The earnest, doom-laden climate change debate: or why I’m going to start enjoying myself more

I’ve been blogging on climate for several years now.

Sometimes intensely, while at other times I need a break. The length of such breaks can depend on my personal commitments, inclination and – to be honest – despair with the level of debate. Thus I really appreciate those readers who have been patient with my erratic publishing schedule.

I’m now at the point where I feel simply cataloging the errors of the denial movement is a waste of time. I began this project thinking that the presentation of facts would correct people’s misunderstandings of the science (the information deficit theory). Of course, we all know facts have nothing to do with ones acceptance or rejection of the science. A persons values and world view have a far more persuasive effect.

Honestly, how many more times can one say “X said Y, here is fact Z that disproves that…”

The denial movement has proven itself immune to facts, having adopted the strategy of the “great big lie”.

Really, all they do is repeat the line “the climate is not changing” over, and over until a sufficient number of people believe them. Cynical? Of course. Effective? Very much.

I’ve also found that new sites such as The Conversation are producing some brilliant analysis of the denial movement and the politics of climate change. So, rather than simply regurgitating the same talking points, I’ve decided to make this a far more enjoyable exercise for myself and readers.

I’d prefer “Watching the deniers” to be different to other blogs and sites.

So the tone of my posts will become far more satirical… and maybe a little more snarky. Nor will I spare either side of the debate: no one is immune from pontificating or making fundamental errors of fact or strategies. Yesterday’s post on the ABC’s woeful “I can change your mind on climate” should be proof of my non-alignment.

I pride myself on being independent: it may surprise the “deniers” out there but I’m not of the radical left. Nor am I associated with any political party. I’ve stated again and again I’m neither against markets or technology. I rather like civilisation… it gives me things like iPads and the internet.

Accepting the science does make you left-wing.

It makes you pro-science. 

Yesterday’s post is indicative of what to expect. Some of you may enjoy the change, will others will find it less far less serious and  journalistic. I may take a while to find the right balance, but I’m happy to experiment with content and tone.

Top be frank, I think we could all do with a few laughs. Thus I’ll be mixing science with satire…

Hope you enjoy.


125 thoughts on “The earnest, doom-laden climate change debate: or why I’m going to start enjoying myself more

  1. dal101 says:

    “Really, all they do is repeat the line “the climate is not changing” over, and over….”

    Really! What bullsh*t! Now listen.

    The Climate is changing. The Climate is changing. The Climate is changing. The Climate is changing. The Climate is changing.

    Mind you, I see that you were talking about the denialist movement. Is that the people who deny the missing hotspot? Is that the deniers who do not accept the evidence of the ice cores that show that temperature rise comes first forcing the rise in atmospheric CO2?

    The sceptics aren’t deniers like those people. The sceptics all agree that climate is changing, climate has always changed.

    The sceptics do not accept the falsified hypothesis that MAN-MADE Co2 emissions are causing runaway global warming.

    • klem says:

      The climate IS changing. For example there are droughts is places which are arid, there are rain storms in rainforests, it is cold in Antarctica and it is hot in Death Valley. What more evidence do you need? Sheesh!

    • john byatt says:

      You are pretty much on your own there Dal101, denying the greenhouse effect.

    • rossbrisbane says:


      Parrots can shriek – “the climate is changing” as well. Perhaps even “the sky is falling”.

      This cosmic ray theory is out there – this theory rightfully is highly suspect and cannot be proven as much as the CO2 evidence can be supported as REAL EFFECT. Right under your nose is that invisible smell less gas. It not just climate change – its CO2 increasing – CO2 increasing – CO2 increasing and CO2 relentless increases.

      Skeptical deniers hide behind cliches. They also hide behind false accusations about science of ICE cores, Radiative non-science argument, Cosmic rays, fudge data accusations, conspiracy of argumentation amongst those who support AGW, wild false denigrating of mainstream science and influence of right wing extremists or should say – wriggle politics with a dash of religious up bringing or fresh revivalism they have not worked through yet.

      You are a DENIER. You are a DENIER. You are DENIER. You distort facts parroted from Watts Up. He is an aging non-qualified climate amateur who admits he does not understand the complexities of radiative forcing. CO2 and would rather follow any Harry “dicked” up load of data cobbled together denial crap or photoshop graphs by denial Web Bloggers and straight disinformation regarding the science.

      You are placing your children and future generations in jeopardy. You are a self-centred consumer driven fool hook-winked by clever cliche.

      I have no doubt you will vote one: Mad Abbott on polling day. Fool you are. In ten years time you will regret even writing what you have and you will want apologise to my face if you could. I await that day when folk like you line up to many and apologise for your stupidity.

      Good day to you.

  2. dal101 says:

    “The denial movement has proven itself immune to facts, having adopted the strategy of the “great big lie”. Really, all they do is repeat the line “the climate is not changing” over, and over ”

    That may be true for the denial movement. As for the sceptics, they have always insisted that the climate is changing.

    The Climate IS changing.
    The Climate IS changing.
    The Climate IS changing.
    The Climate IS changing.
    The Climate IS changing.

    oh, and perhaps I should add…..The Climate IS changing.

    The trouble is the Alarmists tried to re-write the past to show that the climate used not to change by means of MBH98 fraudulent “hockey stick graph.

    The sceptics do not accept the falsified hypothesis that MAN-MADE CO2 emissions are causing runaway global warming.

    We do accept the empirical data from ice cores that shows that temperatures rise forcing the following rise in atmospheric CO2.

    Do you deny that empirical data?

    • klem says:

      But didn’t some scientist recently prove that other ice cores record CO2 changes BEFORE temperature?

      Perhaps what they managed to do was instill some doubt regarding the use of ice cores for paleoclimate data.

    • john byatt says:

      Your blog post parroting of goddard was really sad Dal101,
      You do realise that the graph depicts percentages and not actual totals?

      2011 September ice, equal lowest extent with 2007 (NSIDC)
      lowest volume ever in the record (PIOMAS)

      and you put that up without even understanding it.

      what a dropkick you are,


  3. JN says:

    Well done for attempting to change your tack. It is incredibly depressing to be continually facing the “inevitability” of global catastrophe.

    It seems clearer and clearer that no actual scientific evidence will be sufficient to get deniers to change their views. And in the end they will continually repeat statements that have been refuted time after time.

    Of course the next step is to work out what we can do to (somehow) change our direction…


    • Watching the Deniers says:

      I’m very careful to avoid the word “catastrophe”.

      I believe the word “disruption” is more appropriate. Or to borrow a phrase from economics, “creative destruction” (Schumpeter).

      Some industries/states will go into into rapid decline.

      Climate change will force a re-ordering of economic and political models in response to a changed environment and a temporary contraction of globalisation and a redistribution of power at the international level.

      I suspect climate change will hasten the decline of the USA, a great deal of its power dependent on declining fossil fuels.

      I tend to think history is the best teacher and that yes – societies and individuals will adapt.

      However that is generally a messy process. I have “faith” in human ingenuity, but the sober pragmatist in me recognises that we tend to wait until the problem is well underway.

      The trick over the next 100 years will be managing that transition: how “bumpy” or “smooth” will depend upon the willingness of nation states to co-operate on issues such as carbon emissions, food and water security and dealing with the inevitable collapse of less resilient states.

      There is a great deal of practical things we can, and should be doing.

  4. Berbalang says:

    How about:

    The Global Warming Deniers are complete and utter fools!
    The Global Warming Deniers are complete and utter fools!
    The Global Warming Deniers are complete and utter fools!
    The Global Warming Deniers are complete and utter fools!
    The Global Warming Deniers are complete and utter fools!

    Of course it isn’t a lie. I wonder if the same technique works for the truth?

  5. klem says:

    You are going to start enjoying yourself more? But that’s exactly what the evil deniers want you to do. It’s a trap!

    They want you to take it less seriously, deniers never listen to you anyway, they ignore the facts, they want you to relax the climate is going to be just fine, so throw in a few jokes on your blog and a bit of satire, get back to your real life, find a wife settle down, enjoy yourself, life is good, eat meat again, buy a car, have some kids, get a mortgage and dog.

    That’s it, now drink this carbon and industry backed kool-aid… Yea drink deeply, that’s it…

  6. dal101 says:

    Another sceptics who says he believes in climate change…….

    Just who are the deniers?

    Perhaps Klem with his “But didn’t some scientist recently prove that other ice cores record CO2 changes BEFORE temperature? ”


    • klem says:

      I agree, you need a program to figure out who the real deniers are these days. Ooooh those damned deniers!

      • john byatt says:

        The term ” evil climate deniers”, as you know, was invented by the econazi Sturmabteilung-Hitler-jugend global warming fascists in order to make sound scientific skepticism appear equivalent to holocaust denial

    • john byatt says:

      Always willing to help the sceptics.

      Stroeve 2011,
      Abstract The sequence of extreme September sea ice extent minima over the
      past decade suggests acceleration in the response of the Arctic sea ice cover to
      external forcing, hastening the ongoing transition towards a seasonally open Arctic
      Ocean. This reflects several mutually supporting processes. Because of the extensive
      open water in recent Septembers, ice cover in the following spring is increasingly
      dominated by thin, first-year ice (ice formed during the previous autumn and winter)
      that is vulnerable to melting out in summer. Thinner ice in spring in turn fosters
      a stronger summer ice-albedo feedback through earlier formation of open water
      areas. A thin ice cover is also more vulnerable to strong summer retreat under
      anomalous atmospheric forcing. Finally, general warming of the Arctic has reduced
      the likelihood of cold years that could bring about temporary recovery of the ice
      cover. Events leading to the September ice extent minima of recent years exemplify
      these processes.

      and Dal101 somehow thinks that more first year ice as opposed to multi year ice should survive the summer melt ?

    • john byatt says:

      Stop embarrasing yourself dal101,

      Svensmark et al. (2009) have recently claimed that strong galactic cosmic ray (GCR) decreases during ‘Forbush Decrease (FD) events’ are followed by decreases in both the global liquid water cloud fraction (LCF) and other closely correlated atmospheric parameters. To test the validity of these findings we have concentrated on just one property, the MODIS LCF and examined two aspects: 1) The statistical chance that the decrease observed in the LCF is abnormal. 2) The likelihood of the observed delay (∼5 to 9 days) being physically connected to the FD events. On both counts we conclude that LCF variations are unrelated to FD events: Both the pattern and timing of observed LCF changes are irreconcilable with current theoretical pathways. Additionally, a zonal analysis of LCF variations also offers no support to the claimed relationship, as the observed anomaly is not found to vary latitudinally in conjunction with cosmic ray intensity.

      But you keep believing Svesmark Dal101, fuck the evidence eh?

      • john byatt says:

        The above was Laken et al 2011,

        Dal101 chides Klem for not accepting the greenhouse effect then puts up any nonsense he can find to explain the warming rather than accepting the greenhouse effect cause,

        you contradict yourself Dal101

      • dal101 says:

        “Stop embarrasing yourself dal101,

        Svensmark et al. (2009) have recently claimed that strong galactic cosmic ray (GCR) decreases during ‘Forbush Decrease (FD) events’ ”

        You, as usual, John Byatt, are missing the point.

        Sceptics of all persuasions KNOWN that climate changes – that climate always changes.

        The whole premise of the post above was:

        “Really, all they do is repeat the line “the climate is not changing” over, and over until a sufficient number of people believe them. ”

        Perhaps, with respect, John, if you paid a little more attention, you would “stop embarassing YOURself.”

        Alarmists are the true deniers of the science. The fraudulent Mann “hockeystick” was an attempt to pervert science.

        Before Mann tried to corrupt the data, the IPCC’s Jonathan Overpeck admitted telling Geologist and Geophysicist Dr David Deming that “We have to get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period.” .

        Shane on you deniers!

