Monthly Archives: August 2012

Denier comment of the day August 31, 2012

If ever I want a quick easy find for a denier comment of the day, I can go to Geoffrey Brown, official blogger for the Climate Sceptics Party. Today, the ever shortsighted Geoffrey is taking a swipe at chemistry nomenclature. Yes, you read that right,but in case you think you were mistaken I’ll type it again. Geoffrey Brown is taking a swipe at chemistry nomenclature. The comment I’m about to show you is so stupid, it’s difficult to know where to begin. Apparently, if you take Geoffrey’s idea, when you breathe in, your body will  extract the oxygen (O2) in the air (all good so far) but when you breathe out you will breathe out oxygen (O2C). I know, I know. Rather than explain it, here is Geoffrey’s comment…..first, sit on your hands. Ok, here it is.

No, read it again….slowly. Ok I’ll give you some context. Geoffrey’s complaint is the naming of the carbon tax and he goes on to say,

“The reason for the use of the word “carbon” is to somehow suggest something, dirty, grimy.”
Yes, you’re absolutely right Geoffrey, let’s name it for what it is and we’ll name the “junior partner” second. Let’s call it a Dioxygen carbide tax. Yes yes, that sounds much better. Of course the Dioxygen carbide isn’t the only greenhouse gas being taxed, there is also methane and nitrous oxide and a few others, so in a funny way I do actually agree that the carbon tax is incorrectly named. I honestly think it should be called the “Fossil fuel industry pollution tax“. No chance of being misled there. But back to Geoffrey’s logic (It’s ok readers, I’m scared too) and this “junior partner” bullshit. Most people learn in about year 8 at school (that might explain it) that there is a convention for chemical nomenclature. It’s not difficult. For the sake of keeping it even simpler I won’t mention the conventions when there is a charge involved. For binary metal/non-metal compounds, the metal goes first and the non-metal has ‘ide’ added e.g Chlorine + sodium becomes Sodium Chloride (NaCl). In the case of binary non-metal/non-metal compounds, whichever element is the furthest left on the periodic table goes first and the second has ‘ide’ added. e.g. Sulfur + Hydrogen becomes Hydrogen sulfide (H2S). The thing is, Geoffrey, we have these conventions for a reason. It’s so everyone (except you perhaps) can understand them. If you are basing this “junior partner” nonsense on the element with the least numbers of atoms, I’d like to know what you would call maitotoxin which is C164H256Na2O68S2? Sodium or sulfur? There’s two of each. Perhaps Sodium as it has the lighter molecular weight?
So there you have it, a beauty from Geoffrey. Anyway, I’m not sure I want to visit Geoffrey’s blog too often. Every time I do, I get a tune stuck in my head. 

Comments Off on Denier comment of the day August 31, 2012

Filed under Classic denier comments

Anthony Watts – a chip off the old block

In this case, the old block is his cash cow, the Heartland Institute. Remember this?


Well, it seems Anthony has crawled right down into the gutter with his paymasters with this:


Anthony Watts is accusing AGW proponents of being disappointed that people may soon be spared from dying of Malaria. The Heartland unabomber billboard was roundly condemned by most people including some of the more sensible people from the denial side, including a number of Heartland’s sponsors. I can only hope that people will start to realise how slimy Anthony Watts really is with this outrageous assertion. Not to mention hypocritical. You can’t use the word denier at WUWT, but you can assert that your opponents are disappointed that people won’t die. You’re a real class act Anthony Watts.

Comments Off on Anthony Watts – a chip off the old block

Filed under Rogue's Gallery

Hypocritical Watts? Surely not?

I was going to do a short bit on this but a commenter over at WTFIWWAW beat me to it. Watts’ recent post on government grants or what he calls “warming money” has got him upset because of course anything green has to be bad. As usual his sycophants are in a lather about such a wasteful use of resources claiming its all part of Agenda 21 and “money, glory and power” presumably for the scientists undertaking the research. So how is Watts a hypocrite in this? Here is the comment from Garrett.

Of course, I’ve taken the screenshot option because its only a matter of time before the comment will likely disappear as happened to NeilT. Anthony’s a bit of a crybaby and doesn’t like criticism.

Comments Off on Hypocritical Watts? Surely not?

Filed under Rogue's Gallery

Anthony Watts’ words are sacrosanct…just ask him.

Actually, there’s no need to ask him. Actions always speak louder than words and the big crybaby Anthony Watts’ has certainly taken action against some of his detractors. Yesterday I reproduced a comment that had appeared at WTFIWWAW which I felt was so well written and also a fair criticism of Anthony and his sycophants. It was written by someone called NeilT. Take a moment to read it.

Well, over at Neven’s sea ice blog, NeilT has written this in regards to his comment at WTFIWWAW.

So, a check back through Anthony’s post where NeilT had managed to get his comment posted revealed that it has in fact disappeared. tsk tsk tsk. My regular readers know that I have been banned from posting anything at WTFIWWAW simply for asking which journal Anthony thought he could get that blog reviewed garbage he recently wrote published in? I was reasonably polite and it was a legitimate question.

That was enough to get me banned. Anthony replied that he was “showing me the door” from commenting on his blog because of the content of my blog. What a crybaby. Swallow some cement and harden up princess. Nevermind, it just reaffirms in my mind what I’ve known about Anthony for a long time. so, it will be interesting to see whether Entropic man is also permanently banned.

Here is a man who takes money from right wing thinktanks to produce rubbishy “science” claiming he isn’t a political lobbyist. Well, I suppose he isn’t lobbying directly but he does his thing knowing full well who is going to use it and for what purposes, so maybe “lobbyist” isn’t quite the right word. Perhaps political prostitute is more apt? Whatever he is, he obviously feels he is above criticism and will do what he can to hide any criticism of him. Insecure? Narcissistic? Dictatorial? Sanctimonious? Whatever he is, I know what he isn’t….and that’s respectable.

Comments Off on Anthony Watts’ words are sacrosanct…just ask him.

Filed under Rogue's Gallery

AGW proponent comment of the day August 28, 2012

I don’t know who NealT is, but his comment over at WTFIWWAW is a good one. Not just for the content, but also the seemingly calm and measured language in it. I have reproduced it below without permission because I don’t know who he is. I hope he doesn’t mind.

NeilT says:

Dear me, predictions come in all sizes and types. In fact 4 out of the 5 key objections here were predicted back on August 12 and like pavlovs dogs, WUWT gladly ranted their hearts out.

The only prediciton which did not get fulfilled was sensor failure…. I must admit I’m a little surpised as WUWT always claims that DMI sensors have failed every time it drops like a stone. Funny satellites those which fail and then start working perfectly when eggshell thin ice re-forms very rapidly very late in the season….

However Anthony you are bending the truth, yet again. NSIDC is almost the LAST record to fall. Not the first or the only. But, of course, you had to wait until the situation settled enough before you could start spreading your poison so it would be believable.

I see a trend here. People on the board keep saying we’re recovering from the little ice age and so there should be a melt. Yet there is a second and almost constant thread which says that ice is recovering. These two opinions are diametrically opposed yet everyone here seems to think they make the case in two different ways.

WUWT has been making constant noise about how the ice is NOT melting yet the WUWT submissions for SEARCH have dropped by 1msqkm between 2007 and now.

Pinnoccio methinks your nose is growing.

As the weeks go on and the ice does not recover, you will, again, say absolutely nothing. You will only perk up again when the temperature drops to -100 for a week and generates 6 inches of flash frozen ice in a sudden spurt. Then again it’ll be a sudden and “unprecedented” re-freeze of the ice. Never mind the fact that the ice will not reach the 2006/9 low ice winter levels. The fact that the average winter temperatures around Greenland will be 30C – 40C higher than normal over a period of weeks, no let’s ignore all that.

Only on WUWT could the arctic sea lose heat all winter but not gain heat in the summer, creating a net effect of cooling which will then melt even MORE ice the following year.

Escher had nothing on the logic of WUWT. But of course it’s not logic is it. It is simply making any claim which could possibly be believed by anyone so that an incredible and impossible claim can be upheld.

True to form and true to type. Even more so as the whole site lacks logic so badly that nobody can see the basic inconsistency of the position. One key message I use to make people wake up and understand the position is the basic inconsistency of the denialosphere arguments. Argue one thing one day and another the day after. Never cross check to see if you are making sense, what good would that do? Belive me you make my case much more forcibly than I could. All I have to do is point out the basic inconsistency of sites like this and I have people convinced.

What thousands of graphs and billions of lines of data will not do for the common person, WUWT does for me perfectly.

Keep it up. It helps me enormously.

Well said NeilT, well said. I got banned for less.

Comments Off on AGW proponent comment of the day August 28, 2012

Filed under AGW comments

Denier comment of the day, August 28, 2012

Well, over at WTFIWWAW, Anthony has blamed the new record ice melt on the Arctic storm. He is fair dinkum beyond help. Naturally, the sycophants are making some really stupid comments. Tere are so many to choose from. But the prize goes to Barry Glass for denying that there is a melt at all by making this clanger.

Well done Barry. You are an idiot.

Comments Off on Denier comment of the day, August 28, 2012

Filed under Classic denier comments

Envelopes and ballpoints

Since I have been blocked from commenting at WTFIWWAW simply for asking which journal Anthony thought he could publish his drivel in (I did ask politely), I am forced to drag garbage from there over to here. His latest is a guest post from someone called David M Hoffer. I always worry about people who insist on using their middle initial. Anyway, this is one of those special posts where the person posting knows that not one single person amongst the sycophants is going to know what the hell he’s talking about because he’s got some maths in it. That won’t stop them from commenting on how clever he is without question. It’s the old adage, “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” Well it seems David M Hoffer, whoever he is, has determined that you can do climate science with a calculator, a ballpoint pen, and the back of an envelope. He’s decided that using anomalies or as he ever so wittily calls them anoma-lies is pointless. Why? I suppose if you don’t want to know how the Earth is warming up and you want to keep your head firmly buried in the sand it’s pointless. I have to admit, this is a new tactic I didn’t see coming. I’m calling it the “Hoarding Earth Anomaly Data Is Nonsense Stop Anomalies Now Dammit” tactic.

So, what is the post all about? David M Hoffer is claiming the IPCC have got it all wrong when using anomalies based on temperature data derived from measuring irradiance. At least I think that’s what he’s saying. He cites the Stefan – Boltzmann law and simplifies it for the readers down to a single equation.  He then plugs some numbers in and voila! A massive mistake…allegedly. Here it is.

Now, I’ll admit, I’m not up on this stuff myself (it’s not my field) but I thought I’d check it out anyway . Hoffer offered Wikipedia as a reference for the Stefan-Boltzmann Law so I went there. Now, I’m not sure but when you look at all the formulae given for calculating the temperature of the Earth, it is a lot more complicated than this.


So anyway, let’s get back to the difference that Hoffer is questioning. 5.4w/m2 versus 3.7w/m2. I reckon there’s about a 30% difference in those two figures. How could the IPCC be out by 30%? How about albedo? Isn’t the total albedo of Earth about 30%? Is albedo missing from Hoffer’s calculations? Did Hoffer need a bigger envelope?

I’m not asking these questions to be a smartarse. I would genuinely like to know.

Comments Off on Envelopes and ballpoints

Filed under Rogue's Gallery