The Climate Denier Dunce Cap

We all know that climate deniers produce a load of horse hockey and lie, deceive and smear climate science and climate scientists. They belong in the corner wearing the climate denial dunce cap.

We can claim they’re dunces and that they lie, dog whistle and smear, but it helps to have evidence. To that end, I propose this post solely for the purpose of collecting examples of these dunce moments, smears and lies. Document it, in other words, so that it’s more than just accusation.

So, as you go about your day surfing the climate blogs and you come across a really juicy example of climate denialism, copy the example, in context, and provide it in the comments to this post, along with a link to the source.

Have at it and have fun! Let’s see how many examples we can collect.

About Policy Lass

Exploring skeptic tales.

126 Responses to “The Climate Denier Dunce Cap”

  1. Here’s an example from my favourite blog — I don’t know how to categorize it.

    “If energy companies and the people participating in the technical climate blogs had been entrained into the process, I suspect that we would be much farther along in understanding the science, the impacts, and the risks.

    Instead, elitism and turf protection of climate expertise in a political context has contributed to the situation we now find ourselves in, which is aptly illustrated in this youtube video entitled “Global Warming Panic Described.””

    Can you guess who wrote that? Can you identify these “technical climate blogs”?

    It’s like asking the tobacco company scientists and tobacco front groups for help understanding the risks, impacts and science of tobacco-caused cancer.

    Can ANYONE believe a scientist — a climate scientist — made such a dunce-cap deserving statement?

    Can this be anything other than pandering?

    • “Steve McIntyre has often made the claim that he has greater expertise on the statistical analysis of the paleo proxy data than many of the climate scientists conducting such analyses, and he’s probably right.”

      I have a bit of an ‘ick’ reaction to the way she talks about McIntyre. Why there are so many McI fans that seem to see him as the love child of Indiana Jones and Albert Einstein really escapes me.

    • Well, she’s currently attending (or traveling to) a conference in Lisbon intended to “resolve the scientific debate”, and she and Von Storch appear to be the only actual scientists attending. Along our favorite Mc’s … the conference includes … Stephen Goddard!

      So how will they resolve the debate between the two sides? Rewrite physical chemistry in order to “prove” that it routinely snows dry ice in antarctica as Goddard claims? Or rewrite nuclear physics to prove that the sun is made of iron as Oliver Manuel claims? (though he doesn’t appear to be attending the conference, his conviction for attempted sodomy and the fact that he’s currently on probation would make it illegal to leave the country – or to enter the EU – in any case.)

    • Dammit SheWonk you made me go to Denialst Chum Etc.! 😉

      Can we nominate more than one? There are just so many…

  2. “Peer review has been irredeemably corrupted.”

    “Peer to peer review”

    “It is not my job to sit down and read peer reviewed papers, because I do not have the time or the scientific expertise.”

    Now, one might say that I make a similar statement when I write that I do not have the expertise to judge the scientific literature. The difference is that I am not trying to overturn or challenge the consensus science. I am not competent to do so. I cannot judge the scientific literature as a “peer” and so I do not have the ability to determine that it is all a load of bollocks the way Delingpole thinks he does.

  3. Here my five pencee worth – A list of denier crocks I have been building up over the last few months.

    They range from the just plain stupid to US politicians GOP / Tea Party types talking absolute and utter tosh which is much worse as they are supposed to be scientifically literate.

    WARNING: Please put your head in a vice prior to reading to prevent it from exploding.

    It’s just plain scary that members of the human race can actually be this ignorant.

    “The idea of an ice-free Arctic seems implausible to me without a dramatic change in climate.”
    -S. Goddard 9/6/2010

    “There is also no need to provide a ‘blanket’ to keep earth warm. The vacuum of space acts like the most perfect thermos flask. Space is not cold; it is empty, void of matter, and thus has no temperature.”
    – Alan Siddons

    “Please stop resorting to the “evidence”. It’s now completely irrelevant.”


    “I absolutely do not believe in the science of man-caused climate change,” Johnson said. “It’s not proven by any stretch of the imagination.”
    – GOP Senate Candidate Johnson 18/08/2010

    “It’s far more likely that it’s just sunspot activity or just something in the geologic eons of time”
    – GOP Senate Candidate Johnson 18/08/2010

    Excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere “gets sucked down by trees and helps the trees grow,”
    – GOP Senate Candidate Johnson 18/08/2010

    “I can quote you statistics on cold as often as he can quote you statistics for hot,” he said. “There is no global warming problem, there isn’t going to be a global warming problem. Sit back and enjoy the sunshine.”
    – Lord Monckton

    “There is no risk for the penguins,” he said. “Likewise for the polar bears. There are five times as many of them today as there were in 1940.”
    – Lord Monckton

    I am convinced that policies meant to reduce alleged carbon dioxide-induced global warming will be destructive.
    – Lord Monckton –

    The Biblical world view sees Earth and its ecosystems as the effect of a wise God’s creation and… therefore robust, resilient, and self-regulating, like the product of any good engineer.
    – Lord Monckton –

    The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face. They are cowards.
    – Lord Monckton –

    The right response to the non-problem of global warming is to have the courage to do nothing.
    – Lord Monckton –

    “It is getting warmer, but it is not warmer than it was in the Middle Ages, or in the Roman period, or in the Minoan warm period, or in the Holocene warm period, 8,500 years ago,”
    – Lord Monckton

    There’s no global reconstruction that goes back to the Roman period. There’s no reconstruction that goes back to the Minoan warm period,” “These things only exist in the fevered imaginings of the skeptics.”
    — Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt NASA

    “Arctic sea-ice extent is just fine: steady for a decade”
    – Lord Monckton –

    No ocean heat buildup for 50 years
    – Lord Monckton –

    No glaciers are melting
    – Lord Monckton -

    “Himalayan glaciers are doing just fine.”
    – Lord Monckton -

    Anyone who says they can tell you the temperature of the earth in a hundred years, you should put a straitjacket on them. They don’t have any idea. It’s almost humorous that a country that can’t predict its budget deficit in a year could predict the temperature in a hundred years. The problem with the world’s climate is that it’s impacted by a lot of things. We all know that.

    – Don Blankenship – CEO of Massey – Possibly the most evil man in America – 17/08/2010 – The Wonk Room

    “They have not made that scientific case. I have always argued against the science. Some of our leadership have said “don’t argue the science.” They get pollsters in and coach us. I’m not very coachable…(laughing)…But I’ve said “you don’t ever give up a premise unless you happen to believe that they’re right.” And we should not concede the science of this. And they say, “you should just argue the economics, not the science.” Well, no. They were wrong on the science[…]

    A CONSTITUENT: Do you realize that carbon dioxide is the main ingredient plants use with sunshine to make oxygen and sugars for us to eat and for animals. What’s the matter with carbon dioxide? It’s amazing to me the way some of these people think.

