Thursday, January 24, 2019

A portrait of a denier: Sheldon Walker trolls RealClimate

Sou | 11:04 PM Go to the first of 88 comments. Add a comment
While we're trying to cope with this dastardly Australian heat wave, I'm avoiding hard work. Instead, here's some entertainment in the form of a self-portrait of a denier.

I don't know why deniers take offense at being called deniers. After all, all they boast about is how the science is wrong, the scientists are frauds, and they don't "believe in" science. They delight in their denial.

There's an entire post at the climate conspiracy blog WUWT today about how offensive it is for scientists to call science deniers "deniers". The WUWT article is from Sheldon Walker, who's been here in the past to get some tips. On another occasion I wrote about a pickle he got into. He's an odd chap :)

What Sheldon was complaining about (or more accurately, under) this time was a translation of an article in Le Monde, written by Eric Guilyardi and Valérie Masson-Delmotte. The authors of the Le Monde article were questioning the reasons some people focus on the moods of climate scientists rather than their research. It's worth a read (original and translation).

Ironically, the authors at one point speculate:
What if the focus on the moods of climate scientists was a way to disengage emotionally from the choices of risk or solutions to global warming? Since the experts are worrying about it for us (it’s their daily life, isn’t it?), let’s continue our lives in peace.
So what does Sheldon do? He tries to get everyone to focus on his emotions! Is that his way of disengaging emotionally?

Off-topic and onto Sheldon

Another odd thing is that nowhere in the realclimate article do the authors call anyone a "denier". The closest is the word "denial" which only appears in this pair of sentences:
Catastrophism often leads to denial, a well-known psychic mechanism for protecting oneself from anxiety. Managing risk is part of our daily lives and supposes that we are not in such denial (active or passive) as it prevents clear and responsible action. 
Perhaps Sheldon was wanting to allay his anxiety by his trolling for attention.

This is what Sheldon wrote at RealClimate.org:
22 Jan 2019 at 6:27 PM
I am willing to believe that most climate scientists are trying to do a good job.
However, it must be depressing to find that a large number of people don’t “trust” what climate scientists are saying.

This is because global warming is a “toxic” issue. There is a lack of trust on both sides, and a high level of nastiness.

Climate scientists need to continue doing a good job. But they need to work on building “trust”. Stopping calling people “deniers” is the first step.

So an important question is, CAN climate scientists stop calling people “deniers”. If they can’t, then perhaps we are all doomed.
Gavin Schmidt was very polite in his response:
[Response: Trust is based (or should be) on telling the truth. The existence of climate denial – the reflexive gain-saying of any scientific result that might indicate that we might need to do something about carbon emissions – is undeniable. By demanding that scientists ignore this, or refuse to name it, you are asking that they avoid the truth. I would suggest rather that if people don’t want to be rightly accused of climate denial, they don’t go around denying climate science. – gavin]
Now you'll probably notice a few things Sheldon did.
  • First of all Sheldon's comment is way off topic. It has nothing to do with the article.
  • Then there's the attempt at being condescending: "trying to do a good job".
  • He tries on the meme of typical deniers with his allegations that there are "sides" and that "a lot of people" don't trust scientists. Sheldon offers nothing to back up those claims, perhaps because of articles like this one in Sciencemag.
  • You'll also notice how he tries to shift the blame. According to Sheldon, the reason we're facing "doom" is because climate scientists call deniers what they are. He doesn't mention the disinformation campaigns, in which he's a willing  participant. (Sheldon has posted articles on denier blog WUWT on several occasions.) Nor does he talk about what the research scientists do, only referring to a word he's seen a scientist use now and then. He doesn't give any credit to scientists for their brilliant advances over the years that have brought such huge benefits. Typical denier!

Telltale signs of a denier (and attention-seeking troll)

Sheldon followed up his first comment with another, which was wisely relegated to the borehole at RealClimate.org. This is where his denial and trolling comes to the fore. It's too long to repost; however, I'll point out some of his tactics:
  1. It's all about Sheldon. He goes to great lengths to say how clever he is. As well as wanting to bignote himself (to Dr Schmidt, who is a first class mathematician from Oxford, no less), he's probably wanting people to think that someone who is clever in some things cannot at the same time be a climate science denier.
  2. His beef with Gavin Schmidt and, apparently, the authors of the article, neither of whom has probably ever called Sheldon Walker a denier, is that he has been called a denier. The only conclusion I can draw is that Sheldon identifies with deniers when the word is mentioned, particularly when it's mentioned by a climate scientist. This raises the question - if Sheldon doesn't believe he denies science, then why does he think scientists are talking about him when they talk about climate science deniers?
  3. Another point I'll raise might be one you noticed straight off. While moaning and groaning about using the word "denier" to refer to deniers, Sheldon uses the derogatory word "alarmists" no less than five times. He says he hates them, alarmists that is. Although he labels people who do science and those who don't reject it as a matter of course, Sheldon doesn't say what euphemism he would suggest instead of using the straightforward word "deniers".
  4. Finally, Sheldon leaves no doubt that, apart from his "poor little me" trolling, all he really wants is to get traffic to his website. He made a big point about it and provided a link.

Some tips for the aggrieved denier - don't whine, take action

If Sheldon or another aggrieved denier reads this, they might take up this suggestion. If you don't want to be thought of as a denier:
  1. Stop referring to others as "alarmists" and "warmists". It's a dead giveaway.
  2. Avoid writing articles for Anthony Watts' climate conspiracy blog, even if it means missing out on some hits on your website.
  3. Read the paper by Dunning and Kruger, and ask yourself, which category to you fit into? If you don't like what you discover you've always got the option to change something about yourself.
  4. Finally, don't take on the label. If someone talks about climate science deniers, there's no need to assume they are talking about you, is there? Or is there.

That's all folks. You'll have seen it all before, no doubt. Deniers are odd little characters, aren't they.


  1. Sheldon Walker's fundamental error is he is talking to Gavin Schmidt when he needs to be talking to a psychiatrist.

  2. Read the paper by Dunning and Kruger, and ask yourself, which category to you fit into?

    Nitpicking, but one fundamental result from DK is that low-ability persons have difficulty correctly self assessing their ability in the domain.

  3. Did he talk about his giant Excel spreadsheet?!!!

    1. I believe he did.

      Remember the (in)famous Reinhart & Rogoff paper
      Growth in a Time of Debt
      or how not to use a spreadsheet.

      The Reinhart and Rogoff Fiasco

      Clearly I should be reassured that Sheldon has a big excel spreadsheet

  4. Yes he did. For once it is worth reading the WUWT comments, Steve Mosher turns up and makes the much the same points as Sou, albeit using his txtspk syntax (his contributions can't always be written on a phone from a busy airport lounge, surely?).

    1. I love the way that they claim being called a denier is a major issue for them, and yet at the same time it is apparent that they think so little about it they have never bothered to determine what behaviour legitimately constitutes denial.

    2. I had to chuckle at the way he made out being called a denier was such a huge issue and in the same sentence call scientists "alarmists".

  5. "I will oppose most of the things that Alarmists want, just because I hate them so much."

    Not so much about the science then.

  6. Thanks for the D-K link. I suddenly realised that I did not have it in my bibliography database.

  7. The first rule of Dunning-Kreuger Club is, you do not know you are in Dunning-Kreuger Club.

    I can't get over someone listing his college undergraduate grades while attacking Gavin Schmidt. Precious.

    The strategy has become awfully common, to avoid the topic at hand by accusing someone--anyone, really--of committing an ad hominem against you personally. If the accusation gets brushed aside, that's evidence of the other's elitist contempt. All such hurt feelings must be dealt with before anything else happens, and the topic itself goes by the wayside. Insidious, really, and a common fallback for someone clearly in over his head.

    1. And as a corollary you can never know you are not a member of the Dunning Kruger club.

  8. Re DK, - John Cleese realised he was indeed stupid, having voted for Brexit based on a belief in unicorns and superficial knowledge of world trade and non barriers to it etc. Clearly tired of being laughed at and reminded of his own DKesq stupidity he has removed himself and his millions to a tax haven in the Caribbean - bless

    1. Oh dear. I didn't know that, Tadaa. I looked him up (with Brexit) and see he did indeed become disillusioned with the campaign lies. (His reasoning for being pro in the first place, while misplaced, didn't seem to be the usual xenophobic reasoning.)

    2. "campaign lies", - and I think I means on both side - well again Sou that should be a red flag

      we hear it over here all the time from Brexiteers "well of course both sides/campaigns lied"

      it is the same false balance bullshit concern trolls like our friend Sheldon spout

  9. And on a related note the BBC reports on the growing phenomenon of Holocaust Denial


    And I have been amusing (and educating myself) on the dramatic rise (yes really) in flat earthism

    1. indeed, you can have the chairman of Airbus or the Japanese ambassador say Airbus/Japanese companies will move out/stop investing in the UK if there is a no deal Brexit

      This is then followed by a Brexiter who when asked to comment - simply denies what the previous person has said

      it is quite astounding and they genuinely remind me of flat earthers, their views are totally at odds with observable measurable reality

  10. Or the relatively new hobby of Brexit Denial. Even while UK firms plan mass exodus if May allows no-deal Brexit we have politicians urging us on. It is no coincidence that the leave campaign includes the same people who were prominent in climate change denial. There is a cancer at the heart of UK politics.

    1. whoops reply to you above Andy (I never get the hang of the comments SW)

  11. Oscar Wilde - There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.


    Hi Anthony,

    it looks like my plan to upset the Alarmists worked.

    I am going to post the following comment on as many major global warming websites, as I can.

    This will really teach Sou from HotWhopper a lesson.

    I am going to post it "anonymously", so that she doesn't know that it was me.


    Gavin Schmidt from RealClimate.org is a wise person.

    He gives good advice.

    If Gavin gives you some advice, then I suggest that you take it.

    Gavin recently gave all Deniers some good advice.

    If Deniers don’t want to be called Deniers, then they should stop denying climate science.

    That bit of advice is beautifully simple. It can’t be argued with. It is logically sound. It is a statement that Yogi Berra would be proud of.

    But Gavin is a busy person. He doesn’t have time to give everybody the advice that they deserve.

    To solve this problem, I have managed to “get inside Gavin’s head”, so that everybody can benefit from Gavin’s wisdom.

    First, some advice for Alarmists.

    Alarmists, if you don’t want to be called a stupid arrogant jerk, then don’t act like a stupid arrogant jerk.

    Now some advice for climate scientists.

    Climate scientists, if you don’t want to be called an undemocratic third world dictator, then don’t act like an undemocratic third world dictator.

    Even Gavin could benefit from some “Gavin” type advice.

    Gavin, if you don’t want to be called an obnoxious Tamino-like character, then don’t act like an obnoxious Tamino-like character.

    I think that I am getting the hang of giving out wise advice.

