gardens because the market wasn’t there for their whale oil.

      Now, according to multiple studies, we can expect that cultures will be responding to life-changing climate kinetics ten times more frequently, making life ten times harder for working families.

      China is so complex and ill-understood by most.. tell me, is it Mandarin you speak, or Cantonese?

      Fukien?

      Hakka?

      Wu?

      Which agricultural anthropologist from China are you citing for your observations?

      Which exact sources?

      Is it by some chance the great expert on dynastic agronomy, WUWT?

      • The trick is to stay in the argument and keep that hockeystick handle straight at all costs. Don’t speak Hakka? Sorry. The handle stays straight. Who even knew that records were written in non-literary languages? Why, it’s that medieval whaling expert, whose main expertise is in stuff that hasn’t happened yet! Kinetics to come and all that. Same guy!

        If all else fails (and it does) just ask ‘em what day of the week the Medieval Warming began. If they say Tuesday, ask them what time on Tuesday. Say anything, but stay in that argument. Tell ‘em they’re Australian, like Mel Gibson (American citiizen born in America) or Rupert Murdoch (US citizen for 28 years). If they point out you’re wrong, accuse them of assaults on Americans like Mel and Rupert. Say anything. Anything!

        The handle stays straight. Got it?

    • mosomoso | August 6, 2013 at 4:25 am |

      If you don’t like your arguments being shown to be absurd, stop making absurd arguments.

      If you don’t like being shown to be arguing from ignorance, stop making ignorant arguments.

      Did you not learn by the age of five that there are consequences for your actions that you are the sole person responsible for?

      Who raised you?

  106. Daniel, You may hit the snooze now if you feel like you could use a few extra winks.

  107. i think that raymond welch will comment here soon _ i asked him to chime in too re his terrain essay

  108. So Judith is unhappy to be lumped in with her fellow deniers? That’s…. sad. But really: can one run this circus and be offended when you’re described as a ringmaster?

  109. RE Judith Curry notes Raymond Welch’s TERRAIN essay — ”Thanks. I’m actually surprised and pleased that she complimented me. I thought she might take my column personally. I’m glad she didn’t because that wasn’t the intent. I admire her. She’s tough and smart. She gave me a nice comment (although she did get my name wrong, but I’ve been called worse things than “Ronald”). ” — msg from raymond welch to dan bloom via email

  110. Pingback: Would our academic members like to comment - Page 160 - Router Forums