Tuesday, January 13, 2015

On opprobrium and disrespect

Sou | 3:14 AM Go to the first of 56 comments. Add a comment

See below for an addendum.

A convoluted mixed up quote from the Curry files, as seen at WUWT:
In the climate wars, those that use pejorative names for people that they disagree with are the equivalents of racists and anti-semites, and deserve opprobrium and disrespect. 

Quit calling us racist and anti-semitic, Judith, or you'll get my opprobrium and disrespect.

On second thoughts, too late.

Deniers are milking the free speech thing for all they think it's worth. I gather from their mixed up, convoluted articles, that they want to be free to say whatever nonsense pops into their head without being criticised for it. But they don't want anyone else to say whatever pops into their head.

Or maybe they are lauding the right of anyone to say whatever pops into their head. It's hard to know. At WUWT there's a stack of quotes ranging from 'deniers should be hung, drawn and quartered' (or equivalent) to 'aren't people just simply too, too awful for saying deniers should be hung, drawn and quartered' (or equivalent). It's not been made clear whether WUWT is approving all the quotes or only some of them are permitted in their own quaint version of "free speech".

Oh, and various denialist lobby groups (well, one anyway - you can guess which one) want to be invited to talk on BBC radio programs. I expect the BBC could arrange a special radio segment for climate science deniers, along with the anti-vaxxers, the pro-smoking lobby and the flat earthers.

A few years ago I had the ABC radio on while driving, and there was a long segment devoted to ghost hunters. It wasn't April 1 and the interviewer treated the shysters with courtesy and respect.

So my advice to deniers is don't give up. Push for a fake sceptic segment on your local radio station. Failing that, there's always Prison Planet and Jesse Ventura and David Icke and Breitbart and WattsUpWithThat and ClimateEtc.

(If you haven't guessed, WUWT has slowed down a lot lately, which is fine by me. The average daily post count since New Years' Day is 2.5, a long way shy of the eight or nine a day in recent months. Anthony Watts himself has all but vanished from the scene. The other nutters are left to run the nuttery.)


I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't read it myself - archived here. IMO Judith Curry has behaved more badly than Anthony Watts at his worst. If you can stomach it, read the archive. Do a search for her weird comments.

She uses the murders of cartoonists in Paris as a pretense to take another shot at Michael Mann. She calls alleged defamation "satire", arguing people who defame are merely exercising their right to free speech. She doesn't have a clue about what is allowable as free speech. Would she think the same if someone wrote an article in the press claiming she committed scientific fraud? Multiple times? What if they added an aside about child molesters?

She labels as the equivalent of racist and anti-semitic, people who refer to climate science deniers as such and says it is "very sad" to see scientists behaving like that. She seems to be oblivious to the inconsistency. She refers to people who accept science as "warmists" and "alarmists" and then goes on to write: "When person A calls person B a ‘denier’ or any other pejorative word, in my opinion they deserve disrespect, in the context of the broader discussion in my piece."

Even hard-boiled deniers recognise the difference between murdering people, defamation and free speech, and have tried to point this out to Judith. Judith is so mired in her personal dislike of Michael Mann that she can no longer see straight. That plus her ideology looks to have taken such a hold that she has lost her grasp of science.

Perhaps the biggest visible sign of how low Judith has sunk is that she left this gross disgusting cartoon up on her blog for more than a day. I didn't comment on it earlier because I assumed she would remove it when she saw it. She didn't. Even her fans thought she would remove it.

It appears that nothing is too gross or vulgar for Judith these days. If you thought she'd lost it before, then see where she is now.

Finally, she is being caught out by her own words and has succumbed to criticism of inconsistency or whatever, and put back up her sky dragon slayer articles, which she'd removed some time ago.

Sou 14 January 2015


  1. I'm sure that when Curry calls us "warmistas", no disrespect is intended.

    1. Then there's "warmunists". These portmanteaus are really irritating, although in response I have often found that "duh-niers" cuts to the chase without sounding too clever-clever. "Duh-nialists" for those times when somebody needs reminding that it's the thought that counts. "No it's not you, it's what you do." Well, so much for J. Curry and her precious conceits of Oprahprobrium eh? At least S. Palin's "lamestream" was self-reflexively apt.

    2. I'm finding that simply owning the label of the day helps.

  2. " I gather from their mixed up, convoluted articles, that they want to be free to say whatever nonsense pops into their head without being criticised for it."

