Analysis says nature causes climate change

Source: Neutral Fact Finder Points to Melting Glaciers as the Cause of Global Warming, Rising Sea Levels and Rising CO2 in Atmosphere

Kelleher & Associates Environmental Mgmt LLC
Jan 10, 2017, 10:00 ET


SAN JOSE, Calif., Jan. 10, 2017 /PRNewswire/ — The following is the opinion of Kelleher & Associates Environmental Mgmt LLC regarding rising CO2 levels and Global Warming and their interrelationship with fast melting glaciers:

Dear President Elect Trump, NOAA, EPA and interested parties:

I am among the country’s top environmental engineers and have been used extensively over the past several decades by the California Courts as a neutral fact finder who helps case special masters and litigating parties resolve legal disputes over who is liable for legacy pollution of contaminated properties without the need for trial. Within this role I am provided many linear feet of technical reports, pleadings, case summaries, expert witness reports, etc. I conduct a dispassionate unbiased review of the data and provide the case special masters and litigating parties with concise unbiased conclusions and recommendations that cannot be used at trial. In so doing, I have developed an uncanny ability for quickly seeing the forest through the trees when it comes to assessing massive amounts of technical scientific data. Given all that is at stake and because it is right up my alley, I felt a moral and professional obligation to apply my special talent and experience to the vitally important question at hand. In conducting my review over the holidays, I reviewed data published on the NOAA website and many others.

Background — Data from polar ice cores shows that the earth’s climate going back many millions of years is aptly described as the cycling of major and minor advances and retreats of glaciers from the poles separated by brief interglacial periods of relatively warm weather. During the past 420,000 years there have been four major ice ages with a frequency of about 100,000 years with the prolonged cold intervals in between comprised of roughly 20,000 or 40,000-year cycles of minor advances and retreats. According to NASA, the natural cycle of ice ages is triggered by perturbations in the earth’s axis and its elliptical orbit around the sun as they relate to the amount of thermal energy the earth receives from the sun. In about 1860 A.D. global temperatures started rising, rapidly marking the end of what is referred to as the Little Ice Age which commenced in about 1300 after a period of global warming called the Medieval Warm Period that commenced in about 1000. Commencing in the 1860s atmospheric CO2 levels began to slowly rise concurrent with sea levels indicating that glaciers were melting/retreating toward the poles picking up steam in the late 1800s and 1900s. According to EPA, CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels did not reach levels of concern to climate scientists until about 1950.

Conclusions — The collective climate data is telling me that rapidly rising atmospheric CO2 is a signature identifier/direct result of rapid glacial melting and is not the cause of either today’s or historic rapid global warming. In my opinion, NOAA has failed to produce any factual evidence that would stand up in court supporting its claims that the current period of global warming is out of the ordinary much less the result of human activities. As I see it, the only way that NOAA could possibly substantiate its controversial claims that current temperature increases are a cause for major concern is by restricting its analysis to the current and immediately preceding interglacial periods and providing hard scientific proof that current data differs significantly from the parallel data for the handful of very similar past intervals when CO2 levels suddenly took off and spiked—with the focus on temperature. I predict that any attempts to provide such proof will be frustrated by accuracy and resolution limitations in using ice-core data. Moreover:  1.  The start of the current period of rapid global warming coincides very closely with an ultra-giganormous sized solar flare striking the earth in 1859 strongly suggesting a relationship with solar storms/solar activity. The glaciers were already in full retreat from this or some other cause circa 1950 when fossil fuel CO2 emissions reached levels of concern to climate scientists. 2. There is nothing unusual about CO2 spiking during interglacial periods. This is the second major interval of CO2 spiking that has occurred during the current interglacial period and CO2 spiking occurred at frequent intervals during the immediately preceding interglacial period about 120,000 years ago. I found the published ice core data for the prior periods of rapid change to be of grossly insufficient resolution and reliability to draw meaningful comparisons with current data. I have no reason as a neutral fact finder to believe the current spiking period is significantly different than the prior ones with respect to temperature which is all that really matters. 3. Except for the incidental correlation I discuss in item 4 below, I found no correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and upward global temperature trends. For example: (a) CO2 was flat lined at about 275 ppm throughout the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age; (b) during the last four ice ages, the glaciers were in both full advance and full retreat at 250 ppm; and (c) rapid increases in CO2 during glacial retreats tend to lag behind rapid increases in temperatures. 4. Instead, I found vast unambiguous evidence that rapid CO2 increases occur only when rapidly melting/retreating glaciers are interacting with the earth’s oceans and atmosphere in creating rapid global warming, rising seawater levels and signature rapid atmospheric CO2 increases. The available evidence shows a linear relationship wherein rapidly melting glaciers cause atmospheric CO2 levels to rise higher and higher the closer the retreat gets to the poles, reaching levels far in excess of what can be attributed to Henry’s Law governed interchanges with a slowly warming ocean surface. By all appearances the excess CO2 in the atmosphere very slowly reenters the oceans once the glacial retreat stops. 5. I found that there is at least a five-fold effect that explains the well-documented atmospheric CO2 spikes as glaciers rapidly melt/retreat: (a) Henry’s Law related increases from the warming of the average surface temperature of the oceans combined with deep seawater up-welling; (b) the CO2 escaping the melting ice; (c) the CO2 degassing due to rapid warming of the massive deluge of frigid fresh water cascading across the land and glacier surfaces and then forming a floating skin of warming freshwater at the ocean surface; (d) the CO2 degassing from the deeps due to disruptive/turbulent effects on thermoclines; and (e) the CO2 emitting from bacterial decomposition of massive amounts of organic matter that had been trapped within and under the retreating ice and is being exposed to air. 6. I found overwhelming evidence that once a major or minor glacial retreat gains sufficient momentum, it becomes self-sustaining for a certain geologic period of time and causes rapid global warming on its own with incidental atmospheric CO2 increases. 7. I conclude that the driving force behind the self-sustaining glacial retreat has to be the greenhouse gas effect of the massive amounts of water vapor resulting from item 5(c) above taking into consideration that the warming effect is produced in the very areas where it is needed most. 8. I cannot tell how much the CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels commencing in 1950 have been incrementally contributing to the current rapid climb in atmospheric CO2, but I consider the increases a potential blessing to humanity rather than a threat. This takes into consideration the fact that the current interglacial period has already lasted longer than the last creating concerns that the glacial tide is about to turn.  Once the current melting stops, high levels of atmospheric CO2 could hopefully help stall the onset of what could be the next major ice age.

RecommendationsPresident Trump should remain skeptical and charge the director of NOAA with evaluating my conclusions and request a response to be reviewed by a panel of qualified civil and environmental engineers. With the identification of the true driver of glacial retreats (lots of water vapor continuously hovering over the actively melting areas), I claim to have debunked the published and widely accepted climatic theory that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 had an important greenhouse gas effect in accelerating the ending of the ice ages. Rather than fret and rant about global warming, I suggest everyone enjoy it while it lasts.

I warrant that I have conducted my investigations impartially and believe my conclusions are sufficiently supported by valid scientific evidence to stand up in a court of law.

DisclaimerThis press release contains the personal opinions of an American citizen based on his understanding of technical data and his experience as a neutral court consultant. Despite my professional standing, I am not claiming to be a professional engineer nor a consulting engineer given where I reside. California, unlike the rest of the country, does not grant licenses to environmental engineers given a long standing preference by its licensing board to rely primarily on state registered geologists to protect the state’s lands, indoor air and waters. 


Brian T Kelleher
Principal, Kelleher & Associates Environmental Mgmt, LLC
San Jose, CA 95121

This content was issued through the press release distribution service at For more info visit:


SOURCE Kelleher & Associates Environmental Mgmt LLC

– h/t Terry Dunleavy via Whaleoil.