    I agree with you. There have been many times in the history of the planet that we’ve had higher concentrations of CO2 than we have here today. There are a couple of German engineers that took that theory apart and proved it wrong in a lab. I’ve read through that, but I’d have to go back to school for a half a year or a year to tell you I followed every bit of their rationale. But the presumption of the Greenhouse Effect is at least, from what I saw, was pretty convincingly rebutted.

    CONSTITUENT: It’s got nothing to do with carbon dioxide. It’s got to do with socialization [sic]. Just like their tax on energy. That’s got nothing to do with our benefit. Where’s this tax go to that they’re wanting to spend for their supposedly bad things we got ahold of? Where does it go to? And who’s blamed?

    “I think you make an important point. I know that there is a good number of them that believe that the science says that the earth is getting warmer and we can control it. Some of them really believe it. Control is a big part of it. I finally found a book that I’d been looking for – one to help me figure out what’s going on – and the answers are in the Bible.
    – Rep. Steve King (R-IA) – 18/08/2010

    The scary part is that King thinks that these types of ludicrous statements will help him get re-elected. Even scarier is the strong possibility that he is correct.

    Is it caused by man? Yes. Is it 100% caused by man? No. There are other things involved. We are now in the sun spot cycle. We are now in a very hot sun cycle. there are many other things going on. But, yes, a significant portion of this is caused by greenhouse gases keeping heat on the shore, on the land, in the atmosphere that could have escaped without those greenhouse gases, so, yes, it’s warmer. . ..

    There is absolutely something going on here for this summer being the hottest and some of the water that we have in the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico the hottest ever on record which could cause a pretty significant hurricane season still to come.

    Chad Myers 10/08/2010

    Unfortunately, “scientist expert” Chad Myers (actually a bachelor-degree meteorologist, not a climate scientist) also made the blatantly false claim that we are “now in a very hot sun cycle.” In fact, the sun is just emerging from an extremely low two-year minimum of activity, with years to go before it will reach another peak. Since 1980, average solar irradiance has been on the decline, even as global temperatures have risen.
    – Brad Johnson – The Wonk Room

    “There is disagreement in the science community concerning the causes of global warming.”
    — New Mexico GOP Candidate Susana Martinez

    “I don’t mean to be flippant about this, but only God knows where our climate is going.”
    — New Mexico GOP Candidate Jon Barela

    “I think we ought to take a look at whatever the group is that measures all this, the IPCC, they don’t even believe the crap.”
    — New Mexico GOP Candidate Steve Pearce

    “The science is not settled regarding climate change, temperature records have been falsified, and the assumptions used in computer models have large degrees of error.”
    — New Mexico GOP Candidate Tom Mullins

    Mullins is a past president of the Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico (IPANM) – DIRECT LINKS TO OIL

    We need to mine more oil and gas, the burning of which will hasten dangerous climate change, in order to become rich enough to deal with dangerous climate change.

    — New Zeland Energy and Resources Minister Gerry Brownlee 22/09/2010

    “Do I believe there is global warming? No, I believe it’s all a load of bullshit. But it’s amazing the way the whole fucking eco-warriors and the media have changed. It used to be global warming, but now, when global temperatures haven’t risen in the past 12 years, they say ‘climate change’.”

    “… the United Nations as “one of the world’s most useless organisations”, its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as “utter tosh”, and US politician Al Gore as someone who “couldn’t even get fucking re-elected” after a boom.”

    “The scientific community has nearly always been wrong in history anyway. In the Middle Ages, they were going to excommunicate Galileo because the entire scientific community said the Earth was flat… I mean, it is absolutely bizarre that the people who can’t tell us what the fucking weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the fucking global temperatures will be in 100 years’ time. It’s horseshit.”

    – Michael O’Leary – (Foul mouthed) CEO Ryan Air – 12/09/2010

    The oceans that surround the world produce 185 billion tons of CO2 per annum. Man per annum only produces six billion tons, so what could possibly be the concern? One volcano puts out more toxic gases-one volcano-than man makes in a whole year. And when you look at this “climate change,” and when you look at the regular climate change that we all have in the world, we have warm and we have cooling spells.

    – GOP Senate nominee & Millionaire businessman (Climate Zombie) John Raese

    “Next one is very difficult, is true science. I’ve been listening about global warming for years. You have the pros and the cons. Quite frankly, we need to get our scientific community to come up to a baseline of common agenda, a common understanding of where we are. Science has to be proven to be fact and if the science is not true, is not true then it’s rhetoric.”

    LePage is listed as a member of the Heritage Foundation, a free-market think tank that has recieved hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years from the fossil fuel industry to seed doubt about the science behind climate change

    – Paul LePage, the Republican’s (and Tea Party) candidate for Governor in the State of Maine – 28/09/2010

    “I think it’s an inexact science, and there has been more and more questioning about some of the conclusions that were reached concerning climate change. And I believe that everybody in the world deserves correct answers whether the scientific conclusions were flawed by outside influences. There’s great questions about it that need to be resolved.”

    Mr Flip-Flop Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) – Sold his soul to the devil @ the crossroads

    “The science of global warming is unproven,” he said. “It just is,” Johnson told The Associated Press on Thursday.

    “I’m not even sure if, if it were a fact, whether we could do anything about it anyway,” Johnson said.

    GOP Senate Candidate Ron Johnson – 01/10/2-2010

    – To “wholeheartedly” support a coal-fired power plant opposed by NASA scientist Jim Hansen because it would emit 5.9 million tons of carbon dioxide each year, and

    – To support the construction of a South Dakota oil refinery near the Iowa border that will emit 19 million tons of carbon dioxide each year.

    Former governor Terry Branstad is leading Gov. Chet Culver (D-IA) in the race to run Iowa’s government. -13/10/2010

    I just don’t know how severe it is and I’m not sure how much we as human beings contribute to it. Scientists are divided on it. [Waterville Morning Sentinel, 10/5/10] Waterville mayor Paul LePage,

    I’m not saying I believe in it. I’m not saying I don’t. You’re asking me to take a position on something I don’t know enough about. I absolutely am not smart enough to believe that I know the answer to that question.

    I’m willing to participate as long as it doesn’t cost Massachusetts jobs and money. I don’t know if I’m against it or not. I view that as something that needs to be reviewed.

    Millionaire health insurance executive Charlie Baker, the Republican challenger to incumbent governor Deval Patrick – 17/10/2010

    Since then, Mr. Paladino, with the help of the Republican consultant Roger J. Stone Jr., has fashioned a campaign around anger (“I’m mad as hell,” his slogan reads), far-right conservatism (he calls global warming a “farce”) and reform in Albany (he frequently talks of “cleaning out the dirty trash”). [New York Times, 8/31/10]

    Republican candidate Carl Paladino is a raging global warming denier:

    “I read my Bible. He made this earth for us to utilize.” — Norman Dennison, founder of the Corydon Tea Party

    “Being a strong Christian, I cannot help but believe the Lord placed a lot of minerals in our country and it’s not there to destroy us.” — Lisa Deaton, founder of We the People Indiana

    While we are on the topic of the god delusion AKA the invisible prop which I can twist to allow me to do what ever I want….

    The land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land. Lev. 25:23-24

    I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and you made my inheritance detestable. Jer. 2:7

    Sen. Inhofe was the first person to stand up and say this global warming is the greatest hoax that has been perpetrated. The evidence just keeps supporting his view, and more and more people’s view, of what’s going on. – Colorado GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck – rhymes with dumb as ….

    “This so-called climate science is just ridiculous,” said Kelly Khuri, founder of the Clark County Tea Party Patriots. “I think it’s all cyclical.”

    “Carbon regulation, cap and trade, it’s all just a money-control avenue,” Ms. Khuri added. “Some people say I’m extreme, but they said the John Birch Society was extreme, too.” er and that is because it is right wing of Adolf Hitler and Gengis Kahn combined.

    For the record, as SourceWatch notes, “The JBS was viewed by mainstream journalists and politicians as an extremist, wing-nut organization of conspiracy theorists.” Wikipedia explains it is “an American radical right-wing political advocacy group.”

    No group that was genuinely non-extreme would ever argue it was not extremist by trying to make a favorable comparison with the John Birch Society.

    Why would a Tea Party leader make such an inane comment? Well, here’s a clue from the history of JBS: “One founding member was Fred Koch, founder of Koch Industries.”

    • What an utterly relentless and depressing list. The din is too depressing. Gonna have to regroup myself after seeing all this in one place at one time. But thanks, anyway. I think.

    • What an utterly relentless and depressing list. The din is too disheartening. Gonna have to regroup myself after seeing all this in one place at one time. But thanks, anyway. I think.

  4. We can pretty much include anything on Andrew Montfords book promo site, the bishop hill blog (although I privately refer to it as the Bishop von Daniken site due to its less than tenuous connection with reality).

    I find I can’t read more than a half dozen posts there before feeling physically ill at the concentration of stupid that seems to be de riguer there, with recovery taking about a month before venturing back.

    By way of example, this month by happy happenstance, they’re currently defending James “it isn’t my job to read science papers before mouth-foamingly pontificating uninformed bile about them” Delingpole, which is about as indicative as can be about the standard there.

  5. Commentators over at Curry’s are Godwinning;

    “I have a problem with the whole idea of reconciliation in the climate debate and for once, it’s not political but moral. When an area of science mutates into pseudo-science and attracts a large following, it is always hijacked by political forces, which give it a whole new and terrible dimension. In the end, people get killed or hurt and the sum total of human suffering is increased. Examples, trivial and large, abound of this phenomenon; Phrenology, Lysenkoism, pseudo-Darwinism and Eugenics to name but a few….

    The pseudo scientific mania of a combination of Eugenics and Nazi-perverted Darwinism led directly to its logical conclusions at Dachau and Bergen-Belsen. It gave a specious scientific authority to horrific acts which were essentially political. It took the discovery of the concentration camps in 1945 to finally pull the plug on that particular science-approved mania although human beings were still being forcibly sterilised into the 1970s.

    I view Environmentalism and Global Warming in particular, as being just as evil as the manias above. That being the case, although having dialogue with them may be useful, reconciliation can never be possible. All I’m interested in is stopping them.” – Pointman.

  6. SPPI Blog: What is science without religion?

    From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
    Perhaps, therefore, no one should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences, particularly in those sciences that have become the mere political footballs of the leading pressure-groups, unless he can certify that he adheres to one of those major religions – Christianity outstanding among them – that preach the necessity of morality, and the reality of the distinction between that which is so and that which is not. For science without the morality that perhaps religion alone can give is nothing.

  7. Do you want the good news first, or the bad news? Sorry, there’s no good news. After NASA learnt there was no experimental evidence of ‘cloud albedo effect’ cooling, 1.75 times raw median AGW in AR4, the only justification for the high-feedback CO2-AGW hypothesis, they claimed it’s caused by ‘enhanced reflection from the greater surface area of water in polluted clouds’: there’s no such physics.

    So, AR4 was known to be based on false data well before publication. At the very least you must reduce predicted CO2-AGW by a factor of three. But that’s just the first stop: when you correct Sagan’s incorrect optical physics of sols, which started the whole CAGW scare, ‘cloud albedo effect’ cooling changes to heating, another AGW which is self-limiting. So, there’s no proof of any net CO2-AGW.

    Notice the use of the term ‘net’. The natural control system for GHG warming in the atmosphere we call weather already reduces the no-convection GHG warming of 60K to 33K. Adding a bit more CO02 may causes no discernible extra warming with the explanation of the AGW we see in the rise of from ocean heat content, now reversing, being increase of light transmission of low level clouds by the burst of Asian aerosol pollution due to globalisation.

    This is the scientific method in action: it reacts particularly badly against fraud.

    • “when you correct Sagan’s incorrect optical physics of sols, which started the whole CAGW scare,”

      But that was TTAPS model based on a NASA model, wasn’t it, and aimed at studying nuclear winter? The rival was the GCM from NCAR which came out with less extreme surface temperature drops than TTAPS, and was a climate GCM. The NASA model was studying the effects of atmospheric dust on surface temps.

      How do you also reconcile the temp increase and all of the other observed fingerprints, plus predicted effects, with this?

      Sounds like the ghost of Russell Seitz is back, to be honest. A link would be appreciated.

      • It’s the ‘two-stream approximation’. it assumes constant Mie asymmetry parameter, g, equal to the isolated droplet case and this biases internal diffuse backscattering as a positive function of optical depth.

        The problem is that none of the physicists in this branch of science seems to have realised Mie’s solution of Maxwell’s equations assumed a plane wave boundary condition and for random photon direction, g must be zero.

        What we have is a fortuitous curve fit. The apparent optical depth of clouds is the result of two factors: direct backscattering at the upper surface and symmetrical diffuse scattering of light allowed to enter.

