Human shadow etched in stone from Hiroshima Atomic blast.These stone steps led up to the entrance to the Sumitomo Bank Hiroshima Branch, 260meters from the hypocenter. The intense atomic heat rays turned the surface of the stonewhite, except for a part in the middle where someone was sitting. The person sitting on the steps waiting for the bank to open received the full force of the heat rays directly from the front and undoubtedly died on the spot. The building was used for a time after the war. When it was rebuilt in 1971, these steps were removed and brought to the museum. Source: Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum
Why comparing global warming to the Hiroshima Atomic Bomb is ridiculous
Some days, you just have to laugh. That’s what we’ll have to do today after reading the latest ridiculous scare story from cartoonist turned pseudo-psychologist now elevated to ‘climate scientist’ John Cook from the antithetically named ‘Skeptical Science’ website.
He’d like people to think the effect of global warming is as powerful as the effect of an atomic bomb, but as we’ll see, it is another one of those scare by scale stories where you grab some iconic image from the public consciousness and use it to make your issue seem bigger than it really is. For example, in 2010 normally calving glacier ice was compared to Manhattan Island to give it scale: Oh no! Greenland glacier calves island 4 times the size of Manhattan
Now, the same trick is being used by John Cook to try to scare people, because what could be more scary than getting vaporized by an Atomic Bomb? It just goes to show the depths of desperation used to try to sell the public on a problem that isn’t getting much traction.
Humans are emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any other time in history, says John Cook, Climate Communication Fellow from the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.
“All these heat-trapping greenhouse gases in our atmosphere mean … our planet has been building up heat at the rate of about four Hiroshima bombs every second – consider that going continuously for several decades.”
Whoa, four Hiroshima bombs every second. How scary is that? Well not only is it not an original idea by Cook, compared to the amount of energy received by the Earth from the biggest fusion bomb in our solar system, our sun, it hardly registers a blip.
“…equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day 365 days per year. That’s how much extra energy Earth is gaining each day.”
That’s 278 atomic bombs worth of energy every minute – more than four per second — non-stop. To be clear, that is just the extra energy being gained each day on top of the energy heating our planet by 0.8 degree C. It is the rate at which we are increasing global warming.
Let’s do the numbers. First, let’s convert the extra heat into an iconic image people can understand that isn’t quite as scary: the incandescent light bulb (not the twisty kind). Willis Eschenbach calculated:
Hansen says increase in forcing is “400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day”, which comes to 2.51e+19 joules/day.
A watt is a joule per second, so that works out to a constant additional global forcing of 2.91e+14 watts.
Normally, we look at forcings in watts per square metre (W/m2). Total forcing (solar plus longwave) averaged around the globe 24/7 is about 500 watts per square metre.
To convert Hansen’s figures to a per-square-metre value, the global surface area is 5.11e+14 square metres … which means that Hansens dreaded 400,000 Hiroshima bombs per day works out to 0.6 watts per square metre … in other words, Hansen wants us to be very afraid because of a claimed imbalance of six tenths of a watt per square metre in a system where the downwelling radiation is half a kilowatt per square metre … we cannot even measure the radiation to that kind of accuracy.
What a 0.6 watt light bulb might look like when turned on.
So imagine the output of a 0.6 watt light bulb in a standard Edison base such as at right, with 1/100th the power of a common household 60 watt light bulb.
Could you even see its output?
And, more importantly, can that 0.6 watt of energy imbalance even be accurately measured on a global basis?
Note the figure on the Earth that I highlighted in yellow: Surface imbalance 0.6±17
That’s an uncertainty of 17 watts, or if you prefer Hansen-Cook parlance, 4 Hiroshima Atomic bombs an uncertainty of ±113 Hiroshima bombs every second.
The ±17 watts uncertainty of the 0.6 watt surface imbalance is two orders of magnitude larger than the claim! But, activists like Cook say global warming will “Cook’ us for sure.
Hmmm. Something bigger is needed to keep it scary. How about comparing Hiroshima bombs to the biggest fusion bomb in the solar system, the sun? From our article:
The Hiroshima bomb released ~ 67 TeraJoules (TJ) = 6E13J. source
The earths circular area is 3 * (6E6m)^2 = 1E14m2.
The suns TSI is ~ 1kW = 1E3 J/s, so the earth gets ca 1E17 J/s on the sunlit side, so the sun explodes about 1E17/6E13 = 1E3 Hiroshima atomic bombs on this planet EVERY SECOND.
(h/t to bvdeenen)
Gosh, a thousand Hiroshima bombs exploding on this planet every second? How frightening! With that sort of threat, one wonders why Obama isn’t going to announce taxing the sun into submission next Tuesday.
These calculation just go to illustrate that in the grand scheme of things, not only is the global energy associated with global warming small, it isn’t even within the bounds of measurement certainty.
Da bomb, it isn’t. Time to ‘Cook’ up a new scare story.
Here’s the funny thing though, as Donna Laframboise points out, in addition to the laughable statement that Cook plagiarized from Hansen above, somehow the amazing “postdoctoral fellow” without a PhD has somehow been elevated to the status of “climate scientist” by the French in a recent article. Climate Change Likened to Atom Bomb by Scientists.
Although that article talks about “climate scientists” it names and quotes exactly one person – Cook himself. Moreover, the claims here are nothing short of fantastical. It says that climate scientists
have given figures of rising and changing climate. These figures are almost like a warning that states that escalating temperatures are equivalent to four Hiroshima bombs in a week.
They’ve completely attributed the condition to human actions.
It’s clear that this reporter’s first language is not English, so I’m sure she has misunderstood. No official document of which I’m aware has declared humans 100% responsible for current temperature trends (see, for example, the discussion here).
UPDATE: Jo Nova also has a essay on the subject here: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/climate-scientists-move-to-atom-bomb-number-system-give-up-on-exponentials/
00votes
Article Rating
220 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rational person
July 1, 2013 6:05 pm
@dbstealy, I notice you reference newspapers and not scientific journals to back up your claim that global warming has stopped. That surprises me. I thought this “best science” web site would prefer to quote actual scientific journals. You know … Science.
Rational person
July 1, 2013 6:21 pm
What about the study by former “coolist” Dr. Richard Muller funded by the Koch foundation. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=0
Not only does his study say that global warming is happening and caused by CO2 emissions, but he agrees it is man made.
In other words, if scientists actually examine the evidence instead of voicing their unsubstantiated opinion, they have no choice but to accept what the evidence is showing.
Rational person asks:
“…what is YOUR point in focussing on 1997.”
1997 was sixteen (16) years ago — the exact time frame that The Economist, Keith Briffa, and many other former alarmist publications and scientists claimed would be necessary to show whether global warming had truly stopped or not. Now, at 16 years, they are hoist on their own petard. NONE of them expected the globe to stop warming for sixteen years. It seemed so far off at the time.
And now that the science shows conclusively that global warming has stopped for 16 years, you cannot accept reality.
The ultimate Authority — Planet Earth — shows that your belief in catastrophic AGW is wrong. So once again: who should we believe? You?? or the planet?
I think every rational person would say that Planet Earth is correct, and it trumps the beliefs of eco-religionists such as yourself.
Finally, from Dr. John Christy’s peer reviewed paper, we see that the current temperature is normal — and cooling.
Rational person
July 1, 2013 6:29 pm
(Snip. Arguing with a mod’s decision is pointless. ~mod)
Rational person
July 1, 2013 6:35 pm
How does it show “conclusively” that global warming has stopped for 16 years when using the exact same data you used I can show increasing trends for almost any year other than your cherry picked one?
PLUS the observed data still fits within the 90% confidence interval predicted by the models (when we expect the predictions to fail 10% of the time, which it hasn’t).
Lol it’s like a pitcher throwing nothing but strikes “proves” that he is a bad pitcher because he isn’t throwing balls 10% of the time like predicted. Obviously that means he is a terrible pitcher.
RP:
Now that many publications and scientists who were staunchly alarmist admit that global warming has ‘stopped’, ‘stalled’, etc., you can go on believing whatever it is that you believe.
Me, I am greatly satisfied that the NY Times, The Economist, and others have thrown in the towel, and now admit that GW has stopped. But if you believe you know more than they do, have at it. You’re getting to be all alone in your religious belief.
Rational person
July 1, 2013 6:44 pm
[Snip]
The assertion is that I was not responding to the statement that despite a 40% increase in CO2 levels there is no corresponding increase in temperature.
Perhaps you would like to read this. I know, it is a newspaper oped piece, but at least it is written by the actual researcher … A former “coolist”. (Hey, if it is ok to call me a warmist then I assume coolist doesn’t break the blog rules). http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=0
This just shows that if scientists actually examine the evidence instead of just voicing unsubstantiated opinion, they have no choice but to face the fact that global warming from human activity is happening.
Whether that’s the end of the world disaster I doubt. But the evidence shows it is happening.
Rational person
July 1, 2013 6:47 pm
Dbstealy, name the SCIENTIFIC PAPERS that say global warming has stopped. I thought this was a “science” site but I just hear about what the popular press is saying.
RP says:
“Dbstealy, name the SCIENTIFIC PAPERS that say global warming has stopped.”
You are obviously a noob here, so I am not going to do your homework for you. This subject has been thoroughly discussed ad nauseum. You could begin with an archive search for Werner Brozek; that will start you on the right track.
I suggest that you begin reading the WUWT archives. You have a lot to learn, and a few months researching the subject will do you a world of good. As it is, you are operating from belief, not from any rational perspective. Study up on the Scientific Method, and on the climate Null Hypothesis, too. No belief in man-made global warming has stood up to those scientific basics.
Finally, forget the ‘Skeptical Science’ talking points. They are belief-based, and they cause everyone else to lose the cAGW argument. You will be no different, as we have shown so far.
RP says:
“As for Christy’s study…”blah, blah&etc.
Person, you asked for a peer reviewed study. I provided one. So now you try to contradict it, with a comment from an unreliable [see the right sidebar] blog??
Obviously, nothing I post can possibly penetrate your religious belief system, which is impervious to science or logic. Dr. Christy is an esteemed climatologist, who has forgotten more than your odious cartoonist has ever learned about the subject.
Gail Combs
July 1, 2013 7:30 pm
Rational person says:
July 1, 2013 at 3:43 pm
Oh, I don’t deny he is a cartoonist, but I find it interesting that this “best science” site chooses to use that description instead of his actual honours degrees in physics…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So?
My husband has a degree in physics but describes himself as a technical writer as does his good buddy who has a PhD in Nuclear Physics.
Rational person
July 1, 2013 7:34 pm
Lol, hard to make my case when a biased moderator applies the rules lopsidedly. Exactly the hypocrisy I expect though from a site that can’s survive an examination of the facts.
I have mde my points using YOUR data and YOUR logic. Nobody has successfully refuted those facts. All I got here were insults for my trouble instead of an enlightening scientific discourse.
No sense wasting my time any more. You’ve more than proven the lack of validity of this site.
I fully expect the censors to remove my posts. After all, that’s what they do when they can’t answer the criticisms.
Backslider
July 1, 2013 7:59 pm
@Rational Person – “I fully expect the censors to remove my posts”
The only thing that gets removed are posts which do not comply with the site policy. You can post any argument within the bounds of that policy without watering down anything scientific. The fact is that you are trolling and we have all been very patient with you.
Try again with what has been removed, but keep it civil – then we can all see it and answer and it won’t be removed – This is NOT SkepticalScience.
Rational person
July 1, 2013 8:03 pm
How, exactly, am I trolling? A data set was provided. I scientifically addressed the asertio s being made about that data with my own observations about that same data, AND by pointing out that the so-called “stall” is still within the confidence interval projections of the climate change models. How does presenting those facts constitute “trolling”?
Rational person
July 1, 2013 8:06 pm
Also, doesn’t’ dbstealy accusing me of posting from “religious beliefs” violate both the policy’s sections about treating people with respect and no talk about religion? Yet I see he had. O moderator actions taken. Thus my statement about a double standard.
Rational Person,
As we see, your complaints are just as irrational as your comments.☺
But don’t feel bad, there’s hope: with maturity comes understanding.
Some day you will understand that The Economist, the NY Times, and many other climate alarmists would never admit that global warming has stopped — if there was any alternative. But there’s not; global warming has stopped, that is a scientific fact. And their credibility is more important to them than their global warming narrative.
The alarmist press now acknowledges the obvious, because they have learned that it is better to stop digging the hole they’re in, than to keep on digging. Some day you, too, will probably learn that basic life lesson.
In the mean time, rejoice in the fact that the global warming scare was a false alarm. That is entirely a good thing, no?
Rational person
July 1, 2013 8:22 pm
Now he calls me irrational with no moderator intervention …
How exactly am I being irrational?
Please show me how my arguments using the supplied data are in error, instead of sending baseless insults. I wold prefer to keep my discussions to the scientific facts instead of trying to deflect the discussion by insulting the poster. Which, I understand, is what this blog is all about.
Backslider
July 1, 2013 8:24 pm
@Rational Person – “How, exactly, am I trolling”
I cannot see your posts that have been removed, however that they have is enough.
@Rational Person – ” I scientifically addressed the asertio s [sic]”
I don’t think that you will find anybody around here who thinks that links to SkepticalScience present any kind of scientific evidence.
You wish to present arguments regarding graphs, admitting yourself that the trend since 1997 has been downward. This is the trend that warmist scientists refer to when talking about the lack of warming – don’t you think that you should argue with THEM if you refuse to accept is as valid? Even Hansen admits it, why won’t you? (even though you did).
Regardless, we should get back on topic and discuss Cook’s paper – please take the time to look at Monckton’s clear refutation of it (there are many others also).
Rational person
July 1, 2013 8:27 pm
I wasn’t talking about the other blog. I was talking about using the exact same data set as you, but one year earlier or one year later shows an INCREASE in the trend lines. Do you dispute that?
Backslider
July 1, 2013 8:48 pm
@Rational Person – “I was talking about using the exact same data set as you”.
I did not use any data sets. My arguments have been purely logical and talking about what is happening in the real World…. what real scientists, both warmist and not are talking about. They all acknowledge the lack of warming since 2007 and for the warmists it is a dilemma and they ADMIT its a dilemma.
I think that what DBStealy said must apply to you: “Only John Cook’s religious acolytes still believe in catastrophic AGW”
Lol, the graph is actually provided by a “coolist” as I thought you would accept that better. Here is the original source, but of course you then miss all the explanation about how this person didn’t understand the graph he was using. Basically the outer shaded area is the 90% confidence interval, meaning the models predict the data should be in that shaded area 90% of the time. Given that the observed data is in it 100% of the time the models are actually performing better than expected. http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html
Rational person
July 1, 2013 9:51 pm
To the moderator.
1. How is my email address relevant to scientific discourse?
2. How many times have you violated the privacy of “coolists” by I appropriately publishing their email address, which your policy says is supposed to remain private and hidden from other posters?
Now you know why I don’t trust sites like yours with my primary email address.
[no privacy has been violated see reply in next comment – your actions here so far don’t offer trust, so none is given back -mod]
@dbstealy, I notice you reference newspapers and not scientific journals to back up your claim that global warming has stopped. That surprises me. I thought this “best science” web site would prefer to quote actual scientific journals. You know … Science.
What about the study by former “coolist” Dr. Richard Muller funded by the Koch foundation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=0
Not only does his study say that global warming is happening and caused by CO2 emissions, but he agrees it is man made.
In other words, if scientists actually examine the evidence instead of voicing their unsubstantiated opinion, they have no choice but to accept what the evidence is showing.
Rational person asks:
“…what is YOUR point in focussing on 1997.”
1997 was sixteen (16) years ago — the exact time frame that The Economist, Keith Briffa, and many other former alarmist publications and scientists claimed would be necessary to show whether global warming had truly stopped or not. Now, at 16 years, they are hoist on their own petard. NONE of them expected the globe to stop warming for sixteen years. It seemed so far off at the time.
And now that the science shows conclusively that global warming has stopped for 16 years, you cannot accept reality.
The ultimate Authority — Planet Earth — shows that your belief in catastrophic AGW is wrong. So once again: who should we believe? You?? or the planet?
I think every rational person would say that Planet Earth is correct, and it trumps the beliefs of eco-religionists such as yourself.
Finally, from Dr. John Christy’s peer reviewed paper, we see that the current temperature is normal — and cooling.
(Snip. Arguing with a mod’s decision is pointless. ~mod)
How does it show “conclusively” that global warming has stopped for 16 years when using the exact same data you used I can show increasing trends for almost any year other than your cherry picked one?
PLUS the observed data still fits within the 90% confidence interval predicted by the models (when we expect the predictions to fail 10% of the time, which it hasn’t).
Lol it’s like a pitcher throwing nothing but strikes “proves” that he is a bad pitcher because he isn’t throwing balls 10% of the time like predicted. Obviously that means he is a terrible pitcher.
RP:
Now that many publications and scientists who were staunchly alarmist admit that global warming has ‘stopped’, ‘stalled’, etc., you can go on believing whatever it is that you believe.
Me, I am greatly satisfied that the NY Times, The Economist, and others have thrown in the towel, and now admit that GW has stopped. But if you believe you know more than they do, have at it. You’re getting to be all alone in your religious belief.
[Snip]
The assertion is that I was not responding to the statement that despite a 40% increase in CO2 levels there is no corresponding increase in temperature.
Perhaps you would like to read this. I know, it is a newspaper oped piece, but at least it is written by the actual researcher … A former “coolist”. (Hey, if it is ok to call me a warmist then I assume coolist doesn’t break the blog rules).
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=0
This just shows that if scientists actually examine the evidence instead of just voicing unsubstantiated opinion, they have no choice but to face the fact that global warming from human activity is happening.
Whether that’s the end of the world disaster I doubt. But the evidence shows it is happening.
Dbstealy, name the SCIENTIFIC PAPERS that say global warming has stopped. I thought this was a “science” site but I just hear about what the popular press is saying.
As for Christy’s study, yea it was peer reviewed and the errors are pretty obvious. See http://www.skepticalscience.com-christy-once-again-misinforms-congress.html
RP says:
“Dbstealy, name the SCIENTIFIC PAPERS that say global warming has stopped.”
You are obviously a noob here, so I am not going to do your homework for you. This subject has been thoroughly discussed ad nauseum. You could begin with an archive search for Werner Brozek; that will start you on the right track.
I suggest that you begin reading the WUWT archives. You have a lot to learn, and a few months researching the subject will do you a world of good. As it is, you are operating from belief, not from any rational perspective. Study up on the Scientific Method, and on the climate Null Hypothesis, too. No belief in man-made global warming has stood up to those scientific basics.
Finally, forget the ‘Skeptical Science’ talking points. They are belief-based, and they cause everyone else to lose the cAGW argument. You will be no different, as we have shown so far.
(Snip. Read the site Policy. ~mod)
RP says:
“As for Christy’s study…”blah, blah&etc.
Person, you asked for a peer reviewed study. I provided one. So now you try to contradict it, with a comment from an unreliable [see the right sidebar] blog??
Obviously, nothing I post can possibly penetrate your religious belief system, which is impervious to science or logic. Dr. Christy is an esteemed climatologist, who has forgotten more than your odious cartoonist has ever learned about the subject.
Rational person says:
July 1, 2013 at 3:43 pm
Oh, I don’t deny he is a cartoonist, but I find it interesting that this “best science” site chooses to use that description instead of his actual honours degrees in physics…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So?
My husband has a degree in physics but describes himself as a technical writer as does his good buddy who has a PhD in Nuclear Physics.
Lol, hard to make my case when a biased moderator applies the rules lopsidedly. Exactly the hypocrisy I expect though from a site that can’s survive an examination of the facts.
I have mde my points using YOUR data and YOUR logic. Nobody has successfully refuted those facts. All I got here were insults for my trouble instead of an enlightening scientific discourse.
No sense wasting my time any more. You’ve more than proven the lack of validity of this site.
I fully expect the censors to remove my posts. After all, that’s what they do when they can’t answer the criticisms.
@Rational Person – “I fully expect the censors to remove my posts”
The only thing that gets removed are posts which do not comply with the site policy. You can post any argument within the bounds of that policy without watering down anything scientific. The fact is that you are trolling and we have all been very patient with you.
Try again with what has been removed, but keep it civil – then we can all see it and answer and it won’t be removed – This is NOT SkepticalScience.
How, exactly, am I trolling? A data set was provided. I scientifically addressed the asertio s being made about that data with my own observations about that same data, AND by pointing out that the so-called “stall” is still within the confidence interval projections of the climate change models. How does presenting those facts constitute “trolling”?
Also, doesn’t’ dbstealy accusing me of posting from “religious beliefs” violate both the policy’s sections about treating people with respect and no talk about religion? Yet I see he had. O moderator actions taken. Thus my statement about a double standard.
Rational Person,
As we see, your complaints are just as irrational as your comments.☺
But don’t feel bad, there’s hope: with maturity comes understanding.
Some day you will understand that The Economist, the NY Times, and many other climate alarmists would never admit that global warming has stopped — if there was any alternative. But there’s not; global warming has stopped, that is a scientific fact. And their credibility is more important to them than their global warming narrative.
The alarmist press now acknowledges the obvious, because they have learned that it is better to stop digging the hole they’re in, than to keep on digging. Some day you, too, will probably learn that basic life lesson.
In the mean time, rejoice in the fact that the global warming scare was a false alarm. That is entirely a good thing, no?
Now he calls me irrational with no moderator intervention …
How exactly am I being irrational?
Please show me how my arguments using the supplied data are in error, instead of sending baseless insults. I wold prefer to keep my discussions to the scientific facts instead of trying to deflect the discussion by insulting the poster. Which, I understand, is what this blog is all about.
@Rational Person – “How, exactly, am I trolling”
I cannot see your posts that have been removed, however that they have is enough.
@Rational Person – ” I scientifically addressed the asertio s [sic]”
I don’t think that you will find anybody around here who thinks that links to SkepticalScience present any kind of scientific evidence.
You wish to present arguments regarding graphs, admitting yourself that the trend since 1997 has been downward. This is the trend that warmist scientists refer to when talking about the lack of warming – don’t you think that you should argue with THEM if you refuse to accept is as valid? Even Hansen admits it, why won’t you? (even though you did).
Regardless, we should get back on topic and discuss Cook’s paper – please take the time to look at Monckton’s clear refutation of it (there are many others also).
I wasn’t talking about the other blog. I was talking about using the exact same data set as you, but one year earlier or one year later shows an INCREASE in the trend lines. Do you dispute that?
@Rational Person – “I was talking about using the exact same data set as you”.
I did not use any data sets. My arguments have been purely logical and talking about what is happening in the real World…. what real scientists, both warmist and not are talking about. They all acknowledge the lack of warming since 2007 and for the warmists it is a dilemma and they ADMIT its a dilemma.
I think that what DBStealy said must apply to you: “Only John Cook’s religious acolytes still believe in catastrophic AGW”
The argument earlier was that cooling has happened since 1997 which I agreed to.
However do you dispute that this graph shows a temperature increase since 1996?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996/plot/rss/from:1996/trend
Or this graph shows an increase since 1999
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1999/plot/rss/from:1999/trend
Or that the same arguments you use now would in this graph “prove” that global warming stopped in the 1980s?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1987/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1987/trend
[snip – sorry – link to another “denier” filled article from a hateful person. BTW why do you have an email named “cretinist basher”? – is that what you think of people you disagree with? – mod]
Lol, the graph is actually provided by a “coolist” as I thought you would accept that better. Here is the original source, but of course you then miss all the explanation about how this person didn’t understand the graph he was using. Basically the outer shaded area is the 90% confidence interval, meaning the models predict the data should be in that shaded area 90% of the time. Given that the observed data is in it 100% of the time the models are actually performing better than expected.
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html
To the moderator.
1. How is my email address relevant to scientific discourse?
2. How many times have you violated the privacy of “coolists” by I appropriately publishing their email address, which your policy says is supposed to remain private and hidden from other posters?
Now you know why I don’t trust sites like yours with my primary email address.
[no privacy has been violated see reply in next comment – your actions here so far don’t offer trust, so none is given back -mod]