Friday Funny: "cottoning up" to skeptics with high pressure commentary


On Monday, I wrote a very personal piece that describes my personal trials and tribulations over the last 18 months. It was very well received and I had hundreds of comments of support. I sincerely thank everyone who left a comment of support and understanding. Out of 428 comments, almost every comment was this way, almost, save one. Even the normally irascible “Eli Rabbet” provided a thoughtful comment of support.

That one comment (which was never published due to multiple policy violations) is presented below for your amusement, along with a follow up comment.

Of course, the person writing it was a coward, hiding behind a fake name, a fake email, and an IP address on a proxy server. But the m.o. and the content is a dead giveaway, because who else writes high pressure craziness like this hoping to convince somebody you are right by hurling insults? There’s only one person I know of.

I recall Einsteins definition of insanity:


So here is the comment I got on the personal thread Monday:

2016/07/25 at 9:52 pm


Quick, Magic Gais Watts, what’s the name of the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature, and how long was it before your dumb ass discovered ”Green House Gas Effect” is nothing but the compression warming removed from standard gas equations?

LoL Watt a f***g HicK.

I guess if you can steer an entire scientific movement into the trash with the likes of that thermo-billy Eschenbach, you can wreck a woman’s life.


You’re a fraud.

You’re a fake atmospheric chemist.

You’re not even skeptical about a story so simple it involves leaving compression out of the mathematics of atmospheric temperature then claiming MAGIC makes the sky hot.

You’re a f***n’ bum. You never thought or cared about anything

but your self. – and the way you’ve acted, you deserve all the dismissal by those who know you WELL, you get.

You’re a f****g HaCK.

You’re the back door man

for a pseudo science movement so stupid it has you claiming that immersion of a fire warmed rock into frigid fluids,

makes it warmer than when there WAS no bath of frigid fluids,

and the full light of that fire assured maximum surface energy density for the distance.

Your fans and friends are pretty much the K-Mart of Signts and you’re as disgusting as you feel. When you know you’ve been being bad, you can always get ”your public” to run it’s tongue up and down the crack of your sweaty, stupid a*&, and get yourself some kook-kiks.

Typically you’re another Repugnican, and somewhere is a woman who spent years watching you over-eat and act like a vindictive little dilettante.



Oh, but wait, there’s more!

2016/07/28 at 11:24 am











THAT solves TEMPERATURE of the SIMPLEST PHASE of f*kng MATTER known to MAN.





YOU can not WARM a ROCK with a FIRE in VACUUM

then WARM it through IMMERSION in a SHALLOW FIELD of FRIGID FLUIDS you HICK – that’s YOU















G A R B A G E.

Gosh, I didn’t realize I’m in the same league with Mann, Hansen, and Trenberth. With my elevated status, it seems critical mass has been reached again.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 29, 2016 10:11 am

what a dick

flyover bob
Reply to  ARW
July 29, 2016 12:45 pm

Your comment would suggest the coward is even part of a man. A suggestion unsupported in any way.

Reply to  ARW
July 29, 2016 5:30 pm

Sounds like someone’s “medical marijuana” prescription got a little over-filled . . . Just remember ONE thing, Alan–when you’re taking flak, it means you’re over the target! Keep the faith!

Reply to  Goldrider
July 29, 2016 5:31 pm

I mean Anthony! Heck, I’m over my beer-quota, damn that Global Warming!

Tom Judd
Reply to  ARW
July 29, 2016 6:03 pm

I really wish you hadn’t written that. I’ll have you know that’s the best part of the male body and now I just can’t handle it.
Um, never mind.

David Smith
Reply to  Tom Judd
July 30, 2016 4:05 am

In my marriage I leave my wife to handle everything.
Whoops, another one to never mind.

Reply to  ARW
July 29, 2016 6:10 pm

Based on the responses of you critics, you are a genius of the highest order, a gentleman and a scholar!
BTW, after 18.5 years of marriage, my 1st wife left me for her former boss, and I was devastated. It turns out that it was all in God’s plan to bring me together with my perfect best friend and companion, my current and last wife. The hell of before is nothing like the heaven of now.
Anthony, LIVE through it, and thrive on the new experiences life (and God) will bring.

Reply to  Newt Love (@newtlove)
August 3, 2016 2:26 am

Indeed, Newt Love. Indeed.
It is even possible to be grateful to one’s former wife for doing me such a massive favour and leaving.
It can be hard to believe that while the wounds are still fresh and bleeding, but it’s true. I swear it.

Reply to  ARW
July 29, 2016 7:37 pm

yr: “what a dick”
I’m thinkin’ more along the lines of your basic, chronically over-praised, trophy-laden, mouthy dumb-kid, emotionally crippled for life by his hive-mummy’s hovering, overly-protective, smothering, control-freak embrace; a creepy-brat who never has and never will get a date; a “snookum-wookums-for-life”, whose bathroom mirror is a horror-story, bio-hazard mess of encrusted, multi-layer, zit-crud splatter; and a little-snot weirdo, whose sole pleasure, in his otherwise “yes-mummy”, “teacher’s-pet”, “tattle-tale”, “tag-along-pest”, “mummy-the-big-boys-are-bein’-mean-to-me!, spastic-dork, pathetic existence, takes the form of a serial addiction to tawdry, precociously sicko, privately-handled “moments”, alone, of a sort that inevitably find him lost in his own “world”, and holding, in one or the other of his unsanitary hands, some one or another of those well-thumbed “National Geographic” back-issues, dating from the thirties, forties, and fifties, that a distant relative left “Junior Boy” in his will, with the assurance that “they’ll be worth something someday”, even as mummy, in some other room, takes a naive pride in her “little genius” and his urgent attraction to such “edifying” reading material–mummy’s abused innocence, alas, preventing her from realizing the stealth-porn seedy-reality of vintage issues of that publication, and the depravity of her precious bubber-wubber’s adolescent “nasty-habit”.

Reply to  ARW
July 30, 2016 8:52 am

No that would imply being male. Not that I want to imply that the person posting those is female either. And yes they are pretty sad aren’t they. funny as hell but sad that anyone would find emotional satisfaction this way.

Reply to  ARW
July 30, 2016 4:42 pm

I think he needs physiological help/treatment. He is clearly off his rocker.

Mark - Helsinki
July 29, 2016 10:12 am

WOW Anthony wow lol
Mosher is that you :p
I jest of course
Whomever that is has some real damage doing on internally so one assumed it is an environmentalist as only they have so much hate for their fellow man
Thanks for sharing Anthony, sometimes I need a reminder that I am not a bad person or a lunatic, this picked me right up

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
July 29, 2016 11:09 am

Far, far, far, far^10 too long to be Most.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Harry Passfield
July 29, 2016 11:10 am

Shred!!! Most!

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Harry Passfield
July 29, 2016 11:12 am

I really hate u spellcheck!!! Mosh!

Reply to  Harry Passfield
July 29, 2016 12:26 pm

Apparently the title wasn’t enough of a clue Anthony.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Harry Passfield
July 29, 2016 5:12 pm

I did say it was in jest Anthony “I jest of course” :p

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Harry Passfield
July 29, 2016 5:13 pm

“Apparently the title wasn’t enough of a clue Anthony.” btkiss fail lol

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
July 29, 2016 2:11 pm

No,it is not Mosher.He would never write like that ever in the places I have read them.

Tom Judd
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
July 29, 2016 6:11 pm

Maybe that’s a little bit insulting to Mosher? Just a thought. But, it’s always remained in my mind how thoughtful Mosher was to Willis Eschenbach when Willis presented a post, quite some time ago, on the loss of someone dear to him.

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  Tom Judd
July 30, 2016 5:04 pm

A little bit?

Mark - Helsinki
July 29, 2016 10:13 am

Also who types in caps these days hahahaha
Talk about emotional issues! ROFL

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
July 30, 2016 5:32 am

I can tell you who types in all caps.
Person who is really ineducated what comes to electronic communication – or
Person who is mentally unstable enough to engage her(m)self in serious hate speech.
I believe in the latter. No lol included.
The opinion presented (Anthony is a pro AGW Hansenite) is simply incredible. it requires a really serious misunderstanding where we go. It also represents some serious conspiracy ideation. And it gives face for true d3nialism.
(I also use the time here to thank Anthony for sharing his personal life event and wish the very best post-divorce life. My friendly pat to the dog as well.)

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
July 30, 2016 4:50 pm

The days of typing upper-case came from teletype machines – they didn’t have lower case. We had those in the Air Force back in the 60s.

Mark - Helsinki
July 29, 2016 10:13 am

We need these human “barometers”, to remind us we are in fact still sane

Mark - Helsinki
July 29, 2016 10:14 am

William Connolly? Maybe him lol

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
July 29, 2016 10:33 am

I would add Schlesinger to the list, who had to break Bode in order to support the possibility of massive positive feedback. This 3+ decode old error has been canonized by the IPCC and will be hard to correct, but once it is, the entire house of cards called CAGW will collapse.