        You get at the direct backscattering from Mie theory. It’s a strong negative function of droplet size and gives the angular-dependent cloud albedo the physicists correct for but can’t explain.

        Pollution increases the albedo of thin clouds because but, contrary to the present theory, decreases it for thick clouds. You can prove this by looking at thick clouds about to rain – they’re darker because increased droplet size means more direct backscattering, less light diffusely scattered.

        No-one so far has been able to dispute this argument.

        • PS There is no link because it’s my own work in an area which is a mono-culture going back to Van de Hulst.

          Twomey smelt a rat but couldn’t think why the direct backscattering should exist. It’s because after the first interaction, light energy is concentrated in the forward direction by 10^7 [15 microns], 10^5 [5 microns]. At the next interaction you still get about 3% direct backscattering but 3% of 10^7 is a very big number. I’m working out the maths to quantify the effect.

          • This foray reads like Sanctomonious Quackery:
            A common phenomena in limate blog commentary.

          • So I take it you’re volunteering to wear the climate denial dunce cap?

            That’s a pleasant and unexpected surprise!


            • If I’m right, this is a game changer and as I’m retired, I don’t care if I have made an honest mistake!

              Prove the physics wrong if you can!

              • The electric field associated with the emission is WAY too small to force forward scattering. Now in the Mars atmospheric CO2 laser, maybe, but there stimulated emission has taken over.

                You are not even wrong.

          • Is this startling evidence published anywhere reputable, like in a physics journal? Did you submit your research to the top journals so your findings could be scrutinized through peer review by other physicists?

            If not, you’re 99% likely to be a self-deluded crank.


            • He’s a regular in the UK MSM, and has been asked a number of times to submit for peer review, even post it at RC. Gavin said pretty much the same as yourself when he took a look. TBH I’d just delete these posts for being completely OT. Sorry I took the bait, but I thought I and others would be dealing with another nail in the coffin of AGW for weeks to come in MSM comments, as if it isn’t like a particularly gory season of The Walking Dead enough already.

          • “PS There is no link because it’s my own work”

            Even one’s own work can and should have sources (especially if it claims to expose a fraud), unless your “work” exists entirely in your mind or you haven’t learned how to use a scanner. Such work can and should be submitted for review in a number of academic journals as well.

            I believe we have a strong Denier Dunce Cap candidate.

            Argument: Scientists are frauds.

            Source: my mind

            • OK Go to Gustav Mie’s original paper in 1908 where he solved Maxwell’s equations for the interaction of a plane wave with an isolated dielectric sphere assuming a plane wave boundary condition.

              Then go here for the paper in which Sagan’s ex-students Lacis and Hansen introduced Sagan’s two-stream approximation to climate science at GISS:

              See eq. 19 and the assumption of constant Mie asymmetry parameter, g. That assumption is wrong when light enters the sol. No ifs, no buts: g falls from c. 0.85 for the initial interaction to zero for random photon direction in the diffuse scattering region.

              The original mistake was made by Van de Hulst in the 1950s and copied through Sagan to date.

              Here’s an up-to-date model with a discretised version of the two-beam approximation:

              The problem is that these formulations all predict that cloud albedo is a monotonic function of optical depth. This is disproved experimentally by the darker rain cloud effect [larger droplets, lower optical depth yet higher albedo].

              Whenever I have pointed out this error to people actually working in this field they go D’oh. It’s that straightforward. you’ve got two optical processes with opposite behaviour when you add aerosol pollution and for thicker clouds there is no cooling both experimentally and theoretically, and it could be heating.

              • ‘This is disproved experimentally by the darker rain cloud effect [larger droplets, lower optical depth yet higher albedo].’The albedo is important at the top of the cloud not the bottom. If the error was that glaring we would have huge troubles modelling hurricanes let alone climate.

              • Alistair, when you’ve shown this error to people who actually work in the field, what have they done about it? I would imagine if your ideas are so pathbreaking and astounding, you’d have people either attacking you as the evil denier or carrying you on their shoulders as the hero of the world. I see neither being done so I suspect you’ve made a huge boo boo that people who actually work in the field can see immediately, hence they couldn’t care less.

                • My suspicion is that he misunderstands how current models deal with this issue. His argument hangs on 38 year old papers detailing how models then dealt with it.

                  Over the weekend I may hawk this theory round various blogs and forums and see if anyone who knows the models well enough can cast some (scattered) light on the issue.

                  • Someone – not mentioning any names – mentioned his post here over at RC and someone — Gavin — called TPL “crank central”.


                    To be so misunderstood!

                  • Please do that.

                    If as I suspect the present optical physics of aerosols doesn’t predict an increase of albedo when cloud droplets coarsen in thicker clouds, then the theory is wrong!

                    • Why are you wasting your time here, Alastair? If your calculations are indeed correct then posting blog comments is an ineffective means of changing the paradigm.

                      If you really want to do some good and kick away the foundations of AGW theory, then publish.

                      Judging by your talk, you must be a genius. Judging by your actions, you don’t have any faith in your own aspirations.

                      Publish and expose AGW for a fraud! I for one would love to not worry about warming.

        • “Pollution increases the albedo of thin clouds because but, contrary to the present theory, decreases it for thick clouds.” This seems to be relying on a misreading of the conclusions of Twomeys 1977 “Influence of pollution on the shortwave albedo of clouds”. Thing is the ‘there is no such physics’ is wrong. There are two independent lines of physical evidence of a reduction in sunlight arriving at the earth. First is the measured reduction in pan evaporation since WWII the second in the instrument measured dimming by Ohmura and others. So either our friend is suggesting that this is due to particulate pollutions absrobing the light in the midtroposphere which is very contrary to current measured trends there or it is being reflected.

          But the take home message is there has been a measured reduction in light arriving at the surface of the earth.

          Apols if I am feeding a troll but the lesson in how to rebut this one seems usefull here.

          Twomey paper readible here, note the conculsion is referes to ‘thickest’ (probibly meaning the giant thunderheads in the ITCZ) and does not say they reduce in albedo.

          Click to access Twomey%201977.pdf

          • Good points. Pan evaporation: never knew it but never discount a valid observation.

            Take into account absorption by aerosols embedded in clouds and my simple idea has to be changed to include IR radiation. Did the radiation figure apply to total radiation or just visible?

            As for cumulo-nimbus, they are dark underneath because most the light is directly by agglomerated ice crystals borne upwards by convection. Yet the climate models predict such clouds are dark because more diffusely-scattered light is directed backwards.

            You now see my dilemma – the two-stream approximations are physically unsound. Such clouds give very high albedo because very little light enters.

            Who is right? Twomey knew that when clouds become thick, albedo asymptotes so pollution can’t increase albedo any more.

            Yet the two stream approximations predict albedo increases monotonically above that limit.

            The definitive observation is that rain clouds with larger droplets transmit less light, the opposite of what the models predict.

            In 2004, work commissioned by NASA explained this result by claiming 30% lower water content in polluted clouds. NASA then claimed greater water droplet surface area reflected more light, fantasy physics.

        • Publish Alastair! Or these kittens will die.

        • Alastair, you wrote:

          “Pollution increases the albedo of thin clouds because but, contrary to the present theory, decreases it for thick clouds. You can prove this by looking at thick clouds about to rain – they’re darker because…”

          I’m assuming you’re talking about the albedo of the top of the cloud that reflects incoming radiation back up again.

          I would have to say hmmm… I am a hang glider pilot with direct physical experience of clouds. “Thick” clouds are always blinding white (high albedo) on their top surfaces. Thinner clouds are less so. As far as I know, pollution (microscopic seed particles) can, if the lapse rate and water vapour quantities are suitable, increase the NUMBER of clouds but as for altering the “thickness” I would say other factors way overwhelm it.

        • Is this a Poe coming and posting in the list of examples of climate Dunces?

          “No one has thus far be able to dispute this argument” perhaps cos you haven’t put it published it or put up for peer review?

    • APD, is that you? I already posted a link to your claim at RealClimate. Let’s see if you finally get that response we talked about on CIF. I see Alistairmcd posted something very similar at The Independent as well. Curious.

      • APDdid you morph into AMcDhui at TMF?

      • Sorry, APD, the response was not favourable.

        • I hasten to disagree J Bowers.

          The Dunning & Kruger imprint is always looking for cutting edge science and has a special interest in quality papers overturning generational conspiracies that others would much rather see kept quiet.

          • And it seems to be far more useful to troll it around the blogosphere, instead of submitting it for peer review as urged by numerous others elsewhere; a kind of Iron Sun Lite hypothesis.

            • Can you challenge the physics?

              • The point really is can you explain the physics, in such a way as to be convincing to those familiar with the science.
                Consider it a review of your work by your peers.

                Otherwise its just more crank blogscience which is a ten-penny-racket with so many delusionals infesting the intertubes.

                Look at the zoo Watts attracts for example. Or McIntyre.

            • Holy Game Changer! I don’t care if Alastair Davidson is retired or not. If he’s right, he has irrefutable proof that the AGW thesis does not stand up. He owes it to present and future generations to publish this proof.

              Will he publish in the peer-reviewed journals and expose himself to scientific debate? Or will he preen in the comment threads of various blogs?

              I think we all know the answer to that.

            • For goodness’ sake Alastair, you’ve got to publish. Don’t deprive the world of your genius.

  8. This one’s a little subtle, but it looks important. The Lukewarmer Convention in Lisbon has come to the following conclusion:

    agreement in climate science is more violent than other fields where there is much disagreement and high societal stakes (e.g. economics). On person attributed the violence of the disagreement in climate science to the propensity of scientific societies to publish position statements, and the IPCC itself; these create animosity and hostility through the exercise of power without sufficient accountability.

    I’m not sure who the “one” person is, but this ridiculous idea has been festering at Curry’s for months. Basically, it says that science shouldn’t warn people about stuff because people don’t like it! And they’ll get mad. As if scientists aren’t accountable to make statements that warn people of possible outcomes. And make no mistake about it, this is a political statement, in essence, telling climate scientists to shut up. This has nothing to do with animosity or keeping science neutral. Very sad for us.

    • It’s likely someone who is afraid that he’s going to be hit in his wallet. The “sufficient accountability” indicates a desire to assign blame, and demand retribution.

      Of course, who’s going to hold the obfuscators accountable?

    • “Basically, it says that science shouldn’t warn people about stuff because people don’t like it!”

      And one poster there is pointing to medical science warning against 2nd hand tobacco smoke as being evidence for this, because as we know (the poster, not me, says) there’s no evidence whatsoever that 2nd hand smoke is the least bit harmful.

      At least Curry attracts people who are consistently anti-science and stupid.

    • gyposaurus – you’re missing the real point here.

      Violent disagreement is the fault of climate scientists and the IPCC.

      Scientist gets a death threat? – we know who to blame.

  9. Oh well, this classic from the esteemed Dr. Orssengo (currently finding favour at Judith Curry’s) should never be forgotten:

    “When the moon pulls the top surface of the ocean, a vacuum is created under the ocean where the surface is pulled up”

  10. “disagreement in climate science is more violent than other fields where there is much disagreement and high societal stakes (e.g. economics).”

    The actual scientists remain largely on cool but cordial relations with each other.

    Its the non scientists who have the loud disagreements and if they think there are ‘violent’ disagreements among the non scientists in climate land compared to economics they should have been in Ireland a few weeks ago when the austerity packages were being unvieled. Still as it is largly a tummy tickling exersize I dont expect any real insight other than the a lot of backs being slapped and insinuation that the mainstream scientists should be on hand and knees to the Watts and Goddards of this world apologising for not taking them seriously.

  11. Watching the Deniers Reply January 26, 2011 at 10:09 pm

    Policy Lass… I’ve many examples at my blog. A few personal favorites:

    Jo Nova thinks Arctic submarines disprove AGW theory:

    “Lewandowsky tries to casually slide some evidence in there, but nothing much is going his way. He speculates that US Navy submarines must be part of these “conspiracy theories” because they show so much Arctic melting, but if they are in on the Big Scare Campaign, the US Navy got the wrong memo. The USS Skate surfaced at the North Pole in 1959, and the US Navy has photos of it…”

    The Skate records says: “We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick.”

    Apparently there a many similar examples all over the web.”

    Andrew Bolt thinks computers are evil:

    Andrew Bolt sees snow, therefore no warming!

    You might be interested in “Denyspeak”, a language I especially created for deniers. It’s based on Orwell’s Newspeak.

    I created this to help them reduce time spent on thinking, refuting science and thus allowing them to pursue other interests, like denying the evolution:

    “…Obviously we need to keep things simple, removing “all shades of meaning from language, leaving simple dichotomies“.

    Denyspeak (deniers speak) is a simple language to learn, and I anticipate its rapid adoption across the blogosphere and then into the English language itself.”

    “The climate is not changing. The climate has always changed!”

  12. OK, this is hugely off-topic, but I love your blog, and was wondering if you’d heard this episode of the always awesome This American Life? In it a scientist/educator from NSF tries to convince a 14-year-old Glenn Beck watcher of the existence of global warming. It’s truly dispiriting because the young girl who thinks global warming is propaganda is so pleasant and energetic and has sadly learned the wrong way to discriminate between competing claims. You can hear the way she denies the facts in real-time.

    It’s even worse listening to the educator. You can clearly see her putting on her game face and making a strong effort to remain optimistic even as it’s clear there’s no reaching this young child.

    The podcase is in three acts. The global warming starts from around 24:30 and runs for about 20 mins.

  13. Inspired by J. Bowers, I think an Iron Sun award would be more suitable than the dunce cap, and of course it has to go to Judy herself. It could be made up as a little medallion to complement Peter’s Rossby medal.

    • “The Iron Sun Award” is an ace name for a metal band though.

    • Hey, how about the Lysenkarthyism Award?

      Awarded for merging the best of Stalinist inquiry into scientific endeavour with the noblest of free world democratic principles.

  14. Anthony Watts a D’aleo make it all up with this claim:

    Tamino calls him out for publishing fraudulent claims about regarding the impact of station dropout on global temperature, which Tamino has proven
    Watts and D’aleo had accused NOAA scientists of deliberate deception

    Morano sends lies from UK Times and Daily Mail around the world
    February 16, 2010

    Minor myths: “The Arctic sea ice is almost back to normal”
    Tuesday, March 2, 2010

    Crackpot explanations for climate change
    Sunday, February 28, 2010

    “We don’t have an icecap in Texas,” Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, said at a December 18 press briefing in Copenhagen. The “theory [of anthropogenic climate change] has never been independently analyzed by any scientific group.” Mr. Barton and some of his colleagues, including Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin), showed the media in Copenhagen that the Congressional global warming denial machine may be scientifically clueless, but is still capable of waging a nasty political battle.”

    Lou Dobbs and global warming: Two stories

    In Congressional Hearings, Amateurs Invited to Confuse Climate Science
    by Stacy Morford – Mar 27th, 200 9
    Fred Singer too

    ABC Chairman Calls For False Balance

    “Let’s boil his claims down to their essence: he compared climate science with the spivs and shonks of the 1980s, the corporates house of cards such as Enron in the 1990s, and the financial chicanery that prompted the GFC. Journalists failed to spot those until too late, he told ABC staff, and a similar thing is happening on climate change. He thus implicitly compares climate scientists with frauds and criminals.”

    Leakegate: Leake caught cherry picking to make wind power look bad

    Sen. Inhofe inquisition seeking ways to criminalize and prosecute 17 leading climate scientists
    Posted on Wednesday, February 24, 2010

    Tamino charts new temp data for northern hemisphere
    debunks denier claims about discontinued measuring stations

    Watts Up With That’s ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice

    The Lomborg Deception The Septical Environmentalist says 16 feet of sea level rise wouldn’t be too bad.

    CAN Report: Canadian Scientists Muzzled by Harper Government
    Posted by Dorothy on March 22, 2010

    “John McLean hides the declines”
    April 3, 2010 by Tim Lambert

    “Last year, John McLean, Chris de Freitas and Bob Carter, published a paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research using a mathematical procedure that eliminates long term trends to claim that there is no long term trend in global temperatures.”

    murky forecast
    TV weathercasters moonlight as climate experts. It’s a problem
    4 Posted 30 Mar 2010 1:28 PM By Jonathan Hiskes

    From promoting acid rain to climate change denial– ovcer 20 years of David Koch’s polluter front groups

    Anthony Watts offers up a cherry-picked interview excerpt from climatologist Dr. Michael Mann

    ‘Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found.’
    [Miguel de Unamuno, Essays and Soliloquies, 1924]

    “Among the climate ‘skeptics'”
    Great article on denier tactics, arguments, mind set etc.

    Spinning the failure of the Climategate scandal: Jo Nova on ABC Drum

    Jo Nova, our resident science mis-communicator is given another chance to confuse the climate debate by posting an article on the ABC’s Drum site:

  15. How is this for an own goal, from ABC Australia, Johnathon Holmes post about Murdoch and Ltd. News,
    27 Jan 2011 2:04:53pm
    “the World Meteorological Organisation has declared that 2010 was the warmest year on record”

    Where? 1998 was the warmest. Some considered 2010 equal, or just a tad under 1996 after error margins.

    (BTW, 1998 was 12 years ago so apparently the other common claim all the hottest years on record were in the last 10 years is also wrong.)

    Using the same methods as AGW science Australia is a much better cricket team than England. Afterall Australia won the ashes 5-nil not so long ago. The recent result is simply an anomoly.

    AGW scientoligists: Prediced drought for all of Aus like forever. Of course now thay say “well that can happen too, it’s all consitant.”
    but it’s not consistant,
    the simple plain truth fact is they were wrong,
    not just a little bit wrong, not error of margin wrong,
    but devastatingly catastophically 100% wrong.

    The truth of AGW science: They don’t know, and they are still yet to provide even one item of actual proof.
    Coincidence is not proof.
    (Any lawyer will tell you that, college kids will get zero marks if handing up a paper trying to claim that – so why do rational people not understand this when it comes to the rubbish put up by AGW scientists?)

    AGW science is not the new bible
    And be careful, with some of these AGW scientists (I wont say all), it is a pure money grab con job, just like bogus contractors during the home insulation scheme – but hey, it’s the fasion, jump on and earn a few dollars so they can buy waterfront property just like Al Gore did – twice.

  16. I left a long list of links as requested. Did the spam filter axe it, or is it just in moderation?

  17. Tea Party leader, Congressman Michele Bachmann from Minnesota provides a nearly limitless supply of stupid. There are a few climate related gems in this collection. Warning: Head Explosion hazard if you click on the link.


    • Mine is not a troll haven nor the climate denial penalty box. It is meant to be a compendium of the stupid, the lies and smears. Whenever you see McI dogwhistle or insinuate fraud, copy it and paste it here with adequate citation, of course! Whenever WUWT posts the stupid, copy and paste here. Anytime, anywhere climate denialism strikes, you can bring it here for posterity.


  18. Dunce cap for McIntyre, for not appearing to understand the difference between lead and contributing IPCC authors…

  19. The thread will soon become too long. Perhaps we should sort it out by sources.

    Here is yet another one from the Torygraph, reported by Ron Broberg:

    • I may do a page just for quotes by culprit. IOW a McI page, a Moncton page, and others.


      • … of course if you do a Curry page – a great start can be found at Curryquotes ….


        (by the way – I seldom post, but truly enjoy your insights!)

        • To be more complete, here’s the address for curryquotes:

          As an example, here is Curry making some sweeping claim in an effort to address tribalism and building bridges [sarc]

          “[A]t the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.”

          And then, when confronted…. the inevitable back peddle…

          “I’m surprised that people thought I was attacking climate scientists in my original post. Climate scientists have been pawns in all this; some have been victims and others have benefitted. If anyone can be labeled as a “villain” in all this, it would arguably be the UNEP/UNFCCC; but in a way that begs the question of how all this started and who started it.” Judith Curry

          Yeah, OK!


          • All that is the essence of her attack on Mann.

            She’s apparently extremely envious of his success, as in other venues she’s tied him into the more general statement you’ve quoted above.

          • Climate scientists have been pawns in all this; some have been victims and others have benefitted.

            Uh oh.

            If anyone can be labeled as a “villain” in all this, it would arguably be the UNEP/UNFCCC; but in a way that begs the question of how all this started and who started it.”

            How weird’s that question? Very Moncktonian.

          • @ climategal, thanks, your site’s a dead handy source for some oh Curry’s ummm… consistent inconsistencies.

            BTW this
            <blockquoteAnd then, when confronted…. the inevitable back peddle

            should read “… back-pedal“, but I rather like the thought of her furiously un-promoting herself 🙂

            • Just to clarify – curryquotes is not my site. I don’t know who gathers this gold mine. I found it when google searching Santer for a different purpose.

              AH – yep, pedal :), as opposed to peddle or piddle. In the next thread I have typos, too – referencing Santer with TAR, where it should be SAR, and debat = debate, but, ya know, I try.

              Curry has made me vibrate. At least now she’s revealing herself completely.

              best cg

  20. dhogaza :
    All that is the essence of her attack on Mann.
    She’s apparently extremely envious of his success, as in other venues she’s tied him into the more general statement you’ve quoted above.

    That was my first thought, too. So is her purpose building bridges or settling scores?

    • I have no idea what her purpose is, but building bridges? She’s been burning them, with statements such as the one climate gal has posted, and others that essentially accuse certain of her peers of being guilty of scientific misconduct. And currently she’s at that conference in Lisbon which is supposedly about settling the climate science debate … but which apparently excludes mainstream climate scientists but does include Stephen (“dry ice snow in Antarctica”) Goddard.

      Settling scores? Obstructing action due to political ideology? I have no idea, but it ain’t bridge buildin’.

      • But but but… “440 posts in 24 hours”! “82 posts and over 26,000 comments [from 2/9/2010 to end of 2010]”!!11!1

        As gents’ tailors used to say when their customer first tried on their new suit:

        “Never mind the quality, feel the width.”

        • I’m starting to think she just wants to feel the love …

          That acceptance of the “climate science trashcan” tee shirt at the “reconciliation of the climate science debate” conference in Lisbon (which had no climate scientists in attendance) is simply pandering above and beyond understanding.

          • I’m starting to think she just wants to feel the love

            Acceptance (admiration even) by a group, especially a large one, is a powerful drug. But, like everything else, it comes with a price. Somebody sometime needs to remind her of Faust.

          • “(which had no climate scientists in attendance) ” von Storch?

  21. Just to clarify – curryquotes is not my site

    Ooops, my mitsake 😉

  22. New theory of hurricane formation.

    3 February 2011 10:54AM

    DamianCarrington: “no it’s not – it’s actually basic thermodynamics”

    Back to school for you Damian, TCs are an attempt to redistribute the world’s heat, basic thermodynamics, and if the earth is warming it will warm more at the poles than the equator, hence less reason to redistribute heat, and less TCs. Are you saying that experts in TCs are forecasting more for a warming world, if so can you cite your sources (the original papers, not the IP CC summary please).

    @dorlomin: Somewhere in the posts you’ve asserted that temperature gradient plays little part in the formation of TCs. How many TCs do you think we’d have a year if the poles were at the same temperature as the equator?

    = = = = = = = = = = =
    Hurricanes are caused by the cold poles, who knew?

  23. So Peter Sinclair over at his most excellent “Climate Denial Crock Of The Week” has just rated a new denier post as “Funniest Denier Posting Ever”…

  24. Kerry Emmanuel?

  25. The mask slips:

    3) If there is ignorance (and the critical threshold issue and abrupt climate change qualifies as ignorance), the strategy is to increase overall economic and societal resilience so that societies are better armed to deal with the unexpected. this is the libertarian strategy of promoting economic development as the best way to deal with threats.

    • “the strategy is to increase overall economic and societal resilience so that societies are better armed to deal with the unexpected. this is the libertarian strategy of promoting economic development as the best way to deal with threats.”

      JC exposes not only her ideology, but the shallow nature of it. The libertarian strategy is the bubble economy where were burn all the fuel and eat all the fish without restraint? That is the opposite of resilient.

      • I could be wrong, but isn’t this just one of three options/scenarios? Not sure if her reasoning is muddled or the Sam Adams is taking effect.

        • It’s if/then. If and only if risk can be precisely quantified do you do things like set actual emissions targets. If there are a range of potential scenarios, only mitigate in a way that accounts for ALL possible outcomes. If there are unknowns, do nothing other than waving one’s hands and talking about unquantifiables like ‘resilience.’

          • I have only been over there for two days and Dr Curry really baffles me. Id seen people kvetch about her but never really gotten to see the lack of focus in how she seems to be trying to get to where she thinks she is going.

          • Thanks. I have to admit to a certain degree of eye rolling when “libertarian” principles are invoked. I see that as a certain utopianism that is attractive until one actually has to live in a libertarian society, which I associate with unchecked corporate power.

            • Well, libertarianism isn’t just one thing, it’s sort of a blanket term. My basic orientation is minarchist, and could be described as libertarian socialist. Anarchocapitalism also falls under the broad rubric of libertarianism.

              There’s a sort of vulgar libertarianism that’s gaining increasing popularity the US with the Tea Party; and throughout the anglosphere in general. It’s characterized by an aggressively proud know-nothingism – “keep your government hands off my Medicare” – that reminds me a lot of the psuedoskeptic worldview. Vulgar libertarians venerate Adam Smith, but leave off the part where he advocates progressice taxation. Pseudoskeptics claim to love parsimony – “things should be made as simple as possible,” leaving off the second part of that aphorism: “…but not simpler.”

  26. On radiative physics
    “It cannot possibly be settled.
    Change the density of gases in an area also changes the energy stored and generates more friction for winds. Mind you once the winds do pick up a denser gas, it could be more powerful due to the density.”

    Gods I hate comments like that. They are so vague and meaningless the author clearly has no clue but can sometimes twist the meanings and claim they are being misrepresented.
    But still ‘more friction for wind due to a denser gas’, Lord, these people need help. And that help is a high school education in geography and science.


    New bill in New Mexico seeks to protect teachers ‘teaching the controvosy’.
    Evolution and climate science are not named but its similar to a previous attempted bill that did name them.

  28. “…People are baffled by the fact that ice caps are melting yet where is all the water going? The sea level rise is not nearly what they said it would be if the ice caps melted. Has any one stopped to think that people are 80% water?…”

    I refuse to link to it. You know how to find it if you really feel the need.

  29. could be there be any validity to the accusation that our government (perhaps through HAARP) and/or others are secretly altering weather patterns?

    Earlier I could dismiss such rumors as conspiracy rubbish, but Climategate has revealed unexpected dangers from a scientific/political alliance.

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

    The source should be obvious, but I’ll follow J Bowers in his reluctance to drive traffic to that particular site.

    • Actually, mine was from Kevin McKinney’s hub. Maybe I should give the link, because Kevin’s roundup on the science is very good. Sorry :/

    • PDA, does it begin with ‘C’ and end with ‘Etc’ by any chance?

    • Oliver K Manuel says the government might be altering weather patterns through unknown means for unknown reasons and also “Climategate!”. Everyone sensible enough to tie their own shoes says “Huh?”

      Sharper00’s comment: This is an interesting hypothesis and passionately argued, much like the natural philosophers of old would have back when people died from disease by the cart load. This topic is outside my direct expertise but I consulted Roger Pielke and he confirmed that climate models don’t even consider the possible feedbacks (which are guaranteed to all be negative) from secret government activities.

      What’s everyone else’s thoughts? I remind you all to be civil and that Gavin Schmidt once beat an adorable puppy to death just because he felt like it.

  30. Homeopathic remedies prepared by serial dilution until none of the original substance remains can cure many ailments. This may sound crazy, but Climategate.

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

    Physiological changes acquired over the life of an organism (such as the enlargement of a muscle through repeated use) may be transmitted to offspring. There’s no evidence for this, but Climategate.

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

    Dianetic “auditors” can remove the so-called reactive mind – which prevents people from becoming more ethical, more aware, happier and saner – by means of an E-meter. Sure, L. Ron Hubbard was later legally forced to admit the E- meter does nothing, but Climategate.

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

  31. “…we have a paper in the second stage of review of the effect of siting quality of the United States Historical Climate Record [USHCN] based on the seminal work of Anthony Watts, Evan Jones and their numerous volunteers. Anthony, Evan, and several other well know climate scientists are co-authors.”

    Jesus wept.

  32. I saw that …. Pielke (sr) remarking on their paper based on the “seminal” work of Watts, and company. I wept too!


  33. These are worthy of the The Climate Denier Dunce Cap – They can be found up on today –

    Just unbelievably naive!

    Please remember to fit your head vice!


    Climategate displayed the grant-fueled witchcraft called “climate science” and Manning’s hockey stick has gone flat. Deliberate algorithms designed to give you a warmist trend no matter what data entered.

    That is your idiocracy.

    Globull warming is slowley being exposed. Stick around for the final act.
    Globull warming is the greatest fraud perpertrated since the USSR.


    You think you can shake the bloody shirt of the “KOCH FAMILY PAYROLL !!” and scare me? The Koch’s have as much right to fund their opinions as Chomsky does and you and the Kennedy’s and CAIR.

    And yes, globull warming is a scam.


    Can you prove to me that fossils produced oil or coal?

    Sime – WTF? – use the head vice!

    Are so much a fascist hater that only you have the right to voice an opinion on issues and the Koch’s do not? Do you lick the soles of the shoes of George Soros?

    So much internet myth re the evil Koch brothers and no proof. Why hasn’t the Att. General Holder clapped them in irons yet? Oh no….HE’s on the Koch Family Payroll too???


    There is no science in the global warming theory. For a theory to be valid there has to be a way to prove it false. So far everything that happens in the world has been declared proof of global warming. Even when opposite events happen.

    Just stunning, 15 plus years of education achieves the above!

  34. Curry, “While googling around”….yes, let us all use google to help solve the issues at hand, that will really help! I hope that it was at least Google scholar.

  35. Jonny Ball UK kids TV presenter and climate contrairian raises his being stalked by internet weirdos for his views on climate.

    Here is one of those he highlighted.

    Also on a Northern Ireland Blog, The Family Voyage, which prides itself on winning some Blog Award, flagged JohnnyBall and featured the statement, “Johnny Ball should not be allowed near children.” Being near to children has been my career for over 50 years. As yet I cannot contact them, as their site is only open to known members?? (Their flagged Johnny Ball link has now miraculously disappeared)

    Their beef is that I dared suggest in 2009 on NI Radio that Sammy Wilson as Energy Minister was right when he refused to air “Carbon Trust” TV commercials, one of which showed a very young child being told a story of a drowning world through climate change. Following complaints to the Advertising Authorities, these ads were found “guilty of exaggeration and alarmism over climate change” and were ordered to be dropped. So that would indicate that I was totally justified in condemning them?

    Anyone who knows me and my career, must know that I have never done anything that in any way would harm a single child.

    Here is the blog that he is whining about

    Silly old duffer. And why on earth has he been asked to come on to the programme to talk about climate change? Is it really reasonable for the BBC to allow this man 7 minutes to talk a load of old nonsense, just because he was once a wacky kind of kids TV presenter?

    This is the only post I can find that this blogger made on climate change. The rest is the struggles of bringing up an autistic child.

    That is climate extremism that has so far spawned more than 7 UK newspaper stories today.

    Jesus wept.

    • Just went to his blog. He also reckons he’s being monitored. D for “Duh”. David Bellamy, Johnny Ball; thank goodness for Bill Oddie.

  36. Put the coffee down and put on yer head vise!

    The IPCC has the climate change of carbon dioxide backwards.
    Actually carbon dioxide causes a slight cooling effect.

    Click on the commenter’s name there, but don’t take off the head vise first.

  37. Scientists release 1000’s of papers annually suggesting things, yet less than a handful make it into the annals of believability. Only 1 or 2 are ever accepted as being close to factual in nature & typically are debunked within a few years.

    Posted by “Ken_W” Globe and Mail, August 11, 2011


  1. Curiouser and Curiouser « Greenfyre’s - February 4, 2011

    […] of the Dunce’s Corner, The Policy Lass has The Climate Denier Dunce Cap, “… post solely for the purpose of collecting examples of these dunce moments, smears […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: