Friday Funny Bonus Edition

An uncomfortable week for John Cook’s crew at ‘Skeptical Science’

Lucia also points out another corner painted by “Dana1981”.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Leon Brozyna

Hmmmm … I guess this rules out any chance of a cartoon by Josh appearing in Skeptical Science.

There is another accusation against the Eureka Prize winner here

September 23rd, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Tristan @ 248, 249 & 251
I have been “disappeared” at Septic Science. The thread was on Trenberth’s “missing heat”; specifically the “Thermal Inertia of the Oceans”.
Since I was “disappeared” what more information or evidence could I possibly give you?
I had made about a dozen posts and I was winning a sizable portion of the readership (judged by the other comments), when I was “disappeared” (all my comments were simply erased), and I was banned from further comment.
Back then I was naive enough to think I didn’t have to take screen-dumps of everything I posted. Today I know better.
But then, you know all this.

Was anyone else on this thread who can corroborate this?

Josh is sharp and very insightful love your toons Josh.

John from CA
Wondering Aloud

Following your link to Lucia I found there is much support from fairly sharp people for the Skeptical Science web page and their supposed refutation of denier myths. Now I used to read skeptical science all of the time and the refutations were extraordinairily unconvincing. What it all makes me wonder is just how bad has science education become? We have people who are supposedly scientists treating models as if the were well established theories. Arguing as if a set of computer games using made up assumptions were actual reality. All while pretending that the data they were comparing the computer games to wasn’t of both doubtful quality and wild uncertainty.

laterite says:
September 23, 2011 at 4:44 pm
There is another accusation against the Eureka Prize winner here
Was anyone else on this thread who can corroborate this?
That specific thread? No. But one doesn’t have to have been there to know it is true. That has been happening since the start. Its why I don’t venture to those threads anymore. I’ve even had my comments edited to take out the rationale of my point and then the rest posted, only not to be given the opportunity to explain. I don’t understand why this is such a hubbub. There isn’t an alarmist blog that doesn’t rely on censorship in one form or another.
I used to try, and, if someone else wants, I can give them tips on how to be allowed to post and cryptically make some points in hopes that someone would read them and understand the thought you wish to express. But, its a lot of work, unforceful, and silly. Worse, if you are successful, and productive conversation gets generated, it will disappear.
On this particular point though, I’d like to emphasize that Josh’s approach is the only appropriate one at this point. Point it out, to be sure, but don’t take is seriously and don’t expect it to change. It won’t. But, mostly, understand that in the blog forums, the skeptics have won, and the public knows this. We don’t erase embarrassing moments. We don’t intentionally mischaracterize others statements. If some misunderstanding occurs, it is posted. We don’t delete comments. We give our antagonists a voice. Contrast this to the alarmists blogs. In many ways, it was their aberrant behavior and their treatment of McIntyre that gave a huge lift to the skeptical blogosphere. Prior to Steve Mac, John Daly was the only one I was aware of. RC, Deltoid(which intentionally misrepresented a post of Willis’ here.) SkS, and a whole host of wannbees, ……. My point is, we’ve won. All we have to do is continue to do what we’ve always done from the beginning. But, its time to quit taking these people seriously. For years we tried to have an open dialogue with those people. They’ll have nothing of the sort. Just take this, , look at the numbers the blogs generate, especially this one, look at the content, enjoy Josh’s cartoon and laugh at the marginal fringe that purports to be mainstream. They are not, we are!
Sorry for the length,

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Though at this point, I doubt your house has any intact panes remaining.
[REPLY: Gee, Dana, you must like walking on broken glass. You’ll note that your comment is appearing, and Anthony admits where he may have erred. Since you arrived at SkS the blog attempts to re-write history. You got caught. When you’ve developed some integrity, come back and take your best shot. This attempt was just pathetic. -REP, mod]

Mike Jowsey

Nicely put, James S. – my sentiments entirely.

Re Wondering Aloud and education. Deep down, I have hope because there are still people with the wit to pull examples like these. When you see such material no more, you’ll then have cause to worry. Source unknown – turned up in my emails.

Wondering Aloud

I like a whole bunch of those Geoff.
I think memoryvaults experience has been widely documented elsewhere. Skeptical Science is very poorly named as no attempt is made to actually answer serious questions. they are vigorously arm waved away.

JS: Most people would find this kind of ‘fixing’ abhorrent, and I find it disturbing that he is the recipient of this award if such fixing was widely known.

For his work in communicating science to an online audience, Cook has won the 2011 Eureka Prize for Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge.
The prize is part of the Australian Museum Eureka Prizes, the most prestigious awards in Australian science. The winners were announced last night at a star-studded evening for the country’s most inspired minds.
‘The Eurekas’, as they are fondly known, have become the most coveted science awards in this country. Every scientist knows a ‘eureka’ moment comes after decades of singular dedication, deep inquiry and rich collaboration. Receiving an Australian Museum Eureka Prize is regarded as a pinnacle achievement for any Australian scientist.

dana1981 says:
September 23, 2011 at 5:38 pm
“…. …. ”
That’s hilarious!! I was going to include that as an example of the differences that distinguish skeptical sites from alarmists!
Question: what does this show you?…..“UPDATE: Some people in comments including Dr. Roy Spencer, (and as I was writing this, Dr. Richard Allan) suggest that the paper isn’t about feedback …….
I’ll answer the question, it shows a willingness to show alternate views. It shows an understanding that none of us can be correct 100% of the time. And, it shows a markedly different form for handling dissent than what the alarmists sites show on a daily basis.
Dana, these mean people at WUWT want you to develop some integrity before you post back here, I’d invite you to post on my blog before you do! Uncensored (no swearing) and unedited. We need someone to laugh at.

laterite says:
September 23, 2011 at 6:04 pm
JS: Most people would find this kind of ‘fixing’ abhorrent, and I find it disturbing that he is the recipient of this award if such fixing was widely known.
Nonsense such as that was quit disturbing for me, too……… several years ago. I’ve learned to live with it, and understand that not all people are instilled with scruples. We’re all aware John Cook received that award. But, you must remember, even before the suggestion we get put in a re-education camp, even before the suggestion we should be tattooed, even before the comedy skit of blowing up skeptics was aired, we were silenced and marginalized. We were belittled, berated, and cast as if we were bereft of science. Our integrity was questioned at every point and continues today. So, one must ask themselves, who engages in such behavior? Who shrieks so loud when questioned?
As far as the award while it being widely known? Al Gore received a Nobel while including court documented falsehoods. It says more to the awarders then to the recipients.

A true work of art. The subtle ears in the walls. the reflection of the wet paint. Well crafted. Well done.


Recall that Tamino deleted (purged?) entire threads.

I just finished posting this on the “overcooked” thread, then I read James Sexton’s comment above and thought this thread was more appropriate:
The fact that the cartoonist who runs Skeptical Pseudo-Science, John Cook, has been handed an award by the establishment just means they are trying to protect the status quo, which is crumbling due to grass roots pressure and the pesky facts that debunk CAGW.
The truth is known by most educated scientists and engineers: CO2 is harmless and beneficial – as is testified by over 31,000 professionals working in the hard sciences, who co-signed this statement:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

There is no comparable alarmist statement in existence. The handful that have been attempted have resulted in relatively few co-signers; all of them put together come nowhere near 31,000.
People may be reluctant to take the brave stand that the 31,000 co-signers did. But it’s much easier to just decline to sign alarmist petitions by simply saying, “Thanks, but I don’t want to get involved.” The fact is that the great majority of those in the hard sciences know damn well that the CO2 scare is fed by $billions in annual grant money. Take away the grant payola, and people will literally laugh at the peddlers of tha CAGW scare. Because it’s not about science. It’s about the money.

More thorough debunking of Skeptical Pseudo-Science:

Richard M

I see Dana1981 dropped by to learn a little about climate. About time. Of course, when someone displays the obvious lack of integrity displayed by him, one can just smile and know that karma has a way of dealing with them.

Chris B

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win!” Gandhi


James Sexton says:
September 23, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Was anyone else on this thread who can corroborate this?
I can certainly corroborate that RC deletes posts when someone asks a simple question that requires an honest answer.
For example, why if sea levels are rising so dramatically, are the dryng rocks so carefully plotted on the British Admiralty charts of 250 years ago, which were made to a level of precison rarely seen since, why are those same drying rocks still drying rocks today?
These areas have not been resurveyed. They were charted by Bligh and Vancouver when they sailed with Cook. If sea level is actually rising, then these rocks should all be underwater, but they are not.
So, when you point this out on RC and other alarmist sites, you are deleted. Folks like Hansen and Jones, they can adjust the climate records all they want. What they haven’t been able to adjust are the BA charts drawn 250 years ago.
This is what RC desparately doesn’t want anyone to know. That there are records that show the truth, that were made with a much higher degree of accuracy than any climate records. The BA charts were made by men that knew that their lives and ships depended on getting it right, backed up by corporal punishment if they got it wrong.

Smokey says:
September 23, 2011 at 7:19 pm
“…………….The fact that the cartoonist who runs Skeptical Pseudo-Science, John Cook, ……………….
There is no comparable alarmist statement in existence. The handful that have been attempted have resulted in relatively few co-signers; all of them put together come nowhere near 31,000.”
Telling, isn’t it? Their consensus. Their overwhelming majority can’t convince the majority of scientists. The few dozen misanthropists who call themselves scientists have been rejected by the working scientists. And so, it is only fitting that they become caricatures in Josh’s cartoons.
We should note, though, Cook isn’t a scientist any more than I am. My degree is in computer science as is Cook’s.

ferd berple says:
September 23, 2011 at 7:46 pm
James Sexton says:
September 23, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Was anyone else on this thread who can corroborate this?
I can certainly corroborate that RC deletes posts when someone asks a simple question that requires an honest answer.
Thanks Ferd! But, I can’t take credit for the original question……… laterite @ September 23, 2011 at 4:44 pm posed the original question. But, you did confirm my response to laterite. RC, SkS, Deep whatever, Deltoid,…… they’re all the same……echo chambers which allow no dissent or alternate views.
I stated this on an earlier thread, some read Orwell and took his writings as warnings, others read Orwell and took them to be diagrams for success. In the end, humanity’s future won’t be determined by scientific discovery, it will be determined by morality.


[SNIP: People who fling the term “denier” around are not tolerated here. Nor are those who attempt to demean their host with puerile name-calling. As for your opinion, well, like they say, everyone has one of those, too. -REP,mod]


James Sexton says:
September 23, 2011 at 8:24 pm

… In the end, humanity’s future won’t be determined by scientific discovery, it will be determined by morality.

Yet I like to think that in the end, humanity’s future will be determined by the moral application of scientific discovery.
That’s why what the Warmistas do is so abhorrent!

Some of us (and by “some of us” I mean “me”) are less than fully conversant with all the details of this controversy, however, it seems that dana1981 has made corrections to her post, including a note of thanks to those who pointed out the problem:

Thanks to readers Lucia and Zeke for providing links to the IPCC AR4 model projection data in the comments, and Charlie A for raising the concern about the quality of the original graph digitization.

Has this been properly acknowledged here, and does it significantly affect anything? We’re justifiably proud of our ability to err, and correct the error here. If it’s been done elsewhere, we should give credit where it’s due.

Thanks for giving [dana1981] a chance to make his case on your blog.
The real problem for the Hockey Team and their supporters is that truth is not on their side. If it were they would not need to behave like Muslim fundamentalists threatening dire consequences against anyone who dares to voice dissent.
In contrast, people like Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer are big enough to admit when they are wrong and make corrections if appropriate. Even though you are not a scientist you are a seeker after truth who quickly acknowledges mistakes such as in the link [dana1981] cited. Furthermore you do not erase your mistakes as SkS would, you simply put a line through them so we can see what the mistake was.
Contrast that with the false confidence of the Warmists. With the honorable exception of George Monbiot they saw nothing wrong with any of the antics exposed in Climategate. Can you imagine Michael Mann and his cohorts admitting that Bristlecone pines are unreliable temperature proxies, especially given their shameless cherry picking of trees in the Yamal peninsula?
[dana1981] demonstrated his lack of maturity by his refusal to acknowledge that “Charlie A” was right and he was wrong. Take a look at the exchange that is going on right now at SkS and tell me who needs to grow up:
The down side of this discussion of the failings of SkS is that it is generating a spike in the comments at the site. My recommendation is to ignore SkS altogether; let it wither on the vine or stew in its own juice. Maybe someone can suggest a better metaphor.

JS: People can run their blog whatever way they choose in my opinion. It doesn’t worry me. But to be receiving top scientific prizes for, I guess it can be described as astroturfing, really worries me for some reason.

Frank Lee MeiDere,
You referred to [dana1981] as a female but I am pretty sure “He” is this person:
[snip – I don’t care if you say it is in the Guardian, without a source that shows it is public info I won’t allow his/her private info here – Anthony]
My source is the Guardian newspaper in the UK (aka the “Grauniad”).


Talking of such things, I’ve had loads of reasonably-worded posts deleted over at Puff Ho, when tackling some the CAGW Brigade in their Climate Change section. I don’t bother anymore – just leave them to blow smoke up each others @rses.

gallopingcamel says:
September 23, 2011 at 9:37 pm
You referred to [dana1981] as a female but I am pretty sure “He” is this person:
[snip – I don’t care if you say it is in the Guardian, without a source that shows it is public info I won’t allow his/her private info here – Anthony]
My source is the Guardian newspaper in the UK (aka the “Grauniad”).

Oops. And as a good resident of WUWT I hereby acknowledge my error, offer my apologies, and retreat back into silence. (That last one is a lie — but I acknowledge the lie, as well.)

Doug in Seattle

@James Sexton
In many ways, it was their aberrant behavior and their treatment of McIntyre that gave a huge lift to the skeptical blogosphere.
Yes, that was the turning point. It still took a couple more years to spread the word, and then when Climategate came, critical mass was reached.
Right after checking in here, I still check Steve’s blog every day and, assuming there’s a new post, I stay and try to fathom it (not always easy – and I am trained in science).


dana1981 says:September 23, 2011 at 5:38 pm …
WUWT should also remember the definitive statement and ludicrous comments in the CO2 freezing in the antarctic entry that was reconfigured as a “learning” entry. Biggest laugh in the “science” blog.
“How cold is it in Antarctica? According to Weather Underground, Vostok, Antarctica is forecast to reach -113F on Friday. That is four degrees below the freezing point of CO2 and would cause dry (CO2) ice to freeze directly out of the air. “!!!!!
Unfortunately wayback did not capture the amazing title for the entry before revisionism attacked!
[REPLY: Yes, by all means check out the link and note that Anthony changed the title and explained in an update at the same time why he changed it. Note, too, that the biggest laugh wasn;t as much of a howler as suggested here. Contrast it with SkS which goes back months after the fact and changes articles and comments, often with the intention of making skeptic commenters look bad. -REP, mod]


Incidentally have you wondered why so few dissenting views here, over the last year? Banned – straight in the auto spam bin never to be released – comments just do not make it past moderation.
Just ask Anthony how many are treated this way!
[Very few. Very, very few. Robt]
[Concur with moderator Robt. Out of more than 670,000 reader comments, only a handful have been banned for legitimate reasons, when they continuously violate site Policy. All other comments are posted. ~dbs, mod.]

Chris B

Chris B says:
September 23, 2011 at 7:40 pm
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win!” Gandhi
I’ll take it as a compliment that you have copied my ID. Perhaps inadvertently?


If you note, the thread you point out as an error by Anthony is full the brim of people jumping all over him about that actual point of the paper. I’d like to know two things:
1. Why, when I point out major errors in statements on climate sites that are all gaga about AGW, do my points getted heavily edited and then ridiculed out of context and my responses protesting the twisting of the facts simply get deleted altogether?
2. Since you’re posting the average of the IPCC AR4 model suite, could you take the time and effort to post also the error? You see, 0.19 degrees per decade, plus or minus…what? 3 degrees? Its like having 20 bucks in a bank account more than you thought based on the average of 22 accountants who come out to 20 +/- 2,000. sorta meaningless, ya know?

jphilips says: September 23, 2011 at 10:05 pm
It’s interesting that you, with all your innuendo and snark, have not just vanished straight in the auto spam bin never to be released. As far as I can see, Anthony doesn’t do that and any commenter that contributes to the discussion is allowed…. unless, of course, people like R. Gates and Joel Shore don’t count as “dissenters”.


jphilips says:September 23, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Just ask Anthony how many are treated this way!
[Very few. Very, very few. Robt]
There are of course those that are scared away :
REPLY: You are writing from a government entity, the UK Meteorological Office. Is this what taxpayers pay you for? To use your taxpayer funded time to denigrate others? How pathetic. -A
You are a pathetic bully Anthony Watts. These are my personal comments done in my personal time using PCs that are provided for reasonable personal use by employees, contractors and visitors to the Met Office.
REPLY: Perhaps, but still on the government funded network, using taxpayer funded PC’s, at your place of work. Still not cool. Read the policy page. Can’t take the heat, then do it from home. -A
REPLY: I don’t know what the total makeup is, there are a lot of independent donations, I do know that. But I also know it won’t matter what the answer is, as you’ll simply write another hate filled post and blame “deniers” and “big oil”. Your MO precedes you. Blogging on school time and their network today? Tsk.
Just a hint of a threat!
REPLY: No threat, policy. Made clear for a very long time on the WUWT policy page. I don’t have much tolerance for government employees that waste the taxpayer money to post rants like this fellow did. (even though he claims otherwise, but I’ve learned that the louder and more vile people are in conversation, the less trustworthy they are) So it’s my blog, my choice. I don’t force anyone to abuse their privileges and launch rants here. We have lots of people from .edu’s and .gov’s posting here. The only time I call attention to the fact is when they start denigrating people. This has worked pretty well because WUWT still leads the pack over all the angry ranter blogs on climate out there. Most people don’t come here to flame/be flamed, they come to interact and learn.
You chose not to post the whole comment so lets do that:

Steve Milesworthy says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:42 pm (Edit)
Monckton will not sue because he has a long record of distorting conclusions, incorrectly quoting figures and selectively including facts, all of which will take about two months of witness questioning to go through. He also had is backside spanked in the UK courts on An Inconvenient Truth (yes I know a few here like to think not, but I’m proud to say my children are now committed eco-freaks having watched the movie seven times at their primary school 😉 ).
He also has a long record of failures to bully institutions into taking action against employees of theirs who disagree with Monckton.
In the UK we have a name for people like Watts who sycophantically defend Monckton’s “honour” from the hilarious attack by posters such as ice9 – lickspittle. I look forward to the article “Monckton Climbs Down” when the inevitable happens.
As to Monckton demanding you deluge the University with emails, he’s just a pathetic and shameful bully who hates free speech except by himself.

I don’t always agree with Monckton, and I’ve said so publicly. I agree less though with people that post loads of angry tosh.
You can get your own blog and run it anyway you want, I’ll run mine in such a way that people that behave like petulant children don’t get to hijack the conversation for everyone else, if that upsets you or some other people, too bad.
If you want to read a policy that is threatening, insulting, and degrading, I suggest you read what warmist Greg Laden has to say about the people of certain parts of America and what he’ll do. Scrolll down to commenting policy.
Cheers, Anthony


Re dana`s example of the “CO2 freezing in Antarctica” thread and its followup,
– this followup was responsible for me finding WUWT. I was asking myself whether CO2 would rain out of the atmosphere, googled it, and found WUWT. I’ve been around ever since – because of the level of the debate. I was actually awe-struck by this blog.
So, what Dana describes as WUWT’s biggest blunder is WUWT’s biggest strength.


[SNIP: You were warned once. That’s it. You will also note that our policy requires a valid e-mail address. The one you supplied is not. Anonymous, cowardly trolls are not welcome. -REP, mod]

Peter Miller

In the UK, there are large number of eurosceptics, like me, who believed the single currency (Euro) was an act of extreme folly. However the politicians – especially the trendy left leaning ones – loved it. Now reality has set in and the Euro (through sovereign country and bank debt) has the potential to create a global economic disaster.
I guess its much the same with climate sceptics – the political establishment supports the AGW cult, so do the trendy left. Dodgy science, just like dodgy economics, has the support of our ‘political elite’. So it will probably take a near disaster to act as a wake up call. In the UK, it will probably be the widespread electricity brown outs and blacks out we can confidently expect in a few years time as we increasingly rely on expensive, unreliable wind power.
It is perhaps no surprise that most eurosceptics are also climate sceptics.
As for John Cook and Al Gore, they may be the heroes of those who think with their butt today, but we can be certain of one one thing: History will not judge them kindly.

And we wonder why our governments are in such a mess. jphilips is advocating govt. workers comment on blogs as opposed to doing their jobs. Brilliant philips………… gosh, I hope he’s Brit.

Peter Plail

Somebody else (?) called Dana made this comment in the Grauniad
Reply: Uh, he wrote the article above that as well, and gives is full name. ~ ctm

In the link Anthony gave above, Greg Laden says:
“Sometimes I’m hard on an entire state. Like Texas. Or, recently, West Virginia. It’s funny when the slack jawed yokels who live in these god-forsaken shitholes get annoyed at that.”
Laden goes on to say [repeatedly] that he graduated from Harvard. For those who might be impressed, the fact is that Harvard [and similar Ivy League schools] primarily benefit their grads because of social networking, not because their curriculum is better than schools in flyover country. In fact, Forbes regularly rates red state school grads as being better for employers.
There is not one Supreme Court justice who is not a Harvard or Yale graduate. It’s simple back-scratching. The main value of an Ivy League degree is networking; they support their own over anyone else, no matter what the qualifications for the job. But that doesn’t mean anything academically, especially since Harvard and other schools have eliminated letter grades in favor of Pass/Fail. And no one fails at Harvard, especially if they’re African-American. Our unestimable President accomplished absolutely nothing of note at Harvard, his high school grades were miserable, and he cannot even explain why he was admitted over thousands of Asian and Caucasian applicants with astronomical SAT scores and 4.25 GPA’s. [Of course, we know the answer: Obama was given preferance simply because Harvard is racist.]
A Harvard degree means little to thinking adults, aside from its great value as a networking tool. Laden’s degree in cultural Anthropology does not qualify him to opine on climate issues any more than the rest of us. Probably less, since a degree like that is taught by blinkered liberals who infest Harvard 100%.
Laden’s propaganda blog makes no bones about his intent to funnel readers into the globaloney propaganda machine. If you do a search on his blog you are informed: This search engine will only give you results from carefully selected skeptical and scientific sites. WUWT has become immensely popular because it allows all points of view, instead of spoon-feeding readers with alarmist nonsense. Only insecure fanatics like Laden refuse to allow people with different points of view from expressing their opinions. If open discussions about CAGW were allowed at alarmist blogs like Laden’s, the CAGW nonsense would quickly be relegated to the obscurity it deserves. To avoid that fate, Laden and the rest are forced to censor opposing comments. They have no choice; the alternative is to allow the truth to be winnowed from all sides through open, uncensored debate. But the truth is anathema to the cargo cult CAGW believers, so it must be suppressed wherever it appears.


Anthony you say
“You can get your own blog and run it anyway you want, I’ll run mine in such a way that people that behave like petulant children don’t get to hijack the conversation for everyone else, if that upsets you or some other people, too bad. ”
You have every right to delete potentially illegal entries (e.g. defamatory, racist, comments inciting violence etc.) – however, you do nothing with defamation of climate scientists on the other side (how many times have you allowed fraud to pass?).
To ban someone who vociferously debates is not science it is censorship. It is your blog and your right to control who types.But as a very popular location you should also have a duty to allow reasoned debate from all.
All posters should be blogging over a level playing field. Just because I have a dozen scientifically earned letters after my name should not make my comments more believable than joe bloggs esq. UNLESS i bach then up with scientific evidence.
Secondly a pseudonym allows a certain amount of from the loonies out there on both sides. I do not want my family subjected to threatening phone calls, emails and letters – or worse:
On Sunday he [Dellingpole] published a letter sent to a Conservative candidate asking about his position on climate change. Here’s what the letter said:
“Dear Edwin Northover
I was concerned to note the results of a survey of 140 Conservative candidates for parliament that suggested that climate change came right at the bottom of their priorities for government action….
Do you support the EU imposing tougher regulation to combat climate change?
Kind Regards, *** ***”.
It looks to me like a polite enquiry from someone concerned about climate change. Delingpole, however, saw it as a “nauseating email” which must have come from a “disgusting eco-fascist organisation”, though he didn’t know which organisation this might be. His post was headlined “Conservative candidates stalked by eco bullies”. Much worse, he published the man’s name and home address.
Delingpole’s bootboys took the hint and immediately swung into action. Within a few minutes of the comments opening, they had published the man’s telephone number and email address, a photo of his house (“Note all the recycling going on in his front garden”), his age and occupation. Then they sought to tell him just what a low opinion they had of “stalking” and “bullying”.
One commenter wrote: “I tried to telephone *** *** on the number helpfully posted in this blog, but he’s out until tomorrow. Perhaps he is out ‘tackling climate change’? – anyway his missus didn’t seem to know where he was.”
Paradoxically, their hounding of this poor man demonstrated that he was just what he seemed to be: an ordinary citizen, exercising his democratic right to ask a parliamentary candidate about his position on an important matter.
REPLY: Oh please. What Delingpole or Monbiot write/do is not about WUWT, don’t try to make their issues mine. – Anthony

