The 2010 Climate B.S. of the Year Award

This a guest post by the Climate BS Awards committee.

Welcome to the 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award. 2010 saw widespread and growing evidence of rapidly warming global climate and strengthening scientific understanding of how humans are contributing to climate change. Yet on the policy front, little happened to stem the growing emissions of greenhouse gases or to help societies prepare for increasingly severe negative climate impacts, including now unavoidable changes in temperature, rainfall patterns, sea-level rise, snowpack, glacial extent, Arctic sea ice, and more. These physical impacts will lead to sharply increased disease, military and economic instabilities, food and water shortages, and extreme weather events, among other things. Without appropriate risk management action, the United States will be hit hard. There is no safe haven. Yet confusion and uncertainty about climate change remain high in the minds of too many members of the public and Congress.

Why? In large part because of a concerted, coordinated, aggressive campaign by a small group of well-funded climate change deniers and contrarians focused on intentionally misleading the public and policymakers with bad science about climate change. Much of this effort is based on intentional falsehoods, misrepresentations, inflated uncertainties, and pure and utter B.S. about climate science. These efforts have been successful in sowing confusion and delaying action – just as the same tactics were successful in delaying efforts to tackle tobacco’s health risks.

To counter this campaign of disinformation, we are issuing the first in what may become a series of awards for the most egregious Climate B.S.* of the Year. In preparing the list of nominees, suggestions were received from around the world and a panel of reviewers – all scientists or climate communicators – waded through them. We present here the top five nominees and the winner of the 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award.


Fifth Place. Climate B.S. and misrepresentations presented by Fox “News.”

There are many examples of bad science, misrepresentations, omissions of facts, and distortions of climate reality coming from Fox “News” (far too many to list here, but we note that Joe Romm just gave Fox his 2010 Citizen Kane Award for “non-excellence in journalism” for their misrepresentations of climate science). It seems that Fox has now made it their policy to deny the reality of climate change and has told its reporters to misreport or cast doubt on the science. This policy of disinformation was implemented by Fox News executive Bill Sammon, who ordered staff to cast doubt on climate data in a memo revealed this month. Fox’s political commentators have long used this tactic in their one-sided and biased discussions on climate change but Sammon’s memo seems to direct News staff to slant reporting in direct contradiction to what the scientific facts and scientists actually say.

Fourth Place. Misleading or false testimony to Congress and policymakers about climate change.

While Congress held more hearings in 2010 on climate change than in other recent years, these hearings elicited some astounding testimonies submitted by climate deniers and skeptics filled with false and misleading statements about climate science and total B.S. Examples?

Long-time climate change skeptic Patrick Michaels testified before the House Science and Technology Committee and misrepresented the scientific understanding of the human role in climate change and the well-understood effects of fundamental climatic factors, such as the effects of visible air pollution. Including these effects (as climate scientists have done for many years) would have completely changed his results. Michaels has misrepresented mainstream climate science for decades, as has been noted here, here, and elsewhere, yet he remains a darling of the skeptics in Congress who like his message.

A newer darling of Congressional climate change deniers is Christopher Monckton, who claims to be a member of the British House of Lords (a claim rejected by the House of Lords). Monckton testified before a Senate committee in May and presented such outlandish B.S. about climate that experts (such as John Mashey, Tim Lambert, John Abraham, and Barry Bickmore, to name a few) spent uncounted hours and pages and pages refuting just a subset of his errors.

Third Place. The false claim that a single weather event, such as a huge snowstorm in Washington, D.C., proves there is no global warming.

In February 2010 a big winter storm dumped record piles of snow on the mid-Atlantic U.S., including Washington, Baltimore, and Philadelphia, prompting climate change deniers to use bad weather to try to discredit the reality of global warming. Limbaugh said, “It’s one more nail in the coffin for the global warming thing.” Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe got attention with an igloo on the national mall and labeled it “Al Gore’s new home” (combining bad science with a personal attack). Senator Jim DeMint said, “It’s going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries ‘uncle.’”