  7. john byatt says:

    You are an idiot dal101, the climate does not change unless it is forced to
    That is one of the basics, you and klem both confuse climate with weather.

    you just confirm here that you are a conspiracy theorist,
    “tried to corrupt the data” “pervert science”

    I have even come across a sceptic posting a paper which claimed that parts of the Andes where as warm as now during MWP, if the idiot had of read the paper he would have seen that the paper relied on the work of Mann for credibility,

  8. dal101 says:

    “the climate does not change?”

    Gee, John, I am glad we have you to re-write the history of the earth from time immemorial. When is your book DENYing that climate chnages coming out?

    • john byatt says:

      “the climate does not change unless it is forced to”

      You really are a waste of space dal101,

      • dal101 says:

        Well! Will the true denier please stand up? Don’t you believe that Climate has always changed? Do you REALLY believe that climate has been the same since time began and then along came the machine age spewing clolourless, vital-to-life man-made CO2 emissions into the atmosphere and, for the first time climate changed.

        If you believe that CO2 is harmful, why not stop exhaling?

      • john byatt says:

        What a moron you are dal101

        my quote
        “the climate does not change unless it is forced to”

        at dal101 blog of fools (TCS)

        “I have had a recent exchange with some-one whom I call a real denier. I said that I believed in climate change and that climate had always changed and this real denier said that climate had not changed until man started emitting fossil fuel emission”.

        obviously he could not provide a link and thus expose his inanity

      • john byatt says:

        Classic dal101

        “started emitting fossil fuel emission”

        started emitting emissions ?

  9. sailrick says:

    “But didn’t some scientist recently prove that other ice cores record CO2 changes BEFORE temperature? ”

    what they found was that Milankovitch cycles triggered glacial and interglacial periods, but that the greenhouse effect did a lot of the heavy lifting, just as scientists had already thought.

    What kind of logic says that because a known greenhouse gas once upon a time acted as a feedback to accelerate warming, that that same gas cannot initiate warming when humans pump 30 billion tons a year into the atmosphere?

    That carbon from human emissions from fossil fuels burning is ON TOP OF the normal carbon in the natural carbon cycle.
    And that is what has caused CO2 concentration to be the highest in at least 400,000 years.

    • dal101 says:

      “that same gas cannot initiate warming when humans pump 30 billion tons a year into the atmosphere?” and man’s CO2 emissions are just 3% of all CO2 emissions. Aha, but it is that 3% that does the damage. Scary…..

  10. john byatt says:

    From RC on Mann’s newest science award

    Mike Mann has weathered some rather intense scrutiny and criticism over the years, mostly over the details of a paper nearly 15 years old. Yet the basic conclusions of the “hockey stick” remain, and indeed have been strengthened by subsequent work. Most will be aware, for example, that the conclusion that the past few decades are likely the warmest of the past millennium — i.e. the conclusion of the best-known of Mike’s papers in Nature and Geophysical Research Letters –has never been seriously challenged. But well beyond the simple fact of having been right, Mike’s work was seminal.

    and all dal01 has is a few denier blog postings from the likes of Goddard to claim otherwise.

    Dal101 ” I will just ignore the dozen or so studies that all uphold Mann’s
    work, saves having to do any research”

  11. dal101 says:

    Why, before the fraudulent hockey stick did Jonathan Overpeck say that, to scare the pants off the population, the alarmists had to get rid of the MWP?

    Do you DENY that there was an MWP?

    As to Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick, isn’t it amazing when M&M fed the Canadian phone numbers into the model, it still produced a “hockey stick?”

    ISn’t it amazing that the crooked climate gate chaps contrived to suppress papers exposing the AGW hoax?

    But at least they fooled you deniers.

  12. john byatt says:

    Hi Keith and Tim –

    In reading Valerie [Masson-Delmotte]‘s Holocene section, I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too – pure rubbish.
    So, pls DO try hard to follow up on my advice provided in previous
    email. No need to go into details on any but the MWP, but good to
    mention the others in the same dismissive effort. “Holocene Thermal
    Maximum” is another one that should only be used with care, and with
    the explicit knowledge that it was a time-transgressive event totally
    unlike the recent global warming.
    Thanks for doing this on – if you have a cool figure idea, include it.
    Best, peckHi Keith and Tim –

    you are a real tin foil hatter dal101
    where is the M&M paper showing a hockey stick from phone numbers dal101
    you believe any crap as long as it it not a peer reviewed paper

    • dal101 says:

      Don’t mention the war! I did once but I think I got away with it!

      Don’t mention the warmings! I did once but I think I got away with it!

      Don’t mention the Medieval Warming!

      Don’t mention the Roman Warming!

      Don’t mention the Minoan Warming!

      (Hmmmmm…I think I see a pattern building up here.)

      Where is the M&M paper asks WtD’s chief denier? Never heard of google, JB? Or too lazy to chase it for yourself?

      Find this –

      Ross McKitrick
      ““What is the Hockey Stick Debate About?

      Ross McKitrick* Department of Economics University of Guelph
      April 4 2005

      The hockey stick debate is about two things. At a technical level it concerns a well- known study that characterized the state of the Earth’’s climate over the past thousand years and seemed to prove a recent and unprecedented global warming. I will explain how the study got the results it did, examine some key flaws in the methodology and explain why the conclusions are unsupported by the data. At the political level the emerging debate is about whether the enormous international trust that has been placed in the IPCC was betrayed. The hockey stick story reveals that the IPCC allowed a deeply flawed study to dominate the Third Assessment Report, which suggests the possibility of bias in the Report-writing process. In view of the massive global influence of IPCC Reports, there is an urgent need to bias-proof future assessments in order to put climate policy onto a new foundation that will better serve the public interest.

      • dal101 says:

        McIntyre, Stephen and Ross McKitrick (2005a) ““The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications.”” Energy and Environment 16(1) pp. 69-100; (2005b) ““Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance”” Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 32, No. 3, L03710 10.1029/2004GL021750 12 February 2005.

      • john byatt says:

        that was a fail dal101

        McIntyre & McKitrick (2005) was rebutted by Juckes et al. (2007) and Wahl & Ammann (2007)
        and as stated previously the blade of the hockey stick is only revealed when the 20th century instrumental temperature data is added to Manns reconstruction

        you still have not put up the paper showing a hockey stick from phone numbers as claimed

      • dal101 says:

        JOhn Byatt – You have not answered why Jonathan Overpeck, before MBH98, said, to scare the pants off the populace, we have to get rid of the MWP. It was there before MBH98 and it is still there, no matter how much you alarmists want to DENY history.

      • john byatt says:

        you missed this above///// john byatt (06:55:02) :

        I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.
        In other words the scientists already had evidence that claimed global periods of warming were myth, these were regional warmings

        it is the myths that overpeck wants rid of,but as a conspiracy theorist you keep believing that it is all a giant conspiracy involving most of the worlds scientific institutions dal101

        • dal101 says:

          Then, Biased Byatt, how is it that peer reviewed papers from all over the globe support the global MWP?

          How is it that the IPCC reverted to the real historical temperatures after the MBH was shown to telephone book numbers?

  13. john byatt says:

    What morons like dal101 fail to understand is that if the MWP was global and was warmer than the present then we are in deep shit as climate sensitivity would be much higher than the science suggests,

    calls himself oz climate realist and even denies the greenhouse effect

    • dal101 says:

      What uneducated eejots like JB fail to understand is that the MWP WAS global –

      Oh, I can hear it now – Byatt – “that’s the deniers IDSO.”

      As usual, when confronted by science the “Climate DOES change” deniers like Byatt don’t address the science, they attack the messenger.

      What a sorry excuse for a CO2 exhaler.

      • john byatt says:

        I have read most of Idso’s nonsense

        the papers he has, show regional warmings and some of them rely on on Manns work for credibility,

        stop making a fool of yourself and read the papers for yourself
        rather than just accepting what Idso claims they say,

        a good example of Idso’s crap is the way he portrayed the Delia Oppo paper, she had to correct his misrepresentation herself

        re Indo pacific warm pool

        this was typical of Idso

      • dal101 says:

        See, Byatt, immediately the ad homs, without even looking at the page which shows peer-reviewed papers from all around the world…er with the exception of Australia…. look again John at the link which, I repeat has links to many peer-reviewed papers and stop making a fool of yourself.

        You are so easy to shoot down because you are lazy and don’t do your work, relying on flawed propaganda sites like John Cooks and the Hockey teams’ garbage.

      • john byatt says:

        Just to prove that you are talking crap

        the first one i picked

        Russell, J.M. and Johnson, T.C. 2005. A high-resolution geochemical record from Lake Edward, Uganda Congo and the timing and causes of tropical African drought during the late Holocene. Quaternary Science Reviews 24: 1375-1389.
        The authors analyzed % biogenic silica (%BSi) from piston cores retrieved from Lake Edward (0°N, 30°E), Uganda Congo, equatorial East Africa. Correlation of %BSi with other climatologically-forced geochemical and lake level records from other equatorial African lakes further allowed them to develop a regional precipitation and drought history over the past 5400 years. Results indicated that drought affected “virtually all of tropical East Africa” between ~AD 1000 and 1200, which falls well within the era of the Medieval Warm Period.

        This is not the paper as you claim, it is Idso’s description, his interpretation,

        bring up the Oppo Indo Pacific warm pool paper and i will show you more of Idso’s crap

      • john byatt says:

        So after accusing me of an ad hom that is exactly what you come back with after being shot down

  14. john byatt says:

    I wonder if Dal101 even realises that the blade of the hockey stick does not come from Mann but from the instrumental record.

    can you get the blade of a hockey stick from phone numbers?

  15. john byatt says:

    Loehle and Mann overlaid with the instrumental record added.

  16. Mike says:

    Geoff, I see that changing your name has done nothing to change the same old crap you keep spewing. As usual your moronic robotlike cutting and pasting of memes you actually don’t understand really does nothing to endear people to the point of view you are pushing and not understanding. You are a sad sad non-individual.

    Mike, you were lamenting the fact that the ridiculous ABC program gives unequal weight to deniers and hence they win, can I suggest you apply the torch of proportional representation to your blog and start filtering the garbage that is repeated ad neauseum by morons like Geoffrey. Let him have his say and he fails to back it up or ignores pleas to do so, cut him off.

    • dal101 says:

      “Let him have his say and he fails to back it up or ignores pleas to do so, ”

      Does that apply to JB who ducks and dives over the fact that Jonathan Overpeck said, before MBH98, the you alarmists have to kill off the MWP if you want to scare the pants off the simple plebs….

      Part of his testimony –

      The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the “Little Ice Age” took hold in the 14th century. Warmer climate brought a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe during the High Middle Ages.

      The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be “gotten rid of.”


      I noticed that the official record has now been cut (shades of hide the decline)
      so here is the actual vid of his testimony where he states:

      I received an astonishing e-mail from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said: “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”

      Isn’t it amazing that you and/or your fellow alarmist deniers have managed to get this cut from the official senate record.

      However, you (collectively) did manage to get rid of the MWP and the LIA.

      Now John Biased Byatt is trying to get rid of climate change……and you call us the deniers?

      • Mike says:

        Geoff, thanks for proving my point. Mike??????????????

        • dal101 says:

          Mike, the only reason for the name change was that I couldn’t log-in as myself! (MiketD??)

          So I was offered an old “wordpress” ID and I used that.

          Nowhere did I try to hide my identity and the nasty JohnByatt has often refered to a trivial part of my bio – that of being a dog breeder (dal101) – to try to ad hom me.

          If he wanted to be honest, he would refer to my whole bio and this small part would not be significant.

          Has Biased Byatt exposed himself? Has he revealed if he works for a Climate Crook Department?

          And why has he not answered the fact that the Alarmists wanted to get rid of the MWP/LIA so that they could show that climate had not changed for a 1000 years. Why did they want to promote this lie?

        • Mike says:

          Do not use me to vicariously question someone else. It’s a cheap shot and it’s juvenile.

        • dal101 says:

          Sorry, Mike. But it was a perfect fit with other alarmist comments on this blog!

      • dal101 says:

        incidentally, Mike, although Dr Deming doesn’t say so in the YouTube, He has confirmed the name of Jonathan Overpeck privately to me and subsequently Overpeck put his hand up and confessed that it was indeed him.

        • Mike says:

          I don’t know who or what you are talking about but if someone has told you something in confidence, like their identity, why are you repeating it in a public forum? I don’t know if you understand the term docdropping but it is a dog act.

        • dal101 says:

          It was inconfidence until the man who wanted to alarm the pants off people in the name of the hoax….Jonathan Overpeck…stuck his hand up and said – It was me!

    • dal101 says:

      “morons like Geoffrey”

      As I have said here before, the alarmists used ad hominems when they can’t reply to the facts.


      • Mike says:

        But Geoffrey, the fact is you are a moron. We havebeen over this many times. You put upbullshit assertions that you cannot back up with peer reviewed evidence. You repeat garbage ad nauseum. hen confronted with questions that ask you to demonstrate that you actually know what you are talking about you don’t answer or change the subject. If you aren’t a moron, you are dishonest, or too spineless to admit your failings. Evidence that contradicts all the garbage you spout is all on the public record and in the scientific literature. It is the well established science. The onus is on you since you’re making the ludicrous claims.

        If you somehow think that we need to be polite to you, you are more than wrong. Quite frankly I’m more then over being polite. You’re like one of those talentless fools that go on talent shows thinking they can sing and then spit the dummy when the judges tell them they are crap. It comes down to the fact that their friends and families should have sat them down and very impolitely said “Sweetheart, you know we love you, but your singing voice is worse than the sound of a cat having its tail stepped on.” I’m just trying to do that favour for you. You need a dose of reality. Geoff, you know I love you, but those crazy ideas you have about the climate are crazier than the idea that used to get around about smoking being good for you.

        • dal101 says:

          I HAVE presented peer reviewed evidence. You bankers don’t accept peer reviewed evidence that goes against yor misguided AGW hoax.

          “hen confronted with questions…” I’ll leave you and your chooks to play with yourselves.

        • dal101 says:

          One last remark – “The onus is on you since you’re making the ludicrous claims.”

          If you have a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming, you are $10,000 richer.

          Substantiate your “ludicrous claims.”

          Go to:

          if you have the conclusive argument.

        • Mike says:

          Ahh the good old climate sceptics party. I seem to recall sending them a very lengthy email when they first appeared on the scene asking them some legitimate questions to test their general knowledge on climate and inparticular how they thought the modelling was wrong. I recall voicing my concern that they were spreading misinformation. I am taking from their non-response to my very polite request for information that like you, they like to avoid questions they don’t know how to answer, but alas Geoffrey, this is where you and I differ. I acknowledge my limitations when it comes to climate science. I do have a very good understanding of many areas of climate science but not enough to consider myself an expert so I wouldn’t dare pretend to be one. Apart from the fact I don’t need $10000, I think I will leave that to any one of the thousands upon thousands of real experts if they wish to take up the challenge but here’s the thing…….if the idiots in the climate sceptics party don’t understand climate science, how are they going to judge any evidence that is provided to them? Given their desire to take the weakest path and rely on propaganda (and now, gimmicks) to support their position, it is unlikely they would acknowledge any scientific evidence anyone would provide anyway, so no thanks, I have plenty of good brick walls around here I can bang my head on if I so desire plus I have more important things to do, like, cut my toenails, and remove lint from my navel. Given that I am bothering to respond to you Geoffrey, you should feel priveleged. Don’t get too comfortable in the limelight though, I can feel a bout of general disinterest in what you have to say coming on.

        • dal101 says:

          “if the idiots in the climate sceptics party don’t understand climate science…”
          “I acknowledge my limitations when it comes to climate science…”

          Is the correlation above like the supposed correlation between CO2 and temperature?

          “you should feel priveleged.” or even privileged, perhaps.

          Actually,the arbiter is an ex Professor of Physics, Canadian Denis Rancourt –

          and as to your “thousands upon thousands of real experts..”, they have had eighteen months with not so much as a half-heartened attempt to substantiate their hoax.

          So much for the alarmists. None of them will enter a debate against Tim Ball, Richard Lindzen or even Andrew Bolt.And not one has been able to claim the $10,000 as their is NO empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming, let alone the alarmist runaway global warming.

        • Mike says:

          Why is navel lint almost always blue?

        • dal101 says:

          Why does your avatar show water vapour coming from chimney stacks? Was that a blue?

        • Mike says:

          Because many of the biggest polluters in the world produce steam as one of their many biproducts. Why does verbal sewage come out of your mouth?

        • dal101 says:

          When did you hear me speak? I think that was an official lie!

        • dal101 says:

          Isn’t it revealing that I make a large comment and all you can answer is “Why is navel lint almost always blue?” But then, of course, you do have limitations when it comes to climate science.

        • Mike says:

          Now now, don’t forget context Geoffrey, its always very important. My navel lint comment was linked back to a previous comment that implied that I find mundane things more important than what you have to say so when you decided to make a tenuous link, again without the context, between two of my statements followed by an appeal to the authority of another non-climate expert with his own anti AGW blog (the person who will be awarding the $10000 prize money tsk tsk) I really lost interest in what you had written and actually found my navel lint to be infinitely more interesting, relevant and honest. After I got bored with my navel lint I thought I’d do a bit of research (look it up in the dictionary) into your (look out we might make it to a whole number percentage of votes in the next election) political party. The contradictions in policy from page to page is astounding. I’ve decided a blog entry and perhaps a Youtube video is on the cards. Beforehand though I just need to check on something. Does Anthony Cox REALLY have a degree in climatology? Which university did he obtain it from? I checked quite a few professional registries and it doesn’t seem to come up anywhere. Oh, and does your party really believe National Parks should be leased out to farmers?

  17. john byatt says:

    No cox does not have any degree in climatology, The ABC caught him out on that and amended his bio,
    dal 101 sceptics blog is not interested in science, it is just there to throw as much mud at the science as possible and see what sticks,
    the posts there are nonsense, (see the increase in MYI post) then there is the ice extent average crap, If dal101 was a real sceptic he might wonder why the ice went up and down over a few weeks, but no dal101 is not interested in understanding anything just pushing the garbage from blogs like Idso and goddard,

    How can you tell when Idso is lying?

    he begins his lie with “what was learned”

  18. john byatt says:

    “And why has he not answered the fact that the Alarmists wanted to get rid of the MWP/LIA so that they could show that climate had not changed for a 1000 years. Why did they want to promote this lie?”

    i put up overpeck’s early email on the matter, basically it was to get rid of the myth, read the stuffing email instead of claiming your question was not answered,

    • dal101 says:

      Anthony has written to the ABC to correct their inaccuracies. but alarmist organisation that they are, the have not corrected their inaccuracies.

      Seems like you science deniers are all alike.

      • Mike says:

        You’re usually so quick to reply…unless of course the question is difficult. I’ll repeat the question, does Cox really have a degree in climatology and from which university did he obtain it? Second, why does your political party want to lease National Parks out to farmers?

      • john byatt says:

        While you are at it dal101, looking up Cohenites details,

        how about coming clean on your claim that your work in the Science industry, or have you now deleted that crap?

        • dal101 says:

          “that YOUR work in the Science industry…”

          I’ve never claimed that MINE work in the Science industry. Where do you get your false information? John Cook? DirtSmog?

      • john byatt says:

        So not adverse to telling lies either dal101, well you tell a lot so one more does not make much difference i suppose

      • john byatt says:

        heard of the wayback machine dal101,

        you had science industry next to your photo, it was most likely on the sceptic group at just grounds, the group that exterminated itself.

    • Mike says:

      Thanks John. I already know the answers to most of the questions I ask because unlike the deniers, I do the background research.

      • dal101 says:

        Unlike the WtDeniers, so do we sceptics. That’s what makes us sceptics. We test all ideas because we are sceptical.

        • Mike says:

          Its one thing to test ideas but its another to practice wilful ignorance. There is such a thing as unhelathy scepticism. The problem though is your idea of testing science doesn’t involve science. That is why there is such a paucity of published papers that support your scepticism. That is something you will never be able to get around. What you do is juvenile and amateurish and it stems from scientific illiteracy. That is unhealthy scepticism. I like the analogy that to disagree with the evidence for climate change and take the advice of “Lord” Monkton is akin to being told by a dozen neurosurgeons that you need a particular treatment and deciding to go to the retired vet who lives next door and accepting his ad hoc recommendations over that of real experts. That is where your type of scepticism sits Geoff. Lets hope you don’t get a brain tumour.

        • dal101 says:

          Who is this ‘ Lord” Monkton ?’

        • Mike says:

          Oh Geoff. Picking out spelling mistakes? Really? Instead of being petty and childish by pointing out the occasional spelling mistake, how about you counter with an argument of substance? I thought I was having a discussion with a grown up but just for you, I meant to type “Lord” Christopher ‘I have a cure for AIDS’ Monckton, the poster child of the denial movement.

        • dal101 says:

          Then, Mike, why the ” “s around the word Lord?

        • Mike says:

          They are a tribute to his persistent but blatantly dishonest claims to be a member of the House of Lords which he isn’t nor has ever been, but then he also hasn’t cured AIDS nor been a Nobel laureate either. I’m absolutely convinced that one knows when “Lord” Monckton is lying simply by seeing if his mouth is open. Why you hold him up as the poster child of denialism is beyond me…he is perfect for that role though so the irony is astounding.

        • dal101 says:

          So, Mike, what is your cure for AIDS, or have you, WtDeniers resident self-confessed scientist failed to cure aids?

          “I’m absolutely convinced that one knows when “Lord” Monckton is lying”

          Well, perhaps Lady Monckton knows when he is lying by her side.

          Does any-one know when a lightweight like you, a self-proclaimed scientist who is afraid to used his own name, is lie-ing, Mike?

        • Mike says:

          “So, Mike, what is your cure for AIDS, or have you, WtDeniers resident self-confessed scientist failed to cure aids?”

          wtf? Given that I am an ecologist I wouldn’t pretend to be something I’m not and so would not be working on finding a cure for AIDS. Where you are going with this is beyond me and it seems completely irrelevant. SOme sortofdeflection maybe? The point is, your poster child for denial is a bald faced liar. He has a demonstrated track record of lying about many things yet you and your ilk believe everything he says. He is a charlatan, making a living of gullible fools like you who are prepared to facilitate his dishonesty.

          “Does any-one know when a lightweight like you, a self-proclaimed scientist who is afraid to used his own name, is lie-ing, Mike?”

          I’ll explain this to you again. I have legal reasons for not using my full name and retaining some degree of anonymity. I am not obliged to explain it to you anymore than that but it has nothing to do with any fear on my part but on protecting the identity of my children. Its a family law matter. Now I have given you more about this than you need to know so If you want to try and take cheap shots about this well go ahead, knock yourself out, but you may not like the kind of response you get in future. As for referring to me as a lightweight, you are absolutley right, I have only published in my field as lead author about 6 times. Self-proclaimed? My undergraduate degree was undertaken at QUT and my PhD at Charles Sturt University. They proclaimed me as a scientist. As for lying, I have no reason to lie because I have the truth of the science on my side. But who the fuck are you to judge my scientific ability when you are a science illiterate? If I am a lightweight with a PhD in Ecology and a publishing record what does that make you? Finally, as for casting aspersions on my honesty. You don’t get to do that when you start throwing the word ‘libel’ around when others call you a liar. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, but I am not providing you with any more responses until you start delivering something with substance and answer my other questions. After all its only polite. Does Anthony Cox really have a degree in climatology and if so, which university did he get it from? Is it really your party’s policy to allow farmers to access National Parks? Continually declining to answer these questions is not only rude but just verifies to me that the answers are “no” “n/a” and “yes”.

      • john byatt says:

        No you accept any crap except scientific fact dal101

  19. john byatt says:

    Cannot help myself

    Dal101 “Does that apply to JB who ducks and dives over the fact that Jonathan Overpeck said, before MBH98, the you alarmists have to kill off the MWP if you want to scare the pants off the simple plebs….”

    “Did you hear that the global MWP was a myth? ”

    “fuck was it? head for the hills”

    you are a drama queen dal101

  20. john byatt says:

    dal101 “Actually,the arbiter is an ex Professor of Physics, Canadian Denis Rancourt –

    there were some very good submissions there that the climate guy did not dispute, it boiled down to Laux stating that to get the money you will have to take him to court.


    • dal101 says:

      John, if you are interested in the truth, please do not emit lies like “there were some very good submissions there that the climate guy did not dispute”

      The challenge was for “conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming.”

      Denis Rancourt said…

      Dear contributors,

      Despite the 127 comments and responses so far, there has to date only been one complete submission (Hugh McLean).

      A fatal flaw in that submission was identified (33C warming from greenhouse effect) but the author or others may wish to repair the flaw and re-submit.

      Please try to be truthful, John.

      • Mike says:

        “Please try and be truthful John”

        Refusing to answer legitimate questions that might make you uncomfortable is dishonest Geoffrey, but alas, this is what I have come to expect from you. Third time is a charm though. Does Cox really have a degree in climatology and from which university did he obtain it? Second, why does your political party want to lease National Parks out to farmers?

      • john byatt says:

        It is Laux not the climate guy that gets to accept or reject the submission

        Denis Rancourt said…

        I’m not a judge. Peter decides. Peter is the one going to court over this.

        I’m only giving my feedback to draw out the best possible submissions.

        A candidate who believes Peter to be unreasonable in rejecting a valid entry has legal recourse.

        If I see a valid entry I will tell Peter and tell you all my position and I will tell the court if asked.

        So your nonsense is once again exposed and Laux is the one shifting goalposts, so who would go to court over this, this crap that a court could decide a scientific argument.

        • dal101 says:

          “f I see a valid entry I will tell Peter and tell you all my position and I will tell the court if asked.”

          Of course Denis has not yet seen a valid entry as he has not said so. QED

  21. john byatt says:

    The Gympie times editor is very fair , Viv forbes gets a weekly letter in,

    my reply this week to his latest nonsense,

    Once again Viv Forbes ( The Gympie Times April 18 ) claims that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
    A study released this week ( Barton et al 2012 ) has definitely linked an increase in ocean acidification to the collapse of oyster seed production in Oregon U.S.A, oceans are being forced to take up the additional CO2 from human fossil fuel use which lowers their pH (acidification ).

    The study by Oregon University found that elevated seawater carbon dioxide levels, resulted in more corrosive ocean water, inhibiting the larval oysters from developing their shells and growing at a pace that would make commercial production cost effective. The study found that both natural and farmed oysters in the Pacific Northwest are being affected,

    As oysters are at the bottom of the food chain, this has ramifications for many reliant species.
    Studies into the effects of ocean acidification reveal both winners and losers, but as for carbon dioxide not being a pollutant Viv ? pull the other one.

    • dal101 says:

      Actually the ocean is not acidic so how do you explain your claim “increase in ocean acidification?”

      Do you not understand basic science?

      • Mike says:

        The process of becoming less basic is generically referred to as acidification just as movement in the other direction is referred to as alkalization regardless of the starting point. I am a scientist and I think you need to self examine your own understanding of science. Playing semantics with words is juvenile and demonstrates the weakness of your argument.

        • dal101 says:

          Thanks for your science MIke, re BASIC ocean alkilinity

        • Mike says:

          Whether the ocean is acidic or basic is a moot point. The fact is it is undergoing acidification due to human produced industrial CO2 increase and it is this effect that is having a negative impact on calciferous organisms. To change the point of attack to whether someone is using the correct word when its actually the process that is important is juvenile. The sad thing is, when you people object to the word “acidification” you do not offer an alternative verb that describes the process of lowering the pH of a substance. But I digress Do you deny that human induced climate change is acidifying the oceans? To do so would take a monumental effort of wilful ignorance.

        • dal101 says:

          ALterntive and more accurate term? What about your own words – lowering the pH of a substance.

        • Mike says:

          because “acidification” is the correct term. I’ll start using “lowering the pH of a substance” to define “acidification” if you start referring to “warmists” as “respectable, rational people who understand the science of climate change” and refer to “deniers” as “intellectually bereft and scientifically illiterate morons”. See how that works?

      • john byatt says:

        I explain it by a measured 30% increase in acidity

        What is Ocean Acidification? is Ocean Acidification?
        These chemical reactions are termed “ocean acidification” or “OA” for short. …
        logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in
        acidity since IR

        I am sure that dal101 knows what logarithmic means even though he would not have a clue how it refers to increasing atmospheric CO2

        • dal101 says:

          Sure the logarithmic effect of carbon dioxide means that, as David Archibald explains – – Lo and behold, the first 20 ppm accounts for over half of the heating effect to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, by which time carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas.

          I would not have thought that you would mention the logarithmic effect as it goes against all the alarmist propaganda. Extra CO2 in the atmosphere, according to the logarithmic tables means bugger all heating.

      • john byatt says:

        you mean like acidification dal101?

  22. john byatt says:

    The Logarithmic effect is well understood but what happens in the real world that cancels it’s behavior and gives us near linear warming instead ?

    you are a clueless cloth dal101

    about 43% of yearly human emissions remain in the atmosphere, so as emissions increase, the actual amount remaining in the atmosphere also increases, The percentage of human emissions going into the ocean has also decreased by 10% since 2000 as oceans struggle to keep up with our emissions

    sceptics invariably confuse atmospheric concentration of CO2 with emissions. Radiative forcing is logarithmic in concentration but the concentration increases faster than linearly with emissions, since the more we emit, the less is taken up by oceans and the more remains in the atmosphere. That effect in the real world turns out to cancel out the logarithmic behavior, and which will give us nearly linear warming , at least up to about 5000 gigatonnes total emissions. (NAS 2011)

    • dal101 says:

      And you call US deniers!

      • john byatt says:

        No i called you a cloth dal101, you run what is claimed to be a science blog yet do not have a clue about anything, you are a fraud, Look at your nonsense troll-like replies, you cannot even debate the science.

        you claim incorrectly that no one answers your questions yet cannot even answer the simple questions of your science industry position nor cohenite’s (Cox) claimed qualifications,
        Cox is a fraud and so are you


      • john byatt says:

        Ad Homs you hypocrite,

        at Dal101 blog

        There was the usual dross from serial pontificator, Lewandowsky. Then, the usual pie in the sky gibberish from Dan Cass, an implacable and feckless supporter of ‘renewables’ such as wind and solar and no doubt wave power.
        Last but not least, the equally feckless but morally sustained Anna Rose.

  23. dal101 says:

    “you run what is claimed to be a science blog…”

    Oh really! Where does it say “This is a science blog?”
    It is the blog of a political party.

    Have you seen the garbage on the Greens Party blog calling for a world government?

    Is that scientific?

    No, More like science fiction.

  24. john byatt says:

    so you confess that it is nothing more than a political blog do you ?
    at least you accept that you have no ability to present science as is painfully apparent from the nonsense you put up,

    claiming that Idso links to science papers just goes to show that you do not even read the denier crap, you just parrot it.

  25. john byatt says:

    HA HA seems that this drongo dal101 does not even read his own blog

    at TCS blog

    latest on ocean acidification at CO2 no science


  26. john byatt says:

    Chief Denier Geoff Brown (dal101) 28th April

    “Arctic ice is slightly below normal”

    well it just fell off a cliff,


  27. rossbrisbane says:

    Dal101 (Geoff)

    You have not made much progress since three years ago. It would be better for you to shut down your web site and wait. The many voices in your head are a source of concern. The lack of being straight forward is a sign of some cognitive disorder. I feel sorry for you. I also feel terrible that many common folk are being mislead by this insanity against good sound science and sound judgement. It is being repeated right across the Internet. A kind of crazy denial. A kind of not wanting to face reality.

    The founder of Apple, Steve Jobs was in similar predicament. The man who thought he could always do better with what he knew. When diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, he lied to a student graduation audience telling them he was getting the best treatment possible. Instead he tried the alternative, a veg cure all diet. Thinking he was on the right track he became his own arbitrator was what was his answer. Now much later the truth is revealed, had he taken the advice of his medical doctors he would still be alive today. It was easily treatable.

    You see Geoff what has been feeding you is your own alternatives when the professional opinions of others provide a much brighter and clear pathway to discover. Your ultimate well being into the future. Unless you learn to listen to the experts and not go on with on what you think is right – the disease unfortunately will grow and spread. It will kill you long term and eat you up. Even if things swing wildly to your way – the day of reckoning will still come and “PROVE” itself real.

    This sickness needs to be treated with ultimately the right direction for you to take and get back to your healing. I see this in Australian country folk all the time. Some see this narrow belligerent mindedness as a good quality. I don’t so. I think it is a great weakness in our Australian society. I grew up in a country town. This narrow mindedness ultimately kills off the very thing in us – creativity, great new ideas and invention. Within such lies the seeds of bigotry, black verses white and suspicion. A world of fear and torment within. Far greater then the fear of doing nothing.

    So Steve Jobs was great visionary but let himself down by his own blinders. Now you have those same self imposed blinders and it has become a prison for you.

    A person wisely penned this:

    The Climate Casino

    However, the major problem with the conclusions of skeptics/deniers is that they ignore the perils of the climate-change uncertainties. To illustrate, think of the issues as if we are playing roulette in a Climate Casino. Each time the roulette wheel stops, we resolve one of the uncertainties. Our best guess is that CO2 doubling will increase temperatures by 3°C, but if the ball lands on black it will be 2°C while a ball on red will produce 4°C. Similarly, a ball in a black pocket will lead to minimal damages from a certain amount of warming, while a ball in a red pocket will lead to much larger warming than we anticipate. On the next spin, a ball in the black will produce low growth and slow growth in emissions, while a ball in the red will produce rapid growth in CO2 emissions. And so forth.

    But, in the Climate Casino, the ball also might land on zero or double-zero. If it lands on zero, we find significant loss of species, ecosystems, and cultural landmarks like Venice. If it lands on double-zero, we find an unanticipated shift in the earth’s climate system, such as a rapid disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.


    If you ever need my help in untangling the mess you have got yourself into let me know.

    • Mike says:

      Oh Ross, now you’ve done it. You used a word I can guarantee Geoff will focus on. One single word out of your beautifully written piece is all he needs to demonstrate not only the weakness of his position but also, his bloody-minded denial-at-all-costs mentality.

      “Our best guess is that CO2 doubling….”

      You used the G word Ross. Like a moth to a flame or an idiot to a conspiracy theory he will focus on that one.

  28. john byatt says:

    No Mike, Geoff has had a giant reversal or made a stuff up,

    TCS blogsnot

    “Scientists agree that temperatures rise BEFORE the rise in atmospheric CO2 with a lag of 800 years or so..
    Gore must have know that the reverse was true but he DENIED the truth”

    geoff claims that CO2 is burnt out as a greenhouse gas after a 20ppm increase.

    will be interesting to see what he does say but after his latest distortion and lack of even basic honesty he may have crawled back into the swamp


    • Mike says:

      I’m focusing on his political party. I’ve written a blogpiece and will go point by point. I’m adding it to my “Rogue’s Gallery”. As for his CO2 burns out nonsense, he should stick a plastic bag over his head and test it out.

  29. john byatt says:

    Old Geoff’s blogsnot is a great source of amusement,

    After putting up a “nothing is happening” post
    a comment came up ” what about the alarming thaw of the northern hemisphere permafrost”

    bet you cannot guess his response?

    give up?

    He posted the effing northern hemisphere snowfall graph

    I kid you not,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: