Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Just to be clear about Weatherzone...

Sou | 11:28 AM Go to the first of 68 comments. Add a comment

I recently posted an article responding to some comments made on a popular Australian discussion board, http://forum.weatherzone.com.au.

This is to make it clear that my article was responding to particular comments made on that board about a HotWhopper article and is not to be taken as a reflection on Weatherzone itself.  The comments I responded to were typical of those seen elsewhere on the internet and countering these talking points with facts is what HotWhopper is all about.

Weatherzone looks to be an excellent service for discussing all things weather.

I notice Weatherzone has now closed the Climate Change Forum.  I do not presume to question the decision taken by Weatherzone  in this regard.  They will have their own reasons.  Bearing in mind that the style of HotWhopper is snarky and blunt, I sincerely hope that nothing written here or the way in which it was written contributed to that decision in any way.

Climate change is probably the most critical issue the world is facing this century.

Update: Weatherzone has since informed me that the decision to shut down the Weatherzone Climate Change Forum was taken the day before I wrote my original post.


  1. Sou,

    That forum was a toxic deniers playground and it will not be missed. Your timely article gave the deniers a right royal send off!


    1. It's a real shame when that happens, CeeBee. There are so many interesting topics to explore in climate and earth sciences. I guess that's the main aim science deniers - to stop any discussion of the science altogether.

  2. I agree that it is a shame to lose an outlet to discuss climate science.

    The Weatherzone climate forum though was a strange place in that it is owned by Fairfax Media but the moderators of the forum were climate deniers and pals with the deniers in the forum, which is why the forum became a deniers playground where they could shut down any rational science discussion with impunity.

    My goal there over the past 16 months was to politely hound and badger the deniers with science until it worked them up into such a lather that the moderators lost all control and the Admin had to step in to bring to whole sorry mess to an end.

    The result is the deniers have now lost a mainstream outlet.

    1. Sounds just like HotCopper, without the Fairfax bit. (They do have a tame reporter who provides presumably free PR for them in SMH.)

      The people who run that board are fervent right wing/libertarian ideologues and promote climate science denial (plus various crank conspiracy theories of the unsavoury kind). AFAIK the owner has multiple science degrees (if my research is correct), which is kind of weird. I don't believe he gets involved - although obviously he condones the idiocy or he would have done something about it.

  3. Lol, you two should give up the science and move into comedy. Claiming that you are responsible for the closure of the wz climate thread has me in stitches ceebee. Pure gold......

  4. CeeBee, shall you tell him or shall I? ;-)

  5. Heh, I'll tell him!

    Yes you are correct, it wasn't me that was responsible for the closure of the wz climate forum - it was you and your denier mates and I do sincerely thank you for your assistance in bringing it all down!

  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. Whoever you are, it's against HotWhopper policy to flame other guests therefore I have deleted your post. I'm used to aggro having been the butt of climate science deniers for many years. However I have no idea why you think I should rot in hell except for the fact that I don't reject climate science.

      I'm told my correcting the fallacies of deniers on WZ had nothing to do with the decision. The decision was taken the day before I drafted the article.

      I suggest you take any grievances you may have with WZ back to that board.

  7. My intentions were good. Anyway, thanks for sticking up for me.

    Pete Ridley - was he posting at WZ?

    1. I'm getting an appreciation of what you meant Cee Bee. If the comments here are any guide, WeatherZone comes across as a pretty rough place and rather primitively emotional rather than cerebral, to put it mildly. It takes all kinds I guess...

      (Was that a mod? If so, it sounds even more like my experience at HC.)

    2. Sou: You enabled someone to do something that is morally wrong. Those who do morally wrong things , rot in hell.

      Christopher: No Ridley that I was aware of on WZ, elsewhere on the denier web is where it happened. Irrespective of your intentions, what you did was not morally right and you cannot justify it any other way.

    3. I was told by someone (who I took for someone who knew, such as a mod or adminstrator) that the decision to shut down the forum was taken before I posted my article. In which case I had nothing to do with the decision.

      Are you a mod? I'm curious now. Was I given bad information?

      As for "morally wrong" - take it up with whoever made the decision. I have no information as to why the forum was closed other than that my article had nothing to do with it. I know next to nothing about Weatherzone except I've seen the list of topics in the forum, and it looks as if it would be a fine forum for weather watchers.

      Am I to take it you are arguing that science deniers should be free to tell lies and spread disinformation about probably the biggest issue of the century, and it's 'morally wrong' to call out those lies?

      I'm very perplexed by your "morals", which seem as upside down as Locke's "science".

  8. One little article correcting some misundertandings about an article I wrote about Monckton and the global surface temperature - and a denier-dominated forum shuts down. Warms the heart. (If only.)

    Pity HotWhopper doesn't have the same sway attributed to it by anonymous when it comes to WUWT :(

    Maybe one day :D

  9. Shut down debate. CeeBee's goal.

    Something to be proud of.

    I imagine CeeBee will now to try to do that on this forum.

    1. I have to say, having now read some of the posts in one of the climate change threads on the WZ forum, that it was the science deniers who seemed to want to "shut down" debate, not Cee Bee.

      In fact I've just read someone effectively saying that posting articles about climate is "trolling". I think what they meant was that they reject climate science and don't want to see anything that resembles climate science on a climate change thread. But whatever they meant, it's about as close to wanting to shut down "debate" as you can get. And that's on a board where the purpose is to discuss weather. Seems very odd to my way of thinking.

    2. We live in a real world and folks who think debate should last forever and ever and ever - are dishonest fools totally obsesses with their own economic/religious agenda's and tragically disconnected from the pragmatic realities of living on this Earth.

      Worst, they are so wrapped up in their self-centered imagination world that they have no comprehension of the very real consequences we are witnesses as a result of decades of inaction and actually back-sliding.

  10. One more observation from me - and in a way it's a continuation of my previous comment. It is about confirmation bias. Cee Bee wrote: "to politely hound and badger the deniers with science".

    The key words here are "politely" and "with science".

    Whereas the WZ science deniers only noticed the words "badger and hound", probably because deniers are allergic to science and some of them are anything but polite eg WZ members referring to me (elsewhere) as Miss Cockwhopper - which I take as a compliment, needless to say, and a recognition of the effect my little blog is having.

    The WZ posts I read from Cee Bee were (mostly) polite and had substance. They were not of the type "those scientists don't know nuffin'". They were fact-filled not fact free.

    On any other weather discussion board, polite posts about science would *not* be considered "badgering". But it appears that on that section of the WZ forum, polite posts about science are considered trolling, but only by the people who reject science - and that, it would appear, was the majority of contributors to the climate change threads.

    The way I see it, if posts about science had instead been encouraged rather than discouraged, and anti-science rants and personal attacks from science rejectors, which abounded there, were instead discouraged, the forum would still be alive and well and healthy. And Cee Bee would have been considered a very valuable contributor. (I see that a number of WZ readers do view Cee Bee as a very valuable contributor, in contrast to what the loud mouth science deniers say.)

  11. If you think Ceebee's posts on WZ were polite your reading comprehension is extremely poor. Between spamming science papers, many of which were paywalled, the majority of the content he posted was inflammatory. You don't have to review many of Ceebee's post to find the insults and personal attacks. They're peppered through everything Ceebee posted.

    Here's another thing that Ceebee might want to ponder. Discussion on climate change means talking about the key points/issues not just responding to every thing by either linking a paper or personally attacking the person you disagree with. Most of us on the forums wanted to talk about the whys, wheres, hows etc but Ceebee never engaged in this discussion. Thats why we always suspected him/her of trolling.

    NVM though. Edit and moderate your blog as you see fit. Good thing about the internet these days are there are plenty of quality blogs and hiding deceitful behaviour is extremely difficult.

    I'm not sure where Ceebee will turn up posting his bile next but he now has one less avenue to do so.

    1. Good thing about the internet these days are there are plenty of quality blogs and hiding deceitful behaviour is extremely difficult.

      Indeed it is.

    2. On a quick flick through I see a bunch of people who are horrified that anyone could mock Prince Monckton, and who are still playing the 'we're oh so offended by the word "deniers" ' card, though 'Klimate Kommisars' and 'hot floppers' is just fine, apparently!

      Did I miss something?

      Look the D word up in a dictionary sometime. If that's really too much for you, you need to get out more!

      Spamming with 'science papers'! Golly? As opposed, say, to WUWT posts by retired engineers and massage therapists?

    3. Yes,Bill. I used to get that on HotCopper. Complaints that my posts contained links to science papers. This was from people posting on the Science and Medicine forum. Even from a mod who said they didn't care about what the science said or what the evidence was, they were only interested in (uninformed) opinion.

      Science deniers are darn weird.

    4. After scanning numerous page at the now defunct WZ blog, I think that Ceebee copped a lot more than they dished out. As for spamming, the WZ commenter known as ROM leaves Ceebee for dead, as does SBT.
      When it comes to comments that are "inflammatory, insults and personal attacks", it would appear that Ceebee has been subjected to a concerted, orchestrated campaign from a group of at least seven individuals.
      As for "I'm not sure where Ceebee will turn up posting his bile next but he now has one less avenue to do so". That also applies to the seven+ individuals who baited Ceebee and appear to have assailed the WZ forum with their 'motivated reasoning' that they thought was "discussing the whys, wheres and hows, etc." I'm guessing that those same seven+ individuals were also implicated in the closing of the BigPond forum on climate change.
      Rather than getting their daily fix by pouring out their "bile" on Ceebee, the Malignant Seven would have been better off getting an edumacation and learning themselves some Real Science.

    5. Hello Arnost, fancy seeing you here - feeling a bit lost are we now that the WZ Admin has banned you, along with SBT, ROM, Anthony etc.

      I still have full posting privileges @ WZ - you should think long and hard about that.

  12. Hey Sou, just a question.

    If you "demolish misinformation ", why do you have a picture of ACCESS showing a modelled run of 54 degrees 160 hours out?

    Knowing full well it came nowhere near the 1960 Oodnadatta record of 50.7?

    So in fact its not getting hotter, that graph is false and you should take it down.

    1. Woah, steady on Killer!

      For one, you need to explain clearly what the heck you're talking about!

      For two: let me guess, this is a reference to the overall site mainpage and the BoM chart that was a cause célèbre amongst the Denialati months ago (after it didn't actually happen)?. That's a 'graphic', Pet, not a 'graph'. If you don't think the BoM having to do that for a forecast is in itself significant... well, that explains why you think you've got yourself a real 'gotcha!' When was our Hottest Summer, incidentally?

      You're WeatherZone flow-on traffic I gather? I ask because the tropes that emanate from there are pretty old - I haven't seen anyone playing the 'Denier=Holocaust=Poor Me!' card in ages, for instance.

    2. 54 degrees 160 hours - I guess Mr Violi means 210 degrees. I've never come across anyone using degrees and hours. Degrees, minutes and seconds yes. There's always a first time.

      As for the rest, does anyone know what Mr Violi is talking about? From reading his posts elsewhere, would anyone bother trying to figure it out?

    3. Quite easy to figure out Sou.

      You have that graph as if it actually happened. that was a model run.

      Why are you saying it happened?

      Clearly it didn't, it reached 49.6 degrees. The record is still 50.7 in Oodnadatta in Feb 1960.

      Why are you lying?

    4. Ha ha. I see. He likes the forecast map I happened to snag a picture of. Neat isn't it. (What about the ducks? They aren't really blue you know. Do you want me to remove the fake blue filter too? And the 'roo and her joey aren't really inside your computer monitor, it just looks like they are. See, I tricked you.)

      As Bill said, that's a graphic not a graph, Mr Violi. If you want to see what actually happened here's a link to an animated graphic of ten days of the hottest January on record for Australia - Australia's Angry Summer.


      It's even got a video clip for people who have trouble reading words.

    5. Anthony, when you learn what is the difference between a forecast temperature map of an entire continent and the actual temperature recorded at a single local weather station, you might, just might, mind you, have a shot at being understood by anyone while you try to converse on the topic of climate or weather.

      I don't hold much hope that you'll make the effort, and suggest you just hop back to your denialist mates and your make-believe world.

    6. Except it wasn't.

      Only on your datasets it was, It did not break the record.

      Why don't you compare all the temperature stations from 1970 and see the results.

      And you wonder why you are labelled alarmists!

      There is so much misinformation on the first page of your site its mindblowing.

      Add RSS and UAH and HADSST as well..

    7. Judith Curry agrees with me, you know who she is?

      The ship is sinking, I feel sorry for you and your soon to be ex government.

    8. Mr Violi - you poor old thing. No, I don't wonder why people like you think most people in the world are "alarmist". I've come across a few dozen people like you who huddle together for company on science denier blogs and discussion boards sniggering "them sciyency types dunno nuffin'".

      If you want to compare temperatures since 1970, there are plenty of tools around. Like here for the whole world and here for Australia.

      Now before you write another incomprehensible comment about degrees, hours and Oodnadatta and then complain that I can't read your mind. Do you know how many pages HotWhopper has on the internet? Be specific. Put in a link next time.

      You don't accept the data because you don't want to. You don't know the difference between a hot day in Oodnadatta and a hot fortnight over the whole continent.

      I can just see you in thirty years whining and swearing and carrying on that they don't make air conditioners like they used to - because you won't "believe" that it's 50 degrees in the shade and 80% humidity. It's all a trick.

      Like I suggested before, go back to your mates and your make believe world.

    9. Yep, Judith Curry doubtlessly agrees with you that Sou has been remarkably remiss in having a graphic on the font page of the site - not the blog - that you both feel you must object to. Now if you'll just provide us with a link where she says so?

      Assuming you're playing the Appeal to Authority card more generally, shall we start listing the people who agree with us? 97% is a rather bigger pool to draw from than 3%, after all!

      Now, this remarkably uncivil and gratuitously inflammatory 'you're a deceitful alarmist' gambit, based on a small graphic that's not on the main body of this blog and I can see no references to apart from yours; well, being as how it's what we in the trade refer to as a picture or illustration, I suspect most people will see it - if they see it at all - as representing a hot Australia. A very hot Australia. I repeat my question - when was Australia's warmest summer?

      Your complaint, in short, is pretty thin gruel. 'Pointless carping' comes to mind.

      I mean, perhaps you should complain about the banner because there's not really a big fire here at the moment?

    10. Go to Judiths site, she is leaving everyone for dead by recognizing that all 73 models are so far off course its laughable.

      In any case Sou, answer this.

      Is the graphic on the front page a model run, or what actually occurred?

    11. Mr Violi, here you go. A bit slow on the uptake, aren't you.

      BTW - Haven't you learned how to copy and paste a link yet?

      Coincidentally I did pop over to see what Judith Curry was up to lately. She's put up a guest post by Tony Brown, who is apparently still trying to argue that a small island in the North Atlantic is the entire world.

    12. LOL, good to see you wont answer the question, now I know where your disciple Cybil gets it from.

    13. Interesting to see that Mr Violi doesn't comprehend the answer, or that it's now been repeated three times.

      To help him out.

      See those different coloured bits of text on the screen in my previous reply, Mr Violi. They are called hyperlinks. If you click on them they will shift the focus of your browser (that's what you are using to see what's on the internet).

      When you do that you'll see a jumble of letters, which, if you know how to decode them, form words. That's undoubtedly the really difficult part for you that I'm not willing to help you with. You'll have to learn how to read them by yourself or get a tutor.

    14. What I need to learn is that tomorrow you will be in bold letters on my forum and blog highlighting people in society who are disabled.

      Unless this deflection is something that's not permanent?

    15. Mr Violi, are you vision-impaired such that you can't see the links? Serious question - otherwise I don't understand what you are trying to say.

    16. Anthony, why would you want to highlight people in society who are disabled? Is there some reason why disabled people would want to be highlighted on your forum? Are you providing some kind of service to people who are disabled?

    17. @ Anthony the confused chap above:

      Go to Judiths site, she is leaving everyone for dead by recognizing that all 73 models are so far off course its laughable.

      They are weather forecasting models. Not climate models. Nor does her lengthy post say what you appear to believe it does.

    18. Sou, answer this with a yes or no.

      The picture on the front page titled " Its getting hotter"

      Was this a forecast model run or something that actually happened?

    19. Mr. Violi - I don't know if you're extra slow, lacking in confidence in your own judgement or trying to play a game of gotcha.

      Evidence for your being a bit slow lies in the fact that you still don't seem to have been able to follow the links, which I gave you already, to the very early comments in this thread. And you still haven't read those comments. In those initial comments I (and Bill) pointed out to you that the graphic is of a January forecast from the Bureau of Meteorology. (Unlike you, I saw no need to repeat myself. But I recognise that for some people, it takes a lot of repetition before information sinks in.)

      Evidence for your lack of confidence in your own judgement lies in the fact that, now I've managed to interpret your first incomprehensible comment about degrees, hours and Oodnadatta, you yourself were of the view that it was an image of a forecast. But at the same time you keep asking me to confirm it, and I keep confirming it and you still keep asking to confirm it. Will you ever stop?

      Evidence for you trying to play "gotcha" is littered throughout.

      Thing is, the world is getting hotter as evidenced by rising global surface temperatures, melting sea ice, rising sea levels, heating oceans and other indicators.

      Thing is, too, that that little graphic was the first time the purple shades appeared on that BoM forecast. The first time the purple shades appeared on the legend. During the hottest January on record for the whole of Australia.

      It is significant.

      It remains on the legend now. It's become a permanent feature. And it is very possible that in the not too distant future it will appear on a report of maximum daily temperatures across Australia.

  13. CeeBee...I found Pete Ridley(the real one)... I will find you too my little paper dragon(if you remember who I am? :) )!

  14. Were you posting on Senator Steve Fielding's forum? If not I don't have the slightest clue who you might be.

  15. Anthony Violli, SBT, Snafu and Arnost claim that they are the innocent victims and they are hard done by.

    Well if you have a look at the forums that are run by Anthony, they are pure gutter trash and you can clearly see who the main players are and all the filth and trash that they talk about SOU and Ceebee just shows you the depth's of their intellect.

    All four of them need to go back to playing with their dollies, and leave the big boys to what they know best.

  16. Im quite happy to meet up and see who plays with what Mrs anonymous. So come see me internet hero and see what happens.

    In the meantime, you cant admit the answer is no.

    Nor will you use unadjusted data, we all know this and its documented well by everyone that the only datasets that show warming are adjusted ones, and ones using the old baseline.

    And as an aside the BOMs ACORN dataset shows no warming for summer temps. Maybe they can tweak them some more until they get the desired result.

    Even GISS shows no warming since 2001, and the question Ceebee refuses to answer is how much has C02 risen in that time.

    And Ceebee, why don't you post on WZ if you aren't banned?

    You are all a joke, as can be seen be the nonsense you use here.

    1. Can't admit something that I have stated over and over and pointed to over and over again? I guess that proves my first point was on the money.

      As for the rest, see the comment below.

    2. Just for you Anthony, click on the linky darling.


    3. "Just for you Anthony".... RIGHT BACK AT YA... GET THE HINT?! :-)


    4. Wow, what happended to all SHAK's posts(and SHAK related), can't we mention him around here? And I thought you were into free speech, apparently that only applies to what YOU want to say hey?!

    5. I don't know who or what SHAK is and I couldn't see how the deleted posts related to the topic.

      Unfortunately blogger doesn't allow moving of posts to a more appropriate section. The choices are publish or delete. I give a fair bit more leeway here than some bloggers do, but ultimately it's my decision as to how to manage the discussion sections.

      See also the comment policy (tab is under the banner).

    6. Sou, a "person" replied to Anthony above, detailing firstly how he wasn't a gentleman(Anthony) but the poster in fact was a "Gentleman", then went on to mention that he was happy to take Anthony up on his offer to stop hiding behind computer screens. I subsequently posted "SHAK Attack" because the poster answering Anthony was clearly a person who goes by that name("Shak" is a derivative/shortening). The poster then continued on a rant because WZ "Deniers" (is your preferred derogatory term?) used to have a bit of fun that the ProAGW posters were unemployed and made fun of those who were banned. I answered that post detailing that I am employed and not banned from WZ. How is this irrelevant, unless of course Yasified contacted you to get it removed! :) Free speech...pfft!

    7. I deleted all the irrelevant posts, presumably including the one you refer to since I don't see it.

      Free speech is not what you think it is. I have a comment policy to avoid the worst of thread hijacking, trolling for attention, personal attacks (against anyone but me) and extreme foul language.

      If you want 'free speech' visit where Anthony Violi hangs out. Be aware that they only allow deniers on that board, presumably because they want to maintain their right of free speech without fear of contradiction. Anyone who does *not* reject science is not allowed to sign up. Apart from that, it looks like anything goes.

      My word is final.

  17. I thought this was cute:

    Violi: Answer this with yes or no: "Was this a forecast model run or something that actually happened?"

    A "yes" or "no"? Try it!

    Love his thinking on 'baselines' too. Do you reckon he really thinks a slope changes if the baseline is shifted?

    And he wants to remove adjustments for ToB and UHI effects etc. Most fake sceptics used to shriek that the temperature data sets weren't adjusted enough, not that they were adjusted too much. Look at all the work Watts has put in to try to "prove" weather station data should be adjusted more.

    As for the rest, Violi's going around in circles. Typical dumb denier talk. The evidence doesn't suit the line he wants to spin so he rejects it but offers nothing in its place and no reason for rejecting it. At least he now seems to be accepting the world has been heating up - at least till 2001 in his words. He obviously doesn't accept the record hot years of 2005 and 2010, but that's just denier talk.

    Back in your box, little fella.

    1. Current GISS anomaly is 0.56 C.

      Use the current baseline, its 0.17.

      A discrepancy of 0.39, or 3 decades worth of warming.

      That is fact.

    2. Maybe you can explain what you mean. You seem to be suggesting that if you change the baseline the amount of warming drops. No, if you change the baseline you simply reset what is regarded as zero. These are anomalies. They're always relative to some baseline. Changing the baseline has no effect on the trend. It simply changes the absolute values of the anomalies. If I change the baseline from 1950 - 1980 to 1980 - 2010 all that will happen is that the anomaly values in the past will become more negative and those today will be less positive. Or, have I misunderstood what you're suggesting.

    3. You can plot global surface temperatures using any baseline you want, Mr Violi. You should try it some time. Here are some examples.

      It doesn't matter which baseline you use, by any measure the world has heated up by around 0.8 degrees Celsius since early last century.

    4. People like Anthony Violi (and another Anthony by the name of Watts) should be embarrassed that they don't understand the concept of baselines, no matter how many times it is politely explained to them. Instead, they attack the people that do understand the science like we're some kind of bullies who want to censor any form of dissension regarding the AGW issue. Yes, there are uncertainties involved, but not the kind you imagine. How can you expect people to listen to what you have to say when you don't even understand the simplest of concepts involved, and obviously view the whole issue as some kind of grand conspiracy?

      Dunning-Kruger writ large.


    5. Wotts Up With That Blog said:

      "If I change the baseline from 1950 - 1980 to 1980 - 2010 all that will happen is that the anomaly values in the past will become more negative and those today will be less positive. Or, have I misunderstood what you're suggesting."

      All they care about is that changing the baseline to a more recent period makes the *present* anomalies look smaller, so therefore, no significant warming! It's that simple, really. That's why our two Anthonys prefer the satellite records. Because their baseline periods are from a more recent period than the land records, they have smaller recent anomalies. So in their minds it makes the warming look not as bad as it really is... which is all that really matters to an AGW denier.


  18. I asked CB constantly to prove his/her claims. He/she never provided them. Instead we just got the same pap regurgitated day after day and to what end? You never conceded a point, wouldn't accept evidence even when it was coming from your side when they admitted they had been wrong and in the end you made a complete idiot of yourself time and time again by not engaging in a debate of any depth but just claiming that we where conducting ad hominem attacks everytime we proved you wrong. I provided links and articles and you took it as some for of a direct insult and had to whinge, moan and whine about the content of scientific papers and news articles that I didn't write but for some reason you couldn't get that through your head and thought I was making it up. Any attempt at bringing decent debate was deflected by yourself onto a new tangent when you started to lose the debate or had been proven wrong. You ignored those who made sense, engaged only those whomever was pulling your chains behind the scenes. The changes in syntax, knowledge and posting style showed that at least 3 other people where writing your comments for you. The funniest thing is that you haven't realised that you have lost your public forum to keep moaning in. So you are now an echo chamber with no venue. - Personally I am glad the threads where shut down as it removes another venue for your side to spread waffle and further confuse the debate. The only thing I have every denied is the theory is correct. All of us so called climate deniers are no such thing. Climate changes on a daily and seasonal basis. SBT

    1. As are you SBT,Weatherzone is a much nicer place now without all the dribble that was coming from the deniers, who claim they they are the innocent one's, yet they were the ones hurling most of the crap about.

      You just have to look towards the final few days of the forum and all the crap the deniers flung around,all the abuse, all the swearing, no wonder it was shut down!
      Or maybe it was just another conspiracy? ;-P Miss me? tree?

    2. SBT writes his or her own brand of conspiracy ideation: "at least 3 other people where writing your comments for you" (sic)

      And: "removes another venue for your side to spread waffle and further confuse"

      Climate science is so confusing! The surface temperature keeps going up, seas keep rising, ice keeps melting, CO2 keeps rising - but there is a debate that humans are causing all this? Not!

      If only climate science deniers could somehow stop 97% of climate science papers from being published...they could get on with their imaginary "debate" without being encumbered by facts.

    3. Ah yes - SBT - a particularly nasty troll. Why was it that the WZ Admin banned you again SBT hmmm?

      My posts are on WZ for anyone (other than those that the WZ Admin banned) to read and they tell a completely different story than your conspiracy riddled paranoid rant. Google Psychological projection.

  19. Will someone please tell me what tbe debate is? If its about human influenced global warming, well the scientific debate over that was over years ago.


Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.