    I think that I will quit while I am ahead, with one last piece of advice for Gavin.

    Gavin, if you want to “weasel” out of answering any difficult climate questions, then call the questioner a Denier. Because nobody is expected to answer questions from Deniers.

    Sorry, Gavin. I can see that you already knew that last piece of advice.

    Keep up the good work !!!


    An open letter to RealClimate.org

    Anybody who would like to read the conversation that I DIDN’T have with Gavin, should click this link:

    1. This comment is in violation of the HotWhopper comment policy. However, I'll leave it be, since it's from the subject of the article and he clearly went to an awful lot of trouble (for him) to write it.

  12. .
    ❶①❶① . . . A climate fairy tale – (but it might be true) . . .

    Once upon a time, a long long time ago, in a distant galaxy, there lived 2 twins. There were originally 3 twins, but the 3rd twin was a contradiction in terms, and had to be “put down”. The twins’ names were Sheldon Sky-Walker, and Leia Sky-Walker. Leia was often referred to by her nickname, “Princess”.

    [ please insert a $1 coin to continue reading ... ]

    Sheldon sighed. “I wish that I knew what snow was”, said Sheldon. [ Ironically, when Sheldon was older, and he was trapped on Hoth the ice planet, he would wish that he DIDN’T know what snow was. ]

    A smile suddenly appeared on Sheldon’s face. “I know what to do”, he said. “I am going to use the dark side of the force, to prove that there was a recent slowdown.

    “No, Sheldon”, cried Leia, “don’t do it. It is too dangerous. What if the Empire finds out?”

    Sheldon’s smile disappeared, but a look of determination took its place. “I don’t care if the IPCC does find out. Dad (Darth) will protect me. I know that there is still some good, deep down inside him.”

    [ please insert another $1 coin to continue reading ... ]


    1. Sheldon, through your obsession, one thing you can take pride in is that you've (maybe) got at least some deniers to finally accept the word "slowdown" to try to persuade them out of their delusional "global warming stopped".

      AFAIK you were the first denier to adopt the word "slowdown". (Seems that seepage can work both ways.)

      What's weird is that you haven't yet figured out there have been numerous scientific publications exploring that relatively short period, or that the surface warming has never followed a straight line, or that scientists do know this and, indeed, were the ones who told you so.

      Perhaps in your next foray you can set out to show deniers that the long term trend of global warming continues. After that, see how you go persuading them that climate science isn't a hoax after all.

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

    3. Below is the part of Sheldon's comment that doesn't violate HW comment policy.



      Sou, I fully accept that global warming is real. I expect that it will cause some problems. But I don't think that the problems will be as bad as Alarmists claim. I would be happy to cooperate with Alarmists, to try and solve any possible problems. But the name calling puts me off.

    4. Sheldon, I know you aren't the only denier wuss (or pretend wuss). No spine. No backbone. No conviction.

      It's quite fashionable to use that as an excuse for inaction and continued denial. When you run out of other excuses I guess it's all you've got.

      We've all noticed that you can dish it out erroneously but can't take a factual label. Very Trumplike (unsurprisingly).

      Thankfully, climate scientists and bloggers and journalists haven't stopped because of abusive name-calling (and much worse) from deniers and disinformers.

    5. What a wonderful new meme for climate change deniers: "Yes climate change is happening, yes it will cause harm, but don't blame the people who spent the last few decades doing all they could to hinder attempts to prevent it: its not our fault, we were called climate change deniers just because we denied climate science."

      It would be hilariously funny if the issue did not affect the lives of billions of people.

    6. I have noticed lately that climate deniers commenting on the internet seem to be re-positioning their denial. It is a face-saving exercise. They have moved from complete denial to "yes it is happening" and even "it is caused by CO2". They seem to be taking up the position it is not so bad, there are other causes or there is nothing we can do.

    7. It depends on who is commenting. I've not seen that in individual deniers, most of whom are stuck in the one position. If you read comments at WUWT, most are still stuck in "it's not happening", "scientists are idiots", "science is a fraud", "it's a hoax", and back to "it's not happening". They haven't even got to "it's not my fault" yet.

      I think what happens is that sometimes you get different people commenting so it looks like a shift.

      The general public is shifting, however. This is a good thing. I think that's because many people were unaware previously, and now they are seeing the effects of global warming.

      It's only a very small percentage who are committed activist deniers (and have been for years).

    8. I think its wrong to say climate change deniers - and I include Sheldon Walker in the category - really have any "scientific" position. All they have is a refusal to accept they must make any change to their lifestyles. The excuse they make can change from day to day: the only constant is the refusal to adapt.

      With the advent of Trump (and Brexit) we need to recognise that these people have lost the ability to accept reality. The nonsense they use to excuse themselves is just material for the psychologists to study: there is nothing there for us to learn from.

    9. The one thing I've got from observing deniers and the scoundrels they idolise is a reminder that there are deeply flawed humans among us. We've all got flaws but we're not all intent on destroying the world for the sake of protecting our ego, or lifestyle, or political ideology, or world view, or authoritarian "scum-bucket" worship.

      Activist deniers and disinformers keep us alert to the fact not everyone has good intentions. There has probably always been a small percentage of people who work to undermine the society they live on the edge of.

    10. "I've not seen that in individual deniers ..."

      Sheldon Walker as an example? Has he always held this position of "I fully accept that global warming is real ... But I don't think that the problems will be as bad as Alarmists claim"?

    11. I don't know, Jammy. However in earlier articles (see links in the main HW article), he seemed to accept global warming as being real and caused by humans (he has referred to AGW). He doesn't accept the science (or probably know about it) that shows the extent to which we're causing global warming, however.

      In fact, his articles show he's never learnt much, if anything, about climate change or climate science, despite writing at WUWT and playing with the temperature anomalies scientists have calculated.

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

    1. See the HotWhopper comment policy. (I have no inclination to edit and repost every comment that doesn't comply, nor the time.)

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Others have noted the five stages of climate science denial:

      1) It's not happening.

      2) It's happening, but we're not doing it.

      3) It's happening and we're doing it, but it's not that bad.

      4) It's happening and we're doing it and it's bad, but it'd be too expensive to fix.

      5) It's too late.

      Seldom seems to be at Stage 3).

      I have always been darkly amused at people who deny science...
      ...by whining on the Internet
      ...using a computer.

      You really can't make this stuff up.

      (I deleted my previous comment due to the excessive use of typos.)

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

    1. Sheldon, the policy your are infringing is that of posting links to denier blogs. If you want to comment, feel free, but stick to the comment policy.

      If you infringe again, your comment will disappear altogether.

  15. How dare you call me a Denier, you spineless wuss.

    You are full of shit.

    So far 56 people have read the article that I wrote about you.

    Many of them have said that they enjoyed it.

    HotWhopper site policy doesn't stop me from writing about you on my website.

    I want people to know that you are Alarmist scum.

    You are quick to insult other people, but you can't take it yourself.

    1. Add me to the list of "Alarmist [sic] scum", you denialist scum.

      You consistently deny the science of climate vchange, and you seem to be oblivious to the ecological sequelæ that are already beyond alarming, so yes, the label "denier" absolutely fits you.

      (Insert Monty Python rasberry sound here)

  16. Alarmists have a secret weapon, to help them to avoid the truth.

    People who are interested in global warming, can be divided into 2 categories.

    Those who are open-minded, and willing to learn new things about global warming.

    And those who are close-minded, and unwilling to learn new things about global warming.

    Unfortunately, there are many people in the 2nd category. We call them "Alarmists".

    Alarmists have a secret weapon, to help them to avoid the truth. It is called, "the cloak of stupidity".

    This is like Harry Potter's "cloak of invisibility", but it is used to avoid "new" ideas.

    Like Harry Potter's magic, the "cloak of stupidity" spell is invoked by saying some magic words, "denierus protectus".

    Many Alarmists shorten this to just "denier".

    Once the "cloak of stupidity" spell has been cast, Alarmists are impervious to scientific ideas. They can rest easy, knowing that they are the world authority on global warming.

    When you know everything, there is obviously no need to investigate further. Your enemy, the evil Deniers, should come and worship at your feet. The ungrateful scum should realise, that Alarmists are the scientific elite, of the global warming world.

    After all, Alarmists are going to save humanity, and the world. Admittedly, the world won't be such a nice place. With no cars, no reliable energy, no birds or bats, and no fun. Caves stays wonderfully cool in summer, but they are hard to heat in winter.

    But Deniers shouldn't worry. Because Alarmists will still be enjoying all of the good things in life. You can't expect people to save humanity, and the world, without getting some sort of reward. With most of humanity living in the dark ages, Alarmists will be able to enjoy a huge personal carbon footprint. Private jets for all Alarmists.

    George Orwell understood this, when he wrote Animal Farm. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

    1. "Alarmists are going to save humanity,"

      No. We are unable to save humanity: there are simply too many morons like you out there.

      But do get back to us when you manage to have one of those "new ideas" you boasted about.

      As for the last bit: I don't see how quoting Orwell makes your puerile conspiracy theory any less infantile.

    2. Andy Mitchell,

      you said, "But do get back to us when you manage to have one of those "new ideas" you boasted about."

      I already have, but you decided to ignore it.

      Sou won't let me put links to my website here, so I can't tell you where to look.

    3. Andy - you'll be waiting in vain. I'd say Sheldon doesn't know how to enunciate his "new idea". (Trying to insult or defame Sou is hardly a new idea and generally not done very well at that.)

      One huge hurdle deniers face is their inability or unwillingness to explore the findings of scientific research. This means every "new idea" they have is not new to scientists, it's been explored before and either discounted or supported by the evidence, or it's "not even wrong".

      Think of Willis Eschenbach, who thinks he discovered thunderstorms and basic meteorology, all because he never learnt meteorology 101.

      Think our Sheldon, who thinks it was he who discovered there are different rates of global surface temperature change for different short and longer periods of time, all because he didn't read science papers or thinks that nobody else has thought to look at a global surface temperature chart.

      With the "it's the sun", "it's not warming", "it is warming but it won't be bad", "it's undersea volcano" crowds, they refuse to read science or look at evidence or they completely disregard evidence because it offends their sense of self worth.

      Deniers might (inadvertently) give out a lot of information about themselves and the human condition through their denial, but rarely, if ever, do they enlighten anyone about climate science.

  17. Sou,

    you seem to admitting that what Deniers are saying is correct, but not original.

    I have never claimed that I am the only person who has had my ideas.

    For example, Nick Stokes has made a graph which is very similar to my "Global Warming Contour Map".

    The fact that you reject Deniers ideas, while admitting that other scientists/climate scientists have had the same idea, is illogical.

    Please try to get your story straight.

    1. Sheldon, you illustrate another problem deniers face: an inability to understand what's written and taking things out of context.

      You could try reading what I wrote again, removing your confirmation bias.

      (The core hurdle deniers face is a topic for psychologists and brain scientists.)

    2. For example, when I wrote:

      "This means every "new idea" they have is not new to scientists, it's been explored before and either discounted or supported by the evidence, or it's "not even wrong"."

      Sheldon read: "This means every "new idea" they have is not new to scientists, it's been explored before and ... supported by the evidence...".

      Willingness to learn is the biggest barrier deniers face, but they have a lot of other associated challenges to deal with as well.

  18. Sou,

    does coming up with new ways to visualise data (e.g. new types of graphs), show a willingness to learn?

    1. Sheldon, evidence of learning and trying to understand what has already been discovered would be the first sign of a willingness to learn.

      (Your "new ways" is more an illustration of what I wrote above.)

      You've got to the stage of exploring temperature data but until you progress to learning what it means you'll not show a willingness to learn. That means learning about the causes and impact of the temperature rise in the context of the earth system, learning about other aspects of climate change, reading science.

    2. Except it's not "new"... I explained to you a couple of years ago that Nick Stokes was doing it, and that I'd done it myself years before you did.

      And let's be honest. You're not looking for new ways to visualise data in order to prove the veracity of the science, you're looking for ways to obfuscate and deceive people about what's happening.

      You're really just a larger version of what comes out the back end of my daughter's ducks.

  19. Sou,

    I think that you and I can both agree, that Deniers are "bad".

    Where we differ, is
    - that you think that I am a Denier
    - but I think that YOU are a Denier

    My proof is, that I am willing to look at any evidence that you produce about global warming.

    But you totally refuse to look at any evidence that I produce about global warming.

    Who is the REAL Denier?

    1. Now you're just being silly.

      Sheldon wrote: "you totally refuse to look at any evidence that I produce about global warming"

      There's no evidence for your "totally refuse". Just the opposite, such as the article above, plus:



    2. It is not ME who is being silly.

      I have about 30 articles on my website. As far as I know, you have never looked at any of them.

      You won't let me post links to my articles on your website, because you want to DENY people the chance to look at my articles.

      I recently downloaded average temperature data (actual absolute temperatures, not temperature anomalies), for over 36,000 real locations on the Earth. I plotted graphs showing the temperature distribution for different latitudes.

      I also recently downloaded monthly average high, and monthly average low temperature data (actual absolute temperatures, not temperature anomalies), for over 24,000 real locations on the Earth. I plotted graphs showing the temperature ranges (hottest month to coldest month) for all of these locations.

      But you won't look at these articles, because you are afraid that they will show you something new.

      Who is the REAL Denier?

    3. Give it a rest, Sheldon. I get that you crave attention but I've given you more than enough. Be grateful.

      If you think you've discovered something previously unknown, tell us what it is. Give us a clue. Tell us why we should spend our limited time reading your blog articles when most of us have a lot better things to do (like learning about climate).

      If you've discovered something mind-blowing (or merely novel), tell someone; publish your new knowledge in a journal. At least give us a hint about what you think you've discovered. (There are lots of reputable sites showing worldwide temperatures changes and trends, like NASA, Nick Stokes blog, and many more.)

      If you've nothing else to offer, you make it look as if you're spamming HW to get traffic to your website.

    4. Sou,

      I don't want your attention. I have better things to do with my time.

      I am NOT grateful for you stubborn stupidity.

      It would take you less time to read my articles, than it would take for me to explain it to you. But a warning, you might have to use your brain. If you have one.

      A Denier like YOU, can easily find a million excuses not to look at my articles.

      But you only need one excuse to read my articles. Scientific curiosity. But Alarmist Deniers don't normally have any of that.

      I can sense that you are getting uncomfortable, with denying the fact that YOU are a Denier.

      I am a skeptic. And I am comfortable with that.

      I am happy to stop posting on your website. I regard it as a total waste of my time. People like you, are not capable of change. But you are good at blaming other people, who are better than you.

    5. So - you've no new knowledge to offer or none that you can summarise; no big or small discovery you want to talk about. You just want someone to visit your blog and look at your personal musings, or whatever.

      Got it.

      (Sheldon, since you've not had much success in getting blog hits using WUWT or here, how about you fish in Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Tumblr, WeChat, Facebook, or other social media. You might have more luck. Seriously.)

    6. "But you totally refuse to look at any evidence that I produce about global warming."

      Oh, your evidence is considered by us, and it always falls short. Tamino has even expended hours of his time collating posts proving this to be so:


      If you have anything that's seriously worth considering, it will be seriously considered. But you don't, so it can't be.

    7. Well, there you go. Sheldon's had articles by Tamino and HotWhopper and WUWT, and a response from Gavin Schmidt to a comment he made at RealClimate, but he's still not happy.

      BTW, here's another HotWhopper article about his notions. So that's four articles devoted to his articles here. Why is he complaining still? Attention-junky much?


  20. Bernard J.

    If you trust Tamino, then you are even stupider than I thought you were.

    My job is testing computer systems and computer programs. I have over 35 years experience in the computer industry. I have been a programmer, an analyst, a systems programmer (like a programmer, but twice as geeky), and a tester.

    Tamino thought that he could "test" my "Global Warming Contour Map". He claimed that is was faulty. But he doesn't know how to test properly. I wrote an article about it, called "Is Tamino a moron?". Whatever you do, DON'T read it. You may lose respect for Tamino if you do.

    Have you looked at any articles on "the website that must not be named".

    Ask Sou. She knows my websites name. But she won't go there. Like all of the other Alarmist intellectual cowards.

    Be careful. My ideas are dangerous.

    If you DON'T go to my website, then DON'T read the articles called:





    I have warned you. Stay away.

    These articles may be above your intellectual pay level. They include words with 2 and 3 syllables.

    1. It turns out that those "new ideas" are just the same old shit that has been debunked so many times. But as Sheldon is a denier, that's not problem for him: he just denies it.

    2. One of the problems here is that there are only two possibilities. Either Sheldon Walker is the greatest scientific genius of our age: an intellect who has produced a body of work that has eluded the entire scientific community of this planet. If not that, then he is a seriously deluded individual who needs psychological treatment.

      As we have seen him here offer up a truly moronic conspiracy theory about how we "alarmists" are seeking to enslave everyone else, I don't think it takes long to decide which it is: I don't need to bother rereading the debunking of his supposedly epoch defining "30 articles".

    3. "Is Tamino a moron?"

      There are so many little giveaways of what sort of person Walker is. (Narcissistic?). His claim that he is better qualified for climate science than Gavin Schmidt! That people are jealous of his Excel skills <#guffaw>. A desperate need to be more intelligent than others and for that to be recognised. But I think the title of this Tamino article sums it up.

      To write a "refutation" of someone's work can be done politely. With a little gentle discourse it can soon be found where you differ and it can be argued which view should prevail. Usually one of the parties backs down as says you are right. Very rarely should it be you agree to disagree.

      The fact Walker calls Tamino a moron, when it is clear how good his work is, is indefensible. Usually if someone is good at something they do not feel the need to shout it from the rooftops or put down others.


      By the way Walker. I did visit your website out of idle curiosity and to waste a few minutes of my life (that I can never get back). Your website is really poorly organised.

      Oh, and that paper you wrote with Dunning Kruger? Please give us its title. You can just slip it under your "new ideas" that you are going to bless us with.

  21. Andy Mitchell,

    I would enjoy reading "the same old shit", that my articles are like.

    Could you please post a link.


    You wouldn't be lying, would you?

    I would also like to see where it was debunked.

    Again, please post a link.

    You are not just making shit up, are you?

    Note that my articles are not a "model".

    They are real actual absolute temperatures, for 24,000/36,000 real locations on the Earth.

    I compare present day temperature distributions, to future temperature distributions (with various amounts of global warming).

    Oh, no. I just admitted that global warming is happening.

    Don't tell anybody.

    I will be thrown out of the Deniers club.

    1. Ha ha. Sheldon is now claiming to have achieved (or set out to achieve) one of the holy grails - predicting regional temperature change.

      The fact that he's doing it with "no models" does raise some red flags and might explain why he was so coy about letting us know what this "new idea" of his was.

      What do you think? How is he pulling this feat off without mathematical or physical science models? Consulting farmer almanacs? Astrologists? Pulling numbers out of regional hats? Calling on one of Tamino's leprechauns?

      Next stop: predicting regional rainfall, snow and wind.

    2. "Oh, no. I just admitted that global warming is happening. Don't tell anybody. I will be thrown out of the Deniers club."

      That gives us more evidence - if we needed it - that you are a moron and not the greatest scientific genius of our age. Its been pointed out to you that "global warming is happening it just won't be as bad as scientists say" is a classic example of denial.

      That's what makes this so hilarious. Sheldon expects us to waste our time wading through his pseudoscientific nonsense when he denies stuff that is in plain sight, that does not require any scientific knowledge at all.

      Now Sheldon, let's try again: are you a climate change denier?

  22. Andy Mitchell.

    It really upsets you, that I am intelligent, doesn't it.

    I am not ashamed of my abilities.

    I try to use them to do "good".

    But when necessary, I will use them to do "bad".

    I haven't told you half of my qualifications yet.

    Or the long list of scholarships and prizes that I have won.

    Other people recognise my abilities.

    It is mainly people of low intelligence, who resent me.

    I am not good at everything. I get other people to help me, when I need help.

    I acknowledge and accept my weaknesses. Many people are too stupid to do this.

    If you think that there are only 2 possibilities, then you must be retarded.

    I have never claimed to be "the greatest scientific genius of our age: an intellect who has produced a body of work that has eluded the entire scientific community of this planet."

    But it is nice that you accept that this is a possibility.

    It could be, that you are so "dim", that I seem like a God, to you.

    1. "It could be, that you are so "dim", that I seem like a God, to you."

      It could be. But then again I think a "god" would manage to answer a simple question, so that points us back again to the "you are a moron" answer. The evidence seems to be piling up in that direction.

      Now Sheldon, let's try again: are you a climate change denier?

    2. Andy Mitchell.

      I have never denied that the climate exists. So I am NOT a climate Denier.

      I have never denied that the climate changes. So I am NOT a climate change Denier.

      I fully accept that global warming is real.

      I accept all of the basic climate science (including the greenhouse effect).

      I believe that humans are responsible for most of the increase in CO2 level, above 280 ppm.

      I believe that the Earth has warmed by about +1.0 degree Celsius, in the last 100 years.

      I don't accept SOME of the other things, that Alarmists believe.

      I believe that sea levels will rise.

      I believe that the oceans will become more "neutral" (what you call acidification). But the oceans will never become acidic.

      I would like to reduce pollution. But CO2 is plant food, NOT pollution.

      I like the idea of renewable energy. But it has to be reliable, and not too expensive. I am prepared to pay a bit more for renewable energy, but not a lot more.

      I don't like birds and bats being killed by wind turbines. Why can't somebody invent flashing lights, or loud sounds, to scare the birds and bats away.

      I wouldn't want to live near a wind turbine. There are potential problems.

      If global warming is such a catastrophic problem, why do Alarmists oppose nuclear power (totally CO2 free)? And hydro electric power.

      It is almost as if Alarmists want the human race to fail.

      Do you hate humanity?

    3. "So I am NOT a climate change Denier."

      The definition of a climate change denier includes those who - as you do - deny it will be as bad as every single prestigious scientific organisation on this planet accepts it will be.

      So Sheldon, let's try again: are you a climate change denier?

    4. Oh, and Sheldon, could you manage to avoid gish-galloping for once? I think somebody who thinks himself a potential "god" ought to manage to avoid that at least.

    5. Andy Mitchell.

      Everybody denies something.

      You deny that global warming won't be bad.

      Does that make you a denier?

      If Alarmist weren't so nasty, I could easily cooperate with them.

      Isn't it scary, that you call me a Denier, but we both have many common beliefs?

      Are you SURE that you are not a Denier.

    6. Andy Mitchell.

      Get real.

      97% of "scientists" said that:

      - they believed that the Earth had warmed in the last 100 years

      - and that humans were responsible for SOME of it

      They were NOT asked if it would be catastrophic.

      But Alarmists keep lying about the results of the survey.

    7. Sheldon: "I don't accept SOME of the other things, that Alarmists believe." Which things? Who and what do you regard as "alarmist"? Why do you use the word "believe" rather than "research has found", or "scientists are predicting"?

      Sheldon: "I wouldn't want to live near a wind turbine. There are potential problems." and Sheldon: "If global warming is such a catastrophic problem, why do Alarmists oppose nuclear power (totally CO2 free)? And hydro electric power."

      The last quote is a sweeping generalisation. Some people are urging a mix including nuclear and hydro, others are opposed on safety or technological grounds, others are only opposed if the harm is greater than the benefit (think the siting of hydro). However what is odd is that those two statements suggest Sheldon would rather live next to a nuclear power plant than near a much more benign wind turbine. (I wonder if he'd rather live on the edge of an open cut coal mine than live near a wind turbine.)

    8. Andy Mitchell.

      Scientists are NOT always right.

      They were wrong about continental drift, for 50 years.

      Science usually gets things right in the end. But it can take a long time. And you may be dead by then.

    9. Sou.

      It is impossible for me to give you a complete list of things that I disagree with Alarmists on.

      For a start, different Alarmists believe different things (as you pointed out, with respect to nuclear power and hydro electric power).

      I can give you my opinion on topics that you nominate.

      I don't claim to know everything. Nobody does.

      Some of my views, are opinions, and not facts.

      That is why I sometimes use the word "believe", rather than "research has found".

      I do the best that I can.

      I am terrified by humans using chemicals which kill 99.9% of bacteria.

      Are they sure it doesn't kill other things?

      And humans put it on their skin !!!

      People don't realise that 99.9% of bacteria are harmless, or actually beneficial.

      Guess which 99.9% of the bacteria get killed. The good ones, or the bad ones.

      The good bacteria on our skin, actually protect us from the bad bacteria.

      And we are killing all of the good bacteria.


      How do you feel about farmers using huge amounts of antibiotics, to fatten their livestock faster?

      What about bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics?


      There are many big problems, other than global warming.

      One or two nuclear power stations can be situated far from where people live.

      Getting away from 10,000 wind turbines is more difficult.

    10. Sheldon: "But Alarmists keep lying about the results of the survey." Who is lying? What lies do you think "Alarmists" are telling? Who do you regard as "Alarmist"? To which of the many surveys are you referring? Why did you put the word "scientists" in quotes?

      Again I urge you to read science not the nonsense you've read on some climate conspiracy blog.

      PS you might be thinking of plate tectonics. Contintal drift was largely the notion of one man, who got some right and some wrong. Climate science has been developed through the work of many, many thousands of men and women over two centuries. To push the denier meme of wishful thinking that "all the science might be wrong" is one of many reasons for you to be regarded as you are.

      Since you are getting even sillier, Sheldon, which all started because you don't like scientists using the word "denier" to describe climate science deniers, it's time to shut things down. (Way past time, actually, but it's been good to have another example on the record of the weird contortions of denier thinking.)

    11. Sou.

      I have read that wind turbines can cause noise pollution problems. The blades cutting through the air, at high speeds, can cause noise.

      And vibration problems (like a very low frequency noise).

      Research can not answer all questions. There are still things that we don't know.

    12. Sou.

      I love the way that Alarmists always lie about global warming history.

      They never tell you that Svante Arrhenius believed that global warming would be good, and could save us from going into an ice age.

      Alarmists are very selective with their facts.

    13. "Everybody denies something. You deny that global warming won't be bad. Does that make you a denier?"

      If you deny the established science then you conform to what has come to be termed a climate change denier.

      I deny there is a god. I am a god denier. I deny that Elvis is alive. I am an Elvis immortality denier. The thing is: where I clearly am different to you, is that I am not in denial as to what I am.

      And that leads us to the next, inevitable question: what is it about climate change deniers that make you object so strongly to being included in their ranks?

      And again: please do try to avoid the gish gallop.

    14. What on earth gave Sheldon the idea that adding CO2 wouldn't defer an ice age?

      Which part or parts of this history of climate science is a "lie"?


  23. Sou,

    you have completely missed to point of my articles.

    It was NOT to predict regional temperature change.

    The articles use a very simple idea. That the same amount of global warming occurs everywhere.

    This is not exactly true, because of things like polar amplification.

    But very few people live at the Poles, so my approximation is ok.

    The point of the articles, is to compare present day temperature ranges, with future temperature ranges. I do this for various amounts of global warming, like
    - present day (+1.0 degrees Celsius of global warming above pre-industrial temperatures)
    - the +1.5 degrees Celsius temperature limit
    - the +2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit
    - +3.0 degrees Celsius of global warming

    You can look at the temperature ranges for each amount of global warming, and see how many locations will have "dangerous" levels of warming.

    Most places, even with +3.0 degrees Celsius of global warming, will have temperatures which are less than many places have NOW.

    This shows that global warming will NOT be a catastrophe, for most locations.

    Temperature anomalies DON'T really show how different locations will be affected by global warming. The IPCC treats every positive temperature anomaly as a "bad" thing. They don’t look at individual locations.

    If I lived in a "cold" city, like Minneapolis, or Denver, or Cincinnati, then I would be praying for global warming to "hurry up and arrive".

    Minneapolis (Minnesota, USA)
    average temperature = +7.9 degrees Celsius
    hottest month = +28.6 degrees Celsius
    coldest month = -13.6 degrees Celsius

    Denver (Colorado, USA)
    average temperature = +10.1 degrees Celsius
    hottest month = +31.2 degrees Celsius
    coldest month = -8.5 degrees Celsius

    Cincinnati (Kentucky, USA)
    average temperature = +12.1 degrees Celsius
    hottest month = +29.9 degrees Celsius
    coldest month = -5.8 degrees Celsius

    Do you think that Minneapolis, Denver, or Cincinnati, will be global warming catastrophes? Or will they be nicer places to live in?

    A temperature anomaly has no "context", to determine if it is good or bad. Alarmists want everybody to believe that any increase in temperature is "bad". They have convinced many people that any warming, is a catastrophe waiting to happen. They claim that in many ways, it is a catastrophe that is already happening.


    The article on "How far would you need to move towards the nearest Pole, to reverse one degree Celsius of global warming?", shows that global warming is equivalent to a short drive in your car.

    People who live in Sydney, Australia, only need to drive a little under 250 km towards the South Pole, to negate +1.0 degrees Celsius of global warming.

    How bad can global warming be, when most people can negate global warming, by travelling less than 700 kilometers?

    This graph can be used for a lot of other fun things. Imagine that you wanted to know what the climate was like, where you live, but in pre-industrial times. Don't wait for global warming to kill you, consult the graph now, before any more global warming occurs. By driving that distance toward the nearest Pole, you will end up in a location which has the climate of your pre-industrial paradise.

    But wait, there is more. You can use the graph to find out what global warming will be like, before it even happens. Work out the distance for your latitude, but instead of driving towards the nearest Pole, drive towards the equator. When you reach your destination, that is what an additional 1 degree Celsius of global warming will be like, at your original location.

    A warning – be prepared for higher sea levels, a lack of snow, and extreme weather (including powerful hurricanes), if you test what future global warming will be like. I wasn't going to warn you about those things, but my lawyer said that I should.

    Anyway, drive safely, and please send me a postcard, when you get to your destination.

    1. Sheldon, that's just what I understood you to mean when you wrote: "I compare present day temperature distributions, to future temperature distributions (with various amounts of global warming)."

      So you're saying you've not really made any predictions. You've just looked at current temperatures and figured people can cope with big changes by moving house, or farms or something. Or perhaps you don't realise that global temps are an average over the globe (duh), and locally extremes can be much greater.

      How are your comparisons standing up, with some people in the northern hemisphere feeling a big chill because the polar vortex is playing havoc as a result of climate change?

      How are your comparisons going with temperatures in Australia going through the roof with the hottest January on record (so far) because of climate change?

      How far south (into the ocean) do you recommend Tasmanian people, flora and fauna move to escape the bushfires, currently burning up a World Heritage area? Is 700 km far enough? Should they all move to Antarctica? (Victorian winemakers have set up in Tasmania because of climate change. Grapes don't grow too well in the sea.)

      All the damage being done so far is with less than 50% added CO2. It's going to get a lot worse before it settles down.

      I don't know what you've done or what you think you've done, though your conclusions are not consistent with evidence from paleoclimatology.

      Again, I'd urge you do more reading about the impact of climate change and extreme weather on human activity, agriculture, biodiversity and ecology, coastal developments and more. That's if you don't want to appear any more foolish than you already do (to everyone except other deniers, perhaps, and I'm not sure about them).

    2. I should have asked, too, how much hope Sheldon has that the world will act sufficiently and in time to limit global warming to 3C, when too many people, businesses and governments aren't doing nearly enough.

  24. Since Sheldon has taken on this discussion, he's ducked and weaved and avoided answering direct questions. When asked what it was about what "alarmists" said that he didn't "believe", he brought up bacteria and antibiotics. I don't know how he got the idea that this is a subject climate scientists research, but it illustrates his confusion.

    He also makes a habit of bringing up denier memes about what "alarmists" say or do, most of which is at best a gross generalisation but more often an outright lie.

    Anyway, I'm closing the thread, as I said earlier.

    Sheldon, if he really wanted to learn about climate science, could do a lot worse than reading some of the history of the science. It might give him some insight into Arrhenius' work, too, and how it was received at the time.