    Of course, it's not technically about speech. It's about a free press to print (these days, electronically) whatever you want. Honestly, I'd love to hear Anthony give a speech on climate science -- provided I could participate in a Q&A session afterwards. -- Dennis

  3. sergeiMK says:
    January 12, 2015 at 9:48 am
    Does this request for freedom to publish whatever theories you like also apply to WUWT (and others) – will we now see articles (or even just comments) from:
    iron sun believers,
    flat earthers,
    Haarp radiation believers
    Chemtrail believers.
    Will all those warmists WUWT banned (perhaps just for commenting too frequently) be allowed to post again?

    [No. .mod]


    Such is freedom of speech as is practiced at WUWT

    1. The iron sun is my all-time favorite loony theory, followed closely by HAARP craziness.

    2. A weird but real story similar to the HAARP conspiracy theory: A long, long time ago, about 10 years before HAARP started up, "we" (planetary scientist at UHawaii) received a threatening letter in the US mail (email was in its pre-infancy) from an individual in Alaska (Fairbanks, if I remember correctly) stating that the "remote sensing beams" from our (passive V-IR) imaging systems were causing the individual headaches. Besides getting the FBI involved (for a variety of very real reasons) one scientist (a graduate student at the time, I think) wrote back in jest that perhaps a hat made out of Al-foil, shiny side out, might help reflect the (nonexistent) remote sensing beams by the “Faraday effect”, a term used to throw out a scientific justification whether correct or not. The individual wrote back thankful for the solution! Subsequently, it was relayed to us that the individual (suffering mild schizophrenia) had been influenced by a national article about the UH research and confused it with pre-HAARP ionospheric research stations in Alaska. I conjecture that HAARP subsequently became the focus of this individual's concerns. Poor HAARP! All they needed was to hand out tin-foil hats, an already proven solution! Just recently, I learned of the existence of a fair number of individuals who feel/believe/convinced/are(?) electromagnetic sensitive to an extreme degree (i.e., can detect a nearby cell phone turned on) and have moved to the Green Bank Observatory E-M quiet reserve in West Virginia. This affliction is "real" to the individuals involved, but any physics-psycho-physiological explanation has yet to be confirmed. I am sure the physics part is understood quite well and can be dropped from the equation.

    3. THe issue of electrosensitivity came up in the UK over 12 years ago, partly as a result of paranoia over mobile phones and their attendant masts. I was at some meeting where someone did stand up and say they were electrosensitive and couldn't get anyone to test them or have a proper look at them.
      Which may or may not be true, after all a blinded test would be trivially simple to carry out.
      Years later it was reported that people in a village had started reporting strange symptoms after a mobile phone mast was erected nearby, all the usual electrosensitivity claims, and therefore something was wrong. Except that it hadn't actually been turned on yet...

  4. They have freedom of speech. But adults are responsible for the consequences of their actions.

  5. Freedom of speech does not imply or confer freedom from morality. It does not mean that serially and incessantly misrepresenting science is okay. It does not mean that misrepresenting the science to high-level policy makers in order to distort public policy is okay.

    It does not mean taking money from vested interests to promote confusion and paralyse policy evolution is okay. And above all, it does not mean that it's permissible to be so intellectually lazy that you will believe - and repeat - the most shameless clap-trap without bothering to check it for factual accuracy first.

    The wuttering, muttering confused need to get this straight in their heads. Now.

    1. "... policy evolution ..."

      That right there double-screws you. ;)

  6. But those shouting about free speech from the denial sites are exercising it already. And free speech does not mean that other media outlets are forced to allow any old rubbish on their sites, in their studios or on their pages. I love the bleating of people telling me that the government is preventing them telling me what they have just told me.

    1. Among other things, it's the publicly *subsidized* free speech which hacks them off.

  7. Dr Curry is a credible skeptic yet she has displayed abysmal judgment in the company she keeps and the manner in which it is kept.

    Allowing Anthony Rose and The Daily Mail to be the bullhorn for her (libelous) dissent from BEST was bizarre and embarrassing enough but it came on top of a 2007 article in the Washington Post in support of Bjorn Lomborg. Dr Curry formally announced that she was utterly Bjorn Again with this:

    "“There is no easy solution to this problem [global warming]… But I have yet to see an option that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing.”

    Then she revealed that her political colours shone way brighter than her drab scientific tones with this endorsement of the GWPF :

    How the IPCC buried evidence showing good news
    about global warming
    Nicholas Lewis and Marcel Crok
    Foreword by Professor Judith Curry”

    Dr Curry continued her 2014 naked marathon with a speech to that 'mother-load of bad ideas' the George C Marshall Institute and attendance at that “other load from another mother" The Heartland Institute‘s “At the Crossroads; Energy & Climate Policy Summit”

    Dr Curry should not be criticized because her dissenting views have been adopted and employed by professional deniers and equally Curry must have no regard to that use in the course her research.

    We on the other hand must have regard to the fact that in her capacity as a scientist she has frequently sought out and embraced those same denier organizations.

    Appropriate opprobrium akimbo.

    (Apologies to Sam Harris for stealing his 'mother load of bad ideas')

    1. PG, she makes proper noises from time to time. I read a comment once along the lines that the science is fascinating and it would be nice if everyone could get back to having more interesting and useful debates about it. Which resonates with me and still does. However in retrospect I believe that statement is but one in a litany of tone-trolling, to which I am becoming universally tone-deaf no matter who says it. To quote a quotable film, "Shit... charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500."

    2. "The bullshit piles up so fast here you need wings to stay above it."


    3. One thing I could never figure out is how napalm dropped on bullshit could possibly smell good ....

    4. To me a climate scientist should be more concerned about their own work and other work specifically related to her expertise. Yet on her blog, science related to her expertise is rarely seen. I think she should probably stick to what she really knows to remain credible and objective.

  8. Sou, perhaps in a rush to prove you wrong about his rarity (but probably not) Anthony has resurfaced with this gem: https://archive.today/PxtKB

    Wagers on how long it takes this bit of hilarity to vanish into the abyss?

    1. Now taking side bets on the outcome of this one:


      Brandon Gates
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.
      January 12, 2015 at 12:50 pm


      "From the “temperature bias only goes one way department” and the University of Montana: Mountain system artificially inflates temperature increases at higher elevations"

      A little help here, should I file this under “Logic Fails” or “From the Department of Unintentional Humor”? Perhaps both ….


    2. At least with that post WUWT is accepting that the Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm of NOAA is not only able to correct cooling biases, but also warming biases. Funny how welcome homogenization is when it reduces the trend. We should remind them of it next time they complain about homogenization increasing trends in another dataset.

    3. I will keep that in mind. Likely it won't make a dent in the typical WUWT participant's compartmentalized thinking, but some of those who lurk may properly understand.

  9. "I gather from their mixed up, convoluted articles, that they want to be free to say whatever nonsense pops into their head without being criticised for it."

    This is sometimes facilitated by editors of mainstream media outlets that self regard themselves as serious journalists. They provide 'comment' platforms for people who make false claims and misrepresent or even lie about established facts.

    The publishers hide behind the excuse that said person is just expressing their 'opinion'. Apparently it doesn't matter whether or not these opinions are based on facts, or misrepresentations, or even lies.

    For instance, in the Sunday Telegraph (UK) this week, the ever reliable Christopher Booker claimed that both satellite data sets, UAH and RSS, had 2014 as the 6th warmest year on record and that neither set showed an upward temperature trend since 1997.

    Readers here will know that, while true for RSS, this is flat out false for UAH. 2014 was the 3rd warmest year in UAH and the warming trend since 1997 in UAH is +0.10C/decade; warmer than both HadCRUT4 and NCDC.

    But since this is Mr Booker's "opinion", apparently that's all right. It's okay to make false claims about reality so long as it's your opinion. These 'quality' paper will publish you anyway.

    1. it's incredible, isn't it? and it's not Booker's first foray into proud ignorance (or outright fabrication) either -- over the years he's argued in favour of creationism and against the links between cancer and both asbestos and second-hand smoking. the guy is crank magnetism writ on an epic scale.

      there's been a lot of excitement here in the UK after a "security expert" claimed on Fox News that the second largest city in the UK, is "totally Muslim" and that "non-Muslims just simply don’t go in". needless to say that this came as a bit of a surprise to the millions of non-Muslims who regularly go into Birmingham, especially if their destination was the huge Christmas market they just held there. but what are the odds that he'll experience even the tiniest career hiccup for this staggering display of ignorance on exactly the topic he was being paid to be an expert?

      some people just seem to always fail upwards. though i suppose there's no great incentive for them to try harder, given how many people seem to be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt once more, however many times they've previously proven to be liars, incompetents or both.

    2. I'm rather surprised that the Telegraph hasn't put Booker out to grass some years ago. I guess he gets enough letters in green ink supporting him to warrant his waste of good newsprint each Sunday. I've long since learned that whatever he says about science, I should accept the opposite.

    3. Yes, I've wondered about that. The Telegraph got rid of Delingpole, after all, so why not Booker? Perhaps he's a bit better connected to the old-boy network than Delingpole was. Harder to dislodge.

  10. Speaking of name calling, especially of the Nazi variety, this started back in the 1990s, when attacks on Ben Santer accused him of "scientific cleansing" the Attribution chapter of the IPCC 3AR WG1 report.

    This was a particularly charged phrase, because the Bosnian War was going on at the time, with its "ethnic cleansing" atrocities. And because "racial cleansing" was a phrase from Hitler's Germany.

    For more on this, see an article I wrote right after last month's AGU meeting:

    "Dealing With 'Forces of Unreason," Yale Climate Connections, December 23, 2014.

    1. David

      I have a hunch that Russell Seitz will not like that article for he almost invariably counters any slight at Uncle Fred particularly allusions to 'co-operation' with R J Reynolds.

  11. Let us not forget that one part of the Climategate faux scandal was that climate scientists are not allowed to express their opinions about deniers even in their private emails:

    "29. The Climategate Letters are replete with examples of unprofessional language, which on occasion rises to defamation:"


  12. In my view respect has to be earned and once gained is fragile being quickly destroyed by one ill judged comment or action, many who complain about lack of respect are serial offenders in those latter.

  13. I've been to Judith Curry's blog and it prompted me to write an addendum. More than head-vice material - you'd be advised to have a bucket and damp towel handy.

    1. It seems surreal, but she has actually written her opponents are “the equivalents of racists and anti-semites”.

      Thing is with Curry, whenever I think she can’t possibly say anything more bizarre, she somehow manages it. On this occasion she came back a day after being challenged on the tastelessness of her original piece with a quote apparently comparing the climate consensus to Nazism.

      It’s quite incredible.


      The first memorial services and funerals of the victims were held today.


    2. Even some of her own supporters are objecting to her comparisons. That's saying something!

    3. She insults Mann (Jewish, btw) and calls opponents the equivalents of anti-semites without skipping a beat. Aunt Judy is full on nuts at this point.

  14. Following Charlie, Curry has started up that Steyn's writings, that prompted Mann v. Steyn, were satire, so if you are ok with Charlie, you have to be ok with Steyn. But ...

    Prior to Charlie, site:judithcurry.com mann steyn (satire | satirical)
    turns up 35 articles, 1 post-charlie, and 34 before. In none of the 34 does she call Steyn's writing satire. It's always called opinion.

    But #2: Steyn's legal filings call his writing opinion, not satire.

    Ret-conning to take advantage of a tragedy to advance a cause is particularly vile.

    1. I thought the Josh cartoon at WUWT was bad enough. Anthony Watts has the excuse of lacking class, no sense of ethics or social propriety, limited education and being a pleb. Judith is educated. I don't know her background but she has held the post of professor, which means if she wasn't raised to have a sense of decency, she had the opportunity to learn it along the way (and others must have thought she had it) - yet she's behaved even more badly.

    2. Irrespective of her background (which I do know moderately well), she spends a lot of time complaining about bad behavior from 'them' (Mann, and, well, pretty much anybody she disagrees with). Whatever the background, she's making herself arbiter of proper behavior. If she were even-handed about her complaints, that'd be one thing. The hypocrisy, though, makes it quite a different thing.

  15. When Judith first suggested that a post was coming on this topic, I was somewhat incredulous, I even thought that I might have misunderstood....but no, and here we are, so time for a recap of the vital contributions of the denizens on this important topic of freedom of speech;

    First Judith's main post

    “recent events have compelled me to write a post on the broader issues raised by Charlie....”

    A sense of foreboding enveloped me.

    There's some long quotes from other soures, a bit on Uni's and then, a mere 5 para's in of Judith's writing, OMG, Michael Mann. At this point, a train wreck feels inevitable;

    “Anyone defending the satirists at Charlie should have a tough time defending Michael Mann in his legal war against the satirical writings of Mark Steyn...”

    So, crude and ugly binary thinking it is. Somehow, it gets worse.

    “In the climate wars, those that use pejorative names for people that they disagree with  are the equivalents of racists and anti-semites, and deserve opprobrium and disrespect”

    What an amazing sentence!; has anyone managed such incredible lack of insight even before the completion of the sentence?

    And then just to ram home the message that Judith forgets what she writes from one sentence tot next;
    “and get rid of the tyranny of political ‘correctness’ in the climate debate that is being enforced by a handful of self-appointed and readily-offended fools.”

    Damn those “fools”.....oops, I'm a “racist and anti-semite” [equivalent of]

    8 para's of banal claptrap.

    Having set the bar so very very low, can the denizens contrive to go lower?

    Surprisingly, even some of the denizens can see this for the BS it is;

    2nd comment in, tallbloke;
    “Hang on, if we’re backing free speech we need to put our bigboy pants on and allow idiots to call us deniers, if they really are determined to demonstrate their idiocy in public.”

    “Consensus Climate Science is more than a religion.
    Consensus Climate Science tries to become a barbaric and brutal form of government “

    “Among speech suppressionists on the climatological left, Michael Mann is the biggest offender....Despicable.”

    “Free speech means free speech, with no qualifications. “

    “Alarmists have killed their children and then themselves in a chilling echo of Jonestown. Alarmists have committed suicide by cop at the Discovery Channel headquarters. ...And they are the ones who want to shut their opponents up. The fact that violence has been mostly absent is luck, nothing else....The ethical parallel is that neither radical Islamists nor CAGW prophets of doom will engage in honest debate with their opponents. Demonisation is sufficient for their cause. “

    “It wouldn’t surprise me if a moral principle that applies to the Charlies Hebdo tragedy would also apply to the Mann/Steyn case...”
    --> “well said. It’s the same general principle.” - JC

    “If you are going to defend offensive/controversial/satirical writings from Charlie Hebro, I am arguing these same people should be defending other offensive/controversial/satirical writings. Case in point is Steyn/Simberg. “- JC

    “The jihadists and Mann are both in the business of suppressing speech “

    “you mean like ‘warmists’ exploit Hiroshima and the Holocaust? “ - JC

    “The warmers come dangerously close to breaking bread with the people who attacked Charlie Hebdo. “

    “The GWPF has just sent out an email with similar themes:
    Charlie Hebdo, Climate Scepticism & Free Speech
    Climate Extremism & The Chilling Effect On Free Speech” - JC

    “My post has provoked people into thinking about the challenges of free speech in the context of the climate debate, which was the intent of my piece.” - JC [yes, see above for the 'thinking']

    “Have your criticisms influenced my thinking? No, they come across as Mannian partisanship rather than dealing with the meta issues of the situation” - JC [circle those wagons!]

    “you choose to misinterpret my piece.” - JC [ an old favourite of Judith's!]

    Lots of brilliant insights on the philosophical considerations of free speech!

  16. Banned at WUWT? You can add your name to the list here:


  17. Wish I could add a lucid comment to this appalling behaviour.

    It all reminds me of that show 'Yes Minister' where everybody kept repeating the word appalling.

    What I find appalling is that denialists just cannot see how appalling they really are. They keep attacking real scientists with appalling labels such as warmista or communista. They just do not get irony, do they?


    1. Except, although I don't understand it, I think they honestly think they are right, and that AGW is wrong. So while I too use labels like "appalling" all the time, I don't think they advance the argument one picometer. Ultimately I suspect it doesn't come down to science, but to, as Naomi Oreskes says, disagreements about politics, rights, and the role of government .

      In other words, they think we're just as blind, dishonest, and corrupt as we think they are.

      How progress is to be had in such an environment is beyond me, and maybe beyond anyone.

    2. These first class morons are using projection of their own limited intellects and knowledge to judge their opponents or 'enemies' to be just as bereft of any real knowledge as themselves. It is not about rational discussion of all the real evidence of the issues we face. It is about dragging us down to their level in the imaginary world that they inhabit (I prefer to think of it as a cess pit full of crap of their own making). It is working in the USA and it is called Fox News. I fear for the future with these idiots spreading their misinformation and outright lies to a barely educated mass that thinks that celebrities have some relevance to their lives.
      I find the current state of the world appalling. Mediocrity and irrelevance are vastly rewarded while the people who really contribute to all our wellbeing are derided. Bert

    3. Bert: I'm afraid you entirely missed my point. Oh well.

    4. What was your point that I missed?

      Was it these arseholes just pollute the water hole so nothing can be done? Or is it these arseholes keep bleating like wounded rats because this stops all real discussion. It could be that is we say it loud enough that they are simply wrong and irrelevant. The science has done this already. They are bleating like sad little sheep that have lost their way.
      My contempt for these morons has no bounds. Since they were advocating free speech I am sure if I called all denialists deluded idiots at best, or liars at worst they would defend my position. I applaud their new found freedom of speech. I further say they are all not very nice people and just do not know how stupid they appear to the rest of us. I taunt you all! denialists,I taunt you all! Bert

    5. David, when bass boats are the primary means of transportation in downtown Miami, we may just see some forward progress.

    6. Bert: My point is that calling them names accomplishes precisely nothing, because they think the same of you as you do of them. We -- and I certainly include myself here -- do this to feel better about ourselves, not to accomplish anything.

      I don't know the answer. But I don't think it lies in more and more insults. I also don't think it lies in appeasement.

    7. Brandon: Perhaps. Though I often think that even if the world did manage to mitigate climate change, and CO2 levels were somehow back at 280 ppm in the year 2100, they're would still be people writing op-eds about how many trillions of dollars were "wasted" fixing the "nonexistent" problem of global warming, and so the environmental problems of 2100 need not be addressed, because it's all just another scam.for catastropism and for scientists to get grant money.

      Like Y2K -- which WAS a real problem, but one that companies and governments solved by spending hundreds of millions of dollars (maybe billions) on fixing the problem before it happened. .

      Denialism is a bigger problem than just what's seen in climate change. Its seen in the anti-vaccine movement, the anti-GMO movement, the anti-fluoide movement, and anti-evolution and anti-Big Bang movements and more. It's really difficult to get one's head around.

    8. You are quite correct! just because I get bullied by some big kid at school means I should not smack him in the face. I never let this happen. I smacked them as hard as I could.

      I do the same thing now and I am 65.

      These morons do not know what appeasement is! They need a good hiding to let them know the lie of the land.

      It is too late for mister nice guy. Michael Mann has put the fear into the idiots that thought that they were untouchable. The idiots are already divesting themselves of any assets.

      I do not care for insults. But I have been called by no less than Curry to say my bit in all honesty as free speech!

      The irony is that you are calling for rationality and non name calling while the morons are calling for the opposite! I was just following their example. I am sorry for you as you obviously have not dealt with real bullies. I did. Many years ago about twenty blokes at my new school had a go at me. I beat up about three of them. I lost then and got a hiding. I spent the next three months to hunt each one out singly and fight him and beat the crap out of all of them! They never went near me again! My eight brothers always wondered why they were never picked on by these ignorant uneducated savages purporting to be of a higher quality than the rest of us.


    9. Remember, this is all straight from the playbook:

      "1) Attack your opponent’s strength from your weakness.
      2) Accuse your opponent of doing what you’re doing.
      3) Be worse than anyone can imagine." — Karl Rove

      These three principles are perfectly unified in JC's latest piece of excrement.


    10. I do not see that calling someone a denier is an insult. The type of person that gets offended by that is usually feeling unconfident in defending what they are saying and is trying to derail the discussion. It is a sign that they will not shift their views whatever evidence is put before them. In short they are deniers.

      I do not even notice being called a "warmist" or a "warmunista" or whatever. I do not care and makes absolutely no difference to me. It is irrelevant.

      The difference being that if someone shows me some evidence or makes a good point I will take notice of it.

    11. Quite correct! It is not about rational discussion but what ever drivel the denialists can make up.

      The point of this thread was another look at the logical idiocy on the part of Curry and many others.

      I do not know how Sou remains sane whilst perusing all this idiocy!


    12. We all tend to see the world filtered through our ideology, culture, and in general what groups we belong to. Of course, some people do it less and some people do it more, but I don't think anybody is immune. Some people have less conflicts between whats real and what they want to believe, and some people have more. I think that our denialist friends tend to be people with very strong filters who find their beliefs in strong conflicts with reality (as described by science). Therefore, they cling to every little scrap that can be used to maintain their beliefs in the face of reality, e.g. "Climate gate", "The Pause", "UHI", "scientific gate keeping"; "the Green Blob". And of course, they dismiss or ignore all the science that contradict their beliefts. Well, you know the stories.

    13. David, you went with my comment pretty much as I see it. Any meaningful mitigation in the next 50 years will result in a man-made pause by 2100, and the grandkids of today's contrarian-o-sphere will be lamenting all the lost GDP growth. Much like today's small-gov't conservatives are fond of saying FDR made the Great Depression worse with the New Deal.

      Puts us in a tough spot. We all but need to root for disaster just to win the damn argument. It's not the way to manage a planet for the better.

    14. There's always 'no significant trend' if you take a short enough time interval.

  18. Nice to see Judith censoring commenters on her free speech thread. Jolly good! Also, Montford and Verytallguy have impressed on that thread - they really don't approve of her stupidity ...


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.