jphilips [and ajpferrier] says: “…you do nothing with defamation of climate scientists on the other side… how many times have you allowed fraud to pass?”
Maybe that’s because fraud is involved with mainstream climate “science”. I think there is ample evidence of scientific misconduct, and as public funds are involved, that to me is clearly defrauding the taxpaying public.
If the repeated charges of fraud by the skeptic community were baseless, then Michael Mann and his clique of climate charlatans would cerrtainly be demanding legal redress. But they don’t dare, because the discovery and deposition process would put them on the hot seat. They would have to explain their actions. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that aspersions of fraud and scientific misconduct on the part of those rascals has a verifiable basis. So the clique lets sleeping dogs lie, rather than opening themselves up to hostile questioning under oath and calling witnesses against them… which is going to happen eventually anyway.
Finally, most of your comments refer to James Delingpole. So why not post your opinion on his blog, instead of here? You are obviously not being “censored” here, so quit complaining about it. Routine censorship happens almost exclusively at alarmist blogs, as I and many others know from personal experience. Therefore, your complaints are hypocriitical at best.
[And which is the sock puppet, ajpferrier, or jphilips? Anonymity is one thing; posting under multiple screen names is certainly more objectionable.]


OK so Jpilips was not banned! simply locked in “moderation”
So after 1.5 hours of jphilips not getting posted but your post at September 24, 2011 at 5:03 am
becoming visible I assumed the worst (another IP address, email address, name, was banned at this location). I posted under this name.
Now to get a completely new personna!
REPLY: Uh, note the time: 5:03 AM PST it was the middle of the night for the previous comment, people sleep you know. Sheesh. Also note we don’t allow people here to switch personas per the policy page pick one and stick with it or shove off. – Anthony

Bill Illis

For those of you who had a look at Dana1981’s graph, here is a more accurate version.
This covers all predictions made by Hansen 1988, IPCC FAR, IPCC TAR and IPCC AR4 versus Hadcrut3 and GISTemp staring at the time the predictions were made (ie. when they stopped using hindcasts and started making predictions).
All on the same baseline and all used roughly the same warming prediction for the year 2100.
Not too accurate so far, especially the ones that have over ten years of predictions available.

Ian Plimer got 2 Eurekas and was on many gov’t and other jobs.
Yet the ABC who lauded him now dismiss him for saying CO2 alarmism is just that: false alarmism.
So the lauded Eureka is either as low in standards as the Nobels become, or as prestigious as they want us to think? In which case, Prof Plimer deserves respect and airtime.
Can’t have it both ways.

Anthony Watts says:
September 23, 2011 at 11:22 pm

IIRC even a scientist at Argonne natl lab had a wrong answer published on his website at first. Everybody learned something from that.

Yep. Made a damn mess of the discussion here, it did. Appeal to authority and all that. I contacted the scientist, he quickly replied, apologized, and asked the site’s editor to put in his fix.

Richard M

Bill Illis, nice chart. Now, Let’s see if John Cook or his buddies publish that chart on SkS. 😉

Bill Illis – I disagree that your graph is “more accurate”, but I have done posts evaluating the accuracy of the other projections on your plot [FAR, SAR, TAR, Hansen ’88, and others] if you’re interested. They also go into detail examining the various reasons behind the model-data discrepancies. See here: