To John Cook – it isn’t ‘hate’, it’s pity, – pity for having such a weak argument you are forced to fabricate conclusions of epic proportions
Proving that crap can flow uphill, yesterday, John Cook got what one could consider the ultimate endorsement. A tweet from the Twitter account of the Twitterer in Chief, Barack Obama, about Cook’s 97% consensus lie.
I had to laugh about the breathless headlines over that tweet, such as this one from the Washington Post’s Valerie Strauss at The Answer Sheet:
Umm, no, as of this writing. WaPo reporter FAIL.
Source: http://twitter.com/skepticscience
But hey, they’re saving the planet with lies, that shouldn’t matter, right? 6535 is the new 31541507 in the world Cook lives in.
Yesterday, in an interview about the Tweet in the Sydney Morning Herald, Cook said:
“Generally the level of hate you get is in proportion to the impact you have,” he said.
No, it isn’t hate, it’s about facts John. This whole story is predicated on lies, and they just seem to get bigger and bigger, there doesn’t seem to be any limit to the gullibility of those involved and those pushing it.
Here’s the genesis of the lie. When you take a result of 32.6% of all papers that accept AGW, ignoring the 66% that don’t, and twist that into 97%, excluding any mention of that original value in your media reports, there’s nothing else to call it – a lie of presidential proportions.
From the original press release about the paper:
Exhibit 1:
From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.
Exhibit 2:
“Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary.”
I pity people whose argument is so weak they have to lie like this to get attention, I pity even more the lazy journalists that latch onto lies like this without even bothering to ask a single critical question.
Of course try to find a single mention of that 32.6 percent figure in any of the news reports, or on Cook’s announcement on his own website.
Though, some people are asking questions, while at the same time laughing about this farce, such as Dan Kahan at Yale:
Now, Cook has upped the ante, allowing the average person to help participate in the lie and make it their own, as Brandon Schollenberger observes, Cook has launched a new “Consensus project” to make even more certain the public gets his message:
The guidelines for rating [the] abstracts show only the highest rating value blames the majority of global warming on humans. No other rating says how much humans contribute to global warming. The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:
that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).
If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:
Reject AGW 0.7% (78)
Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.
(Update: some folks aren’t getting the significance of Schollenberger’s findings, using Cook’s own data and code, which have been shown to be replicable at Lucia’s comment thread, Schollenberger finds 65 that say AGW/human caused, but there’s 78 that reject AGW. Cook never reported that finding in the paper, thus becoming a lie of omission, because it blows the conclusion. Combine that with the lack of reporting of the 32.6%/66.1% ratio in Cook’s own blog post and media reports, and we have further lies of omission.)
It’s gobsmacking. But, I see this as a good thing, because like the lies of presidential politics, eventually this will all come tumbling down.
Read Scholleberger’s essay at Lucia’s.
UPDATE: Marcel Crok has an interesting analysis as well here: http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2013/05/17/cooks-survey-not-only-meaningless-but-also-misleading/
Mr. Watts:
This post makes no sense, and is–ironically–rather dishonest itself.
First, regarding the Twitter claim, why is Cook being faulted for a factual error made by a reporter for the Washington Post? Not only was the 31 million new followers claim not Cook’s, but in the link *that you include*, to the Sydney Morning Herald, Cook makes clear that the 31 million figure refers to Obama’s followers, not his own(1).
Second, you argue that Cook et al. are purposely hiding the fact that they only studied the subset of papers that took an explicit position on global warming: “I pity people whose argument is so weak they have to lie like this to get attention.” If this is true, a) why does the press release (again, which you link to) explicitly report the ratio of used papers(2), and b) why do the authors in their opinion piece in the Guardian–which you also link to, but highlight as somehow dishonest–also *explicitly give the size of both the main sample and sub-sample* of papers? Note: The relevant text from the Guardian, which I include below, is exactly the same as that which you link to from Skeptical Science, which you also claim dishonestly fails to report their sub-sampling; both explicitly report the main (ca. 12,000) and sub-sample (ca. 4,000) numbers.
Your whole post is self-defeating, since the answers to all of your accusations are contained in the very links you include. I think this goes beyond careless or uncharitable. I hope that people take the time to follow your links themselves to fact-check your assertions.
Jason Loxton
Dept. of Earth Sciences, Dalhousie University
P.s. In a post last year (http://tinyurl.com/bxt4al2) you argued that Cook was inconsistently including non-peer-reviewed papers in this study, since the survey gave the option of choosing ‘not peer-reviewed’. Specifically, you said: “Though the fact that Cook included “not peer-reviewed” as an option for paper author that he would accept means that he’s now bereft of any rational argument when it comes to peer reviewed -vs- non peer reviewed findings.”
Seeing the option, my immediate thought as an academic researcher was, “Good for him. He’s clearly putting a layer of redundancy in there in case his ISI search retrieved non-peer-reviewed papers–this way he can exclude them.”
Sure enough, this is in fact the case. Cook’s paper makes this very responsible protocol explicit: “We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After *excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed*, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors.” (Section 3.2) [Emphasis mine.]
Given that the post with your accusations still stands uncorrected, I suggest that you may want to update it with a clarification.
(1) “A cue from Obama is a big step,” [Cook] said. “The fact it goes to more than 31 million followers, it just raises the awareness of consensus.” http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/obama-gives-aussie-researcher-31541507-reasons-to-celebrate-20130517-2jqrh.html#ixzz2TZTLIthQ
(2) “From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.” http://www.iop.org/news/13/may/page_60200.html
(3) “Our team agreed upon definitions of categories to put the papers in: explicit or implicit endorsement of human-caused global warming, no opinion, and implicit or explicit rejection or minimization of the human influence, and began the long process of rating over 12,000 abstracts…Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers took a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange
REPLY: What you describe is nothing more than cherry picking, excluding the adverse results. This study done by John Cook and his “team” found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it. Further, the “team” broke their own definitions, and talked amongst themselves to figure out how to rate papers, basically adding yet another level of bias. See here. If the situation were reversed, it was a study skeptics had done, showing an opposite result, the press (and Cook) would be all over it to discredit it as being sloppy, as it stands it gets a pass, because it fits the meme. And like Mr. Olivaw I think you have a reading comprehension problem since in no way did I blame Cook for the WaPo fiasco, I simply include it as another example of numeric inflation for the purpose of bolstering the premise.
What you seem not to understand (or don’t want to) is that Mr. Cook is an activist, and he’s specializing in creating made to order science. I have no doubt he and others think they are doing an honorable thing, but at the same time, it clearly is nothing more than a fabricated means to an end. Advocacy disguised as science. – Anthony
If that number was true, 97% of scientists have not done their homework and need to be sent to bed without dinner.
Regarding the assertion that 97.7% of scientists believe in AGW, I refer readers to the following quote:
If it can’t be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.
~ Robert A. Heinlein
I am still waiting for someone to produce a verifiable, testable measurement of AGW. I am perfectly willing to accept whatever AGW measurement can be testably verified and accepted by all concerned.
But so far, there is no measurement of AGW, which remains only an assertion; an opinion. AGW may well exist. But if so, it is too small to measure, and thus it should be completely disregarded when setting policy.
pokerguy says:
May 17, 2013 at 10:31 am
“We’re winning wrt to the science as well as the real world data. So why haven’t we won the war? Think about it…”
…and my answer to you counts as “… demonstrating exactly what’s amiss with some of you.” ?
If you have an inside line to WaPo, the BBC and Obama, or any equally massive global propaganda outlets, do a survey and pull some strings.
Reality bites. This creature Cook will gain a degree, work in his field and eventual tenure on the back of this type of crap. This is the state of the modern world.
lsvalgaard says:
May 17, 2013 at 8:12 am
From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW
So, of the papers that take a position 97.9% endorse AGW…
Let’s get this in proportion, lot of papers give a ‘support’ to the AGW, but that could be because it is expected from them, and even if they do, to what extent; the UHI is definitely anthropogenic factor . Those who lived in East Europe, Chine, North Korea or Cuba know what is meant by 97,9% support for anything. I would be more concerned if it was 60% to 40% ratio and based on a physical proof, not on some computer models.
Here is graphic reminder what we are talking about.
Daneel Olivaw says:
May 17, 2013 at 10:07 am
Cook explicitly states that he is not a climate scientist on his web page. In fact, he further states that the information he presents comes from “peer reviewed” work only. That, given the unhappy documentation from the Climate Gate emails, shows precisely how (un)trustworthy such an approach is. He reportedly has a degree in physics, and a specialty in solar physics, which, apparently, he no longer practices. Apparently database programming pays better. You might want to see what Lubos Motl, who is a practicing physicist has to say about Cook’s points.
“Everyone knows cancer is bad so we do not need to be consantly reminded about any consesus on the subject. The point about AGW is that there is no consensus so we need to be reminded at every opportunity that there is. ”
This is not true at all. Just like with every other pseudoscience, the view from the outside is quite different than the view from within. Climate scientists don’t put statements like that in their abstracts because it’s not the point of the overwhelming majority of their papers. Does every research paper about atherosclerosis start with “Oh by the way, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.”? No, because nobody is researching that question. They may be researching the specifics, just like with AGW, but they’re not actually looking at that base question very often.
Jim G says:
May 17, 2013 at 10:15 am
Closed minded settled science
Better to have a mind so open that your brain has fallen out?
Meanwhile the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) enters the climate theatre:
Michael E. Mann and Sanal Edamaruku join TAM 2013 Speakers Lineup – Latest JREF News
We are happy to announce that distinguished climate scientist Michael E. Mann and renowned miracle buster Sanal Edamaruku will both be joining the The Amaz!ng Meeting 2013 program.
“You alluded to the word “skeptic.” Well, many of those who simply deny that climate change exists, we don’t call them skeptics, because that’s not skepticism. That’s just denial or contrarianism. Now, skepticism is a good thing in science, but it means looking at all sides of an issue.” — Michael E. Mann
The Amaz!ng Meeting (TAM) is the world’s leading conference focused on scientific skepticism. People from all over the world come to TAM each year to share learning, laughs, and the skeptical perspective with their friends and a host of distinguished guest speakers, panelists, and workshop presenters.
This annual gathering of critical thinkers is an unparalleled opportunity to make like-minded friends, enjoy some of the brightest minds on issues important to skeptics, and leave with tools for spreading a helpful and skeptical message to those who might be hurt by charlatans and unfounded belief. TAM is like a vacation from the nonsense we confront every day, and a time to celebrate skepticism.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/2124-michael-e-mann-and-sanal-edamaruku-join-tam-2013-speakers-lineup.html
vukcevic
Re: lsvalgaard says:
May 17, 2013 at 9:21 am
“Nevertheless I shall restate the finding as “of papers surveyed that took a position on the issue, 97.9% endorsed AGW [not necessarily CAGW]“. This cannot be argued with, so no need to even try.”
Don’t waste your time trying to change a closed mind. Surveys are much more than just the numbers. One must consider the entire methodology: the questions asked, how they are phrased, the juxtaposition and relationship of those questions, the sample composition, the representativeness of the sample to the issue, any potential bias to the introductory comments, statistical methods used, etc. How one uses and reports the stats is also very important to the conclusions one reaches. But I guess it is always easier to take a simplistic, dare I say simple minded, point of view, particularly if one has not actually done a great number of surveys.
Daneel Olivaw,
John Cook has a long history here. Numerous commenters here have have reported that their posts were either deleted, or the wording was changed without any notice that that had been done. That has been done to my posts, too.
My apologies if I misconstrued your defense of Cook. But IMHO he is a reprehensible character who would be more comfortable publishing in Cuba, or North Korea. Because in the West, it is frowned upon to change someone’s words to mean something different than what they intended, without ever acknowledging that their words had been altered.
When you comment about the “climate science of John Cook”, and then equate that with Anthony Watts, you discredit yourself. Anthony is exceptionally honest. He is a straight shooter, while Cook is mendacious. When making your comparisons, keep that in mind.
The whole premise of “consensus of scientists” is anti-scientific bullshit. Were it not, the methods used here would still be wrong.
Papers are not scientists. Rating papers is not polling scientists.
Quote from Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/obama-gives-aussie-researcher-31541507-reasons-to-celebrate-20130517-2jqrh.html#ixzz2TYt7DOGr)
“A survey of scientific papers by a team led by Mr Cook and published by Fairfax Media this week found more than 97 per cent of researchers endorsed the view that humans are to blame for global warming.”
This is an outright lie. Only 32.6% of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that global warming was primarily due to humans. This story not only implies that humans are primarily responsible but that they are totally responsible.
66% of the papers surveyed took no position (at least in the abstract).
It is not surprising when billions of dollars are spent trying to prove the existence of AGW/CAGW and relatively nothing being spent investigating natural causes, that most of the papers published support the AGW/CAGW view. Afterall, that is exactly what they are being PAID to do, and their jobs depend on it.
I read this at The Blackboard. It’s a comment Brandon Schollenberger.
“The guidelines for rating [the] abstracts show only the highest rating value blames the majority of global warming on humans. No other rating says how much humans contribute to global warming. The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:
that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).
If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:
Reject AGW 0.7% (78)
Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.”
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/
dbstealey, you should read pro-AGW blogs then since they often cite cases of censorship in this blog you’re reading. 🙂
I’m with Lief on the 66.4 papers that stated no position. Why should papers on say Snow Ball Earth, Massive Volcanic Eruptions, Meteor/Comet Strikes, Plate Tectonics, etc. be included in the total. They have nothing to do with AGW. Why would the authors even bring up AGW? Papers on such topics could easily be caught up the search parameters, but they would have nothing to do with AGW. So why should they be used in the study. To insist they be included would just be padding the numbers with irrelevant data which would lead to false results.
“Generally the level of hate you get is in proportion to the impact you have,” he said.
ClimateGate emails show some hate from scientists.
Daneel Olivaw says:
May 17, 2013 at 11:23 am
“dbstealey, you should read pro-AGW blogs then since they often cite cases of censorship in this blog you’re reading.”
———————-
Doesn’t it strike you as odd that your posts aren’t being censored here then?
“Generally the level of hate you get is in proportion to the impact you have,” he (Cook) said.
Truth! History shows us the worst of the liars, cheats, murderers, and thieves are justifiably reviled for their amoral, treacherous actions. And so it should always be.
MtK
Ummm, that 31 million followers figure is what @BarackObama has and I think someone misread how that figure was used. It was supposed to be something like, 31million is good exposure, meaning BO brought the info to that many people.
REPLY: No doubt, but what does it say about professional journalism when the WaPo reporter can’t get that basic fact right and makes story headlining that? Worse, I’ve made them aware of it and it still isn’t corrected. -Anthony
PS> Just for the Record . . . . http://www.barackobama.com/about/about-ofa?source=footer-nav
Make your own conclusions . . . . but, I certainly wonder if this tweet even eminated from the hand of the man himself. So much on the internet is a grand illusion. Sad but true.
If facts and analysis supports your theory pound the facts, if the facts do not support your theory, be vague and pound the table. Papers that include information that threats the logic of the extreme AGW theory must by protocol include a vague comment that that the paper’s findings do not threaten the extreme AGW theory to get the paper published.
There is a reason why the warmists will not participate in a debate of the climate change issues. Analysis and observations do not support the extreme AGW theory. Clouds in the tropics increase or decrease to resist warming (negative feedback) by reflecting more or less short wave radiation off into space. The extreme AGW theory requires tropic tropospheric warming by water vapor to amplify the forcing (positive feedback) due to CO2. If there is negative feedback rather than positive feedback the warming due to doubling of CO2 will be less than 1C.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc-ar5draft-fig-1-4.gif
There has been 16 years without warming. That should be a hint there is something fundamentally incorrect with the extreme AGW theory and with IPCC general circulation models that assume amplification of the CO2 forcing.
There is now the first indication of planetary cooling, caused by the solar cycle 24 slowdown.
The timbre, tone, of the climate change discussion will completely change when there is unequivocal evidence the planet is cooling. There will be three issues: 1) How to explain the physical reason for the sudden unexplained cooling and 2) How to explain why billions of dollars were spent during a period of massive deficits on green scams which have resulted in no significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in the countries where the scams schemes were installed and scam schemes have made absolutely no change in total world CO2 emissions as the developing countries are installing coal power generation, and 3) Carbon dioxide emissions are positive for biosphere and the environment as the CO2 increases will and are causing increased yield, healthy, more productive plants (greenhouse inject CO2 into the greenhouse to increase yield and reduce growing times, there is for example a 40% increase in yields of cereal crops for a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm) and the slight warming due the CO2 increase helps to mitigate a cooling planet.
There is in the paleo climatic record cyclic warming and cooling (Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles). The D-O cyclic warming occurs in the specific regions that warmed in the 20th century, primarily in the Northern hemisphere and at higher latitudes. Warming of the high Arctic is not predicted by the AGW forcing mechanism. The extreme AGW forcing theory predicted warming is in the tropics where the most amount of long wave radiation is emitted to space. As noted tropical cloud cover resists forcing in that region of the planet.
Greenland ice sheet temperatures last 11,000 years. This is a graph from Richard Alley’s paper that shows temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet. The D-O cycle is clearly evident. As noted there is no correlation with the changes in the Greenland ice sheet temperatures to atmospheric CO2 levels in the past. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing the planet is gradually cooling as with the D-O cycle imposed on the cooling trend. The majority of the warming of the Greenland Ice sheet observed in the 20th century was not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2. The majority of the warming was caused by the solar magnetic cycle change and is the same mechanism that caused the past D-O cycles.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
There was a physical reason, a forcing function that caused the D-O cycle. The D-O cyclic climate change correlates with cyclic solar magnetic cycle changes. Solar magnetic cycle changes caused the D-O cyclic warming and cooling.
The following is a paper that notes there is cyclic variation of North Atlantic temperatures that correlates with solar magnetic cycle length. As the paper notes is a delay in the cooling of 10 to 12 years. Solar magnetic cycle 24 is the special solar change that causes the cooling phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle.
As most are aware the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is for some unexplained reason, is decaying linearly. Due to this change the magnetic ropes that form at the solar tachocline (the solar tachocline is the name for the narrow region in the sun that separates the radiative zone from the convection zone) and then float up to the surface of the sun to form sunspots on the surface of the sun are becoming weaker (less magnetic field strength) and are now starting to be torn to pieces by turbulence as they pass through the solar convection zone. Extrapolating the linear reduction to the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots and the sun is predicted to be spotless in 2017.
The Arctic region cooling is predicted to be the most severe in the winter and the spring. There is now observational evidence that temperatures in the high Arctic have started to cool.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256
Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures
The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles. …. ….The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10 to 12 years. … …These models show that 60 per cent of the annual and winter temperature variations are explained by solar activity. For the spring, summer and fall temperatures autocorrelations in the residuals exists, and additional variables may contribute to the variations. These models can be applied as forecasting models.
We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5 ±2C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009 to 2020) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6 C. A systematic study by Solheim, Stordahl and Humlum [15] (called SSH11 in the following) of the correlation between SCL and temperature lags in 11 years intervals, for 16 data sets (William: solar cycles), revealed that the strongest correlation took place 10 to 12 years after the mid-time of a solar cycle, for most of the locations included. In this study the temperature series from Svalbard (Longyearbyen) was included, and a relation between the previous sunspot cycle length (PSCL) and the temperature in the following cycle was determined. This relation was used to predict that the yearly average temperature, which was -4.2 C in sunspot cycle (SC) 23, was estimated to decrease to -7.8 C in SC24, with a 95% confidence interval of -6.0 to -9.6C [15]. SSH11[15] found that stations in the North Atlantic (Torshavn, Akureyri and Svalbard), had the highest correlations.
William: Latitude and longitude of Svalbard (Longyearbyen)
78.2167° N, 15.6333° E Svalbard Longyearbyen, Coordinates
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years by S. K. Solanki, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schussler & J. Beer
Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.
William: The authors of the above paper only considered total solar irradiation TSI which is not the major mechanism by which the sun modulates planetary temperature in Northern Atlantic regions. The mechanism is modulation of low level and high level clouds.
I challenge Mr. Olivaw to find a case where WUWT has done post facto editing of reader comments such as SkS has done to their readership to change the meaning of their comments. For example, I’m not allowed to comment there, yet even persona non gratas like Peter Gleick have comments that passed moderation here, and they have not been modified. You’ d do well to open your eyes to the serial dishonesty in Mr. Cook’s web environment.
See: http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/
You for example, get to comment here. I’m not allowed the same luxury at SkS or at the Guardian SkS mouthpiece run by Nuccitelli, where comments that mention me or WUWT are regularly deleted. Go have a look to see what I mean.
Comments that don’t make it here at WUWT (and there are a few out of the 1,032,323 comments made here as of this comment) don’t make it because they violate site policy: http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/
That’s our right. Tough noogies if that upsets a few people, but I challenge any blog pro/con for AGW to match our track record for allowing adverse comments and comment volume.
Daneel Olivaw says: @ur momisugly May 17, 2013 at 9:35 am
Just to add my 5 cents, 31,541,507 is the number of followers of Obama, not Cook. That’s made obvious on the original article …which Watts didn’t care to link to….
That, IMHO, it a really low blow from Watts and misleading to his readers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you just PROVED you can not be bothered to read what was written because you are so interested in scoring off Anthony.
It is Valerie Strauss who had the headline “Obama Tweet gets Australian Researcher 31.5 million followers on Twitter” It is Watts who POINTS OUT it is only 6535 followers at the time he wrote his essay.
lsvalgaard says:
May 17, 2013 at 10:54 am
“Jim G says:
May 17, 2013 at 10:15 am
Closed minded settled science
Better to have a mind so open that your brain has fallen out?”
The good old Carl Sagan quote.
About Carl Sagan and the computer model with which he proved nuclear winter:
http://www.textfiles.com/survival/nkwrmelt.txt