Record snowfall is not an indicator of a lack of global warming, as has been pointed out in the scientific literature and many, many rounds of Congressional testimony. It merely means that there was a storm and temperatures were close to or below freezing. Indeed global warming can contribute to greater snowfalls by providing extra moisture. Many scientists testifying before the Senate and House of Representatives have explained the difference between a steadily warming planet and occasional extreme cold events in particular spots. But we can expect to see more examples of this kind of B.S. when it gets cold and snowy somewhere, sometime, this winter.

Second Place. The claim that the “Climategate” emails meant that global warming was a hoax, or was criminal, as Senator Inhofe tried to argue. In fact, it was none of these things (though the British police are still investigating the illegal hacking of a British university’s computer system and the theft of the emails).

Global warming deniers used out-of-context texts from the stolen emails to claim that global warming was a hoax or that scientists had manipulated data or were hiding evidence that climate change wasn’t happening. These claims are all B.S. A series of independent scientific and academic investigations in the U.S. and the U.K. unanimously concluded that nothing in the stolen emails made any difference to the remarkable strength of climate science (see, for example, the Penn State vindication, the independent Muir Russell and Lord Oxburgh reviews, a British Parliamentary Panel review, and other assessments). Unfortunately, the media gave far more attention to the accusations than to the resounding vindications, and climate deniers continue to spread B.S. about this case.

The bottom line of “Climategate?” As a letter in Science magazine signed by 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences said in May 2010: “there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change.”


First Place goes to the following set of B.S.: “There has been no warming since 1998” [or 2000, or…], “the earth is cooling,” “global warming is natural,” and “humans are too insignificant to affect the climate.” Such statements are all nonsense and important for the general public to understand properly.

The reality is that the Earth’s climate is changing significantly, changing fast, and changing due to human factors. The reality of climatic change can no longer be disputed on scientific grounds – the US National Academy of Sciences calls the human-induced warming of the Earth a “settled fact.” The evidence for a “warming” planet includes not just rising temperatures, but also rising sea levels, melting Arctic sea ice, disappearing glaciers, increasing intense rainfalls, and many other changes that matter to society and the environment. The recent and ongoing warming of the Earth is unprecedented in magnitude, speed, and cause.

This winning set of B.S. appears almost daily in the conservative blogosphere, like here and here and here, consistently in the statements of climate change deniers, and far too often in real media outlets. Actual science and observations from around globe have long shown the opposite (for example, here and here are nice rebuttals with real science). The planet continues to warm rapidly largely due to human activities, and average global temperatures continue to rise. The most recent decade has been the warmest decade on record and 2010 will likely go down as either the warmest or second warmest year in recorded history.

Associated B.S. argues that the famous “hockey stick” graph has been disproved. This graph shows the extraordinarily rapid warming of the twentieth century compared to the previous 1000 years. The graph and analysis have been upheld by subsequent researchers and numerous scientific assessments, including one from the US National Academy of Sciences.

To the winners: congratulations, it is long past time your B.S. is recognised for what it is – bad science.

And to the public and the media: be forewarned: all of these and similar bad arguments will certainly be repeated in 2011. It is long past time that this bad science is identified, challenged, and shown to be the B.S. that it is.

The 2010 Climate Bad Science (B.S.) Detection and Correction Team

Peter Gleick, Kevin Trenberth, Tenney Naumer, Michael Ashley, Lou Grinzo, Gareth Renowden, Paul Douglas, Jan W. Dash, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Brian Angliss, Joe Romm, Peter Sinclair, Michael Tobis, Gavin Schmidt, John Cook, plus several anonymous nominators, reviewers, and voters.

[* “B.S.” means “Bad Science” — doesn’t it?]

59 thoughts on “The 2010 Climate B.S. of the Year Award”

  1. Really,all these examples are pretty routine nonsense when compared with the mind-boggling and immortal cranksmanship of your very own NZCSC in their ‘battle’ with NIWA. They have taken persistent wrongness to lengths that could and should never have been imagined. Happy Noo Year to all.

    1. Agreed. I guess the GW bullshit awards should consist of a truckload of Cow Dung, delivered by tipper truck, to the doorsteps of those who are this years winners.
      I nominate:
      Richard Treadgold
      Bryan Leyland

  2. Your ‘winner’ is a real hoot. No fewer than four different statements, and no person involved. It’s incredible that you say they form a unity that can be given an ‘award’.

    Anyway, as a matter of fact, when temperature declines, it does go down.

    Oh, my wife says Thomas’ suggestion is “charming”.

        1. LOL (as the young folks put it). Richard, I run a very open comments policy, but that does not extend to providing a platform to someone who has spent the last year smearing NZ’s climate scientists. Make the apology, and you’ll be welcome. If you can’t manage that, then go back to your own blog where you can bloviate to your heart’s content.

        2. Suppose you and your mates answer this one, Mr Treadgold. Why did the CSC continue to promulgate a false representation of Wellington’s temperature record by adjoining readings from stations at different altitudes, even after such a gross error was pointed out to them several times? Must be either stupidity or gross dishonesty.

          The age of miracles hadn’t passed, according to the protagonist of the Gershwin song (“A Foggy Day”). But I won’t be holding my breath.

          1. RW,
            We graphed the data available on NIWA’s web site. At that time, no adjustments were mentioned, but we obtained a different graph from theirs. We asked them what adjustments they had made, and why. From such small beginnings, all this began! But we were neither stupid nor dishonest.

            By the way, were any altitude adjustments made at Wellington? You’d think so, the fuss NIWA made over them. But no, none were made in the old series and (have a look!) none are made in the new series. Isn’t life funny?

            Why did NIWA obstruct our search? Why did they mislead the Parliament and the people of NZ? Why did they even mention altitude adjustments — they never made any!!

            1. Rubbish. A NIWA scientist emailed me with details of the necessary adjustments, and also of the graphs that the CSC was bandying around. He told them repeatedly to stop doing it, showing them what needed to be changed. They continued to present the misleading version. I accept his version. Other readers can draw their own conclusions.

  3. Treadgold has been tipping ‘cow dung’ on NIWA all year and he claims his wife thinks Thomas’ suggestion is “charming” – yeah, right. My guess? If she can’t recognise BS from her partner then she can’t recognise it anywhere.

    1. Blair,

      See, I was just beginning to enjoy these little exchanges, when you come along with your uncouth mouth and tip your nonsense over it. do you drink that dirt before it dribbles down your chin, or does it generate spontaneously? Your cleverness is quite wasted.

  4. Gareth,

    You really don’t understand, do you? This is nothing to do with me or any particular scientists. And please don’t pretend that you’re actually offended by my comments about NIWA and its scientists

    [snipped: You do not have free rein to spread your disinformation and lies here. You are on permanent moderation, until an apology is forthcoming. GR]

      1. I can’t agree in this case – Treadgold has gone much too far. Our newspapers already carry a disproportionate number of letters and articles attacking GW/AGW, and the inanities contained in the typical letter from a member of the public on the subject show how depressingly low peoples’ understanding is.

      2. I disagree. Not all opinions are equal. A suite of cardiovascular surgeons is going to have a more valid opinion on the workings of the heart than say an electrician, and if the electrician tried to stop someone having life saving heart surgery claiming he knew better because he’d put some numbers together but couldn’t quite understand them so concludes all of the surgeons must be lying, he’d be branded delusional and ignored.

        What I can’t work out is if Treadgold really believes he understands the science and honestly believes every scientist working in the field (and most of those working outside of the field) are just plain wrong about everything, but somehow he’s right. Or whether he knows he’s wrong and is maliciously spreading lies. If the former then he’s delusional and should get some help for that. If the latter then I’d like to understand what motivates him (or people like him) to consign so many people, so much infrastructure, etc to destruction. Is it some belief in rapture that will save him? Or some short term financial incentive from some lobbyist? etc.

      3. Ken — commenting at Hot Topic is not a right, it’s a privilege. I set the rules. Treadgold was told he was not welcome here immediately after he released his shonky “report” on the NZ temperature record. I told him then that if he wished to post here he would first have to apologise for smearing the good name of NZ scientists. That he refuses to do, therefore he remains unwelcome.

        1. Agreed, you can do anything you want on your blog, but that doesn’t make it sensible. Censoring deniers just gives them one more tool with which to distract from the truth, which is their goal after all.

  5. “I challenge anyone to search the latest review and discover altitude adjustments made in Wellington”

    Page 61ff:
    “Thus, Kelburn (Site 6), the ‘Reference’ site,
    will by definition have zero adjustment. Measurements made at the other Wellington stations (Sites 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 in Table 1) will all be adjusted for consistency with Kelburn (Site 6).5”

    “Not only that, they’ve ignored Salinger’s ‘methods’ in producing the new series, abandoning their support of him.”
    That’s also not true. They explcitly refer to Rhoades’ and Salinger’s paper.

    “With the production of a new series, our examination begins all over again, but until the error margins are published as NIWA promised, we have to wait, because, as you know, without their estimates of error the series is incomplete — for what can we judge?”
    If you really wanted to you could still take the described methodology and the raw data and try to replicate the results, or – even better- use a different methodology to create your own “7SS”.


  6. Rather than wait for Mr Treadgold and the NZCSC to provide their full statistical critique of the NIWA 7-station reanalysis, we at Friends of Gin and Tonic have taken the liberty of doing it for them.

    Using advanced techniques of the sort favoured by many of the NZCSC’s associate organizations, we find that New Zealand has been consistently cooling since at least 1909.

    As always, our expertise remains available to tackle similar problems (at very competitive rates).

    1. Sheesh, and you guys call yourselves statisticians! You have to turn the graph upside down to get the trend in the SH. Oh wait … my head’s starting to hurt 🙁

  7. Some years back we were told the science is settled, and now “growing evidence of rapidly warming global climate and strengthening scientific understanding of how humans are contributing to climate change.” And what is the growing evidence, why fires in Russia in summer and snow in Europe in winter. Next up, sun rises in east, has no effect on models, proves models correct in 2275.

    Irrespective of any actual science, does anyone have any sense of how silly this whole thing has become when any weather event is proof that it is not weather but climate? Even Phil Jones said a bit back that there has been no significant warming, and Trenberth lamented the hidden heat or some such. After years of telling the rubes they will die of heat and drought, now telling them they will die of snow and cold? Really?

    Would still like to sort out the observational science, but the mangled message is totally screwing up the works.

    Happy and Prosperous New Year to All.

  8. Terry, are you another contender for the Turkey Award? A strong effort here, and I’d say you’ll make the shortlist.

    You’ve squeezed a lot in – assorted strawmen, cherry-picking, misquotes, selective muddle-headedness, all coloured with idealogical bias. Impressive and hard to emulate.

    1. Terry, are you another contender for the Turkey Award?

      Correction. Climate BS award. I think he’s started his run a little too early, given the next award ceremony is a year away. Just like Academy Awards, timing is everything if you want to impress the panel of judges. Oh, and a lot of promotion never hurts.

  9. Glad to see we are all having fun with the ad hominem, now back to debunking the written historical record. You tell us that snow will be a thing of the past and that snow is evidence of warming. Warming causes drought and also flooding in the same place. Message management and message coherence are absent over time. If there is any adult supervision, perhaps they could explain it, but right now the message is making a global joke of global warming. People just have a hard time comprehending that warming causes drought and absence of snow and a few years later it causes flooding and snow and cold.

    Best wishes for a prosperous New Year.

    1. Terry, it would be ad hom if I said you had the mental capacity of a sea slug.
      It would not be ad hom if I said you had the mental capacity of a sea slug because you can’t comprehend simple stuff like:

      1. As you put more energy into a system, it heats up
      2. The more it heats up, the more water is evaporated
      3. The more water vapour, the more rain and snow

      Even schoolies can understand why putting more energy into the Earth System will lead to more extreme weather events.

      Ok, it’s a bit more complicated but there are a vast number of eminently qualified experts who deal with this stuff all the time, Terry. They even report on it. So, if you can’t understand the simple stuff, there is no way you will be able to understand the more complex stuff.

      Btw, who said “snow will be a thing of the past”? A simple link will be fine.

      1. Btw, who said “snow will be a thing of the past”? A simple link will be fine.

        However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

        “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

        The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain’s biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. “It was a bit of a first,” a spokesperson said.

        Was that what you were looking for?

        1. Thanks John D.
          I have a sister in Dorset, she said it doesn’t snow on the beach – well, she got that wrong. My son was in a winter Germany 2 years ago for some skiing, wasn’t there and had to go to Switzerland instead. Family in Malaysia were flooded at the same time, 50,000 people evacuated. Yep, more extreme weather events are going to become the norm.

            1. Yep, you just cling to your thing, John. Never mind the record high temps across the globe, record wild-fires, spectacular flooding events, record drought in the Amazon etc.. Never mind that inverting your own ‘weather event’ logic means the case runs much stronger in our favour…

              Dappledwater explains the hard stuff rather well below. You may not choose to believe it, but some more flexible intellects might.

            2. No John D.
              Nobody can ‘pin’ any one extreme “weather event” on global warming. However, global warming will lead to more of them.

              Type “extreme” into the search term here

              Much better than reading the whole 2500 pages, imho.

            3. What is “extreme” though?
              Is a settled period of -20 deg C “extreme”?

              It seems to cover a lot of bases and is not easily scientifically quantifiable.

              BTW, the cold in the UK is not isolated in either space or time. Remember that the Met Office are sticking to their guns that cold winters have a 1/20 chance of occurring, despite three back to back. Record cold temps have also been recorded across the USA.

            4. John, perhaps I wasn’t clear enough for you.
              Type “extreme” into the search box, then go to the highlighted return and click the IPCC link to AR4.

              Read stuff like this

              Ok, ask questions but … it simply amazes me that so called “sceptics” can’t be bothered doing some basic homework before they try and tell experts in their field that they have got it all wrong.

              Look, I am not expecting you to come up to speed with the actual papers referenced in AR4 (although that can be done) – just please familiarise yourself with what is freely available (to anyone with the least bit of interest in “climate change”) BEFORE you intentionally (or not) distort or misrepresent the science.

            5. Blair,
              I used your search tool and found this:


              There has been a widespread reduction in the number of frost days in mid-latitude regions in recent decades, an increase in the number of warm extremes, particularly warm nights, and a reduction in the number of cold extremes, particularly cold nights

              So how is that consistent with the cold weather experienced in the Northern Hemisphere right now?
              Three cold winters on the trot. Some of the coldest days since records began.

              I don’t expect an answer. Keep chanting the mantra.

            6. John, “climate” is average “weather” over time (say 30 yrs) – regionally, hemispherically and more generally over the globe. I am sorry that this simple fact eludes you.

              Goodnight, I am off to a late dinner.

            7. It’s a pity that John D’s doggedness is not accompanied by an adequate intellect – but then of course it may simply be a case of wilful time-wasting. DNFTT.

            8. Blair,

              So you say “weather is not climate”

              Unfortunately, it is weather than affects us, not climate.
              The cold, or hot, that is currently the here and now, is what we perceive, not a 30 year average.

              So if we are basing public policy on these 30 year averages, (e.g reducing the number of snowploughs and gritters), then surely we are wasting our time? We should be prepared for all reasonable weather extremes.

              This is not, however, what many countries are doing. They are following the advice of climatologists which appears, currently at least, to be 180 degrees in the opposite direction to reality.

            9. John D

              Of course weather affects us, it is stupid to imply otherwise. The prediction of “weather” is getting better – if you don’t believe that just compare weather forecasts of ‘today’ to that of 10, 20, 30 years ago.

              What you (and many others) don’t seem to understand is that you cannot “predict” climate. You can only project or model what it might be like given certain trends – and the trends (substantiated by the hindcasts) are pointing to a very uncomfortable future world. And before you get your knickers in a knot, the sky is not about to fall. Nevertheless, the planet is “squealing” – I suggest you look it up, seriously.

              John, of course we should be prepared for all reasonable weather extremes. However, it is wrong to assume countries are not doing this on the basis they are following the advice of climatologists. Indeed, they are NOT following the advice of ‘climate scientists’, in general.

              If you want evidence of that just cast your mind’s eye to the argy-bargy of the UNFCCC ‘conferences of the parties’. The ‘bun-fights’ are not with the climate scientists, they are between politicians, economists and socio-cultural miscreants. One thing is certain, neither the politicians nor their bean-counters can change the science – and if you want evidence of that, cast that same eye to the IPCC’s summary reports for ‘policy makers’ and compare them to the technical reports/papers.

              Really John, it’s because of the recalcitrant ‘policy makers’ that things aren’t being done, not the climatologists. We (humanity) have a window of opportunity to adapt and to live in a more sustainable way – please don’t blame “climatologists” for the failings of agenda driven ideologues and their downstream supporters.

            10. Yes RW, perhaps John D does behave like a fox-terrier not about to let go of his beliefs, maybe he is just playing for time. Whether he has the intellect to take constructive action or not I would not know – I am a ‘noobee’ here.

              As to feeding trolls? I’m not so sure Gareth wants this site to be just a ‘self-appreciating, back-slapping, high-five’ society. Challenging the doubters with science and logic is an opportunity to show any onlookers (if not the ‘deny-n-delay brigade’) that perhaps there is benefit to be gained from living in a more enlightened and sustainable way – even if they don’t understand the science.

              My apologies to Gareth and anyone if I am thinking outside the square – it is a good site. Back to work soon and might not be able to pop-in as much as I would like 🙁

            11. Unfortunately, it is weather than affects us, not climate

              Wrong. If you were actually interested in learning, rather than trolling, some of the scientific facts might sink in.

              – Is weather melting >95% of the world’s glaciers?.
              – Is weather causing the global sea levels to rise?.
              – Is weather causing the stratosphere to cool?.
              -Is weather causing water vapor in the atmosphere to increase?
              Is weather causing the observed rise in global desertification?
              – Is weather making the world’s plants and animals migrate away from the equator and up to higher altitudes?.
              – Is weather increasing downwelling longwave (heat) radiation to the Earth’s surface?
              – Is weather decreasing the amount of longwave radiation escaping to space?.

              Answer= No. So are you saying that the above observations don’t affect people?.

    2. People just have a hard time comprehending that warming causes drought and absence of snow and a few years later it causes flooding and snow and cold.

      By “people” I take it you mean you don’t understand it. How’s this Terry:

      – the “globe” is definitely getting warmer, that’s what all the thermometers and satellites indicate. In fact there are a number of indicators in the natural world that confirm this. See here:

      The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic

      Now as the world continues to warm, the distribution of heat from the equator to the poles may not necessarily remain the same. What we are seeing in the Northern Hemisphere winter is perhaps the loss of ice cover in the Arctic influencing weather patterns over parts of North America, the UK and Europe. Much of the Northern Hemisphere is still warmer than average. See here for instance:

      Jeff Master’s Wunderblog -Europe’s cold and snowy winter forecast to gradually ease

      So despite a cold winter in parts, the globe (as in “global” warming) is still getting warmer. And yes, even decades into the future when it is much warmer than now, there will still be cold winters. On average though, they will become increasingly rare.

      Now on to rain and drought – it’s called the intensification of the hydrological cycle. What climate scientists predict that as the Earth continues to warm it’s able to hold more water vapor. The greater heat will lead to greater evaporation in certain areas, the continental interiors particularly. That’s the drought part. Indeed satellite measurements do indeed show that on average the world’s land surface is getting drier. With more water vapor suspended aloft, when it does rain it will rain harder and heavier than before.

      What we’ve seen in the last year (Russian heatwave, Pakistan and Australian floods), is ample demonstration that the climate scientists have got it right, and the “skeptics” have it wrong.

      I hope this clears up your befuddlement. Oh, and say hello to La Toya for me.

    3. You tell us snow will be a thing of the past

      Who ‘you’? And where did ‘you’ say it?

      This meme generally hangs on a single article published in the UK’s Independent more the a decade ago! Have you ever actually read the article in question? Gareth’s name is not on the byline. You can check.

      Not only that, the article that supposedly states, according to the Deniosphere, that it’s never going to snow any more runs to –

      Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.

      It appears the author was referring to what scientists describe as the future, and the possibility that it might snow significantly less then if winters were warmer, as is certainly likely. We’ll see how accurate Viner’s forecast was in March 2020.

      However, as the warmer atmosphere now contains more water vapour, downpours in existing very cold conditions therefore manifest themselves as snowstorms. Therefore major snowfalls are consistent with AGW, particularly when they are occuring during a record warm year overall. Other more complicated dynamics may also be taking place to do with the super-heating evident in the Arctic. No-one knows for sure, but that the Arctic is evidently super-heating is beyond dispute, and should be of concern to everyone.

      The article also quoted several anecdotal observations, including that outdoor skating had become infrequent in the UK as lakes were no longer freezing regularly. But obviously the head of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club and a Camdridgeshire local historian (hell, what would they know?) are just a small part of a monumental and ruthless conspiracy…

  10. If you actually wanted to have a discussion, Terry, or were trying to genuinely understand or have questions answered, you would get a helpful response.

    That wasn’t what you presented. You came up with assertions, smears, emotive argumentative crap, trying to needle and stir. Just the usual mindless trolling. You got the response you merited.

    1. Thing is johnmacmot, it seems (people like) Terry Jackson;
      1. Hasn’t done (or has failed) basic maths/physics/chemistry
      2. Can’t comprehend time series statistical analysis
      3. Doesn’t know the difference between climate and natural variability
      4. Asserts all kinds of nonsense even when the science is explained
      Sorry, I had to feed him 🙂

  11. I agree there is a balancing act required by moderators on forums like this one Blair. I am unsure as to what the weight of opinion of casual visitors to the site would be. I think the trollers bank on the volume of their output to try and sway things, along with the emotive kneejerk simplistic tripe they peddle, as our esteemed media are all too often training people to look for slogans and simple answers.

    1. Moderation? That’s a bit rich coming from someone whose sole contribution to this forum is to call everyone an “ignorant troll”, or whatever the abuse of the day is.

      1. I have posed straightforward questions to deniers on this forum – and oddly enough, received no answers. You have been repeatedly interrogated by others already, and been found wanting every time. Your questions have been answered, but you pretend not to hear the answers, or deny verifiable facts – the behaviour of a troll.

  12. By the way, I suggest that if you are going to issue an annual B.S. award, then it would be good to have a “smashed im bro!” award. For this I would like to nominate Doug Mackie for his rendition on the infamous Why I’m a climate realist/de Lange lame effort which has appeared all over the crank web.

Leave a Reply