Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I came across a lovely photograph of a “fire devil”, also called a “fire whirl”. I liked it because the photo perfectly exemplified what is wrong with the current generation of climate models.

What is wrong with the models is that they don’t include any of the vortex-based emergent atmospheric phenomena like fire devils.
Let me start with the concept of “emergent phenomena”. Emergent phenomena are phenomena which:
- Emerge spontaneously from the background when certain thresholds are exceeded. Below the threshold there are none. Above the threshold, the number emerging can increase very rapidly.
- Have a lifetime.
- Move, adapt, and change in response to environmental conditions.
- Eventually dissipate, fade away, and die out.
- In addition, emergent phenomena generally are not naively predictable from looking at the underlying conditions.
Here’s a way to understand naive predictability when it comes to emergence. Suppose we were members of a tribe on a remote island where clouds never formed. Day after day, the sun came up and went down in a cloudless sky.
Imagine if, after generations of living like that, one day people looked up and were terrified to see a large, white, seemingly solid object had formed out of nothingness right above them! Would it fall? Would it harm them? The priests did incantations and read entrails. They prayed nothing would happen to the people. Nothing happened. The priests were given extra respect, they were clearly the cloud-masters.
Of course, once it happened over and over, day after day, people would give it a name, like “tropical thermal-generated cumulus cloud”, or maybe “cotton-ball cloud”, and go on living. Day after day. More generations pass. Life is boring again. Every morning around eleven, the first cotton-ball cloud appears. In a very short time, the sky is covered. It brings blessed cooling by blocking out the hot tropical sun. The cloud priests wax fat and multiply.
Then after centuries of such bliss, imagine if one day, one of the nice friendly cotton-ball clouds in the sky suddenly grew taller and taller, until it towered menacingly above the people. A sudden wind came up out of nowhere, and things got cooler. Then, the rain pounded down … consternation! Water from the sky! The priests claimed it was from their prayers and incantations.

Finally, just when the priests were about to finish saying their orisons to the cloud gods, there was a blinding bright white flash and then a huge sound … and of the eleven priests, four were untouched, five were burnt in strange patterns by the wrath of the sky-god, and two were dead.
The remaining living priests said they had escaped by virtue of their arcane arts, and were worshipped until their deaths as lightning priests and sons of the lightning gods.
…
Now, all of those phenomena, the tropical clouds, the rain, the cumulus growing into a thunderstorm, the lightning, every one is an emergent phenomenon. They all emerge spontaneously when a certain threshold is passed. They all exist for some length of time. They move and change based on environmental conditions. At the end of their lifetime they all fade, dissipate and die.
And as the priests in the story found out … none of these emergent phenomena are naively predictable from knowledge of the conditions from which they emerge.
With that as an introduction to emergent phenomena, let me return to the fire devil.
To me, it seems that far too often, climate scientists are looking for causes rather than looking at effects. This is particularly true with emergent climate phenomena like clouds and thunderstorms. Too many climate scientists ask “Why do thunderstorms form? What causes them?”.
Me, I try to avoid looking at causes for emergent phenomena. Instead, I consider their actions. I ask “What do they do? What is different from when they are born to when they die out? What is their overall effect?”
So, why are all of these emergent phenomena important to the climate and thus to the climate models?
Because all of them have the same effect—they cool the surface. Cumulus clouds cool the surface by reflecting the sun back to space. Storm-generated wind cools the surface by greatly increasing evaporation, just as a fan cools a sweating person. And tropical rain plus the entrained vertical rain-wind can leave you shivering even on a warm day.
These emergent phenomena all cool the surface because they are all generated in response to the surface being much warmer than the atmosphere. They are all heat engines, driven by what is called “delta T”, a temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere.
The global climate models cannot model thunderstorms, much less have them spontaneously emerge from a relatively uniform background. One problem is that their gridcells are too large, much larger than thunderstorms and most other emergent phenomena that cool the surface.
So … consider the irony:
The climate models are attempting to model the surface temperature without including the very phenomena that cool the surface.
But wait, it’s worse than that. In addition, the models don’t contain one of the more common ways of moving energy aloft, the humble vortex. Not only is it common, it is incredibly efficient. Consider the photo of the fire devil again, which I’ve re-posted below.