Matt B
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
July 29, 2016 10:37 am

Connolly is actually being more reasonable these days, there are still flashes of the Old Stoat but he has taken on some of the tribe groupthink, for example with the Exxon attorney general lawsuits.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Matt B
July 29, 2016 5:14 pm

I wash joking guys it’s funny Friday!!! chill out guys
Fantastic to see you active Anthony

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
July 30, 2016 12:52 pm

Too intelligent for our Will
[??? .mod]

Pop Piasa
July 29, 2016 10:16 am

Perhaps the greatest threat to each person today is his own ego.
Let them destroy themselves, but steer clear of their collateral damage.
Always easier said, than done…

Mike McMillan
July 29, 2016 10:18 am

Thank you for sharing.

July 29, 2016 10:22 am

Those comments took himher probably all day to type.

July 29, 2016 10:24 am

The world is full of malignant idiots. Unfortunately half of them are on the Internet!

Reply to  RCS
July 29, 2016 10:59 am

Only half?

Bryan A
Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2016 12:15 pm

The other half obviously can’t find the internet

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2016 5:15 pm

Just what I was thinking Mork not a typo :p

Robert from oz
Reply to  MarkW
July 30, 2016 4:17 am

Congrats Anthony , you are now steering the scientific world , if this ain’t praise I don’t know what is .

Reply to  RCS
July 29, 2016 1:38 pm

I’m so old I remember when you had to be intelligent to connect to the internet.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Gregory
July 29, 2016 4:21 pm

Me too. Bulletin Board Service. Needed a bit of noggin.

Wayne Delbeke
Reply to  Gregory
July 31, 2016 9:16 am

Funny – my email address is a hold over from the old Compuserve bulletin board system along with some “Machanical” networks and note sharing through a main frame.
Interestingly, are blogs not the evolution of the old bulletin boards?
Oops. My age is showing. 😉

July 29, 2016 10:25 am

Disqus and Akismet are blocking/censoring my comments as spam. Blocked on Steve’s/Tony’s site as well and don’t know why. WordPress?
Skeptical badges of honor?

Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 11:53 am

Never had a problem w/ WUWT. FB exiled me for 6 weeks.

James in Perth
July 29, 2016 10:26 am

“Back Door Man”? That’s my favorite Willie Dixon tune! What an awesome compliment!!

Reply to  James in Perth
July 29, 2016 11:07 am

Yeah, excellent tune. I’d take that as a compliment too! ;->

Reply to  PaulH
July 29, 2016 12:38 pm

What about Howlin’ Wolf’s version?
Another real classic.

Nigel S
Reply to  PaulH
July 30, 2016 1:21 pm

Another vote for Howlin Wolf! Smokestack Lightning too perhaps for the earlier lightning strike post.
Welcome back Anthony. A couple of bits of advice, don’t marry a knife throwing actress on the rebound and don’t buy a wooden sailing boat on the rebound from that. Your work here is too valuable for distractions.

James in Perth
July 29, 2016 10:27 am

Here’s a better version:

July 29, 2016 10:29 am

More evidence that the AGW Fan Base requires a low IQ, Mental Illness, and a total contempt for the Educational System.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 5:18 pm

They both read a bit like bots 😀 “I get $28 an hour for being a loser” 😀

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 6:28 pm

I gathered he might be a denier, but it’s like some Mann damaged hi brain with a hockey stick. Also, he seems to have a problem with gas!

Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 9:36 pm

Are you sure this is Eli Rabbet? Very naïve aqui but have sparred with the “rabbit run” dude at andthenthere’s, twitter, etc. and heard nothing like the above. He claims to be a skeptic…

Reply to  sz939
July 29, 2016 10:45 am

Lord people.
In German he’d be ‘D. Baumwolle’, and in Spanish he’s known as ‘D. Algodón’.
Obviously I’ve got no idea if Anthony is correct, but the diatribe is certainly crazy enough.

Reply to  markbofill
July 29, 2016 11:01 am

As near as I can tell he/she/it is claiming that CO2 has no effect and that the only thing that controls temperature is atmospheric pressure.

Reply to  markbofill
July 29, 2016 11:03 am

Yup. He used to haunt Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog before Dr. Spencer finally decided he’d had enough.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  markbofill
July 29, 2016 12:49 pm

Certainly doesn’t care to win any friends or have a positive influence on the rest of us. Atmospheric pressure must play into this or Venus wouldn’t be as not at the surface.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  markbofill
July 29, 2016 12:51 pm

Oops, “as hot at the surface”

Reply to  markbofill
July 29, 2016 1:24 pm

I don’t know about you, but when it comes to Venus, I’m glad that I’m not at the surface.

David A
Reply to  markbofill
July 29, 2016 5:45 pm

The majority of the atmospheric pressure only guys are not this ignorant, nor this arrogant. In this case I am not certain which is the greatest, but clearly “reason has forsaken him, yet he can still shout.”

Reply to  markbofill
July 29, 2016 11:14 pm

For Venus to be so hot at its surface, its atmosphere has to be optically thick at high altitude to absorb the sun light, then the pressure effect does take in effect. Did I get this right? I am not an atmospheric scientist. But I know the term ‘radiative layer’ from plasma physics. So if Venus’ atmosphere is indeed optically thick at high altitude, then this is sort of a greenhouse effect, again, did I get this right? So the pressure alone doesn’t do anything without a heated layer higher up and gasses to absorb sunlight effectively. The incoming radiation from the sun has to be in thermal equilibrium with the blackbody of the optically thick layer radiating back into space. So the temperature of the absorbing layer will rise until this equilibrium condition is met. And the temperature below that layer follows the barometric height formula. That is how I understand this.
And yes (to this ‘vulgarian’ poster) you can heat up a rock in a vacuum by radiation, how on earth, ahem, moon, can the face of the moon that is exposed to the sun get so hot? This is called ‘radiation transport’, look it up sometime (to this vulgarian poster).

July 29, 2016 10:29 am

Saying you are in the same league with Mann, Hansen and Trenberth is an insult. These guys are in league of their own where unwarranted assumptions, political correctness, massively manipulated data and fears of an imaginary catastrophe rules, rather than real data, facts and logic.

Bryan A
Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 29, 2016 10:44 am

The league of unordinary gentlemen

Doug in Calgary
Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 29, 2016 12:07 pm

Mann and Hansen have set back climate science by about 30 years while Anthony has kept it in the realm of reality and sanity. Thank you Anthony.

Killer Marmot
July 29, 2016 10:29 am

A toxic blend of ignorance, arrogance, and insanity.

Curious George
July 29, 2016 10:31 am

Probably a robot. That’s actually bad news, expect a lot of same.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 5:19 pm

Love the “thermodynamics” rant. I’ve seen something similar on Discus once. The guy was arguing with everyone not just one side

Reply to  Curious George
July 29, 2016 10:36 am

That was my thought.
No human would use that many CAPS unless thy accidentally left it all on.

July 29, 2016 10:31 am

…OMG..What a (snip) scumbag !! ONLY socialist trolls would kick somebody, anybody( liberal, Democrat,Republican or Conservative !) when they are down….The hateful and venomous attacks from most of liberal Media News is astounding…The fact that we, the people ,allow it, is unforgivable ! As always Anthony…Stay strong..we need you !

Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 10:46 am

I understand pins work wonders when popping pustulent gas bags full of odious excrement.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 11:02 am

Pins might work well, but I would recommend putting your pin on the end of a really long stick before popping this bag.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 11:05 am

Proper PPE and lots of air freshener is a must. Remember, always use the right tool for the job.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 5:20 pm

I think I feel some gas pressure now.

July 29, 2016 10:32 am

Anthony, I think he is trying to compliment you (in his own way). Secondly, I don’t know how you ‘mow’ down ‘integrity’, unless integrity did not exist in the first place.

Bryan A
Reply to  Duncan
July 29, 2016 10:47 am

Got to agree with you on this one…Science seems to have had it’s integrity self-diminished

July 29, 2016 10:37 am

Sounds like a candidate for induction to the Westboro Baptist Church. I wonder if he’s related to any of them.

Reply to  SMC
July 29, 2016 1:27 pm

heh- i don’t think you understand the wbc.
they are a pack of lawyers with a tax exempt church.
they have a good thing going and they have a lot of fun with it.
yes, they are trolls. they are pretty darn good at it, too.

July 29, 2016 10:38 am

I have to say one thing: Anthony and Willis, if you know who this is I would seriously consider talking to the authorities about this person. He (or she, which I doubt) is on a breaking point and is a danger to himself and others. (And I speak from experience). As this illness progresses it will get worse, this has all the earmarks and I am VERY serious, this is not a humorous matter at all, thanks ( and mod you can block this after passing it on to Anthony and Willis. I am very serious about this as this has happened to our family))

Leonard Lane
Reply to  asybot
July 30, 2016 12:05 pm

I agree with asybot. There is nothing humorous or trivial in these comments. He has been through a similar situation in his family.

Ross King
July 29, 2016 10:38 am

The emptiest barrels make the most sound.

Reply to  Ross King
July 29, 2016 12:51 pm

@ Ross, quote of the day! + many!

Alan Kendall
July 29, 2016 10:38 am

You only got one like this, or is this the outstanding example? I would get it framed, hang it somewhere appropriate to remind you of man’s frailties and to consider, when you’re down, that you could’ve been given his passion but without the necessary understanding. Sanity is so fragile.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 10:49 am

That says a great deal of positive things about your general readership.

July 29, 2016 10:39 am

Thanks for posting this garbage. Lets us know the kind of people that call us names.

Dr. Dave
July 29, 2016 10:39 am

I got a good chuckle out of this and hope you did too. It’s always fun seeing some ignoramus getting their panties in a bunch.

July 29, 2016 10:39 am

Packet trace available? Would be nice to meet the coward in person….

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 12:24 pm

Got DSL in Sept. 2008. Don’t know when this fellow first came to notice.
I tried twice to explain to him how he appeared to others. He came back with snark.
Thanks for the Friday Funny.

David Ball
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 1:12 pm

I know who it is and it is an embarrassment and extremely frustrating. Now no one will even consider that he may be correct. (double facepalm).

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 4:26 pm

ROFL! Probably believes that the Earth is flat, young, and we are about to be lifted up to heaven on September 27, 2017 at 6:42 PM precisely.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 5:21 pm

So is it just trolling you or anger, seeing as you know. Are both not the same person, they read very similar

July 29, 2016 10:41 am

Let me take a guess here.
Some form of paranoid schizophrenia?
It may be easier to laugh at this kind of stuff now, but it must be pretty awful to see when it first comes in over the transom.
My best wishes to Anthony, and I hope your world continues to brighten up.

Wayne Delbeke
Reply to  TonyL
July 31, 2016 9:30 am

This site and Axthony are amazing. Reading the diatribe, I can only assume the writer is calling out for help. Perhaps I am being overly considerate, but while I have a few rants hidden away in my drafts folders, I was taught a long time ago to put them aside for a day or two before sending. Most never leave the drafts folder although one or two have when my meds were off. Maybe that is what happened here – benefit of the doubt. One bad post can taint a life. But I do believe we have seen this person posting his ideas before without the vitriol.
This person must be very hurt and angry … and inconsiderate given the difficult time A has gone through.
Maybe publishing this will help this individual deal with his isolation and think about pausing before hitting send – not that we all haven’t done it.
Not being an apologist, just sad that this kind of thing has to happen as it hurts everyone and the discussion.
Good wishes and good health to all.

July 29, 2016 10:41 am

To music:
I was gonna remember thermodynamics, until I got High,
I was gonna throw some insults, then I got High.
Can’t even type coherently and I know why,
Because I got High,
Because I got High,
Because I got High

Bryan A
July 29, 2016 10:42 am

definitely the same person in both e-mails.
Syntax is similar
Word hybridization is similar
Asterisking style of profanity is similar (Once heard that “the person that needs to use profanity most is the person with the least quality education”)
Insult verbiage is identical (probably a lexicographer with a 3 page tome)
Both contained apparent Half Formed Sentences indicating a highly scattered thought process is inherent and coherent thoughts almost impossible.
Tis likely that he was just wound so tight that the Rubber Band between his ears simply snapped and he is trying to make sense of the complex reverberation resonating inside his vacuous cranium. He is fortunate though that the snapping of the latex in that confined space didn’t totally destroy his brain cell.

Reply to  Bryan A
July 29, 2016 11:07 am

Best cussing I ever heard was from “The Brother’s O’Toole”. John Astin spent 3 or 4 minutes ripping the good people of Molybdenum up one side and down the other. Without a single word needing to be bleeped.
Gotta find out if it is on Netflix, I need to watch it again.

Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2016 12:03 pm

Is this the scene?
Michael O’Toole: I have, in my time, visited three political conventions, four sessions of congress, and two homes for the criminally insane. I have known army generals, steam doctors, vegetarians, prohibitionists, and a female suffragette. But never, even in an Orangeman’s Day parade, have I seen such pure and stainless brainlessness as I now behold in you. The Almighty, in His infinite wisdom and mercy, has given the worm enough sense to turn with, and the barnacle can grasp whatever happens to be standing by. But you are equipped with a mental capacity smaller than you were born with. Here we are, benighted in the middle of a nowhere named Molly-Be-Damn – a dreary little rookery, Timothy, a squalid sty, a festering pustule on the face of the western slope. Bless the town and bless the people! Look at them – the rabble of this cantankerous community! Knaves and fools, louts and lardheads, the least of all God’s creatures, without enough push to pick the fleas off each other, abiding in putrefaction and inertia, curled up comfy in it like hogs in a mud hole! And while I, of all people, fret and sweat for a way to pull these Simple Simons out of the bog, you stand around making flatulent noises for the titillation of the vulgar mob. And while he’s bubbling himself, what are you doing, you pusillanimous pack of popcorn pickers? You clattered clutch of clucks? The town dilapidating around you, coasting downhill in a handcart to Hell while you stand about gaping for flies and going patty-cake with your hands!
Mayor: There now! Now just one minute you!
Michael O’Toole: All right, all right, all right! Fine! Keep it, and treasure it the way it is! For when all this trash has collapsed into one pile, and the howling wilderness has claimed its own again, I want you hicks to be happy, belching and spitting, laughing and singing, swinging from tree to tree, with your friend Soapy Sam here, the Uriah Heep of the hookworm belt, standing around below waiting to steal anything that falls to the ground. If a nut should drop and fall – leave it lying there. It’s probably my little brother Timothy.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2016 5:22 pm

Being a Dublin North guy, almost every sentence contains expletives 😀

Donna K. Becker
Reply to  Bobby Davis
July 29, 2016 11:08 am

No; this seems to be evidence of psychosis, as was mentioned in the comment above concerning paranoid schizophrenia. I’d say that at least a welfare check on this individual would be prudent.

Reply to  Donna K. Becker
July 29, 2016 11:23 am

Only if the ‘welfare check’ included an attitude adjustment. Mr. Cotton needs to get a clue, with an ugly stick, about proper conversational deportment… Then his meds need to be adjusted.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 2:19 pm

I think I know who this is,but can’t remember the name he use. He is a member of the “Slaying the Sky dragon” school of thought?

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 4:27 pm

4 marks

David Ball
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 4:49 pm

As much as I detest what that sick person posted to Anthony, what I am seeing here is nearly as bad.
Disgusted all around.
Pamela, you do not get to dole out points. Your hubris is appalling.

David Ball
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 4:51 pm

Like schoolchildren.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 5:23 pm

Old dough lol, again reminds me of that one discus poster, was going at both sides, alarmist and objective, with the same thermoNonsense

Mike SIngleton
July 29, 2016 10:43 am

It is clear that he/she needs an adjustment in their medication type and dosage. Hope their doctor is on top of this.

July 29, 2016 10:55 am

It’s interesting. Blank out the tell-tale elements and you can alter the rants into CAGW rants with very small changes in content. One could conclude that what might seem to be holders of extremely opposed views have a great deal in common psychologically – or maybe “diagnostically.”

July 29, 2016 10:56 am

This guy (I am pretty sure of who it is, but won’t give him even a bit of promotion) is rather pathetic. This is a new point in his downward spiral. Fortunately if it who I think it is, he is far, far away. I hope he receives the mental health treatments he desperately needs.
Keep up your journey. Thanks for the humorous interlude.

July 29, 2016 10:57 am

If brain eating amoebas could talk, it would sound a little something like…

Bryan A
Reply to  RWturner
July 29, 2016 12:30 pm

[snip – a bit over the top -mod]

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
July 29, 2016 2:09 pm

Apologies…I’ll try to tome it down a little

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Bryan A
July 29, 2016 5:24 pm

tome it down a little, oxymoron alert :p

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Bryan A
July 29, 2016 6:42 pm

Way longer-but more polite?

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Bryan A
July 30, 2016 5:30 am

I like that “tome it down a little” 😀

July 29, 2016 10:57 am

Wow, this guy’s got some seriously unresolved childhood issues!

Reply to  Sunderlandsteve
July 29, 2016 11:13 am

and way too much time on his hands

July 29, 2016 10:59 am

I come to this site to be educated/enlightened, if at any time I need a “safe space” away from the scary grown up world of ideas presented here, all I need to do is click my mouse.
I mean, who blames the director of a horror movie for their nightmares ?
Grow up.

Michael C. Roberts
July 29, 2016 10:59 am

About the best that I was able to glean from that chaff, was the acknowledgement that Anthony and Willis (as well as other contributors) have, through their own efforts through this website – shattered the illusions of the integrity of the CAGW cabal! (Yes, that was a Rush/Neil Peart quotation I used right there…)
As for the rest of the content of those two posts? Straight jacket, anyone???? Ranting lunatic, much?

Reply to  Michael C. Roberts
July 29, 2016 5:14 pm

It’s odd isn’t it.
A decent vocabulary but can’t string a coherent sentence together.

July 29, 2016 10:59 am

Oh I know EXACTLY who this is. None of the guesses upthread are correct, not even close.
He’s a nasty piece of work who manages to slide cleverly disguised comments into threads with links to his many baloney claims. The mods get the vast majority of them, but every once in a while he sneaks one through. I take a certain amount of pleasure in notifying the mods by posting the guy’s initials with the word “Alert” after them. Post usually gone shortly after that.
I’ve debated this guy on other blogs and he’s worse than the alarmists when it comes to discussing science and GHE. Sad as his rant is, his frustration and anger clearly show through. He truly believes his own drivel, and simply cannot fathom why no one from either side of the debate thinks he is anything but a complete cook.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
July 29, 2016 11:11 am

Bobby Flay never wrote anything like that.

Vlad the Impaler
Reply to  davidmhoffer
July 29, 2016 11:14 am

“… cook. ” = kook?

Reply to  Vlad the Impaler
July 29, 2016 11:20 am

yeah, kook.
still on heavy duty pain meds from surgery, sorry. I kept looking at it knowing that it was wrong and couldn’t figure out why. Back to bed for me….

Reply to  Vlad the Impaler
July 29, 2016 12:55 pm

Those who know the history of the word know it was originally spelled “cook.” Pronounced “kook.” Still works.

Richard M
Reply to  Vlad the Impaler
July 29, 2016 12:57 pm

Probably confused by the other kook … Cook .

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Vlad the Impaler
July 29, 2016 6:44 pm

My mum sure was a helluva kook!

Reply to  davidmhoffer
July 29, 2016 11:37 am

While it isn’t John Cook; some of the stuff Cook has written gives a interesting light to your phrase “a complete cook”

Reply to  Taphonomic
July 29, 2016 3:15 pm

Cooking the books ?
An accountant doing that would be in serious trouble.

Reply to  Taphonomic
July 30, 2016 5:39 am

Thanks for a laugh. Of course, this cook is no Cook or Cokton.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  davidmhoffer
July 29, 2016 6:14 pm

davidmhoffer —
A complete cook? One guesses “complete cook” means the same as “totally fried”. I did see this phrase used somewhere long long ago — used about an electronics device that was burned out — beyond repair. It was a “complete cook”. You are referencing our man’s brain — his brain is a complete cook.
Eugene WR Gallun

Terry Gednalske
Reply to  davidmhoffer
July 31, 2016 9:42 am

How could you possibly debate this guy? You can’t reason with crazy!

Christopher Paino
July 29, 2016 11:03 am

I’m a bit confused after reading this thread. Is there a greenhouse effect or not? Maybe I’m confusing what I read here about CO2 not warming anything and the greenhouse effect. Can somebody straighten me out?
Thank ya!

Reply to  Christopher Paino
July 29, 2016 11:15 am

There is most definitely a GHE. The ranter is a nutty sky dragon. But because of uncertainties in feedbacks (especially water vapor and clouds), the GHE magnitude is uncertain. All the recent observational energy budget studies say the effective sensitivity is about 1.5-1.8, about half of what the IPCC and the CMIP5 climate models say. In which case there is nothing to be alarmed about.

Christopher Paino
Reply to  ristvan
July 29, 2016 11:26 am

Thanks ristvan, that helps.
[Homer voice] Mmmmmmm… nutty sky dragon….

Steve (Paris)
July 29, 2016 11:04 am

“K-Mart of Signts” – don’t know why but that’s great! Is it an insult? Who cares.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 11:26 am

For some reason, I don’t think that’s what he means…

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 6:47 pm

I thought that was SIGINT. No?
[SIGINT in milspeak is Signals Intelligence. Whether SIGINT is intercepted properly, interpreted properly, and analyzed properly and in a intelligent and timely manner is always open to debate. .mod]

July 29, 2016 11:08 am

Honestly the posters reveal a rather juvenile mind set. When I used to moderate a website the most venomous posters usually fell between the ages of 10 to 17. Thats the age range when they still believe that shock value trumps actual conversation and information exchange. Usually it comes as a cry for attention… look at me look at me. Now you can choose to reward this behavior and reply or you can ignore it. The latter works better. If you do choose to reply keep in mind you may just be battling a child. Even if they aren’t a child, when they act like one treat them accordingly.

July 29, 2016 11:16 am

…by any chance is this person allergic to MSG? (Monosodium glutamate)

July 29, 2016 11:18 am

A google search on “Magic gas effect” (with quotes) is enlightening.

July 29, 2016 11:19 am

Ah, your good friend Douglas J. Cotton. The title says it all ! 🙂
When I read the first few lines, I thought it would be your personal stalker, Hot Sue from Down Under, but no, it’s the inventor of the “heat creep process”. Speaking of “creeps”, this one really belongs in the Looney bin.

Reply to  Johan
July 29, 2016 11:35 am

What I continually wonder is: how do some people obtain, or retain, the resources that let them do what they do? (given the apparent/obvious limitations that they are burdened with).

Reply to  Johan
July 29, 2016 11:36 am

Johan, until your comment, I was beginning to wonder if anyone reads titles anymore.

Reply to  Johan
July 29, 2016 11:48 am

I dismissed the idea of it being sou immediately. It’s not her style. I would not have thought it was Doug Cottons either. He rants but I have never heard him rant like this

Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 1:42 pm

Richard Vara? Or is that just a sock puppet for someone else?

Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 1:58 pm
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 2:04 pm

And what appears to be the same person under a different name…

Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 3:03 pm

Good find Gregory! It does fit in with his disjointed style of writing I have read before.

July 29, 2016 11:24 am

Paging Dr Tourette. Your patient has arrived in reception

Joe Crawford
Reply to  EternalOptimist
July 29, 2016 12:11 pm


George McFly......I'm your density
Reply to  EternalOptimist
July 29, 2016 4:07 pm

Anthony, I agree with EternalOptimist here. My initial thought was bipolar but I think Tourette fits better.
This person has a serious disorder.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  EternalOptimist
July 29, 2016 6:54 pm

Poorly controlled anger, incoherent rambling, loss of focus, no recognition of obvious facts, loss of connection with reality. Everyday Warmist!

John Bills
July 29, 2016 11:25 am

D. C.

July 29, 2016 11:25 am

Just your basic kook.
Joe Mendiola would take =============> him in 3.

July 29, 2016 11:26 am

These types of outbursts (for which there is a name: “Intermittent Explosive Disorder”) used to bother me some but anymore I consider them humorous (in a dark way) because they are obviously from a person that has a seriously malfunctioning neurological system and deserve pity without any return action. So unless they are physically nearby, in which case it is best to quickly leave the area if possible, the correct action is to unemotionally ignore what is obviously an unimportant psychological rant that has no basis for rational discussion.

July 29, 2016 11:28 am

Anthony, sometimes it’s more important to know who your friends are NOT!

July 29, 2016 11:32 am

Wow . Reminds me of a eKo neighbor who when I spoke at our local Intermountain Rural Electric Association annual meeting here lauding the virtues of CO2 and pointing out that all the woodlands around us giving us the name Woodland Park are mainly made of CO2 married to H2O in equal molar amounts . He challenged me to meet him by the nearby Red Rocks formation to teach me science with his fists .
The guy’s as inarticulate as a suicide bomber .
It’s the gap between the computation of radiative balance for a sphere for any arbitrary spectra plus the constraint imposed by the divergence theorem , and planetary surface temperatures which drives me to conclude that gravity is the force which must be included in the balance but somehow is excluded from the nearly universal paradigm . Equations exist for gravity ; none so far as I have ever seen for a spectral GHG explanation .

Reply to  Bob Armstrong
July 29, 2016 12:34 pm

… gravity is the force which must be included in the balance …

The gravity on Venus is a bit less than that on Earth. Venus is much hotter because its atmosphere is much denser. Here’s an explanation. You can’t ignore gravity but it’s only one thing.

Equations exist for gravity ; none so far as I have ever seen for a spectral GHG explanation .

There have been equations but most physicists ignored them because there were serious theoretical objections. It wasn’t until the advent of computer modeling that CO2 as an important GHG really took off. link

Reply to  commieBob
July 29, 2016 6:29 pm

I scrolled down the whole and didn’t see an equation anywhere .
WRT : Heller’s piece , I think the effect of gravity is often discussed as “lapse rate” or similar measures . But the elementary force in which the equations must be written is gravity .
I have put off working thru the equations I have seen presented until I can express them in my 4th.CoSy ( Finally available : CoSy on a stick )
Anybody in the nbd , ie : along the Front Range , make it to this year’s CoSy Midsummer Party for some interesting conversation :

Reply to  commieBob
July 29, 2016 8:00 pm

Bob Armstrong says: July 29, 2016 at 6:29 pm
I scrolled down the whole link and didn’t see an equation anywhere .

It’s true. There are no equations but they are referred to. Here’s an example.

In 1896 Arrhenius completed a laborious numerical computation which suggested that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5°C

For the equations Callendar used see “Joel O’Bryan says: November 14, 2014 at 7:00 am” at this post.
So, equations exist … for what they are worth.

July 29, 2016 11:32 am

Oh man, that’s fantastic. Thanks for sharing Anthony. Can’t imagine having to deal with crap like that on a recurring basis. Sheesh!

Reply to  ripshin
July 29, 2016 12:16 pm

thread winner!

Reply to  davidmhoffer
July 29, 2016 12:17 pm

way too many pain meds, that was meant for down thread.

Joel Snider
Reply to  ripshin
July 29, 2016 12:53 pm

That’s why I give guys like Anthony props for having the courage to be out front and take all those slings and arrows.

John M. Ware
July 29, 2016 11:43 am

I think you should feel honored that this person expended so much work, thought (!), and energy on you. Writing such a message required a great deal of diligence and time. It is, of course, of no practical utility whatever, which shows the selfless devotion with which he writes. (Does he not know that the original F-word, which I will not write here, actually meant to plow the ground, i.e., to make it fertile?) I’m glad there were so many good responses to balance this one.

July 29, 2016 11:43 am

So that’s what it looks like when a troll goes off the standard formula script attack mode to the ad hoc version. You must be special.

July 29, 2016 11:48 am

Wow. Traveling the back-roads I’ve been in a few low-life bars where I witnessed some mighty vile verbal abuse (to others), but this person’s ugly rant makes the mindless meth addicts in those places look high class.
Curious I got mentioned with “WATTS/STEELE/MANN/HANSEN/TRENBERTH CLASS”. I guess didn’t like my support for WUWT. I’m honored to be lumped with Anthony.
But lumping me with Mann Hansen and Trenberth was just hitting below the belt. LOL

Reply to  jim steele
July 29, 2016 3:06 pm

I grew up in, and spent most of my life in “low-life bars”, no better place to learn equity.

July 29, 2016 12:00 pm

Pretty hard to take him seriously given the abysmal lack of underlining.

Reply to  David
July 29, 2016 12:09 pm


Reply to  David
July 29, 2016 12:18 pm

thread winner !
got it in the right place this time.

Reply to  David
July 29, 2016 12:21 pm

LOL……(at David not davidmhoffer)

July 29, 2016 12:12 pm

I’m sure there is a special personality type that this fits into.

July 29, 2016 12:15 pm

Fun Fact: All caps is also know as Internet Moron Font.

July 29, 2016 12:22 pm

I still wish Anthony would give us a clue on who this person is, but either way this person expends an awful lot of energy for nothing.

Reply to  Victoria
July 29, 2016 12:29 pm

He did, just peruse the title of the article.

Reply to  Victoria
July 29, 2016 1:11 pm

click the link at the end of the article.
“critical mass”

Reply to  Victoria
July 29, 2016 4:01 pm

Victoria, just look for a peson who uses “hick” a lot in their post.

July 29, 2016 12:26 pm

Dragonslayer twaddle.

Fred Van der Velden
July 29, 2016 12:28 pm

This guy has the IQ of a pea….

Reply to  Fred Van der Velden
July 29, 2016 12:31 pm

And what did peas ever do to deserve this humiliating comparison?

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
July 30, 2016 3:57 pm

Well… they’re green.

Reply to  A.D. Everard
July 31, 2016 4:09 pm

At least they’re also green on the inside.
i.e. true to their colours!!!

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
July 31, 2016 5:33 pm

Very true! Peas are honest! 🙂

July 29, 2016 12:30 pm

Here’s the basic flaw in reasoning which might be detected even by a person who has no interest in climate or atmospheric physics.
Thoughtform 1: “Nobody will take my views on atmospheric physics seriously”.
Thoughtform 2: “Perhaps I can rectify that situation by launching attacks upon individuals complete with an explanation of my ideas in barely comprehensible gibberish written mainly in CAPS.
Yes – erm…good luck with winning people over using that strategy.

David Ball
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
July 29, 2016 4:17 pm

Again, doesn’t mean he is wrong, just easier for you to dismiss.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  David Ball
July 29, 2016 7:02 pm

Yeah! Einstein used capitals! E=MC2. Can’t do exponents on my stupid media box.

Gary Hladik
Reply to  David Ball
July 29, 2016 7:04 pm

Right, his style doesn’t make him wrong.
His content does. 🙂

Reply to  David Ball
July 30, 2016 12:51 am

E = MC²

Reply to  David Ball
July 31, 2016 4:07 pm

You are quite correct.
He could be a modern day Semmelweis experiencing a descent into madness following rejection of his apparently simple insights. And now I am to blame for contributing further with my complete ignorance:

Th3o Moore
July 29, 2016 12:32 pm

You should feel fortunate that you attracted the attention of a gelding who is mad at the world because he could not pass remedial english. Zit (not a personal pronoun, but a physical description) lashes out at the world hoping someone will care. Alas zit failed at that as well.

Reply to  Th3o Moore
July 29, 2016 1:10 pm

I feel this scene from “Good Will Hunting” all over this …
Will: Of course that’s your contention. You’re a first-year grad student; you just got finished reading some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison probably. You’re gonna be convinced of that ’till next month when you get to James Lemon. Then you’re going to be talking about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That’s gonna last until next year; you’re gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin’ about, you know, the pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.
Clark: Well, as a matter of fact, I won’t, because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social…
Will: “Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth”? You got that from Vickers’ “Work in Essex County,” page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you, is that your thing, you come into a bar, read some obscure passage and then pretend – you pawn it off as your own, as your own idea just to impress some girls, embarrass my friend?

July 29, 2016 12:50 pm
Retired Kit P
Reply to  Hans Erren
July 30, 2016 11:23 am

Hans you get 5 points for citing a phd in the California higher educations system.

Joel Snider
July 29, 2016 12:51 pm

Lots of intimidating capital letters there.
But I live outside of Portland, Oregon. These guys are a dime a dozen.

Mike the Morlock
July 29, 2016 12:58 pm

Hi Anthony
Thanks for the bread crumbs, i followed them -critical mass, then the bottom link on that page, to his video, can’t say I cottoned to his views though. The Pizza play was funny, thanks still laughing.

July 29, 2016 12:59 pm

See, Roy isn’t the only one to face this guy’s wrath at being excluded for his utter petulance and pestilence.

John Greenfraud
July 29, 2016 1:00 pm

I believe the sky dragon just breathed his fire on your rocks.

Robert of Ottawa
July 29, 2016 1:01 pm

Is there an annual Godwin competition/

Joe Crawford
July 29, 2016 1:01 pm

Bobby Davis suggested ‘narcissistic-personality-disorder’ and EternalOptimist suggested ‘Tourette Syndrome’. Guess I would just call it ‘internet socialized’ like many of the young folks today that spend way too much time on the social networks (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.) without having to accept the consequences of their comments if said face-to-face.
But, there may be a light in the tunnel. Yesterday, at the doctors office, we ran into a more liberal acquaintance of ours whom we hadn’t seen in several months. In our conversation she complained about loosing a long time friend the day before because of a discussion they had gotten into on one of the social networks. She admitted she had said several things she never would have said in person, and that because of her comments her now ex friend had terminated any-and-all future contact.
For some time both she and her husband have been known for being quit vitriolic in their interactions on the net. She is a smart lady, but I was still surprised that she had apparently learned a lesson. I hope the lesson takes and maybe, just maybe there is hope for the rest of their type. Even your commenter, Anthony.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 29, 2016 3:49 pm

I agree that for at least some people the anonymity of the internet does breed contempt, but it can also lead to an ingrained habit of vitriolic response that they may eventually consider ‘normal’ social interaction. With some it can even bleed into face-to-face communications. I have run into a couple of these cases of ‘internet socialization’ where I have come very close to applying an ‘attitude adjustment’ procedure to the problem.

stan stendera
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 30, 2016 1:32 am

I considerate one of my finest hours when due to some slight to Charles the Moderator I began to post here under my real name.

stan stendera
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 30, 2016 1:37 am

I count the day I began to post here under my real name one of my finest hours. I was standing in solidary with Charles the Moderator.

John Silver
July 29, 2016 1:08 pm

So that’s why Albert Einstein sucked at violin playing.
He thought that practice was insanity.
Well, listening to it may drive you insane.

Reply to  John Silver
July 29, 2016 1:10 pm

He was after the girls.

July 29, 2016 1:35 pm

I am thinking this guy has several generations of ancestors who were just a little bit more closely related than first cousin.

July 29, 2016 1:47 pm

Speaking from ignorance (as is my wont!) I wonder if I am closer to the clown’s identity by suggesting his initials could be G L.
Whoever it, is as others have said, he should be in a sanatorium. And I’m sorry, Anthony, that you even received one such disgusting comment.

r murphy
July 29, 2016 1:50 pm


Reply to  r murphy
July 29, 2016 2:14 pm

Definitely not. It is not remotely her style.

July 29, 2016 2:19 pm

What a sad and insecure, small-minded little person …
He is not too well up on the science, either. The compression theory works on the day they flew in the atmosphere from outer space but after a few billion years it will have equilibriated. As heat can only escape by radiation the greenhouse gases will indeed have emitted much of it back to space.

David Ball
Reply to  graphicconception
July 29, 2016 4:14 pm

You do know what a Chinook is, don’t you? Venus?

July 29, 2016 2:36 pm

Anyone who takes that much time and effort to berate, disparage and insult someone, has some serious personal confidence and esteem issues. Sadly he is attempting to compensate for his own pathetic insignificant existence ,and obvious physical shortcomings. .

Stephen Skinner
July 29, 2016 3:03 pm

Hard to know what to say because this is trolling in the extreme. Maybe this is a teenager or younger who needs to grow up, or get out more often or get help. Sounds similar to any of the conspiracists out there ranting about JFK Jnr being murdered or 9/11 cover up or chem trails or even dare I say it a Holocaust Denier. I can’t say I recognize any scientific kind of thinking in this rant as I can’t imagine Neils Bohr, Pasteur, Einstein, Mendeleev, Watt or anyone similar speaking in this way.

Bernard Lodge
July 29, 2016 3:12 pm

It’s sad that you have to put up with this kind of shameful unpleasantness. It’s like seeing a bad motor accident – you move on with your life but you cannot ‘unsee’ it. It does take a toll and no doubt adds to your stress.
There is one point in his despicable rant that I have to admit I do struggle with myself. I almost feel reluctant to raise it lest he feels in any way justified in making his personal attack on you. I often wonder why you seem to discourage discussion if it attempts to challenge the science behind the greenhouse effect?
I have read and enjoyed your site for many years now but I have never actually seen an article that goes into the greenhouse effect in detail and confirms that it is actually real and is scientifically proven. I have also noticed that whenever the science of the greenhouse gas effect is challenged, a blizzard of vicious troll attacks immediately ensues which succeeds in its probable objective and destroys any real discussion on the topic.
I am an economist by training so I cannot scientifically prove of disprove the greenhouse effect but I would like there to be an honest, open and courteous discussion about it. I have done a great deal of reading into the topic and I see at least four, real, scientific question marks that cast doubt on whether the greenhouse effect is in fact real. I would like to briefly describe them here and hope that some of the talented scientists here can explain them.
The four big doubts that I have that the greenhouse gas effect is real are:
1. Infra-red emissions are ‘Isotropic’
Isotropic means that the LWIR is emitted equally in all directions by any matter, such as a molecule of CO2. This means that when a molecule of CO2 emits LWIR radiation, as much of it goes up as goes down. That means at least half of the emissions are lost to space. If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increased, then the amount of LWIR emitted to space must increase proportionately. Since the CO2 is in the atmosphere, the atmosphere must cool down as a result. This seems to be an obvious conclusion that directly disproves the greenhouse effect.
2. Temperature changes before CO2 changes.
I believe that it is generally accepted that, surprisingly, changes in atmospheric CO2 follow changes in temperature and do not precede them. This is true in the short term and the long term. In the short term, the Mauna Loa CO2 record shows that that monthly atmospheric CO2 fluctuates up and down by 3% in line with seasonal temperature fluctuations. It’s safe to assume which way the causality is here in that changes in CO2 do not cause the seasons to change. In the long term, many ice core studies have shown that changes in atmospheric CO2 seem to lag changes in temperature by several hundred years. Both these examples indicate that CO2 is the dependent variable and temperature is the independent variable. My statistics training tells me that a dependent variable cannot be an independent variable at the same time (absent evidence of a runaway warming effect). Again, this seems to be an obvious conclusion that directly disproves the greenhouse effect.
3. A radiating body cannot heat another body above its own temperature.
The sun has a temperature of about 5500 degrees C. No matter how close the Earth gets to the sun, the temperature of the Earth cannot rise above 5500 degrees C. Even if there were two suns, each with a temperature 5500 degrees C and the Earth was right next to both, its temperature still would not go above 5500 degrees C. The maximum temperatures of two radiating bodies are not additive with respect to the maximum temperature of an an absorbing body.
OK, now consider CO2. CO2 emits LWIR with a range of wavelengths centered around 13-15 microns. This equates to a black body emitting at a temperature of -50 C to -80 C. If that is true then the LWIR emissions from CO2 cannot raise the temperature of the Earth above -50 C, no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. Again this seems to be an obvious conclusion that directly disproves the greenhouse effect.
4. There is no statistical evidence.
Despite all the CAGW models, there is no actual evidence that proves that CO2 drives up atmospheric temperatures. In the last century, Temperatures have gone up, down and stayed flat for decades at a time while CO2 levels have steadily risen. There is no clear correlation, let alone proof of causation. Whatever evidence there is of causation (see 2. above) seems to be the opposite of the greenhouse effect. I have seen some studies claim a correlation between temperature change and cumulative levels of CO2 but that seems to me to be a rather sneaky attempt to not have to explain the period between 1945 and 1975 when temperatures fell despite CO2 steadily rising. Again, this lack of actual evidence seems to lead to the obvious conclusion that the greenhouse effect is not real.
These four reasons to doubt the greenhouse effect seem very strong to me. Any one of them I would think was enough to disprove the greenhouse effect. I hope they are considered strong enough by you to allow, and even encourage, an open, honest and courteous debate as to whether the science behind the greenhouse effect is in fact wrong.
I would ask the real scientists here if they would explain why these four doubts are in fact wrong or indeed right. Please, every one else – no rants – or appeals to authority – I am genuinely looking for explanations.

Reply to  Bernard Lodge
July 29, 2016 3:30 pm

I wouldn’t ever deny the “greenhouse effect” since it is real and very tangible. The scientific arguments are around the effects and actual impacts in temperatures.
Without the greenhouse we’d be very uncomfortable cold and maybe planet earth wouldn’t be supporting any lifeforms at all

Bernard Lodge
Reply to  Andi Cockroft
July 29, 2016 4:55 pm

You are talking about the ‘blanket’ effect where the atmosphere that is held in place by gravity helps keep the Earth warm. In the blanket effect, we are warmed by nitrogen and oxygen as well as CO2. I am talking about the ‘greenhouse effect’ whereby CO2 is claimed to keep us even warmer than if we just had nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere. That is what I have doubts about.

Reply to  Andi Cockroft
July 29, 2016 5:10 pm

Andi, that’s a statement of faith.
It’s obvious the atmosphere does not cause warming by comprison with the Moon.
The lit side of the Moon gets hotter, the dark side colder, than the Earth.
The atmosphere has a _moderating_ effect, not a “greenhouse” effect.

Reply to  Andi Cockroft
July 29, 2016 6:49 pm

Bernard 4:55pm – Your comment on the blanket effect is good insight for an economist. You just need a reason N2, O2, CO2 are not equal in (your term) blanket effect.
Experimentalists have shown N2 gas has a lower measured extinction coefficient than O2, that of O2 is lower than CO2 meaning the amount of light made extinct over same distance in each gas is different. Thus light energy absorbed increases from N2 to O2 to CO2. An economist (layman, general public) can think of this coefficient difference as successfully thicker bedtime blanket effect. No faith here, all facts from test.
Sleepalot 5:10pm – Sure the moon has more extreme temperatures due much slower rotation wrt sun and some due the moderating atm. effect.
However the annual global Tmedian of the airless moon surface receiving the same amount of annual sunlight is measured roughly 200K to approx. 240-250K which is lower than Earth system at approx. 288K. That annual global Tmedian difference is Bernard’s blanket effect. Some faith in the precise numbers, fact is they are made substantially different by Earth atm.

David Ball
Reply to  Bernard Lodge
July 29, 2016 4:14 pm


David Ball
Reply to  David Ball
July 29, 2016 4:37 pm

My comment is for Bernard.
Andi Cockroft July 29, 2016 at 3:30 pm says:
I wouldn’t ever deny the “greenhouse effect” since it is real and very tangible.
Are you kidding? Tangible? Really?

David Ball
Reply to  David Ball
July 29, 2016 4:52 pm

Does that mean Greenhouse? No, it doesn’t. There are other possibilities and you know that.

Bernard Lodge
Reply to  David Ball
July 29, 2016 5:17 pm

You say:
‘Sure, tangible. Water vapor for instance. This is why dry Arizona deserts drop to 50F at night in the summer while a place at the same latitude, such as Atlanta, with high humidity might not drop below 70F if each had the same high temperature of 90F that day.’
Atlanta is warmer at night because the high water vapor in the air condenses as temperatures decline. This phase change releases a large amount of ‘latent heat of evaporation’ which is what slows the temperature decline compared to a low humidity Arizona desert. It is ‘phase change’ energy, rather than water vapor LWIR emissions. The phase change energy is a flash-release as the water vapor transforms into water droplets. The LWIR emissions from the remaining, non-condensed, water vapor are just like the CO2 LWIR emissions – they go upwards as well as downwards so the more water vapor there is, the more energy is lost to space and the faster the atmosphere cools.

Reply to  David Ball
July 29, 2016 5:29 pm

Anthony Watts July 29, 2016 at 4:48 pm wrote:
“This is why dry Arizona deserts drop to 50F at night in the summer while a place at the same latitude, such as Atlanta, with high humidity might not drop below 70F if each had the same high temperature of 90F that day.”
Yes, the desert is colder at night because it’s dry – but that’s only half the story, it’s also hotter by day because it’s dry. You not only neglected that fact – you covered it up by saying “if each had the same high temperature of 90F that day.” Why on Earth would you do that?

Reply to  David Ball
July 29, 2016 7:09 pm

Bernard 3:12pm, 5:17pm – ”LWIR is emitted equally in all directions by any matter….they go upwards as well as downwards so the more water vapor there is, the more energy is lost to space and the faster the atmosphere cools.”
There would not be a preference to cooling since you correctly write emitted in all directions.
Actually, tests show with added CO2 there is a preference to cooling in the stratosphere (lower density, pressure) and equal warming in the denser lower troposphere. Atm. global annual Tmedian measurements in the stratosphere are too sparse (compared to near surface thermometers) to render planet size precise numbers. To an economist, I think that means something like: need more funding.

Reply to  Bernard Lodge
July 29, 2016 4:57 pm

Hello Bernard, let me explain to you the flaws of some of your argumentation, which will at the same time answer your questions.
1.- “That means at least half of the emissions are lost to space. If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increased, then the amount of LWIR emitted to space must increase proportionately” >> No. CO2 cannot emit more than it traps in the first place. If CO2 were to emit twice as much in your scenario, then that would mean that it would be absorbing now half of what it would need to absorb in that one. Which would mean that the rest, not CO2-absorbed LWIR would already be fully escaping without any CO2 molecule touching it. In your scenario there would be “x” ammount of additional LWIR emitted from CO2, but “2x” less ammount of LWIR escaping the Earth without interaction with it. So in the end, there is less LWIR escaping Earth when there is more CO2.
2.- Temperature changes before CO2 changes, as long as the main source of added CO2 is the outgassing from the oceans. This outgassing is a very slow process because ocean temperatures change slowly. And the CO2 changes that it triggers are small. But in our current century, the main source of additional CO2 in the atmosphere is not the oceans. It is the burning of fossil fuels. To put in perspective, the outgassing of the oceans from the last glaciation, meant that a ~10K warming of the oceans as a whole triggered a CO2 increase of ~70ppm through milennia. There is no way that a warming of ~0.7K in the last 150 years could be the trigger of a CO2 increase of ~130ppm which is about the ammount of the increase since the start of the industrial revolution.
3.- The one thing that prevents Earth from being at temperature close to the Sun’s, is that the Earth also cools itself by radiating energy out. This radiation out is proportional to the Earth’s temperature among many other things. These other things can modify the Earth’s surface temperature at which the outgoing radiation will equal the incoming radiation. One of these things is the GHGs. Change the concentration of GHGs and you are modifying the temperature that the Earth’s surface needs to reach in order to emit as much radiation out as radiation it receives from the Sun. CO2 is not what warms the surface, it just prevents the surface from cooling enough. It makes the energy comming from the sun be greater than the energy leaving Earth’s surface. As a result, the Earth’s surface where we live, warms. It is warmed by the sun at 5500C, as it has always been and will always be. CO2 is just not letting the surface cool so easily in the same way that a blanket warms you at night despite it being colder than your body. The heat is generated by your metabolism, not by the blanket. The blanket just allows you to keep most of that energy, instead of letting it escape from your body by convection and radiation.
4.- You are right that there is little statistical evidence. But this doesn’t mean that CO2 isn’t a driver, it only means that it is not the MAIN driver. There are many more things in play which can add or substract from any effect that the CO2 may have, sometimes cancelling it and other times amplifying it.
I hope it helped.

Bernard Lodge
Reply to  Nylo
July 29, 2016 5:47 pm

Hi Nylo,
Thanks for your response. It was helpful and a great example of discussion that we get here on WUWT. With respect to your comments, I would respond:
1. I agree that CO2 cannot emit more energy than it has previously absorbed. I did not mean to imply that the CO2 emissions are doubled, I meant to say that, whatever they are, half of them will be lost to space. Thus if you increase CO2 you are increasing emissions to space which must cool the atmosphere.
2. You mention that oceans out-gassing is a slow process. You might be right here but the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere go up 3% then drop 6% to a net 3% decline each and every year, presumably driven by seasonal temperature changes. I don’t don’t think anyone really knows the precise mechanisms that drive this. My point is that these CO2 changes are caused by the temperature changes, not the other way round.
3. I agree with your point that the Earth’s temperature is driven by many factors, including ‘green house gasses’. You mention the ‘blanket effect’ – please see my response on that above to Andi Cockroft. I believe the blanket effect’ is different to the ‘greenhouse effect’. My conclusion is that all gasses act to provide a ‘blanket affect’ but the ‘greenhouse effect’ claimed for CO2 (and uncondensed water vapor) is backwards – I still believe that they in fact act to cool the atmosphere rather than warm it as I describe above.
4. I agree that a current lack of evidence doesn’t prove the ‘greenhouse effect’ is not real. However, I hope that you would agree that the lack of evidence indicates that it is currently not proven to be real.
Thanks again for your response.

Reply to  Nylo
July 29, 2016 7:12 pm

Hi again Bernard,
1.- Let’s simplify a bit and consider that Earth’s surface, because of its temperature, emits LWIR for a total value of 10 (ignore units), CO2 absorbs 4 and radiates half of that ammount back. Total emissions from planet Earth are 6 (untouched by CO2) plus half of the 4 absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 = 8. That’s how much planet earth cools. Now double CO2 and make it absorb 8 instead of 4. Total emissions from planet Earth are 2 (untouched by CO2) plus half of the 8 absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 = 2+4=6. That’s how much planet Earth cools. It is cooling LESS than before. 6 < 8. CO2 itself is emitting more to outer space, but the planet as a whole emits less, so if it is receiving the same energy as before from the sun, it inevitably warms.
2.- I was talking about long-term gains and losses of CO2. The yearly cicle is well known to be a mix of ocean outgassing and biological activity. But if it were solely by outgassing, do you know how much the overall ocean's surface temperature is changing during a year in order to achieve those 10ppm changes throughout the year? We are talking about several degrees causing that 10ppm change. Impossible to reconcile with a 130ppm CO2 change caused by a 0.7K average temperature change. DIfferent orders of magnitude. The outgassing effect, which indeed exists, is just too small to be the explanation for the "recent" (last 150 years) increase in CO2 concentration by itself.
3.- Given that the Earth only cools through radiation to space and that Nitrogen and Oxygen do not block in a significant way such radiation, they are not "blankets" in any sense. Earth would be almost just as warm without them… Well actually no, because the existence of an atmosphere helps, through convection, to keep the Earth's temperature more uniformly distributed than it would be without them. This reduces temperature extremes at the surface which would make the average temperature of the surface colder overall (because emissivity relates to the 4th power of the temperature, rather than linearly). So they do keep the average temperature higher, but in an indirect way not at all related to the way a blanket works. They keep the overall temperature warmer by promoting convection and exchange of heat between different parts of the surface, while a blanket will keep your body warm by not allowing convection (which cools the total emissions from the room overall). The moon's overall temperature is quite smaller because there is nothing carrying heat from one place in the surface to another, so temperature extremes are huge and this makes the average temperature drop. I agree that a thicker atmosphere does this better. The thicker, the more heat it carries from one place to another, and the more uniformly temperature can be distributed at the surface, but this can eventually reach a limit – when the surface has a totally uniform temperature. And it doesn't mean that the GH effect doesn't cause warming as well.
4.- Yes, from a statistical point of view, earth's temperature is no evidence. Evidence of the GH effect comes from experimentation at smaller scale.

Reply to  Nylo
July 30, 2016 10:16 am

July 29, 2016 at 4:57 pm
There is no way that a warming of ~0.7K in the last 150 years could be the trigger of a CO2 increase of ~130ppm which is about the ammount of the increase since the start of the industrial revolution.
Two things:
First, you forget, ignore or dismiss another ~0.4K warming, from the depth of LIA to the Industrial revolution period……..and that is a lot of warming dismissed, in your argument.
The thermal variation you are counting on is much bigger and steeper in reality than as claimed in your argument.
Second, if you look carefully in your comment, you may find that you make this “usual” very often made mistake of considering the emissions of CO2 the same as the CO2 concentration (ppm).
The direct relation of the thermal variation with CO2 is with the emissions not the concentrations.
The actual relation between the emissions and concentrations depends mostly in the residence time of CO2 in atmosphere, something that totally not considered in your argument, as with any other argument that tries to push the anthropogenic effect in to the CO2 concentration…..
But remember emissions are no concentration.
Hopefully you get the point.

Reply to  Nylo
July 31, 2016 3:32 am

Take 1.1K or 0.7K, it is still insufficient to provoque a 130ppm rise in CO2 concentration according to geological evidence. Never done it before. The rise that a temperature change of that ammount has caused in the past was just a few ppm. Minimum one order of magnitude lower. And it happened with an 800 years lag that obviously we are not seeing here. There is no dispute that the cause of the rise is man-made and I will not continue to argue about it.
Second, yes, the direct relation of the thermal variation with CO2 is with the emissions not the concentrations. But this has a reflection in the concentrations, if emissions increase and there are no increases of the absorption by other CO2 sinks (or not enough to compensate it), concentrations increase as well. In fact, the only evidences that we can find in the geological past relating temperature and CO2 emissions, is through the rise in concentrations. So it is the one thing that we can compare between the distant past and nowadays. And by comparing it, we know that what we are seeing is way too much CO2 concentration rise to be caused by a mere increase in the outgassing caused by temperature.

Reply to  Nylo
July 31, 2016 9:06 am

July 31, 2016 at 3:32 am
Take 1.1K or 0.7K, it is still insufficient to provoque a 130ppm rise in CO2 concentration according to geological evidence. Never done it before.
Hello again Nylo.
If you have misted, the point in my reply to you, let me make it clearer.
You had an argument build and upholding in a false premise.
Therefor the whole of your argument was considered in my point of view as such a falsity.
Now, considering what you say above, still you argument is upholding in further falsity.
Is no way that the resolution of the geological data the way it stands will provide geological evidence as you claim, that is a “blasphemy” so to speak in a rational approach to such data.
The most you can conclude, with a stretch, is that for the last 7 K years yes there is not such as this kind of event happened.
But beyond that you can not claim the same, simply because the geological data and the resolution of such data do not provide us with such a luxury as to estimate or conclude that it did not ever happen before.
Is beyond the capability and the purpose of such data the way the data stands.
“Never done it in the last 7k years”, yes, acceptable to a degree. But that does not stand or mean as “never before”.
Exploiting that deficiency of the geological evidence in a “devious” false way is no more or less than simply proving that your argument again is based in a false premise.
In my opinion no any king of reasoning can repair that mistake…..and from my point of view, regardless of the innuendos it still remains a logical fallacy and an attempt to deceive.

Reply to  Nylo
August 1, 2016 3:56 am

It is fine to consider our geological evidence coming from ice cores faulty. Even myself I consider that there is a lot of averaging in that evidence as to consider it an absolute truth, it probably omits lots of ups and downs that probably did take place. But if you disregard this evidence as faulty for any reasons, you are left with… NO EVIDENCE supporting any point of view. So at this point your position is pure wishful thinking, not based in ANY evidence but the fact that CO2 is rising at the same time as the temperatures do, which tells nothing about the cause of both. Correlation is not causation. Any PROOF that you can provide of this causation being true in the past will be based on the same geological evidence that you are here trying to say that it is faulty. Ignore it and you are left with nothing. What you cannot do is rewrite the evidence to your convenience. You cannot say “if the evidence wasn’t faulty, it would look like this, therefore it proves my point”. You have not proven a sh*t with that kind of argumentation. It reminds of alarmists trying to rewrite past temperature evidence so that it agrees with their models.

Gary Hladik
Reply to  Bernard Lodge
July 29, 2016 8:06 pm

Bernard Lodge, I see Nylo has already taken a crack at your questions, but I’ll add my 2 cents anyway:
1) “If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increased, then the amount of LWIR emitted to space must increase proportionately.”
So does the LWIR emitted downward. All else being equal, the net effect is warming of the surface. I highly recommend you read Willis Eschenbach’s article “The Steel Greenhouse”, IMHO still one of the best articles to appear on WUWT:
Note that when one adds a second shell (as if adding more CO2 to the atmosphere), the surface temp goes up, not down. Note also that not everyone in the comments section “gets” the concept.
2) “Temperature changes before CO2 changes.”
Yes, when coming out of a glacial period, due to influences other than CO2. That tells us nothing about CO2’s effect when independently varied. Also see my answer to 4) below.
3) “This equates to a black body emitting at a temperature of -50 C to -80 C. If that is true then the LWIR emissions from CO2 cannot raise the temperature of the Earth above -50 C…”
If your interpretation were correct, then a CO2 laser could not cut steel.

Note that so-called “greenhouse gasses” don’t “heat” the Earth’s surface, they “insulate” it against radiative heat loss, which is conceptually similar to the way “cold” insulation slows convective/conductive heat loss from your house.
If that’s still not clear, I recommend the “Yes, Virginia” article on Dr. Roy Spencer’s site, although again not all the commenters “get” it:
4) “In the last century, Temperatures have gone up, down and stayed flat for decades at a time while CO2 levels have steadily risen.”
The so-called “greenhouse principle” says: All else being equal, increasing the concentration of atmospheric “greenhouse gasses” will increase the Earth’s surface temperature. Since all else is never equal, it’s not surprising that there’s poor correlation between CO2 and temperature. However, the so-called “greenhouse effect” is both real and measurable. This article has charts of both up- and down-welling infrared radiation:
It’s an alarmist site, but both sides of the CAGW debate agree on the basic physics (except for a few on the fringes, not to name names).
Roy Spencer also did some back yard sky measurements:
To summarize, there are good reasons to doubt the alarmists’ Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming scenarios, but the existence of the so-called “greenhouse effect” isn’t one of them.

Jonas U
Reply to  Gary Hladik
July 31, 2016 12:03 pm

The warm blanket theory of planetary atmosphere suffers the devastating flaw that the sun side stream of infrared is five times more powerful than the earth side stream,
and the resulting effect is a double digits’ percent decrease in radiant energy density striking the earth’s surface. It’s identical to being in a sunny area and spreading a translucent tarp overhead catching/refracting away 20% of the sunlight.
You’ll get under it because it’s cooler if only by that 20%.
This is why the warm blanket theory was immediately run from in public, but leaked to the uncomprehending public again and again by government agencies anxious to mollify the public, after the initial inquiries into potential fraud in the AGW movement.
The very first resort by AGW proponents was warm blanket. The problem is that people can analyze the use of blankets to block heat. In fact in basic fire safety people are taught,
that if you are in a structure and there is a fire, to *grab a blanket and wrap yourself so you can block the higher-energy stream from reaching your own clothes and skin.
When the high energy stream is on the outside of any blanket type structure, this is always the case. The blanket constitutes a cooling baffle, reducing energy density
and temperature along with it.
Blankets too cool things are also used heavily in engine compartments.
People latching onto this devastating blow to warm blanket atmosphere explanation immediately was one of the first things that drove AGW proponents under ground somewhat, where they stopped doing guest blog posts, and answering questions about the truth of their claimed analogies.
That analogy’s just wrong if the sun-side stream of infrared is larger than the earth’s by any amount at all, and it’s five times stronger than the earth’s infrared emissions density.

Bernard Lodge
Reply to  Gary Hladik
August 10, 2016 1:58 pm

Gary, thanks for the great reply … it will take me weeks to go through your links, but I will do that.

Robert Austin
Reply to  Bernard Lodge
July 29, 2016 8:34 pm

Bernard Lodge,
Discussions of the so called greenhouse effect have occurred numerous times over the years on this site and other climate science blogs to the point that the arguments seem to be going nowhere. Dr. Roy Spencer has articulately explained the greenhouse effect on his website and suffered thread bombing by the indefatigable nut bar Doug Cotton to the point that he suspended comments for a while. So before asking Anthony to reopen the can of worms that is the greenhouse effect, I suggest you search for and read the discussions that have already taken place. I get weary of digging out my boilerplate “greenhouse effect” explanation every time somebody wants to reopen the subject.

Phillip Bratby
Reply to  Bernard Lodge
July 30, 2016 1:49 am

The “greenhouse effect” works well in a greenhouse and similar structures. However, you only have to look at things like Trenberth’s Earth energy budget diagram to see it is nonsense in the open atmosphere. Notice in the diagram that only about a third of energy absorbed at the earth’s surface comes from the sun. They have to invent about two thirds of the energy absorbed coming from a mythical source of energy in the atmosphere. If ever you coma across a full 3-dimensional time dependent model of how the greenhouse effect works in the earth’s atmosphere, please let us all know.

Gary Hladik
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
July 30, 2016 9:54 pm

“… a mythical source of energy in the atmosphere.”
I’m not following this argument. Are you saying the Earth’s atmosphere (on the dark side of the Earth, for example) doesn’t radiate energy toward the surface?

July 29, 2016 3:24 pm

I assume that some sort of cut backs in psychiatric services is allowing such people out in the real world amongst rational folks.
Good rant though – typically expresses the diatribe of those with no argument other than ad hominem.

Steve from Rockwood
July 29, 2016 3:40 pm

Reading through the barrage there were some compliments to be found. Especially the following:
That is a compliment (more of an acknowledgement on the author’s part) to WUWT if you can get past the initial slap in the face.

Robert from oz
July 29, 2016 3:43 pm

Almost reminds me of Chevy Chases rant on “Christmas vacation” , they call us the flat earth society what a joke .
Good that you can brush it off and see it for what it is .

July 29, 2016 3:48 pm

He just finished burning the American flag and is angry that Bernie lost.

Reply to  OrganicFool
July 29, 2016 4:09 pm

He must have been the one who caught his clothing on fire when he tried to burn the American flag.
And consider that Anthony only got this one negative post out of 428 total. It doesn’t get much better than that.

Reply to  TA
July 29, 2016 4:44 pm

Feelin’ the Bern! Triggered SJW.

July 29, 2016 4:35 pm

YourWifeCouldntStandTheStupid has posted here under lots of different screen names. Among them:
Allen Eltor/Allen B. Eltor
Norman Woods
James Rollins, Jr.
Climate Science Researcher
Steven Richard Vada
A.E. Soledad
Bill from Nevada
Aaron C
Richard Vadal
Bill Wright
Climate Physicist & Researcher
Steven R. Vada
Science Author
Aaron C.
That’s a partial list.

Reply to  dbstealey
July 29, 2016 7:39 pm

dbs 4:35pm – Thanks for that interesting list. In other news, given the top post, are y’all looking into these developments:
“…a three judge panel concluded Power violated the CFAA because the company continued using Facebook’s website even being explicitly warned to stop.”

Robert from oz
Reply to  dbstealey
July 30, 2016 5:17 am

Why would anyone need so many alias’s .

David Jay
Reply to  dbstealey
July 30, 2016 4:08 pm

NCC1701 also, IIRC