Visits: 365

114 Thoughts on “Analysis says nature causes climate change

  1. Dennis N Horne on 15/01/2017 at 3:36 pm said:

    “Rather than fret and rant about global warming, I suggest everyone enjoy it while it lasts.”


    Fuck the scientists and the science. You know it makes cents.

  2. Gary Kerkin on 15/01/2017 at 5:00 pm said:

    I found overwhelming evidence that once a major or minor glacial retreat gains sufficient momentum, it becomes self-sustaining for a certain geologic period of time and causes rapid global warming on its own with incidental atmospheric CO2 increases.

    Pardon? Glacial retreat causes rapid global warming? Really?

    Surely this is either satire or, if genuine, is an attempt to get his name known for the purposes of generating work for himself.

  3. Richard Treadgold on 15/01/2017 at 7:29 pm said:

    Yeah, I didn’t understand that either.

    I found overwhelming evidence that once a major or minor glacial retreat gains sufficient momentum, it becomes self-sustaining … and causes rapid global warming on its own with incidental atmospheric CO2 increases.

    I surmise he’s talking about the increase in atmospheric CO2 by “retreating” glaciers causing subsequent warming. But that’s being kind.

  4. Simon on 15/01/2017 at 9:30 pm said:

    The suggestion that the Carrington Event started global warming is a new one on me, I’d be amused to hear how that is supposed to work 😅

  5. Richard Treadgold on 15/01/2017 at 10:37 pm said:

    Ok, thanks, Maggy. Fast work. And now that I’ve taken a moment to investigate, I share Simon’s amusement at the notion that a significant cooling event might have kicked off global warming.

  6. Dennis N Horne on 16/01/2017 at 9:33 am said:

    There are only two rational positions on global warming:
    1. Accept the science
    2. Accept the need to learn it

    Denialism is not an option, it’s a diagnosis.

    Those who think they know more about climate science than the climate scientists and more about science than the Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society … are either insane or brainwashed.

  7. Gary Kerkin on 16/01/2017 at 10:34 am said:

    Who is denying what, Dennis?

    There are only two rational positions on global warming:
    1. Accept the science
    2. Accept the need to learn it

    Why should anyone accept anything without evidence? Why should acceptance be considered rational?

    A comment was posted on WUWT this morning (16/1)

    …you cannot determine human contribution unless you know the amount and cause of natural climate change.


    Do you deny that the contributions to natural climate changed have not yet been completely, or at least adequately, determined?

    If you agree that natural contributions have not yet been determined then do you deny that climate science is far from settled?

    If you agree that climate science is not settled why should anyone accept it?

  8. Dennis N Horne on 16/01/2017 at 11:15 am said:

    A rational position is to either simply accept the judgement of the experts or learn enough science to understand it.

    Human activity accounts for more than the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2. Earth is retaining more energy. Earth will not reach a steady state for some time even if we desist now. Yet the liars and deniers propose business-as-usual. If we burn all the fossil fuel we face oblivion.

    The science is complex. Many lines of evidence fit together like pieces of a jigsaw. No one piece shows the complete picture.

    The global community of scientists sees the picture. The pieces may be imperfect but the picture is clear.

    If you see the wrong picture, there’s something wrong with you, not the scientists.

    Such has been the history of science. None so blind as those who will not see.

  9. Gary Kerkin on 16/01/2017 at 12:11 pm said:

    A rational position is to either simply accept the judgement of the experts or learn enough science to understand it.

    If having studied the science and concluding that the experts are wrong, is it then irrational to reject their judgement?

  10. Dennis N Horne on 16/01/2017 at 1:04 pm said:

    “If having studied the science and concluding that the experts are wrong, is it then irrational to reject their judgement?”

    I’ll answer when you’ve written a Beethoven symphony, painted a Monet, written a Shakespearean play, seen dark matter…

    Or is it just climate science that you know more about than the experts? Ten thousand climate scientists.

    If so, why do you think that is?

  11. Andy on 17/01/2017 at 3:59 pm said:

    If we are all mentally ill then Dennis must be a bit racist if he likes picking on mentally ill people

  12. Maggy Wassilieff on 17/01/2017 at 7:40 pm said:

    Mentally ill folks and race. Now why does that remind me of something?

    Ah, that’s right…. there was a problem…..defective humans…but fortunately there were solutions to this problem (at one time – 18 possible solutions; but ultimately one Final Solution).

    If my memory serves me right, a rather popular “science” developed around solving the defective human problem.
    Leading scientists lead the way; and of course mathematicians, psychobabblers, social botherers, physicians, inventors, economists, writers and politicians joined the learned throng.
    Leading research organisations developed and opened up fine laboratories (Cold Spring Harbor,); Universities appointed Chairs in Eugenics (Galton Chair, UCL)
    Research was published in top journals ( Annals of Human genetics)

    Oh, there were a few deniers, but basically any right (and left) thinking person knew that the good and clever folks promoting the applied science of human betterment were onto a winner.
    What could possibly go wrong?

  13. Dennis N Horne on 17/01/2017 at 11:49 pm said:

    Don’t think the Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society … have made statements on gish gallop or any race named the Insane.

    Nor has ExxonMobil. But the company has known plenty about CO2 and global warming. For years.

    Thanks to a massive campaign that fed disinformation and lies to a gullible public, brainwashed people distrust the global community of scientists, and politicians can talk total nonsense:
    “The Australian reported on Tuesday that research conducted by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science – and commissioned by Matt Canavan, the federal minister for resources – showed Australia could cut its emissions by 27% if it replaced its existing coal power stations with the more efficient “ultra-supercritical” technology.
    “On the basis of the analysis, Canavan released a statement attacking “people who oppose the coal industry for ideological reasons”.

    Ideology. Tut tut. Can’t have people wanting a planet to live on. Grow food. That sort of thing.

    As Marie Antoinette might have said: “Let them eat coal”.

  14. Magoo on 18/01/2017 at 12:49 am said:

    Dennis dear boy,

    The ONLY thing that matters is empirical evidence, nothing else. The empirical evidence published by the IPCC shows a complete failure of catastrophic AGW theory via the climate models, & no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour (which the IPCC states should account for 50% of the warming).

    Sorry dear boy, but if the theory fails against the experiment then it’s nothing but a failed theory. It doesn’t matter what expert opinion is if the opinion is wrong (e.g Galileo) – opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one, but empirical evidence trumps all.

    In God we trust, all others bring data. 🙂

  15. Dennis N Horne on 18/01/2017 at 6:59 am said:

    Magoon you are such a loon. All that you say is YOUR opinion. No matter how many times you say it, it is still ONLY your opinion. Nothing more. ONE opinion. It’s not even an EXPERT opinion. Is it.

    So why would any rational person accept your opinion, and reject that of nearly every expert climate scientist on the planet?

    Apart from the ten thousand or more EXPERT opinions from scientists working and publishing in the field, the global community of scientists — as represented by the Royal Society, National Academy of Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science, APS, ACS, etc etc etc — have concluded and publicly state:

    The science is incontrovertible and the evidence unambiguous.

    BECAUSE the datasets show warming and ice lost. Statistically significant and serious. More greenhouse gas is having more greenhouse effect, Predicted. Observed. Measured.

    Now. Can you explain why you see things differently? Do you think you are Galileo?

    Have you been reading mumbo jumbo and opinions like arseholes on the denier blogs?

    On a personal matter. For some time now you have been addressing me as “Dear Boy”. It’s very sweet. But don’t you think it’s time you made a move? I’m not getting any younger, you know. I must warn you though, I don’t “go the whole way” on a first date. Would kissing my arse satisfy you?

  16. Andy on 18/01/2017 at 8:20 am said:

    Svante Arrhenius was the father of greenhouse theory, and was also a member of the Swedish Society of Racial Hygiene in Stockholm.

    He was a board member for the Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene (founded 1909), which endorsed mendelism at the time, and contributed to the topic of contraceptives around 1910. However, until 1938 information and sale of contraceptives was prohibited in Sweden. Around 1930, conservative members of the society helped to establish eugenic policies in Sweden.

    it was of course just “settled science” at the time, so “racial hygiene” has little to do with atmospheric physics

    However, Racial Hygiene is still important. In Resolution 2334 co-sponsored by NZ, a pre-condition of any Palestinian State is that is should be Jew-Free, i.e cleansed of Jews. This practice has continued for many millennia. Roman Emperor Hadrian (known also as a pre-Trump wall builder to keep immigrants out) kicked the Jews out of Judea and re-named the area “Palestina”.

    In the said Jew-free state, lies the “little town of Bethlehem” well known to Jews and Christians of course. As it happens, the term “Bedlam” is a shortening of the name “Bethlehem” which was a mental hospital where “sane” people used to mock the mentally afflicted and cause “Bedlam”

  17. Magoo on 18/01/2017 at 8:56 am said:

    Dennis dear boy,

    The science is settled with a 100% consensus amongst the empirical evidence that CAGW is unfounded nonsense. Not ‘predicted’, but ‘observed’ & ‘measured’. The debate is over.

    That’s all there is to it dear boy. It’s the scientific method not opinion – those who depart from it aren’t a scientist’s rear end.

  18. Andy on 18/01/2017 at 9:28 am said:

    “Thanks to a massive campaign that fed disinformation and lies to a gullible public, brainwashed people distrust the global community of scientists, and politicians can talk total nonsense”

    states Dennis

    Which “massive campaign”?

    Wall to wall climate alarmism is all we ever get in the NZ media

  19. Dennis N Horne on 18/01/2017 at 9:45 am said:

    Magoof you poof the debate was over years ago. The scientists spoke loud and clear: the evidence is overwhelming. If it’s not scientists who judge what science is, who does?

    Naturally you have an opinion just as you have an arsehole (your words).

    Rex Tillerson accepts the science. How embarrassing is that for a denier like yourself and the halfwit?

    Of course Sexy Rexy isn’t going to do anything. He’s persuaded himself that, thanks to the massive campaign to brainwash the public, there are enough gullible fools around (please take a bow) to support his snookering moves to reduce the oil money flowing into his pocket.

    So to you a big “Thank You” from Rex. Dud cheque in the mail.

    But-but-but, Big Willy Tilly might have misjudged the speed of climate change. Look at the “extra” heat going into the ocean:

    And what that heat is doing:

    Where are you going to hide, Magoon, when the great unwashed want revenge? Up your own “opinion”?

  20. Andy on 18/01/2017 at 9:57 am said:

    “Rex Tillerson accepts the science. How embarrassing is that for a denier like yourself and the halfwit?”

    Which “halfwit” are you referring to Dennis?

  21. Andy on 18/01/2017 at 10:18 am said:

    Rex Tillerson is Secretary of State.

    William Happer looks set to be the science advisor.

  22. Magoo on 18/01/2017 at 11:27 am said:

    Dennis dear boy,

    I’m glad you like the data from the NOAA because that is one of the 4 datasets the IPCC used in their graph showing how the climate models have failed.

  23. Dennis N Horne on 18/01/2017 at 11:50 am said:

    Magoof you nincompoof … Can you read? Perhaps you could look at the pictures:
    “Lately [deniers] want to focus on computer models, in the vain hope that by discrediting them they can discredit all of climate science. To hear them talk, computer models which simulate climate are completely wrong about everything, especially temperature, without a hope of a clue of how fast Earth is heating up, or will heat up.

    “When deniers claim that models are useless and wrong, they’re not telling the truth. But there’s not much they can talk about these days. Surface temperature is through the roof, satellite temperatures are through the roof, ocean heat is through the roof, wildfires are burning down the roof, sea level is lapping at your ankles and still rising, Arctic sea ice is crashing through the floor, glaciers are vanishing before our very eyes, Greenland is melting at an alarming rate … When it comes to what’s happening with Earth’s climate, deniers have nothing to talk about that won’t embarrass their “don’t worry” narrative. Things have gotten so bad even Ted Cruz has shut up.”

    And that opinion of yours, about no global warming … it doesn’t seem to be quite right. Not what the evidence shows. In the judgement of experts, of course. You know, the scientists who understand the science. Explain reality. That sort of thing.
    Global Warming’s Record Year. Posted on January 11, 2017
    “It is widely publicized that 2016 will certainly break the record for yearly average global temperature. Again. This will be the third year in a row we’ve set a new record. It’s time we paid attention.

    “I’ve often emphasized that just because Earth shows an indisputable warming trend, that doesn’t mean every year will be hotter than the one before. In addition to trend, there is also a lot of fluctuation in things like global temperature. So we shouldn’t expect each year to break the temperature record.

    “But we did in 2014. We did again in 2015, by a substantial margin. We did again in 2016, by a substantial margin. The third year in a row of record-breaking global temperature will probably get the most attention, but it may not be the most important or most worrisome record set last year.

    “We’re not just failing to gain ground, we’re losing at a record pace.

    “Just when we most need to slow our greenhouse gas increase, it’s actually accelerating. And there’s also a new, worrisome record: the U.S. government’s new administration is now in the hands of a record number of the most vile and idiotic climate deniers imaginable.”

    I could hardly have put it better myself. Vile and idiotic.

    Now about that date. You know what? I’m sorry, I think I’ve “gone cold” on the idea…

  24. Andy on 18/01/2017 at 12:02 pm said:

    I don’t generally bother reading articles that use the term “denier” in every sentence

    Scum like Tamino isn’t winning any battles here.

  25. Richard Treadgold on 18/01/2017 at 12:03 pm said:


    … wildfires are burning down the roof…

    If you call that litany of alarm science, you are deeply deluded.

  26. Andy on 18/01/2017 at 1:33 pm said:

    I do enjoy the friendly banter around here. The abuse, the denigration, the swearing, the mindless appeals to authority, the endless list of links that no one ever clicks on.

  27. Alexander K on 18/01/2017 at 1:38 pm said:

    I was taught that it is bad form to denigrate the opposing team in a debate: to use gratuitous bad language is not merely bad form, but makes the user appear more than a little thuggish.
    Dennis N Horne not only tries to be offensive, he succeeds in spades.
    He rants as if he has picked the wrong horse at a country race course and does nothing to demonstrate his obvious belief in his own superior intelligence and knowledge.
    Give it up Dennis – you have not only backed the wrong horse, you are a foul-mouthed bully.

  28. Gary Kerkin on 18/01/2017 at 2:39 pm said:

    “I was taught that it is bad form to denigrate the opposing team in a debate: to use gratuitous bad language is not merely bad form, but makes the user appear more than a little thuggish.”

    Alexander, at that stage it is not even worth responding because it is no longer a debate—merely a slanging match. Why bother to give air time to anyone who wishes to indulge in such nonsense?

    In the mid 1960’s, sometime after I learned how to program a digital computer, those worried about the impact of digital computing on the scientific and business worlds coined the acronym GIGO—garbage in, garbage out. It is still appropriate.

    However, for its 1972 annual conference, the Australian Computer Society held a lapel badge competition. The winning entry read “Garbage In, Gospel Out”. Somehow that too also seems still to be appropriate.