Look at the effect of the fire devil. Rather than heating the mass of the surrounding air, and rather than mixing smoke and other byproducts with the surrounding air, a vortex functions like a pipe. It pipes the hot air and the combustion byproducts through the surrounding air with only the most minimal of mixing. Look how all the smoke is contained in the vortex, with no visible surrounding cloud of particles.
One of the most common and most important climate examples of a vortex is the tower of a thunderstorm cloud. It is a huge pipe-shaped vortex moving an incredible amount of warm air in a vertical helix from the base of the cloud to the upper troposphere. This vortex is totally contained within the cloud and is not interacting with the surrounding atmosphere either physically or radiatively.
Consider the full voyage of a bit of heat moved by a thunderstorm from the surface to the top of the troposphere. At the surface, the heat evaporates some water, cooling the surface. Then it is carried as latent heat up to the underside of the thunderstorm by the vertical circulation under the storm.
Inside the thunderstorm base, the incoming water vapor condenses, releasing the latent heat as sensible heat. This constant source of heat from condensing water vapor is what stokes first the vertical development of the thunderstorm tower vortex, and then pumps massive amounts of warm air up the vortex to the top of the troposphere.
Note that just as in the fire devil above, the air in the thunderstorm tower is NOT interacting in any way with the surrounding atmosphere.
Here’s the curious part. This means that there are escape holes in the greenhouse effect. Consider it once again from the surface upwards.
A bit of heat evaporates some water at the surface. It is now latent heat in some lifting parcel of air. Because as latent heat it doesn’t warm the air parcel, it doesn’t increase the shortwave radiation. It’s not interacting radiatively with the atmosphere.
After the latent heat is lifted up through the bottom of the thunderstorm, it condenses as sensible heat. But it is condensing inside the cloud, so once again there is only the most minimal of radiative interaction with the atmosphere.
And this isolation from the surroundings continues as the re-warmed air parcel travels up the vortex inside the thunderstorm tower. Only after the air parcel emerges from the top of the atmosphere, along with a few ice crystals, does the air parcel start interacting radiatively with the surroundings.
And of course, at that point it is far above all of those pesky greenhouse gases, and free to radiate to space.
Now, think about this a minute. There are actual physical tunnels through the greenhouse effect which let surface heat escape directly to the upper troposphere.
Through these vortex-driven vertical pipes inside thunderstorm towers, surface heat is rapidly spiraled vertically to high altitudes where it is free to radiate to space, untouched by the greenhouse effect. Estimates are that at any time there are on the order of 2,000 active thunderstorms on earth.
Now, if these escape holes for excess heat were located randomly it would be one thing. But they are not.
Instead, they form exactly where they are most effective—over a local area that is warmer than its surroundings. They preferentially cool the warmest parts of the surface.
And this is why I started by saying that the fire devil shows the problem with the current generation of climate models. The current models don’t have a couple thousand self-organizing escape tunnels for surface heat that form spontaneously and preferentially over the hottest parts of the modeled surface.
And that’s not including dust devils and waterspouts, the more pedestrian but much more numerous cousins of the giant vortex in the thunderstorm …
Finally, consider that fire devils and dust devils and cumulus clouds and thunderstorms are all driven by delta T, the difference in temperature between the surface and the atmosphere. In general the peak difference is in the mid-day and afternoon, when the surface is warm. The emergence of the escape tunnels for surface heat that we call thunderstorms typically occurs in the afternoon.
This means that the proliferation of thunderstorms once the local threshold is exceeded is a large part of what prevents the tropics from overheating. They bleed off excess energy very efficiently, removing immense amounts of energy from the hottest parts of the surface in the hottest parts of the day and moving it high in the sky. Get rid of it before it causes trouble.
(Thunderstorms can also continue into the night, in part because thunderstorms are a dual-fuel heat engine. They can run on either warm air or humid air, and they generate their own humid air from winds under the base of the storm. But I digress …)
Finally, the existence of spontaneously emerging escape tunnels for excess heat exactly where they are most needed means that temperature is NOT a simple function of forcing as the climate models assume. Instead, it implies a practical upper limit on surface temperature.

Best of a warm summer afternoon to you all, stay safe, dodge the storms, I send good thoughts to those in smoky air, high winds, pounding rain, and all the vagaries of the atmosphere.
w.
My Usual Request: Misunderstandings start easily and can last forever. I politely request that commenters QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU DISAGREE WITH, so we can all understand your objection.
My Second Request: Please do not stop after merely claiming someone is using the wrong dataset or the wrong method. I may well be wrong, as may anyone, but such observations are not meaningful until you add a link to the proper dataset or an explanation of the right method.
Max temp of the tropical oceans seems to be between 31 and 32C.?
vortex . . . wormhole.
To the moderater!
I would like to send Willis Eschenbach an e-mail conversation with the “Geoengineering Group” about hurricane moderation and all kind of “devils”.
Could you ask him if he could provide his e-mail address.
I also would like to send this to WUWT.
Juergen Michele
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Juergen Michele
Jade Hochschule
Wilhelmshaven
Tel.: 0049 4461 83043
E-Mail: juergen.michele@jade-hs.de
Homepage: http://michele.staff.jade-hs.de/
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juergen_Michele/contributions
Private:
Soestestr. 3
26419 Schortens
et les “feux follets” vous connaissez ?
“Thunderstorms can also continue into the night, in part because thunderstorms are a dual-fuel heat engine. They can run on either warm air or humid air, and they generate their own humid air from winds under the base of the storm. But I digress …”
Willis, first off, thank you for bringing understanding and clarity to the way these magnificent heat engines work. Brilliant.
With regards to your digression, could it be that the contraction that occurs when water vapour turns back to water as it condenses resulting in a lowering of pressure relative to the surrounding air be part of the way a thunderstorm works? It might in part explain why they keep on going into the night.
As a teen living in Johannesburg in South Africa I constantly marvelled at how a hot summers day with not a cloud in the sky could transmogrify in a few hours, one wispy cloud at a time, into giant thunderstorms with it raining cats and dogs which continued late into the night.
Willis, if you get the opportunity you may enjoy this…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/spherical-heat-pipe-earth/
…oh and Willis and all, check out the comments as well.
…Mosher even makes a non sarcastic non carping and thoughtful comment.
David A September 9, 2017 at 3:24 am, a very interesting link!
I found this comment:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/spherical-heat-pipe-earth/#comment-20175
“Ian W says: 11 July 2011 at 9:58 am: If you look at
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/natl/flash-rb.html and
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/natl/flash-wv.html
You can actually see the ‘heatpipe’ output as infrared at the cloud tops. In the dry areas of the atmosphere no peaks of infrared.”
WR: By the first link you can see the actual infrared from the cloud tops of actual hurricanes: in this animation Irma and José are very well visible.
The second link shows a water vapour loop: the role of water (vapour). Very common.
Willis, it occurs to me that the concept of ‘self-emergent phenomena’ might also be a useful concept in sociology when studying the emergence of organisation in society. The organisation of, say, a village council might occur spontaneously as any settlement grows, leading to increasingly complex government structures. Do you know if anyone has looked at this?
I am also tempted to think of a Green vortex as a self-emergent phenomenon, driven by a flow of money. It has become organised into a giant vortex feeding off the cash it sucks off the dirt people to throw into the cloud people. I could waste half a day just adding analogies!
Thanks for your writings, you’re one of the people who really make me think!
Willis, sorry to thread bomb but do you or anyone have expertise on the measuring history of hurricanes?
We appear to have gone from ground based anemonitors to, about 1950s, flying into storms, to satellites with various instruments for each of the three methods. I have found out the plane readings we get are based on 10 sec duration, not one minute sustained as in ground based 10 m readings. I do not know the duration of the dropsondes also delivered from hurricane flights. I do not know how the recording instruments have changed.
All of this leaves one very large question as to how do we, for example, compare the labor day hurricane some 82 years ago to Irma, or Harvey, which, based on ground based only readings was likely a CAT 2. Or, for instance, how to compare modern “ACE” measurements to past active seasons.
It appears likely that past tropical systems were underestimated relative to today, and possible that even 1970s and later systems and events were under sampled and recorded relative to today’s 24 -7 monitoring and computer analysis. Yet with billions spent on CAGW research, this has not been done. ( Leif S did this with sunspots, but I guess we cannot do this now as the answers don’t fit the narrative)
[quote](Thunderstorms can also continue into the night, in part because thunderstorms are a dual-fuel heat engine. They can run on either warm air or humid air, and they generate their own humid air from winds under the base of the storm. [/quote]
I am not in any way disagreeing with you (since I know so little), but have a question. Last month two small thunderstorms that came through here at roughly 2 AM – two days in a row! I can’t ever remember having thunderstorms at that time of day before. I live in rural NE Wyoming, near the Black Hills. The humidity here (on the ground anyway) was less than 30% those mornings. We have had wildfires all around for weeks too.
Can you shed any light on why we would have thunderstorms at 2 AM?
Not sure if this counts as energent phenomenon but about this time of year to December we wake up to great billowing clouds over the Great Lakes as they give up their summertime heat through evaporation. The lake surface temperatures drop from 20-25 C to a couple degrees C like clockwork, it’s about the same rate of drop every year.
https://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/statistic/avg-sst.php?lk=m&yr=0
I love this article. Loooove it…
Finally, the greenhouse is smashed to pieces.
I hope everyone understands this, the information in the article is not in anyway compatible with a greenhouse effect. This is because the article is true, and the GH-theory is a lie.
Good work.
lifeisthermal
September 9, 2017 at 5:33 am
“………..This is because the article is true, and the GH-theory is a lie.”
————————————
I agree with the article being considered true, but still considering what you call a GH-theory as a lie, is a bit far gone conclusion, as in the case of considering GCMs a lie, or climate models.
I think is more a case of misinterpretation, intentional and some times forceful, than a plain lie.
If I may put it in a very simple way, this article of Willis tries to explain how little effect dRF (delta Radiative Forcing) has to delta T.
But you see, that is not the case about the delta E (energy). Still the effect of dRF is significant to dE.
And there is a threshold to be considered when dE addressed.
The difference between GCMs and reality is that the GCMs do a significant dT due to the dE as the result of dRF, aka the GCM warming, a plain and simple RF warming, which actually does not happen in nature.
cheers
Ok, I accept what you write, for a moment. Because I looove this article. But lets just agree to disagree for the moment. We, the sceptics, are riding on a beautiful wave at the moment. Lets enjoy it together. But be prepared… Because something like, maybe quantum gravity, might come along and grind the gh-effect to dust
Cheers/Lit
This article is very good, and reinforces my own recent impressions. In the last couple of years I got my pilot’s license and began flying over prairies and mountains in all four seasons. My aircraft is limited to 14,000′ or so which means I am always in the weather. In aviation you spend a lot of time studying convective weather patterns. What has become apparent to me is the degree to which surface temperature is a very limited picture of what weather really is. In a winter inversion where I live, it can be minus 20c on the ground, and plus 5c in the circuit 1000′ feet up. Or in summer, the lapse rate steepens so much in the mid-afternoon that a flight is like being on a roller coaster. Anyone who has been in a small plane in convective weather knows how powerful these forces can be even before towering cumulus begin to form. If you fly through a towering cumulus, it’s like being in a tumble dryer. Not recommended. Then, fly into an area where a thunderstorm has already been and the air is stable again.
The point is, the AGW religion really is a flat earth society. Climate is the whole thing, not one thin layer. If you can’t model in three dimensions with convective forces, sorry, you got nothin’ at all.
D P Laurable
September 9, 2017 at 6:03 am
The point is, the AGW religion really is a flat earth society. Climate is the whole thing, not one thin layer. If you can’t model in three dimensions with convective forces, sorry, you got nothin’ at all.
————————————-
Yes, but them guys are not to be ignored.
Even when there is a lot of noise and furore about AGW, technically the weight is now in the ACC, the goal posts have being changed.
And as far as I can tell, if ignoring the dE resulting due to dRF and the contemplated threshold of dE (as for my above reply) then ACC still there technically, if anthropogenic emissions are causing the CO2 concentration trend, as it keeps being claimed……..:)
cheers
Emergent phenomenon is another way of describing convection. Add in all of the water evaporation/condensation and radiation transport in the troposphere is well under 50% of the heat transport. I had to think about Dr.Trenbert’s heat budget drawing put up by Steve Case. The net longwave heat transport in the troposphere shown there is 396-333 = 63 W/m^2. Thermals and evapo-transpiration is 17+80 =97 W/m^2 so radiation transport is only 39% of the total. The warmists are claiming that a minor change in that 39% due to CO2 will have large bad effects. If CO2 has a small effect on the convection and evaporation/condensation in the 61% of the heat transport, this would provide the negative feedback that would reduce the effect of more CO2.
The modellers are assuming a fixed dynamic system and claim a increase in CO2 back radiation will warm the surface waters and increasing water vapor and amplifying the effect. Changes in the radiation would only be in the 39% of the total heat transport. A small change in the dynamics for the 61% of the heat transport would have 1.54 times the effect.
Consider a clear air rising packet of moist air cooling at the dry adiabatic rate. A increase in CO2 will absorb a little more of the net upward long wave radiation, slightly warming the packet and delaying the onset of condensation. I suspect that this will end up slightly increasing the height of the tropopause with a corresponding drop in the temperature of the tropopause. This would cause slightly more water to condense out. The resulting cooled and dryer descending air would be have less water vapor and intercept less of the up-welling longwave radiation and would be slightly cooler when it reached the ground.
Convection and evaporation/condensation would increase due to an increase in CO2 and it would reduce the effect of the decrease in radiation transport. The critical region to understand would be between the bottom and the tops of the clouds. Current climate models don’t do clouds.
Basic Thermodynamics goes a long way. Entropy will always increase…………
I think Richard Lindzen had a similar thought process when he introduced the “Iris Effect” theory in 2001. It was dismissed by the warming-faithful, but more recent work seems to have affirmed the idea.
An excellent and very educational post. Several people have referred to fire vortices and one example that I would point to is the horrific vortice of fire after the last great Tokyo earthquake which caused the city to burn in a fierce firestorm. As tens of thousands looked for somewhere to flee to, they were directed onto some island mudflats by the local police, thinking the people would be safe there. Soon some ten thousand (if I remember rightly) people were crowded onto these islands. Then a huge fire vortice generated by the firestorm swept out of the burning city and tragically went across the bay straight over the mudflats where the people were sheltering. Thousands were instantly incinerated by this fire tornado. The poor chief of police who had thought he was saving lives subsequently committed suicide and it must have been horrendous for him to have seen the fate of his people. Presumably these vortices can, as in the Tokyo example, get extremely large depending on what feeds their initial conditions and then leave their point of origin to assume a dangerous and unpredictable course.
“There are reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Some scientists in their laboratories [are] trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific, so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes [and] volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.”
–- William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense, 1997
—————————————————————————————
That quote is not fake news: There is (or was) a Youtube video of Cohen making this remark during an impromptu q&a session at Georgia Tech.
Reckon any progress in these areas has been made since 1997? Reckon the USAF was blowing smoke when it stated in 2005 that its goal was “owning the weather” by 2025? Reckon they were the only folks working on this? Could the “atmospheric heaters” (phased-array microwave transmitters) built by the US, Russia and others be used to create an energy vortex to influence storms? (And if a technology exists that steers and intensifies hurricanes, wouldn’t that be an act of war, Mr Putin?) Reckon Climate Change™ is a cover story for climate manipulation?
Are these “vortex” dust devils, fire dogs, etc. following the same principles, rules, etc. as the vortex that appears when you drain your bathtub? That is do they rotate in the opposite direction south of the equator? The typical bathtub, kitchen sink vortex only takes about an inch or so of water to create this vortex, which is not very much difference in pressure. I have seen many of the dust devils when walking through plowed fields on a hot day. Which begs the question “Do they also exist on most hot days but are not visible because they are not picking up any dust which is needed to make them visible?”
So let me see if I understand this: An almost-thunderstorm will keep its heat near ground level up to the point to which it becomes an actual thunderstorm which then transfers its heat, via a pipe it creates, up from the ground level to the upper atmosphere.
Nifty.
If the above is true then someone living in an area that possesses thunderstorm conditions will end up being cooler than someone living in an area that has almost-thunderstorm conditions.
Again, nifty.
The vortex is one of the great underrated phenomena neglected by science. All energy seems to move in a vortex under the right conditions. Your toilet does and so do Birkeland currents. Does light? Cosmic rays? Heat transfer in solid objects? Why does lightening (a vortex) sometimes form during volcanic eruptions? Many areas of research untapped.
A long time ago when we sprayed cattle with DDT to keep the flies away (and sometimes each other, before idiots outlawed it) I was on horseback helping to gather them for one of the three or four times a year. Lighting began appearing on the small hills next to the one I was on at the time, for several seconds. It did seemed to appear all at once, flicker a few times then stop. No rain was falling, as other bolts struck further away. I was about 16 at the time, but the memory stays. To dumb to be scared, I watched the show, until our neighbor asked to take his son to the house, about two miles distant, during which it started to rain, and the bolts began to stop. The lighting flickered when in contact with the earth–sometimes longer then others.
All it takes
Is symmetry breaks.
This fits very well with my own thoughts, that I have percolated for quite awhile, a hurricane is a heat transport device. A friend of mine (kind of a conspiracy theorist) was talking about the government seeding tropical disturbance areas (with an unspecified chemical) to prevent them developing into hurricanes. I told him it would be a bad idea, whether or not the technology exists, it would be an extremely bad idea. Because if it is successful, if that seeding prevents a tropical disturbance from growing into a hurricane, it has stopped a heat transport from occurring, one that MUST occur or such a device as a hurricane would not exist, then where does that heat emerge? What unintended side affects occur? Would such a suppression exacerbate any effects Mankind does inflict on our environment (while I am certain CAGW is a crock, I can clearly see the effects mankind has on the environment all around us)? That sort of speculation could be an entire disaster movie all by itself, probably even better than “The Day After Tomorrow”!
Willis, I’ve been thinking about your vortex theory the past day or so. A tornado is just that on a larger scale. It feeds itself but a frontal boundary often sets it off. A hurricane is possibly considered the same thing but on a much bigger scale.
Now my thoughts have been focused on the ‘boundary’ between/along the hurricane eye wall. There are kinetic wind forces along that eye wall that would seem to set up vortices that would multiply the effect of a ‘piping’ situation. With the updraft in the inner hurricane (not inside the eye wall) those vortices may (probably) form and be carried upward as the air expands and immediately be replaced by another. Would this be shown by the observations of a ‘boiling’ effect just outside the eye wall as seen on the top of hurricanes?
In a nutshell , vortices within a vortex? Scale matters?
To further expand on my thoughts regarding vortices along the hurricane eye wall. Could the sondes being dropped by the hurricane hunters be reading the speeds contained within the vortices created by the kinetic and piping effect? The atmospheric/sonde measured values seem to be inflated by about 50% greater than the ground measurements. NOAA needs to get a grip on this discrepancy as they are looking foolish or worse.
@Brad Keyes September 9, 2017 at 7:17 am
“…thousands of the IPCC’s top computer modellers [sic] have all tried desperately to come up with a natural explanation. And failed laughably.” Ouch. I think my uncontrollable eye roll just sprained a muscle. So you’re saying, if it can’t be modeled, it must not exist in the natural world? I think you got it precisely bass-ackward. (Notice I didn’t even begin to point out that the IPCC allegedly does no analysis of their own, they just compile the latest science published by researchers, at least that’s what they claim, and therefore there can be no such thing as an “…IPCC… top computer modeler…”.) This would also begin to explain the obsession with altering records throughout the world… if the facts don’t fit my pet theory (which has brought me millions of dollars in “research” grants, of course a chauffeured limo is strictly research, and not a little notoriety, who needs any Nobel Prize for new and original research when parroting the Party Line pays so well!), the facts must be wrong! Or did you just forget the “/sarc” tag and all my analysis was misdirected?
Red94ViperRT10,
the latest W3 consortium’s HTML5 Reference—which is basically the Oxford Dictionary of HTML As She Is Now Spoken—makes no mention of a sarc tag.
I don’t mean to be indelicate, but:
Is that just another denihilist urban myth, I wonder—like Ian Plimer’s “underwater volcanoes” and the “31,000 skeptical climate experts who signed the Oregon Petition in a nakedly anti-scientific attempt to marginalize disagreement by the ancient fallacy of appealing to overwhelming majority”?
Because if so, John Cook needs to know immediately.