  29. Dennis N Horne on 18/01/2017 at 3:52 pm said:

    Deluded? Indeed I must be. I thought it would be clear which was the science — the sciencey graphs and stuff — and which was comment. Hyperbole? Maybe not. Things are pretty bad in places. Getting worse. Adding energy equivalent to 400,000 Hiroshima bombs a day to the climate system …

    Never mind. Recognising science eh. I see I have set the bar too high. I did leave it on the ground for a while, but the halfwit tripped on it.

    Anyway. I’m here to help. Maybe you’d all benefit from reading Victor Venema dissect a denier:

  30. Richard Treadgold on 18/01/2017 at 4:03 pm said:


    Maybe you’d all benefit from reading Victor Venema dissect a denier

    Maybe. But, look, I don’t remember you once asking why we question the orthodox climate view. Instead, you ‘help’ us cope with a malady and wonder at our rejection.

    We, on the other hand, think that you’re always asking why we reject the orthodox view and give you reasons, not realising that until you ask us, you’re not interested in the reasons.

    So, my friend, ask away or go on your way.

  31. Dennis N Horne on 18/01/2017 at 4:16 pm said:

    Appeal to authority, eh. Experts. People who know what they’re doing.

    Who better to appeal to?

    People who are not scientists? Don’t publish in the field? Find virtually no climate scientist agrees with them? Totally ignored by scientific institutions and societies? Talk total twaddle?

    Without training, expertise or a track record in climate science, they decide they see a Great Truth, but as yet have been unable to reveal it to the global community of scientists. Who are of course involved in a huge scam. Tens of thousands of them “picking” on you…

    Yes, I despise you deniers. You fool yourselves and spread bullshit amongst a gullible public.

    Right at at time we need to take urgent action. Look at the bloody science for heaven’s sake.

  32. Andy on 18/01/2017 at 4:30 pm said:

    “Yes, I despise you deniers. ”

    Good, glad we got that cleared up
    What “urgent action” are you taking, by the way?

  33. Richard Treadgold on 18/01/2017 at 4:45 pm said:


    Yes, I despise you deniers.

    Still not risking a genuine question. To your delusion we now add spinelessness.

    We deny nothing. Ask us why we question, you diddlepoop.

  34. Simon on 18/01/2017 at 4:47 pm said:

    Why is Tamino scum Andy? He is a genuine expert and his analyses are always valid and understandable. His theoretical statistics textbook is excellent and it’s my goto reference text.
    Is it because deep down you know he is right but refuse to admit it?

  35. Magoo on 18/01/2017 at 5:36 pm said:

    Dennis dear boy,

    You & your buddy Tamino better contact the IPCC pronto, because the AR5 shows the climate models failing dismally. The data used by the IPCC (from memory) is from GISS, NOAA, Hadcrut, etc. – you know dear boy, ‘the experts’. Don’t you agree with the experts dear boy? Perhaps they’re in pay of ‘big oil’. ROFLMAO!

    BTW, it’s hilarious watching you rant & froth when confronted with peer reviewed empirical data from ‘the experts’, very funny. The debate is over, the science settled, CAGW is complete nonsense dear boy – the consensus amongst the empirical evidence is ‘overwhelming’. 😉

  36. Simon on 18/01/2017 at 8:44 pm said:

    You keep repeating this line Magoo but it is a load of tosh. This is what the IPCC says:
    see also
    The most recent comparison of models versus surface temperatures that I am aware of is:
    The trick that Christy et. al. play is that they use tropical mid-troposphere satellite estimates versus global model surface predictions on a cherry-picked time horizon. Apples versus oranges designed to mislead the gullible. See also
    There may be some evidence that the CMIP5 models are running a little warm but the older CMIP3 are bang-on. I suspect though (as an uneducated layperson) that there is a significant natural variation component partially caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which has now flipped to a positive (warm) phase.

  37. Andy on 18/01/2017 at 8:55 pm said:

    “Why is Tamino scum Andy? ”

    Because he uses the term “denier” in every sentence

    I respond to abuse with equal and opposite abuse

    There is no “debate” in any area of human endeavour

    Just abuse and hatred

  38. Magoo on 18/01/2017 at 11:48 pm said:

    Simon, Simon, Simon,

    The denial is strong with you & Dennis, but here it is straight from the IPCC’s AR5:

    It has nothing to do with ‘Christy et al’. Don’t you believe the empirical evidence in the AR5 report?

    Realclimate and Tamino are part of the ‘rapid response team’ & are really a bunch of climate activists who are deniers of the empirical evidence. Why don’t you trust the IPCC, do you think they’re working for ‘big oil’ or something?

  39. Andy on 19/01/2017 at 7:59 am said:

    Dennis despises “deniers”

    Dennis feels hatred towards people who ask reasonable questions

    Dennis would like to kill them

    Don’t be like Dennis

  40. Simon on 19/01/2017 at 9:25 am said:

    Denier isn’t an abusive word Andy. You have loaded it with some emotional baggage that isn’t there.
    Somebody who denies scientific fact is a denier, it’s as simple as that.

    All your chart show Magoo is that temperatures were within model 95% confidence intervals. I provided you with updates to that chart, it’s not 2013 anymore.

  41. Andy on 19/01/2017 at 9:43 am said:

    ” Somebody who denies scientific fact is a denier, it’s as simple as that. ”

    So which scientific facts are we/I denying?

  42. Alexander K on 19/01/2017 at 11:20 am said:

    I hope the above exchange with Dennis means that he will be banned from our conversation. What makes me a bit sad is that someone with a modicum of intelligence can be such an egregious know-it-all and a nasty bully to boot. I looked him up on Google and he seems to make a career of arguing with and bullying others.
    He must have a sad life!

  43. Simon on 19/01/2017 at 12:15 pm said:

    Here you go Magoo, model predictions versus actuals updated to the end of 2016.

    Andy, do you deny any of the following facts?
    1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
    2. Humans are expelling increasing volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
    3. The climate is warming as a result of 1. and 2.

  44. Andy on 19/01/2017 at 12:18 pm said:

    Item (3) is a theory, not a fact. However, I accept that all other things considered, if CO2 causes warming, then some of the warming in the last 50 years is caused by anthro-CO2. How much is unknown, as acknowledged by the range of values given by the IPCC to climate sensitivity

    These are also things that people like Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen take as a “fact”, yet they are labelled “deniers”

  45. Gary Kerkin on 19/01/2017 at 2:34 pm said:

    Christopher Monckton has just published an article on Watts Up With That criticizing a publication by pædiatrician Paul Offit ( One section is pertinent to this discussion and worth quoting.

    Inevitably, Offit goes on to recite the Party slogan that “the overwhelming consensus among environmental scientists is that global warming is a real and present threat”.

    Offit should get someone to read Legates et al. (2013) to him at bedtime. In that paper, we revealed that only 41, or 0.3%, of 11,944 learned papers on climate and related topics published in the journals over the 21 years 1991-2011 had stated that recent global warming was mostly manmade.

    We also revealed that no peer-reviewed survey of a sufficiently large sample of published papers has even asked the question whether those peer-reviewed climate papers state – with evidence – that global warming will prove dangerous. This lack of curiosity is inferentially attributable to an awareness on the part of the dopes who conduct such surveys that they would not get the answer they want.

    Not that that stopped Cook et al. (2013) from falsely reporting a 97% consensus when their own records clearly show they found only 64 of those 11,944 papers had explicitly assented to the consensus position as they had defined it: that recent global warming was mostly manmade. Police on three continents are investigating. Prosecutions will follow.

    Science is not done by consensus, as Aristotle in the West and Al-Haytham in the East pointed out millennia ago. Totalitarian politics is done by consensus (or, rather, by the pretense of it). Those who argue from consensus, then, demonstrate two things: that they are scientifically illiterate and politically collectivist.

  46. Dennis N Horne on 19/01/2017 at 11:58 pm said:

    “Science is not done by consensus”

    However science is done, eventually a body of knowledge called “science” is available. How? By consensus. The judgement of experts.

    Several studies verify the consensus of publishing climate scientists that CO2 causes global warming is 97-99%. There is a huge volume of accepted science.

    There is no scientific debate. There are no questions to be asked about the basic science. Earth is retaining more energy due to burning fossil fuel. About 90% is going into the oceans. Near surface troposphere has warmed about 1.2C mean global value.

    Monckton. What he says has been shown to be untrue. Repeatedly. But you believe him and think the experts are wrong.

    Why is that? I think I asked you before. I guess you don’t know the answer. How it makes sense to you but not the global community of scientists. RS, NAS, AAAS, APS, ACS…

    Like the other deniers, you have lost your marbles. Police on three continents are investigating. 🙂 🙂 🙂

  47. Richard Treadgold on 20/01/2017 at 6:26 am said:


    There is no scientific debate. There are no questions to be asked about the basic science.

    You know so little, yet you steadfastly refuse to ask us why we have questions about global warming. Are you afraid of the answers? You beat your gums here to no purpose. Hear a very gentle question: What are you doing?

  48. Dennis N Horne on 20/01/2017 at 7:02 am said:

    I know why you have questions. You don’t see the science. You look somewhere else.
    2016 Temperature Records. — gavin @ 19 January 2017

    “To nobody’s surprise, all of the surface datasets showed 2016 to be the warmest year on record. Barely more surprising is that all of the tropospheric satellite datasets and radiosonde data also have 2016 as the warmest year.

    “Coming as this does after the record warm 2015, and (slightly less definitively) record warm 2014, the three records in row might get you to sit up and pay attention.”

    Do deniers sit up and pay attention? Look at the graphs? Nah, they just lie about.

  49. Richard Treadgold on 20/01/2017 at 8:01 am said:

    What are you doing?

  50. Maggy Wassilieff on 20/01/2017 at 8:53 am said:

    Nah, they just lie about.

    I don’t think it’s the “climate deniers” that are lying about the global temperature graphs or the NZ temperature record.

    These graphs seem to be very fluid concepts……they have floating baselines, that seem to change at whim; they have shifting anomalies that grow smaller as new anomalies are added on.
    The graphs themselves are derived from an ever decreasing suite of temperature stations concentrated in ever-growing metropolitan areas.

    And if I am lying, then expose the lies.
    All NIWA needs to do is publish a peer-reviewed scientific paper outlining their methodology and adjustments. (As promised to NZ Parliament)

    All NASA & co need to do is account for their adjustments to their records that showed warming during the first part of the 20th C and cooling from 1940-1970

  51. Richard Treadgold on 20/01/2017 at 9:20 am said:

    Nicely put, Maggy.

  52. Andy on 20/01/2017 at 9:24 am said:

    I think by “lie about” Dennis means we are reclining on our sofas whilst being fed grapes by a wench, rather than “lying” about stuff.

    Wishful thinking on my part, perhaps

  53. Richard Treadgold on 20/01/2017 at 9:55 am said:

    Wishful thinking perhaps, but sofa, so good.

  54. Gary Kerkin on 20/01/2017 at 2:35 pm said:

    Very good, Richard. I guess we all have to take that sitting down!

    Dennis hasn’t answered your question. He hasn’t answered mine, except for some mindless condition relating to music, art and literature.

    As I stated earlier, these sorts of arguments always seem to degenerate into slanging matches which offer no benefit to anyone and certainly doesn’t add to our knowledge. I have no wish to participate—I have things of much greater concern to occupy me. I can only comment that it appears that those who allow themselves to sink to such depths can think of no convincing arguments which support their position.

  55. Andy on 20/01/2017 at 3:56 pm said:

    I think Dennis is here to bore us all to death. He did manage to drive our most prolific poster (RC) away. Maybe we will all leave and he will “win”

  56. Magoo on 20/01/2017 at 6:34 pm said:


    Yes, your Hausyafather graph shows the empirical temperatures dropping out the bottom of the climate projections (i.e. the models had failed) before the El Niño. If you think a short term El Niño spike saves the failed models then you’re deluding yourself. The temperatures are returning back to where they were & are doing so at a very rapid rate. Relying on the El Niño is not only disingenuous, it’s the very definition of desperation.

  57. Alexander K on 21/01/2017 at 5:17 pm said:

    I was delighted that The Donald has made it his first business in office as POTUS to cancel the climate nonsense on the White House website.
    I was impressed with his inauguration acceptance speech – no holds barred and no BS, and I am chuckling that so many airheads who pretend to be other people for a living think their opinion matters.

  58. Andy on 21/01/2017 at 8:48 pm said:

    Whether you love him or hate him, I wish President Trump all the best and I pray that we can find peace in this messed up world.

  59. Richard Treadgold on 21/01/2017 at 11:20 pm said:

    I’ve only heard bits of his speech so far, but he seems genuine enough for a politician. I share Andy’s ‘heart of fairness’ approach for now and certainly echo the prayer for peace.

  60. Richard Treadgold on 21/01/2017 at 11:22 pm said:

    Very good, Gary. Though I’d be chary about trying anything else.

  61. Richard Treadgold on 21/01/2017 at 11:23 pm said:


    Maybe we will all leave

    Hope you don’t. I won’t — I reckon the best is yet to come. Further up and further in.

  62. Dennis N Horne on 22/01/2017 at 10:47 am said:

    The raw unadjusted data show Earth is retaining more energy and the only explanation is increased greenhouse effect from more greenhouses gases at the basis.

    Using or discarding raw or unadjusted NZ data makes not one iota of difference. Bees in bonnets.

    I still have not received an answer to my question. Why does an unqualified observer think (s)he knows better than ten thousand climate scientists, experts working in the field and publishing in high impact journals, and the global community of scientists as represented by the RS, NAS, AAAS, APS, ACS … etc etc?

    They believe this but cannot produce one paper, published in any reputable journal, that shows the consensus wrong.

    I remind you that the notion started with Fourier in 1824. It’s not something new. The explanation is simple and the evidence overwhelming. Temperatures up ice down.

    Yet you don’t believe it. You believe something else. You know something the climate scientists don’t. What? Why? Is it “just because”? That’s how it seems to me.

    Lots of people believe what they want to believe despite the evidence. In a cult or religion. Yep, for certain beliefs we allow humans to be mystical and irrational.


    In conclusion. Why talk amongst yourselves on the denier blogs? Why not go to science blogs and put your case? To scientists who have the answers?

    You don’t want answers. This thread is a prime example. Written by someone whose main claim to fame is puffery; you are so blinded by confirmation bias you embrace total fucking nonsense.

  63. Andy on 22/01/2017 at 11:13 am said:

    97% of scientists agree that catastrophic climate change is certain, that positive feedback loops will accelerate and the entire planet will melt.

    We will all die and there is nothing we can do .

    Why do the Deniers not believe this? Why don’t they trust the Experts and the Scientists?
    Why do they waste time on Denier Blogs when they could be spreading the good news about catastrophic climate change?

    Everybody agrees. The planet is doomed. Done diddly done for.

  64. Andy on 22/01/2017 at 11:14 am said:

    By the way, it is snowing heavily today on South Island skifields. I expect this has something to do with the Orange Hitler aka President Daddy deleting all references to climate change on

  65. Richard Treadgold on 22/01/2017 at 11:30 am said:

    Who wants to go through Menace McScorn’s latest epistle to shred his thinking? It’s full of his prejudices, still doesn’t answer our questions, yet he complains that we ignore his questions. I’m trying to get Willie Soon’s revelations published, plus a piece on Michael Kelly’s engineering approach to climate policy. I’ve had to work for money literally for hours this past week, I’m still installing software on the new laptop when I notice an omission, then there’s the cricket… also, I’m being shafted so often over climate denial that I think I could be pregnant. Should I see a doctor? Thanks for your link on Trump, Gary, very funny, very disturbing, quite awkward. Low on my list just now, however. Everyone carry on.

  66. Richard Treadgold on 22/01/2017 at 11:40 am said:

    Dennis, there are more rational things than this to say about your thoughtful message, but this is a start. You say:

    Written by someone whose main claim to fame is puffery

    You’re quite wrong; he’s an engineer, a clan not much given to puffery. Now make a start on answering our questions, if you’d be so kind.

  67. Magoo on 22/01/2017 at 11:42 am said:

    Dennis dear boy,

    Scientists who disagree with CAGW are part of the ‘consensus’ that believe in AGW, you know that. For example, here’s Dr Roy Spencer stating so in the last few days:

    ‘As a lukewarmist I believe (but can’t prove) that humans are probably responsible for some of the recent warming (which has been mostly benign). I further believe (but can’t prove) that humans will cause somewhat more warming in the future….’

    Your false narrative is that some scientists reject anthropogenic CO2 warms at all because they dispute that anthropogenic CO2 warms a lot, and you try to use this false narrative to ignore the empirical evidence supporting the fact that CO2 is having a minimal effect – evidence from the IPCC reports no less. That, dear boy, is why none of us buy into your idiotic ‘consensus’ argument, because your total misrepresentation of scientists who are sceptical of CAGW proves nothing but the fact that you have no empirical evidence to back your unfounded catastrophic claims. Your lack of supporting evidence is further exacerbated by the fact that you think abuse and expletives are viable substitutions for empirical evidence dear boy, although your frothing rants are quite humourous. 😉

  68. Dennis N Horne on 23/01/2017 at 9:55 am said:

    So. No answer to why deniers prefer someone’s or anyone’s explanations — puffed-up engineers and all — to genuine climate scientists’ and other informed scientists’. Confirmation bias. ABC, anything but carbon.

    If you have specific questions about the science, why not take them to the science blogs: skepticalscience and realclimate etc etc. Whatever the questions are, I’ve long forgotten. The inability to recognise this report as a crock is an indication of near-total ignorance of basic science. So good luck.

    Magoofy still trying to claim the IPCC reports mean something other than what the scientists agreed on and wrote. Well, many at the forefront say the reality is far worse than that. But “catastrophic” is a strawman. Not one mention of CAGW in the report. Anywhere.

    Not that it stops the halfwit “joking” we’re “done diddly done for.”

    And what has Michael Kelly’s recommendation to keep burning carbon to keep warm or whatever got to do with the science of cooking the whole fucking planet?

    Like alcoholics, deniers can’t get help until they admit being deniers.

  69. Richard Treadgold on 23/01/2017 at 10:14 am said:

    So you’ve forgotten our questions. An honest response, to be fair. But what are you doing?

  70. Andy on 23/01/2017 at 10:20 am said:

    Not that it stops the halfwit “joking” we’re “done diddly done for.”

    Ah now I have confirmation that Dennis thinks I am a “halfwit”

    Maybe Dennis, you could give me some evidence why you think I am mentally retarded.

    For the record, I think you are a foul mouthed, opinionated and ill-informed piece of leftist filth
    The great news is that you publish here under you own name, which is to be admired.
    This may be your only positive virtue

  71. Andy on 23/01/2017 at 10:48 am said:

    Page me when Dennis has left the room,

    I’m over these pointless threads of insults, and I don’t intend to rise to the bait anymore

  72. Dennis N Horne on 23/01/2017 at 11:15 am said:

    “Maybe Dennis, you could give me some evidence why you think I am mentally retarded.”
    “This may be your only positive virtue”

    Okay. Name three “negative virtues” a person might have. Anyone. Trump … Putin … Monckton … Watts …
    “But what are you doing?”

    I’m waiting to see just how much the global mean temperature must rise and how much ice must be lost before science deniers turn into scientific sceptics and seek an explanation based on evidence.

  73. Richard Treadgold on 23/01/2017 at 11:18 am said:

    There’s no dataset that shows the temperature rising significantly in the last 20 or so years. Nothing requires explanation.

  74. Andy on 23/01/2017 at 12:30 pm said:

    Like I say Dennis, anytime you want to take your toxic hatred elsewhere, please feel free. Maybe join a woman against Trump protest or similar. Burn some cars, smash some shop windows, punch someone in the face.

    It might be more cathartic for you than commenting here

  75. Simon on 23/01/2017 at 3:53 pm said:

    RT, every dataset shows a consistent pattern of warming of around 0.17°C/decade over the past twenty years:
    I recommend though that you consider at least thirty years, as twenty years actually exaggerates the warming slightly because it increases the weighting of 2015/16 El Niño.
    You can’t live in denial forever.

  76. Andy on 23/01/2017 at 4:11 pm said:

    So the Pause never existed then? The Pause that many papers have been written about?

    Have they been erased from history?

  77. Andy on 23/01/2017 at 4:27 pm said:

    It is funny how “denier” isn’t an insult, yet no one ever explains what the parameters of “denial” are.

  78. Dennis N Horne on 24/01/2017 at 8:06 am said:

    The “pause” was partly a statistical artifact and partly energy going into the ocean, which is a huge heatsink. The temperature data show considerable variability even if the total heat in the system is unchanged. It’s complex.

    Two comments.
    1. Discussing gods does not prove they exist or even that they might.
    2. When you awake in the morning do you assume you have been alive all night? Of course you do. If the temperatures at the end are higher than at the beginning, why is it so important to invent a pause? Because rubbish is all science deniers have to offer.

    If you don’t want to be labelled a science denier don’t deny the science. It’s a description.

  79. Maggy Wassilieff on 24/01/2017 at 8:41 am said:

    The pause is unexplained.
    Here, the British Met Office admit that more information is required to understand:
    Earth’s solar energy budget, and
    the dynamics and thermal content of ocean systems

    How to move on:
    Perhaps I should endlessly spout the psycholinguistic nonsense on display here

    or perhaps I should keep myself updated with the work that dozens (if not hundreds)of investigative scientists are currently undertaking

  80. Richard Treadgold on 24/01/2017 at 8:55 am said:


    The “pause” was partly a statistical artifact and partly energy going into the ocean

    An artefact of what? The 4000-odd Argo floats show no evidence of energy moving into hiding in the deep ocean. As Andy mentioned, what you describe as a ‘statistical artifact’ has been discussed by dozens of published scientific papers and over 50 different mechanisms have been put forward to explain it — almost as though these scientists have taken the pause as a real event.

    The temperature data show considerable variability even if the total heat in the system is unchanged.

    Are you now saying the total heat (energy) in the system is unchanged? Still, the temperatures now are similar to temperatures about 20 years ago; that’s the meaning of hiatus. The UAH series shows present temperatures, which are declining steeply following the El Nino, occurred in 1996.

    There’s been no need for invention of a pause — the word reflects reality. There’s no scientific doubt about it. In February last year Nature Climate Change published Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown, which opens with:

    It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.

    You can read the whole article here (but not save it).

    Note that the fourth author listed is Michael E. Mann — not usually described as a climate denier.

    I missed Maggy’s comments: Lewandowsky (blecch) and solar influence (not all are blinded by the CO2 propaganda).

  81. Gary Kerkin on 24/01/2017 at 9:05 am said:

    If you don’t want to be labelled a science denier don’t deny the science.

    So now it is denial of science? Why should anyone wish to level that accusation when the only aspect of the whole gamut of science being “discussed” here (or so I thought!) is the hypothesis of the effect of greenhouse gases. Who here denies that climate is changing? Who here denies that the globe (and New Zealand) has been slowly warming since the Little Ice Age? Who here denies that the last 20 years has not warmed as quickly as the previous century (give or take El Niño and La Niña events and arguments about a “pause”)?

    Denial in the sense it is used here implies an insult. Sceptic is a more reasonable term, deriving from the Greek skeptikos meaning inquiring, reflective. It underpins the scientific method. Einstein recognised it when he indicated that whereas no number of experiments would prove him correct, it would take only one to prove him wrong.

  82. Andy on 24/01/2017 at 10:28 am said:

    What is a “science denier”. Well of course it is just a generic slur against someone that you disagree with, or dislike, or find deplorable

    It is about as useful as the word “racist”, which seems to have lost any actual meaning

  83. Magoo on 24/01/2017 at 10:51 am said:

    Dennis dear boy,

    You say ‘Magoofy still trying to claim the IPCC reports mean something other than what the scientists agreed on and wrote.’

    The reality is that the empirical data in the IPCC AR5’s Working Group I (The Physical Science Basis) directly contradicts the opinions in the Summary for Policy Makers. What to believe, the empirical evidence or the opinions of a handful of scientists whose careers hinge on promoting AGW. The scientific method dictates that empirical evidence trumps baseless opinions – simple dear boy, don’t you agree with the empirical evidence published in the IPCC reports?

    The ‘science is settled’ dear boy, the evidence is ‘overwhelming’, the empirical ‘consensus’ shows AGW is falsified, from a failure of all the climate models to a lack of positive feedback from water vapor. ‘Observed’, ‘measured’, but not ‘predicted’. The debate is over, you’re not ‘denying’ the empirical data are you dear boy?

  84. Andy on 24/01/2017 at 2:14 pm said:

    In following climate blogs for 7 years or so, i have learned a few things about climate science, but more about human nature and tribalism

    Unfortunately, “debate” in many areas of human interest seems to have descended to the level of baboons, but that might be offensive to baboons and those that self-identify as baboons (trans-baboons)

  85. Dennis N Horne on 24/01/2017 at 2:18 pm said:

    Okay, deniers “win” by denying the science that is accepted by all scientists working and publishing in the field and the global community of scientists, based on 200 years work.

    I still have no answer as to why a ragtag collection of unqualified people believe they have special powers and insight apparently lacking in the experts.

    The facts are simple. Earth is retaining more energy because the greenhouse effect is stronger. It is not increased solar activity or changes in orbit or tilt. It is not magic. It is more greenhouse gases. Mostly our CO2 from burning fossil fuels. There is simply no doubt about this.

    Measuring temperatures of a large and complex system is difficult. Meaningful analysis is difficult.

    Temperatures are up, ice is down, sea level is rising. Predicted. Observed. Measured.

    That’s the science. You are free to deny it if you can’t face the truth. But then you know that; you do that already.

  86. Andy on 24/01/2017 at 2:47 pm said:

    OK, Dennis, having determined that we are despicable morons that “deny science”, is there anything else you would like to add to the corpus of knowledge here?

    We appreciate your valued time

  87. Magoo on 24/01/2017 at 3:28 pm said:

    Dennis dear boy,

    Does your statement ‘the science that is accepted by all scientists working and publishing in the field and the global community of scientists’ include the 1000 peer reviewed papers sceptical of AGW published in the last 2 years – 500 in 2016 alone? No?

    I’ve heard some porkies in my time, but that one takes the cake dear boy! Hilarious!! 😂

    Like I said before, your false narrative on a ‘consensus’ just doesn’t cut it in the real world dear boy, it’s a figment of your fantastical imagination. I bet the authors of all those sceptical papers consider themselves part of the ‘97%’ as well, just like Dr. Spencer. 😉

  88. Magoo on 24/01/2017 at 3:40 pm said:

    Sorry Dennis dear boy, I forgot to add that your statement of ‘Temperatures are up, ice is down, sea level is rising. Predicted. Observed. Measured.’ is very true, and has been ever since the end of the little ice age.

  89. Andy on 24/01/2017 at 3:57 pm said:

    For the half-witted amongst us, Prince Charles has co-authored a Ladybird book on Climate Change

    This will fit nicely alongside the others in the series, such as “The Hipster”

  90. Simon on 24/01/2017 at 3:59 pm said:

    Magoo, once again you have been hopelessly duped.
    Almost none of those papers are skeptical of AGW. Everyone agrees that the sun and ocean circulation patterns do have an effect on the climate. The issue is that the AGW effect has caused an almost unprecedented rise in temperature over the past 60 years. You will notice that most of those papers refer to events and time periods that predate 1950.
    Become a skeptic Magoo and be more critical of what you read on dodgy advocacy sites.

  91. Andy on 24/01/2017 at 4:29 pm said:

    How can the temperature rises over the last 60 years be “unprecedented” when they are the same order of magnitude as the temperature rises over the previous 60 years?

    “Become a skeptic Magoo and be more critical of what you read on dodgy advocacy sites.”

    What, you mean like the entire “mainstream” media, which is currently in total freefall?

  92. Richard Treadgold on 24/01/2017 at 4:40 pm said:


    Almost none of those papers are skeptical of AGW.

    Have you honestly reviewed a list published yesterday of 500 papers already? Did you not sleep at all last night?

    most of those papers refer to events and time periods that predate 1950.

    So does most of the hockey stick graph of the last 1000 years. What are you saying?

  93. Magoo on 24/01/2017 at 5:10 pm said:


    ‘Almost none of those papers are skeptical of AGW.’

    ROFLMAO!! You obviously haven’t had a look at any of the papers listed for your ignorance to be bad, either that or you’re lying again. Become a sceptic Simon, and try reading some scientific papers that challenge your unfounded beliefs.

    ‘most of those papers refer to events and time periods that predate 1950.’

    Some papers do, but in the context of a comparison to today’s changing climate.

    I have to say Simon, of all the idiotic things you’ve said those 2 have to be amongst the worst. Normally people are either ignorant or dishonest, but you’ve managed to combine the both of them in two short sentences.

  94. Dennis N Horne on 24/01/2017 at 8:38 pm said:

    Magoo. You wouldn’t know your rrrs hole from a hole in the ground if you planted a pineapple in it.

    But thanks for the interaction, guys. You’ve convinced me. There’s always two sides to every story. On the one hand we have nearly every climate scientist and informed scientist on the planet; on the other we have the special people.

    We had a special class at Fitzroy Primary.

    Sorry to have upset you all. We’ll be dead soon. The as yet unborn will deal with our mess.

  95. Magoo on 24/01/2017 at 10:20 pm said:

    Now, now Dennis dear boy, there’s no reason to have another frothing tantrum just because you’re proven incorrect yet again.

    I’m sure you have intricate first hand experience of the special class at your primary school, but I fail to see the relevance of your candid admission to the 1000 sceptical peer reviewed papers published in the last two years – the 1000 papers that destroy your hilarious claim of ‘the science that is accepted by all scientists working and publishing in the field and the global community of scientists’.

  96. Dennis N Horne on 25/01/2017 at 5:23 am said:

    Magoon. Despite my guidance and instruction you fail to grasp the essence of the elegant insult. Your attempts at wit are as heavy as a dud sponge and totally lacking in originality. I guess practice is no substitute for talent.

    Mais ta science a toujours un certain je ne sais quoi. PIDOOMA perhaps? “Plucked it directly out of my arse.”

    Of 24,210 peer-reviewed articles by 69,406 authors only four authors reject human-caused global warming: 0.006%.

  97. Magoo on 25/01/2017 at 9:39 am said:


    Now you’re getting it dear boy, sceptical scientists accept anthropogenic CO2 output contributes to global warming, it’s just that they dispute how much – they’re all part of the 97% (or is it 99% now?).

    Empirical evidence seems to work better than insults in your case. Check this out from the IPCC’s AR5 report:

    (froth, rant …) 😉

    Now, dear boy, if the ‘consensus’ excludes those who disagree that CO2 will warm the Earth dramatically, then why do all the temperature records from the surface, satellite, and radiosonde datasets disagree so thoroughly with the model projections? Are the keepers of the surface, satellite, and radiosonde records all not part of the 97%, or is it 99% now? (froth, rant …) 🙂

  98. Richard Treadgold on 25/01/2017 at 10:14 am said:


    RT, every dataset shows a consistent pattern of warming of around 0.17°C/decade over the past twenty years

    Thanks for the link to Dr Cowtan’s interactive graph, but your statement is grossly misleading. Though their average is 0.17°C/decade, they range from 0.083 to 0.272°C/decade, which your statement doesn’t recognise. Of the 13 values 6 are below 0.17°C/decade, as you’d expect. Since an average doesn’t tell us much, it’s more significant to note that those six values are less than 1.5°C/century, which is insignificant and well under the forecast catastrophic warming we’ve been told has been occurring. It hasn’t occurred for 20 years or more. In other words, half of these global datasets show a hiatus—and that’s only on my rough and ready analysis, informed by a web graphing routine I know nothing about.

    These trends were calculated for each dataset from 1996 to 2016, with 2016 set to 2017 (or 2016.99), as advised in the Note.

  99. Richard Treadgold on 25/01/2017 at 10:19 am said:


    “Plucked it directly out of my arse.”

    You really do say some disgusting things (though surely you are not yourself disgusting). Tell me, do you consider saying disgusting things a sign of strength or of wisdom?

  100. Gary Kerkin on 25/01/2017 at 10:25 am said:

    Pertinent to this discussion is this 2014 article on WUWT about the comments on settled science by a former advisor to President Obama. Everyone should read it.

  101. Dennis N Horne on 25/01/2017 at 11:20 am said:

    Disgusting doesn’t begin to describe you lot.

    Fossil fuel companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to “build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising “wedge issue” for hardcore conservatives.”

  102. Andy on 25/01/2017 at 11:47 am said:

    So we are disgusting and despicable. Quite a list.

    So if I “accept the science”, put a Greenpeace sticker on my SUV, and keep quiet, does that suddenly make me virtuous?

    Is there some kind of 12 step plan I need to take part in?

  103. Maggy Wassilieff on 25/01/2017 at 11:51 am said:

    @Richard Treadgold

    One of my hobbies/interests is language and how folks acquire it, master it and employ it.

    Some years back I had the pleasure/honour of doing some work for the late Harry Orsman.
    His knowledge of filthy words, obscene phrases, etc in a number of languages (ancient and extant) would surpass that of anyone I’ve ever encountered. I’m not shocked, revolted, disgusted, or offended by the words/terms employed here by Dennis Horne. I’m more interested in why he bothers to employ such vocabulary:

    There’s shock value…… of diminishing effect with repetition
    There’s the possibility that it is a deliberate ploy to poison this blog – already some folks have departed the scene, and
    There’s the possibility that Dennis is losing his sense of appropriate language use – not an uncommon problem in the elderly.

    I could supply a psychobabble interpretation as to why a highly educated professional man uses such crass language in a public forum….. but I’m not an expert… so I’ll keep my opinion to myself.

  104. Magoo on 25/01/2017 at 12:21 pm said:


    Hundreds of millions is nothing dear boy, the climate activists in government have been doling out billions to scientists promoting catastrophic global warming and crony capitalist alternative energy. After all, if money is a corrupting influence on one side of the argument, surely it applies also to the other side that is paying out larger amounts. It seems to me that a corrupt scientist is more likely to get a successful payout promoting CAGW that vice versa.

    Tell me Dennis dear boy, do you think any of that money from ‘big oil’ corrupted the empirical temperature datasets from the NOAA, GISS, HadCrut, UAH, & RSS presented in the IPCC reports so that they fail against the climate models? 🙂

    Regarding Dennis’ foul language, that’s nothing less than cognitive dissonance when confronted with empirical data, & an attempt to derail the discussions from the evidence. It really is quite funny, the more his message clashes with the empirical data, the fouler the abuse gets – like a teen having a tantrum:

  105. Alexander K on 25/01/2017 at 1:04 pm said:

    As an older, retired ex teacher I, too am very interested in language.
    Having spent my early years as an agricultural labourer, no useage of English can shock me, and I would guess that Dennis’s form of linguistic behaviour is an attempt to drive rational participants here away – he very nearly succeeded in my case but I eventually decided that he is severely delusional and will eventually quit when his spittle and invective dries up.
    In the meantime, he is making quite an interesting display of himself.

  106. Richard Treadgold on 25/01/2017 at 1:05 pm said:

    @Maggy Wassilieff,

    Thank you, and thanks again for your Orsman/O’Sullivan link. What a romp that was through my favourite language! What a wise and witty wealth of words. Dennis is small beer, of course, against these titans who have wielded our tongue as the broadsword it can be — still, we need peasants and kings too for all they add to our tapestry, for it’s also a needle. I must have heard of Orsman, but never marked him. You’ve opened him right up for me, you have. Or he’s opened me up, more likely. Crikey, but that O’Sullivan strips the pretence from under your feet or around your heart. I feel a new man.

    Back to your comments; you have interesting observations, thanks, so I’m glad you didn’t keep every opinion to yourself. Dennis will stand or fall, remain or go, I’m not much caring which but just watching.
    Now back to Soon.

  107. Andy on 25/01/2017 at 1:05 pm said:

    By the way, while we have been bickering over the last couple of days, Trump has canned the TPPA, given the Keystone XL pipeline the go-ahead, and is in the process of a massive overhaul of the EPA

    Busy guy, I guess

  108. Richard Treadgold on 25/01/2017 at 1:15 pm said:


    Great news, but you’ve got to tell us more than that! Write it up properly (shouted in the most affectionate tone imaginable!). Back to Soon.

  109. Andy on 25/01/2017 at 6:16 pm said:

    This summary in a Tweet covers most bases

    Not bad for less than a weeks work

  110. Richard Treadgold on 25/01/2017 at 6:38 pm said:

    Thanks. News to me. Impressive.

  111. Richard Treadgold on 29/01/2017 at 1:26 pm said:


    But-but-but, Big Willy Tilly might have misjudged the speed of climate change. Look at the “extra” heat going into the ocean:

    Those miniature quantities of heat converted from joules to temperature are truly insignificant. Expressed in joules the numbers are huge but expressed in degrees Celsius they are minuscule. Monckton showed the result two years ago using the NOAA dataset:

    These figures represent an ocean warming of just 0.0925 K in 45 years. That is equivalent to only one-fiftieth of a Celsius degree per decade, or a fifth of a degree per century.

    Remember that not only is it a tiny amount of (measured) warming, but also it has not entered the ocean through any mechanism known to science, as I explain elsewhere.

    And what that heat is doing:

    No Dennis, Prof Richard Alley has a screw lose. He has some kind of breathing disorder that exacerbates his mental disorder that prevents logical presentation of a topic, leading to speech in a stream-of-unrelated-consciousness style delivered at 200 mph. It was starting to induce a heart attack within 30 seconds. Impressive, but no. Anyway, I doubt he found evidence of our SUV emissions anywhere near the ice shelf. If he did, do let me know.

  112. Richard Treadgold on 02/02/2017 at 5:34 pm said:


    Monckton. What he says has been shown to be untrue. Repeatedly. But you believe him and think the experts are wrong.

    We cannot answer this. Be reasonable, be precise, Say what it is you disagree with.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation