Maybe I mean it this time

I haven’t written a post for a while (well, for me at least) and it’s mainly because I’m just losing interest. I’m finding it harder to write posts and am not really all that motivated to do so. There are a number of reasons. I have a break in teaching and so have been focusing on some of my own research – rather than reading climate science papers – and am really enjoying it. I’ve been trying to get back to playing golf, so have been going to the driving range rather than checking the blog (hitting golf balls can also be somewhat therapeutic), and I’m quite enjoying putting the laptop down in the evening and either watching TV or trying to play some two-player game with my son on the X-Box (which normally involves me continually saying “wait for me” or “okay, I’m dead”).

There is another reason, though. For a long time I’ve felt that genuine dialogue wasn’t possible, but I’ve also thought that maybe I was wrong; maybe someone would surprise me and actually engaged in a thoughtful and pleasant discussion. However, I think I’m now convinced that this really is not possible. I’ve also been reading the posts and comments on some of the more high-profile “skeptic” sites and I just find much of it appalling and objectionable. I’ve realised that I don’t really even want to be associated with the online climate debate anymore. It’s clearly not about science, but about ideology. There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with trying to promote your own ideology, but it’s not really what I was trying to do here and isn’t really what I want to do. It appears to involve saying the most appalling things about those with whom you disagree and then whining when they do something similar in return. I find it dishonest and childish and don’t really want to participate anymore.

Of course, I’ve said these kind of things before and have never quite succeeded in curtailing my blogging, so maybe I’ll end up writing something tomorrow. It does feel slightly different this time, as I’m really not that interested anymore and am quite enjoying not even thinking about it. Maybe I’ll write about something different; maybe even some of my own research. Maybe I’ll just stop altogether. Maybe I’ll be a bit more selective in what I post. I don’t really know. What I would say, though, is that if there are any other physicists/scientists out there who are thinking of getting involved in the online climate science debate, I wouldn’t recommend doing so unless you particularly like confrontation and enjoy dealing with people who think their own ideological view trumps actual scientific evidence.

This entry was posted in Climate change, ClimateBall, Science and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

207 Responses to Maybe I mean it this time

  1. Mack says:

    The time you spend with your children is never wasted, Anders. Time to call it a day with this blogging carry on.

  2. I agree with your assessment about the climate “debate”, even if I would miss the informative debate on the blog. The “debate” is devoid of science. I secretly hope you will find something that annoys you enough to write a new post.

    I am not so sure about the last part, though. You can participate as a scientists and mostly ignore the mitigation sceptics. Especially if you blog yourself and simply turn on moderation, like I do, or even turn of comments, like Kate Marvel does.

  3. Mack,


    You can participate as a scientists and mostly ignore the mitigation sceptics.

    Yes, that’s certainly possible but there are lots of good sites already that explain the science. Someone who is genuinely interested, can find out for themselves more about our current scientific understanding.

    Especially if you blog yourself and simply turn on moderation, like I do, or even turn of comments, like Kate Marvel does.

    I did think about this, but I have enjoyed the comments and have, typically, enjoyed engaging below the line and have learned a lot. I don’t really see myself as some kind of person who can write posts that simply get read. Largely, because they often have mistakes that get pointed out in the comments. If I could write like Kate Marvel, I would happily do so, but I don’t think there are many who have quite that skill will words.

  4. JWhite says:

    Time for family and time for golf (I agree a completely with the therapeutic effect of the range…. more so even than the course 😉 ) is completely understandable. Though mostly a lurker, this site has become my first ‘click’ in the morning, and I’ll miss it. Though I will say, similar to yourself, I am getting a bit bored (maybe that’s not the precise right word) with the whole issue.

    Hope you continue to post occasionally, but if not then have a great life and enjoy the reprieve from the (near) pointless confrontations.

  5. I was not talking about you, but about all the other scientists you were discouraging from participating. 🙂

  6. Victor,
    Ahh, yes, maybe I was a bit too negative there 🙂 What would maybe be better would be if there were more who were willing to openly push back against the nonsense that is being spread by the high-profile “skeptic” blogs. It’s quite possible to do so politely, and I do find some of the pandering to “skeptics” a little irritating.

  7. Rachel M says:

    What am I going to do with myself? I’ve also got more animated gifs I want to post like this one:

  8. matt says:

    Fair enough. Wonder if Tamino has come to the same pov. I remember u saying not too long ago that u were goin to take a decent break… a fair number of posts in not that long a time have appeared since. Perhaps u needed it more than u realise. Anyway, thanks for ur input. Take a good break, but come back sometime.

    ps. We all know u can’t stay away forever 😉

  9. matt,
    I think I’ve been there and done that, trying to stop 🙂

  10. Eli Rabett says:

    Well there is always the Tim Lambert solution. But the great thing about personal blogs is that you can stop and start when you want.

    OTOH, this has become one of the few places where there is real dialog and that would be a shame to lose. Since Rachel has the keys, perhaps a restructuring (you did it once)


  11. Joshua says:

    Matt posted that cartoon before I had the chance.

    By way of advice that I would offer but don’t take myself – if you’re really serious about getting away it would probably be necessary for you to stop reading “skeptic” blogs. At least for me, reading them tends to spur the illusion that I can, and ,motivation to try to, somehow do something about the misinformation and shallow reasoning that I encounter there.

    It’s striking how much, when you get out of the blogospheric bubble, all of that fades. I’m not saying that’s necessarily a good thing – because at the root there are important issues at stake, but the fanaticism of the climatechange -o-sphere is pretty easy to miss if you don’t go looking for it.

    I respect the desire to try to do something about it, but I am dubious that there’s much to be done. I don’t see evidence of the “but their information must be debunked, they have to be called out” strategy working on any meaningful scale. IMO, the issue of climate change is unlikely to be resolved in such a way as to result in impactful policies before the climate itself reduces the uncertainty and error bars dramatically – and I don’t think that is likely to happen for maybe another 150? years.

    IMO, there’s an addictive element to the whole blog thang (captured by the “there’s someone wrong in the Internet” cartoon) – where I am drawn to engaging in a behavior that in balance is counterproductive. It is true that I’ve learned quite a bit about a lot of interesting stuff and had quite a few laughs – but I also know that in ultimately my time could be better spent in other ways.

  12. Marlowe Johnson says:

    I second JWhite’s comment about this blog being my ‘first click’ of the morning (sorry Rabbet). totally get why you’re feeling burned out by the experience tho.

    p.s. there is a special place in hell for people who bring up golf when others are suffering in -18C temperatures under 6 feet of snow.

    p.p.s. have animated gifs always been an option here? oh the wasted opportunities for true communication….

  13. John Hartz says:

    ATTP: You and Rachel always have the option of joing the all-volunteer SkS author team.

  14. Eli,
    You’re right, I can always just start again, or keep going more slowly than I am now.

    Good advice and I’m aware that I can look at “skeptic” blogs and then get riled up enough to write a post. Ignoring them would certainly help.


  15. anoilman says:

    I was bracing for the worst news from you. That you saw Interstellar and were still trying to determine the timeline. I just can’t figure out where the first wormhole came from.

    I had long since concluded that opposition to Global Warming wasn’t about the science. Hence desmogblog was where I spent most of my time. By the way, the reason you’re not having a meaningful engagement with these people is kinda laid out here;
    TransCanada’s Digital Advocacy plan, “Do no harm to other campaign efforts”. That sounds exactly like what you’d need to do if you weren’t actually engaged in dialogue. It also explains the Denier Exclusion Principle.

    I’m a big fan of Team Fortress 2 (PC game, free), but my wife doesn’t consider it appropriate bonding time.

    TV shows… I’m a fan of the new Sherlock series with Bernard Cumberbatch. Doctor Who can be a nice way to spend some time. I’ve also liked Agents of Shield, its a slow start but it keeps building.

    Out side of the science of Global Warming, you could look into economics.

  16. BBD says:

    Yes. Look at the creation of offshore.

    Slow down, why not? It’s not a contractual commitment 😉

  17. Ah, don’t go. But don’t bother much trying to talk to the “skeptics”, its not worth it. You should give up the golf though, its silly 🙂

  18. You should give up the golf though, its silly 🙂

    I know, that’s why I do it 🙂

  19. anoilman says:

    I got a hole in one he first time I played.

  20. Joshua says:

    golf = A good walk spoiled.

  21. BBD says:

    What WMC said. Use the moderation hammer like he does – at the first sign of nonsense 😉 Conversation *can* be constructive and informative – when the bad faith element is excluded.

  22. anoilman says:

    Robin Williams On Golf;

  23. Willard says:

    See you next week.

  24. Doug Bostrom says:

    I quite enjoy such posts as your recent, Nonlinear feedbacks and What else can you do with GCMs. Following along with somebody more intelligent and better with maths than I am as they explore some subject outside of their own specialty is fun and informative.Maybe you’ll bump into controversy with those, but they show how discussing climate research doesn’t have to be about constant fighting.

  25. Willard,
    You think you know me do you? 🙂

    Yes, those are quite fun to write. Still need the motivation to actually go and read the papers though 🙂

  26. I guess you might be an ‘all or nothing’ kind of guy, ATTP?

    The chairman of our parish council is like that: he works his nuts off for 6 months and then it all gets too much, saying, “I resign”. Then I have to talk him out of it, tell him to calm down, chair a few meetings for him, tell him to pace himself. He then relaxes and it all starts over again.

    So, if that rings a bell, take a break and then come back and don’t become so intense about things. Of course I could have got you completely wrong, I don’t have that much to go on…

    But it’ll be a big shame if you call it a day.

  27. john,

    I guess you might be an ‘all or nothing’ kind of guy

    Yes, I think I might have a slight tendency in that kind of direction. Just need to work out what all or nothing thing to do next 🙂

  28. WebHubTelescope says:

    An acronym for this phenomenon GBCW.

    No scientific dialog occurs because there really aren’t that many people interested in having a real scientific — as in research — dialog. I have mentioned the collaboration we have going on at Azimuth Project in trying to model ENSO and predicting El Nino events,, a few times here but no one has joined up. Even there, no one is quite as jacked-up as I imagined they would be when I first engaged in the discussion. It is picking up steam recently though, and I have a paper in the submission pipeline: see to comment

    Yet the number of people that will engage in pseudo-scientific cr@p is unbelievable, see WUWT, the astrologers over at Tallblokes place, and the armchair lawyers at Lucia’s. Not to mention the pathetic nitpicking of HackIntyre.

    The Science of Doom is one place to engage, and Nick Stokes Moyhu blog is another, but you also get the concern trolls (see SkS especially) that tend to put a damper on things. ATTP is good but the topic has to be set up like an arc, or else everyone will lose the bubble when the ball gets kicked down the field to a new topic.

    And trying to dispute what Nic Lewis is writing is time-wasted down a rabbit hole. Do something different that puts a fresh perspective on climate science. The one thing that has grated on me was when Curry said that the “state of climate science is kind of boring”. No, actually she is the bore because she has no ideas. I initially thought that Climate Etc was a good place to engage in discussion, but it really has gone “down da terlet” as Archie Bunker would say. So much for academic integrity.

  29. Tapani L. says:

    And then there’s… physics? Maybe write something about interesting research topics in your own field instead of climate issues for a change.

    It’s your blog after all. You can write whatever you want. (I understand if you want to keep your personal research away in fear of outing though.)

    It has been a learning experience reading the blog and comments as well – the comment threads are higher quality than most blogs out there. For me personally reading blogs like this is less about dialogue between sceptics and scientists as such (I understand it can be frustrating), but more about learning science and scientific argumentation and literacy. It would be a shame for all this to fade away.

  30. Steve Bloom says:

    Willard must have plotted a graph of your past behavior. Science!

  31. Magma says:

    For a long time I’ve felt that genuine dialogue wasn’t possible, but I’ve also thought that maybe I was wrong; maybe someone would surprise me and actually engaged in a thoughtful and pleasant discussion. ATTP

    In my own view there are a number of possible justifications for websites such as yours.

    1. You write for a less-technical audience that is willing to learn.
    2. You write on technical matters for scientific peers who are willing and able to debate and argue in good faith, even if that can become pointed or heated.
    3. You write to disseminate word and discussion of new papers and new observations.
    4. You write to avoid surrendering the public space (the podium or the stage) to the willfully ignorant or deceptive.
    5. You write to attempt to convince committed deniers of the error of their ways.

    In my options 1-4 are all worthy aims, even if 4 can be quite frustrating. But I fear 5 is a fool’s errand.

    In years of following various news media forums I have yet to see a single identifiable (individual) fake skeptic change his or her position on climate science. In many cases this is because they are simply not science and evidence-based at all; in a minority of cases involving engineers, physicists and Earth scientists (often but not always working in oil & gas or other natural resources) it’s because they think they understand far more than they actually do, and do not try to keep up with current literature, standing by a set position they arrived at years or even decades earlier. I’ve seem some individuals on the fence show signs of increasing their knowledge and understanding, but these are all too rare.

    There are, of course, those who greatly oversimplify or exaggerate on the other side of the debate, but I generally find that less problematic. Arguing the correct side of a scientific issue for oversimplified reasons is a forgivable error, i think.

    Whatever your decision, all the best.

  32. John Mashey says:

    The progression is common:
    A) Learn about climate science
    B) Try to sort out who knows what they are doing and who don’t
    C) Eventually decide that there is a tiny but vocal set of pseudoskeptics with whom useful engagement is impossible.

    D) From there, one might go on to debunking, especially where that can be actionable, or go learn more about energy systems and economics. The former is more like investigation journalism, but the latter is actually a good fit with physics.
    In some sense these are more interesting, in that there is more room for argument than with folks who think AGW is a hoax.

    E) For instance, David MacKay’s Sustainable Energy -without the hot air
    Physicist-turned-economist Robert Ayres, start with his new Exernomics blog:

  33. Steve Bloom says:

    I check in on your ENSO project from time to time, Web, but don’t have the chops to contribute anything meaningful and so don’t try. It’s a laudable undertaking, so please don’t be discouraged.

  34. I will send you a mitigation sceptical post next week to help Willard’s prediction. 😉

    anoilman, lovely cartoon and very fitting.

  35. WebHubTelescope, I did look, but I have enough science to do and already have a network to work with. It would be nice if some mitigation sceptics would work on that and do something useful, but well they are not interested in science.

  36. Steve Bloom says:

    Agree with JM, but while debunking can be a useful activity for those with the required skill set, at some point others will want to start doing things outside the blogosphere. Maybe the former is best done as encouragement for the latter, although there will always be a place for just plain education (as debunking or not) about the science and its implications.

  37. Jamie says:

    Did you read what David Roberts had to say about his year away from blogging?

    Some useful insights in that piece I think:

  38. BBD says:


    It was Twitter wot did for David Roberts’ sanity and I warned you way back at the beginning to keep away from the filthy thing – but… 🙂

  39. John Mashey says:

    “debunking, especially where that can be actionable”
    The key word there was *actionable.”

  40. My motto is “And then there’s first-order physics”. If you look at a GCM you will fry your brain. If you look at what Nic Lewis is doing you will also fry your brain. There is some happy medium that we are all searching for. But when you can’t lock on to that zone of understanding, you can either get overwhelmed by the complexity, or underwhelmed by the shortcuts that people take. Either extreme is a recipe for losing interest. But that middle ground of climate science is ripe for exploration, and that’s what keeps me challenged.

    Alas, the audience participation potential in this zone is close to zero. That’s just the way it is. It can’t even reach a Dunbar number.

  41. Gingerbaker says:

    Why continue to debate the science if you find that unpalatable (and who can blame you?)? The science is pretty clear. What we need to pay a lot more attention to is the best way to solve the problem.

    And I don’t mean politics, I mean technology and policy. There has been almost no attention in the blogosphere devoted to this area, compared with the millions of words spilled on arguing about facts with people acting either in bad faith or way above their expertise level.

    Twenty years of arguing… but does anyone know the answers to the simplest of questions about renewables? How much will it cost to build what we need? Should the cost of new renewable energy infrastructure continue to be borne on the shoulders of individuals, business owners, and small municipalities in uncoordinated piece-meal fashion or does it make more sense to approach this as an integrated Federal initiative? How tenable are the studies by Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucci of Stanford which lay out a blueprint for complete conversion to renewables by 2050?

    On Sunday, Republican Senator John Thune of South Dakota’ had this to say about AGW:

    “There are a number of factors that contribute to that [AGW], including human activity. The question is, what are we going to do about it and at what cost?”

    A very good question although most likely not asked in sincere good faith. This has been the mantra of Republicans and the fossil fuel industry for decades – fixing AGW will be too expensive. Why are we not already fluent with a reply to such a masquerade? Could it be that cost is the most persuasive argument for the construction of new renewable infrastructure?

    Jacobson and Delucci estimate the cost to convert California from fossil fuels to 100% renewables, to be $1 trillion. California represents about 1/6th of U.S. energy requirements. Let’s be generous and estimate the cost for the U.S. to eliminate fossil fuels at $10 trillion. Is that expensive (“at what cost?”)?

    Answer: not at all. In the U.S. we spend about $1.5 trillion a year on fossil fuels. If Jacobson and Delucci are correct, we can eliminate that “cost”. That alone is a 100% ROI in under 7 years. By year 2100, that is (extremely conservatively) $75 trillion in fossil fuel costs saved from 2050 to 2100.

    Meanwhile, M.I.T. tells us that if we continue with BAU, it will “cost” the world $1240 trillion in adaptation costs by year 2100. The U.S. share of that is probably ~ 1/4 or $300 trillion dollars. That’s some of the additional “cost” of using fossil fuels, above and beyond the expense of fossil fuels themselves.

    The utility industry is already the most publicly-owned and most non profit sector of the economy. We have a window of opportunity to maintain its commons status, lose it, or perhaps increase it. We could not only reduce our carbon footprint to next to nothing, but put huge sums of money into our pockets – and eliminate our national debt – with the correct decisions in the next few years. Perhaps you could refocus your efforts and help make that happen?

  42. verytallguy says:

    I doubt your resolve!

    Anyway, if you do mean it, it’s been a pleasure reading and very occasionally contributing.

    Here’s what you’ll be missing:

  43. I also wonder whether giving up twitter is not more effective than giving up blogging. (Also for myself, even if I found some interesting things there, it is a rather hostile and attention eating environment.)

  44. BBD says:

    You tell ’em, Victor. Twitter is soul poison, like all ‘social media’. Astute people have known this for some time now. This is stuff you leave alone, like white powder, and for similar reasons.

  45. Genuine dialog is certainly possible, but it may be almost impossible to have a lively blog, where all or even most comments contribute to genuine dialog. Few people can keep on writing posts that induce good dialog regularly enough to keep the site lively based on that alone. Some sites have succeeded in keeping the level of the post high enough to maintain a wide enough readership in spite of the longer intervals between the posts. Even those sites have only occasionally good dialog, but the quality of the posts keeps them going. The hosts of those site may have spent considerable effort in writing each of the posts. Pick just some of the posts of SoD and think, how much background material he must have read and processed to write a single post.

    This site has succeeded well in comparison with most other climate sites. There has certainly been also genuine dialog even if it has to be found among a larger number of less substantive comments.

  46. Rachel M says:

    I quite like Twitter and I rarely get into disagreements with people there. It can get hostile but I think it’s also possible to largely stay out of the more vitriolic discussions there.

  47. Richard Erskine says:

    ATTP – I came here because it seemed to attract mostly positive exploratory dialogue, not megaphones at dawn. ATTP is an oasis I hope will not dry up 🙂 (if you need a crap learning golfer to challenge, let me know).

  48. Richard Erskine says:

    [Dislexya cured. -W]

  49. Steven Mosher says:

    “A very good question although most likely not asked in sincere good faith.”

    Nothing fosters a great dialogue like impugning people’s motives before you start.

    Thune. A mixed record with these highlights:

    “Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies.

    Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act
    Title I: Ending Subsidies for Big Oil Act–denying a deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil, natural gas, or their related primary products.
    Title II: Royalty Relief for American Consumers Act–to incorporate specified price thresholds for royalties on oil & gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
    Title III: Strategic Energy Efficiency And Renewables Reserve–makes the Reserve available to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels.”

    Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025.

    Thune co-sponsored setting goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025
    A resolution that it is the goal of the United States that, not later than January 1, 2025, the agricultural, forestry, and working land of the US should provide from renewable resources not less than 25% of the total energy consumed and continue to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed, and fiber. [Governors also signed letters of endorsement at http://www.25×]
    Rep. SALAZAR: “Our resolution establishes a national goal of producing 25% of America’s energy from renewable sources–like solar, wind and biofuels–by 2025. The “25x’25” vision is widely endorsed, bold, and fully attainable. If implemented, it would dramatically improve our energy security, our economy, and our ability to protect the environment.
    “I am pleased that more than 20 of my colleagues in the Senate, from both sides of the aisle, are cosponsoring this resolution. In addition, the “25x’25” vision has been endorsed by 22 current and former governors and several State legislatures across the country. The Big Three automobile manufacturers–Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors–are all behind “25x’25” So are many agricultural organizations, environmental groups, scientists, and businesses, ranging from the Natural Resources Defense Council to John Deere.
    “These Americans understand that we cannot continue to import 60% of our oil from foreign countries, many of which are hostile to the US, if we aim to be strong and secure in the world. They know that we will have to build a clean energy economy if we are to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It is time for Congress to take a more active role in our clean energy future. Establishing a national goal–“25x’25” is the first step.”

  50. There is often a curious distinction between what the scientific community and the general population believe to be true of dire scientific issues, and this skepticism tends to vary markedly across groups. For instance, in the case of climate change, Republicans (conservatives) are especially skeptical of the relevant science, particularly when they are compared with Democrats (liberals). What causes such radical group differences? We suggest, as have previous accounts, that this phenomenon is often motivated. However, the source of this motivation is not necessarily an aversion to the problem, per se, but an aversion to the solutions associated with the problem. This difference in underlying process holds important implications for understanding, predicting, and influencing motivated skepticism. In 4 studies, we tested this solution aversion explanation for why people are often so divided over evidence and why this divide often occurs so saliently across political party lines. Studies 1, 2, and 3—using correlational and experimental methodologies—demonstrated that Republicans’ increased skepticism toward environmental sciences may be partly attributable to a conflict between specific ideological values and the most popularly discussed environmental solutions. Study 4 found that, in a different domain (crime), those holding a more liberal ideology (support for gun control) also show skepticism motivated by solution aversion.

    Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief.
    Campbell, Troy H.; Kay, Aaron C.
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 107(5), Nov 2014, 809-824.

  51. Richard Erskine says:

    In the spectrum of those who are dyed in the wool deniers and those who perhaps may be unquestioning environmentalists, the bulk of people probably don’t bother with blogs and blogging and that’s why we need a broad spectrum of channels for educating people, and especially younger people e.g.

    And the message is getting through .. Take the decision just taken by Norways huge fund, built on fossil fuel, and now divesting in coal and reinvesting in alternative energy
    E.g. (maybe oil and gas next, which would be extraordinary)
    The Lawsons and Ridleys are losing the argument.

    But the transition is still too slow.

    But still a big role for blogs like ATTP to help educate those who are scientifically literate and need a ‘water cooler’ place to meet and chat, but we should not slip into trying to convince those who have no interest in science. They can have their own water coolers.

  52. anoilman says:

    Richard Erskine: Its interesting that in Canada for the Pipeline East Project, Transcanada has identified the people by their ‘greenness’, the target demographic to sway in the middle (40%) is poorly educated, and relatively young. There are a lot of nuggets in their PR plan worth a read. One is that they want people to sign a petition, post on an internet forum about why they support it, then start trying to recruit their friends. The message to get out is to get younger people to go to sites like Skeptical Science which would effectively immunize them against misinformation.

    I still feel that one of the biggest barriers to get addressing global warming is joe public’s inability to discern a good source of information from a bad one. i.e. how can they tell the difference between GWPF and SKS?

  53. Steve Bloom says:

    Willard, that study seems rather like the proverbial Microsoft technical advice: True, but useless. Climate deniers of any stripe, I’m sure, have no problem at all with e.g. short-range weather forecasting, but probably would quickly develop one if they started to feel themselves economically constrained and felt they could get away with just ignoring the forecast (which of course they can’t). If the study had some useful advice about how to intervene in the formation of the response, I’d be all ears, but it doesn’t appear to.

    Elsewhere, as you know, many have suggested trying to get around the problem by promoting beautiful ponies that everyone can love, i.e. CCS or development and deployment of fossil fuel replacements, but the former has proven to be unworkable and the latter comes up against the strong attachment of denying Republicans to fossil fuel use and not letting the hippies win.

    At some point, we just have to tell them they have to eat their spinach and send them to their room without dessert if they don’t.

    Public copy of the paper is here, BTW.

  54. Steve Bloom says:

    Gingerbaker, there are a fair number of sites and blogs that specialize in such questions. Are they insufficient?

  55. Marlowe Johnson says:

    most definitely yes Steve. less than a handful that actually go into the level of detail that you see on equivalent climate ‘science’ blogs.

  56. Marlowe Johnson says:

    as an example ask yourself how many blogs out there discuss biofuel issues? None that I’m aware of. Most blogs that touch on technology are simple agreggator sites. ClimateProgress, Grist, EnergyCollective are obvious exceptions. of course maybe I’m not looking hard enough 😉

  57. Steve Bloom says:

    This is an Aussie site, Marlowe, but seems pretty good overall.

    I have to say I don’t pay very close attention to the details of the needed large-scale transition since it seems a little beside the point what with all the low-hanging fruit that remains substantially untouched. Even here in California, with a willing electorate, the snail-like pace of energy transformation that’s the de facto choice of the political class is depressing to contemplate.

  58. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    “It’s clearly not about science, but about ideology.”

    I knew. Almost everyone else knew…

    Do as you please. Enjoy your life. You are allowed this even if you studied physics /sarc. Have some serious fun ;). You deserve it!

  59. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    Golf is only making things worse though!

  60. Michael 2 says:

    John Hartz says: “ATTP: You and Rachel always have the option of joing the all-volunteer SkS author team.”

    That’s a good way to not be seen by reasonably intelligent moderates such as myself. The long list of debunkers for instance is strawman after strawman. It’s easy to debunk a strawman and not informative.

    It might be an important carriage, but attaching it to the leftwing horse has crippled it. The left wing has all kinds of sensibilities but not much money or practical solutions. Its like a marriage; you need left and right; but left decided it didn’t need right (and I suppose right feels it doesn’t need left).

    I see both but that’s not an option. The ballots don’t offer “both” or “none of the above” or “some of the above”.

    So I’ll miss this blog. It is the only warmist blog worth visiting in my opinion and that is because it is not strongly advocating a point of view (even though you clearly have one) and it and its readers are willing to take some time to explain things.

    So, RCP 8.5, here we come, ready or not.

  61. If you all need a blog that places equal emphasis on climate science and energy, always head over to my blog at I just updated the RSS feed and paid for a good spam collector so no moderation, no login, and no captcha needed. Who wants the RealClimate hoops that you have to jump through? Not me.

    I have been concentrating on doing climate science recently because I spent 8 years doing fossil fuel and energy blogging. It’s all about trying to get the projection of fossil fuel usage and global warming predictions with equal emphasis, and then on top of that analyzing wind, batteries, solar technology. I try to cover the whole bag because that is our future.

    The last post is on my submission of an ENSO model paper.

  62. BBD says:


    Describing oneself as a ‘moderate’ sits uneasily with the subsequent use of ‘warmist’.

  63. Michael 2 says: “That’s a good way to not be seen by reasonably intelligent moderates such as myself. The long list of debunkers for instance is strawman after strawman. It’s easy to debunk a strawman and not informative.”

    🙂 “Straw man” and “easy to debunk” means that you hold those statements to be true? That is a basis for discussion.

    WebHubTelescope, on a site on energy I would not just focus on climate change, there are so many other important reasons to change our energy system. It is somewhat incomparable, at least on the short term air pollution is a more important reason to drop coal than climate change.

  64. VV, you are preaching to the choir. I took the best of my blog postings from 2004 to 2011 and compiled them into a book called The Oil Conundrum. It contains all the math needed to track the depletion of oil reserves. The reason to drop oil is that if we don’t drop it, oil will do it all on its own accord. I just need to update the book to include Bakken, which is another one of those boom-and-bust cycles, easily modeled.

    The deniers don’t see the “holey” trinity:
    1. Climate change
    2. Fossil fuel depletion
    3. Pollution

  65. BBD says:

    4. Ocean pH change

  66. anoilman says:

    5. There’s no Green Jobs… none. Pipelines provide millions of jobs, and even do your dishes.

  67. entropicman says:


    Life is too short to do things you do not enjoy.

    Most of us eventually get fed up bashing our heads against sceptic cognitive dissonance.

    “Against stupidity
    The gods themselves
    Contend in vain.”

  68. Gingerbaker says:

    ““A very good question although most likely not asked in sincere good faith.”
    Nothing fosters a great dialogue like impugning people’s motives before you start.”

    This would be the same John Thume who:

    said the Keystone pipeline vote ‘cynical,’ meant to aid Mary Landrieu’s re-election
    Voted NO on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems. (May 2013)
    Voted NO on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program. (Aug 2009)
    Voted YES on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land. (Dec 2007)
    Voted NO on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
    Reduce liability for hazardous waste cleanup. (May 2001)
    Make tax deduction permanent for conservation easements. (Mar 2009)
    Rated 20% by HSLF, indicating an anti-animal welfare voting record. (Jan 2012)
    Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
    Voted YES on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax. (Apr 2009)
    Voted YES on requiring full Senate debate and vote on cap-and-trade. (Apr 2009)
    Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)
    Voted NO on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)
    Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
    Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
    Voted NO on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
    Voted NO on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska’s ANWR. (Nov 2005)
    Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
    Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
    Voted NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
    Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
    Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
    Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
    Rated 33% by CAF, indicating a mixed record on energy independence. (Dec 2006)
    Open the Outer Continental Shelf for oil & gas leasing. (Jun 2008)
    Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP. (Nov 2010)
    Voted YES on the Ryan Budget: Medicare choice, tax & spending cuts. (May 2011)
    Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)

    Do you think I might be forgiven for having doubts about his environmental commitment?

  69. Steven Mosher says:

    [Mod: A bit inflammatory and off-topic and I don’t want a food fight on what might be the last thread here, thanks.]

  70. anoilman says:

    [Mod: Refers to a deleted comment]

  71. Andrew Dodds says:

    M2 –

    The problem is, the political right has, largely, gone down the route of denying global warming altogether. So we are not going to be hearing any solutions from them.

    In turn, that means that all the solutions you hear anything about are from the political left. Quite a lot of these solutions are, in my opinion, dubious or just plain fanciful. But that’s all we’ve got, because those who might argue differently are not turning up.

  72. Insert your favorite metaphor:

    To save money while building a greener image, UPS said no to left turns. It’s a lofty goal the company set considering UPS delivers more than 4 billion packages and documents a year.


    It worked and the results were really impressive. Since the deployment of this route planning technology in 2004, UPS has saved an estimated 10 million gallons of gas and reduced carbon emissions by 100,000 metric tons. This reduced CO2 emission is equivalent of taking 5,300 cars off the road for an entire year.

  73. Rob Nicholls says:

    ATTP, thanks so much for teaching me interesting stuff, for responding to a lot of my questions, for your almost endless patience, and for your honesty about uncertainty.
    I have really enjoyed the comments here (I’ve often found Pekka’s comments to be particularly thought provoking).

    But please do get away from this nonsensical “debate” if you need to – I think it is very addictive and can take away a lot more of our time than we would choose to give to it.
    Best wishes

  74. Willard,
    Fascinating. I hope they didn’t impose exactly the same rule in the UK.

    Thanks, and it’s been no problem. I don’t mind – and enjoy – engaging in interesting discussions.

  75. AT,

    Imagine the money they’d save if they forbid turning left and turning right.

  76. John Mashey says:

    “In turn, that means that all the solutions you hear anything about are from the political left.”
    Actually, consider Energy Policy – Hoover Institution Shultz-Stevenson Task Force.

    Now, Hoover is hardly what one would call leftist, unless anything to the left of the Koch borhtes is leftist. George Shultz was one of the leaders in fighting a Tesoro/Valero/Koch proposition to nullify CA’s climate laws.

    Bob Inglis is worth knowing about, his segment in movie “Merchants of Doubt” was very good.

  77. John Mashey says:

    Re: John Thune Legacy Tobacco Documents library search for John Thune finds 134 documents.

    One of my favorites is donations to Senators and Reps by Philip Morris in 1996. They liked Thune.

    But actually, they *really* kike Republicans. By quick scan:
    44 R, of whom 20 got $
    47 D, of whom 5 got $

  78. John Mashey says:

    [Links fixed. -W]

  79. Michael 2 says:

    Andrew Dodds writes “The problem is, the political right has, largely, gone down the route of denying global warming altogether. So we are not going to be hearing any solutions from them. In turn, that means that all the solutions you hear anything about are from the political left.”

    Agreed. While obvious on the face of it, I suspect your observation reveals the sticking point, the nexus of a great many things of similar nature.

    I submit that whereas human beings probably span a continuum of belief on this topic, politics does not allow for a nuanced approach.

    It is the same in a court of law before a jury. The prosecutor isn’t going to mention mitigating circumstances or doubt. That’s the job of the defender to do that, and the defender isn’t going to admit to the possibility of guilt even where it is conspicuous.

    Both sides persuade solely to their side as if the other side has nothing.

    It is then up to the jury to decide who has the more persuasive case; and make no mistake, politics is about persuasion.

    But in this instance the situation is not symmetrical, left versus right. Left has made a claim and must defend it, move the inertia of public opinion. The right does not need to solve a problem defined by the left.

    That’s a bit like an automobile mechanic telling you that your battery is weak and he will be happy to fix it for a certain amount of money when you have no personal reason to believe the battery is weak and obviously his diagnosis is “self serving”.

    Now then if an inspector tells you your battery is weak and you choose your own mechanic this “conflict of interest” disappears. The inspector gets nothing special for telling you the battery is weak, and the mechanic presumably cannot persuade the inspector.

  80. russellseitz says:

    May your handicap fall faster than temperatures rise– dealing with the denialati is a two pipe problem.

  81. Willard says:

    To save ourselves, we need to save otters:

    Sandrne Hazan and the otters

  82. Andrew Dodds says:

    Willard –

    Hmmm. You mean ‘Buy a fleet of M1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks and simply drive along the great circle to the delivery point’. This would indeed reduce delivery miles to the absolute minimum (pace actually digging tunnels, but that’s just silly), but I can’t help thinking that some citizens would voice complaints when their houses inconveniently got in the way of free enterprise.

  83. Andrew Dodds says:

    M2 –

    Except that the scientists studying global warming don’t generally have much stake in the solutions.

    And it’s not like two sides before a court – it’s that once side hasn’t even turned up to the court and is loudly denying that the court even exists or has jurisdiction.

  84. Clev says:

    Michael 2

    I don’t understand your car analogy. We have an inspector in the case of climate change. He/she is called Science, or more accurately, scientists.
    They are pretty much all saying the battery is dangerous. It doesn’t matter whose mechanic fixes it so long as it is fixed.

    You also say “The Left has made a claim and must defend it.”
    This is precisely the wrong way round. The Right (to use your terminology, not mine) has made a claim: that releasing trillions of tonnes of a known greenhouse gas into our atmosphere will not have drastically adverse effects. It is for them to support this claim with evidence/proof.

  85. Clev,
    Yes, I too find it a little confusing. The correct analogy might be that you go to a mechanic who tells you your battery is faulty and that they can fix it. You don’t trust this mechanic, so you go to another one who says the same thing. You don’t trust that mechanic either, so you go to another one who also says the same thing. You repeat this process, but once you’ve spoken to 100 mechanics, if 97 of them say your battery is faulty and needs fixing, either there is a massive mechanic conspiracy, or your battery really is faulty and needs fixing.

  86. andrew adams says:

    I don’t get much time to comment on, or even read, blogs at the moment but I still try to follow this one I’d certainly be sad to see you go. I can certainly understand your frustration at trying and failing to have productive discussions with people who have opposing views, so don’t do it – there is still much which is worthy of discussion on issues related to climate change amongst those who broadly agree on the big questions of whether it poses a significant threat and requires urgent action.

    Given the nature of much online discussion its good to have somewhere where one can go and have a serious and reasonably civilised discussion with people with similar viewpoints, but there is still sufficient divergence of opinion and enough differing personalities here to make it interesting and stop it turning into an echo chamber. So I think this blog would definitely leave a hole to be filled if you did decide not to continue.

  87. toby52 says:

    I dip in here almost every day and would be sorry to see the blog end.

  88. John Hartz says:

    ATTP: Is this just another one of your “Lucy-with-the-football” gambits? 🙂

  89. Joshua says:

    OK. I think there’s pretty much a consensus (which is obviously easier to get when you moderate comments 🙂 ).

    Anders – you can’t quit.

    You can make some changes so that you find it less frustrating, but quitting isn’t really an option. And you also have to stop this transparent way of trying to get people to pay you compliments!

  90. Rachel M says:

    And you also have to stop this transparent way of trying to get people to pay you compliments!

    I was thinking the same thing! I might have to try it on my blog 🙂

  91. Michael says:


    It’s the format – blog comments don’t tend to facilitate calm, considered, rationale debate… least not between people of disparate viewpoints, and especially not on contentious topics.

    Firm moderation can reduce the magnitude of the problem, but even that can’t fix the absence of good faith.

  92. anoilman says:

    The problem with the car mechanic analogy is that its completely wrong. Global Warming has been studied by 10s of thousands of actual in field experts.

    Would you trust 10,000 mechanics over your one Michael 2? I most certainly would. And I bet about 3% of them would give you bad advice, especially if they were paid to give you that specific bad advice. Who would be so capricious to do that I wonder? The towing company perhaps…

    Rachel, Joshua… Do you think Anders would stop doing this if we told him to sod off… and his last paper sucked?

  93. Michael 2 says:

    ATTP says “if 97 of them say your battery is faulty and needs fixing, either there is a massive mechanic conspiracy, or your battery really is faulty and needs fixing.”

    A good metaphor. But let me play this ball further. Suppose instead of actually visiting 100 mechanics and 97 of them tell me I have a bad battery (I would have stopped searching at the second opinion most likely), I visit NO mechanic because the nearest mechanic is 900 miles away and instead have an *agent* that assures me that 97 out of 100 mechanics would assert that my battery needs replacing.

    Whether that is true (the battery actually needing replacement) becomes largely irrelevant; the *voice* is still just one, the agent himself.

    This is why having more than one voice is absolutely essential in any persuasion — exactly the opposite of what has heretofore been suggested as the way to persuade the human race, that you should all speak with one voice. No, it should be a cacophany of voices, and not speaking the same exact Talking Points. That’s still just one voice echoed many times.

    Religious parallels exist and with good reason — it is a persuasion about a thing that is not immediately apparent to the casual observer. For hundreds or thousands of years, most religions allow only “one voice”, for Catholics it is the pope. For Mormons, the prophet. Now suddenly along comes Facebook, Twitter and blogs. Now suddenly millions of voices exist and the “top down” approach is failing dramatically. Those 97 mechanics are now competing with an unbelievable number of voices with no easy way for the audience to know who is a mechanic and who is not. Peer review is supposed to solve that problem, and perhaps was once more credible, but “pal review” or the perception of such a thing has reduced its value as a persuader.

    Many voices will move people at least initially, not a *claim* of many voices, but many actual voices. If you were on a street at a farmers market in the 1960’s and three dozen panicked people came running through the street shouting, “The Russians are coming!” you’d either run or realize you are in a comedy motion picture by that name. You’d also look over your shoulder to see if the stampede was based on reality or someone got spooked and set the whole herd in motion.

    First and foremost I look for consistency in a writer. Do you really believe your own words? Those that believe their own words do not allow inconsistencies to creep in because they have forgotten what shaded truths or outright lies they’ve written. But a person that always writes his beliefs and knowledge doesn’t need to remember who he told what.

    The second thing I look for is reasonable self-assessment. Anyone that makes a broadly sweeping statement such as “the science is settled” is (IMO) not a scientist. Good heavens, they are still studying GRAVITY — even made a movie about it (“Interstellar”). If you position yourself as a “seeker of truth” but just farther along that road than me, then I may be willing to go along that road too for a while.

    I am reminded of climbing a mountain. The person that can help me the most is the one just above or ahead of me. Those that are much higher might be showing a way, but they cannot reach down to me to help. Obviously those below me are not helping me, but I can help them; but again, I can only help the one immediately below me.

    Your blog I see as being “on the ladder” or climbing the mountain. You interact most successfully with those one step above or one step below. It is a “food chain” kind of thing, but like any food chain, it is also a pyramid with a singular apex and a very broad base. The apex is the actual source of a particular fact, the broad base is the proletariat, the vast swarm of humanity that eventually hears about this fact. But they are also hearing facts from other pyramids, and from their point of view, the entire pyramid is inverted with the prole at the apex and a torrent of diverse information coming from the broad base above — with your fact competing with millions of other facts for attention.

    How many persuaders is it going to take to move 7 billion humans? With 6 degrees of separation, you could probably calculate the number — suppose I can move 20 people, each of them can move 20, six degrees is thus 20^6 or 64 million people hear it directly from someone they know. That’s persuasion but the power of the persuasion is reduced quite a bit at each telling.

    That is why I participate in what seems to be futile discussions. I will never know what impact I’ve had on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th degree of separation but I am certain it is more than zero. I also don’t know what exactly that impact is going to be.

    But the human race has evolved from animals (*) through intelligence and communication so more of both seems “good” and this is the place and this is the way to do it.

    * Full disclosure: I think there’s a bit more to it than that, I accept that someone whose name starts with G, followed by an o and a d in that order, had something to do with it but I make no claims as to exactly what and how. An important clue is “let there be light” and “let the EARTH bring forth life”. Right there in black and white: Earth did it. Another important clue is that I know this person, for me it is a fact. For you, a claim, as believable or not as polar bears falling from the sky.

  94. And you also have to stop this transparent way of trying to get people to pay you compliments!

    Now I’m going to have to stay away long enough to make it less likely that that was actually the reason 🙂 However, I really am enjoying this break, so I don’t think it will be too hard.

  95. Steve Bloom says:

    m2, your lack of awareness about history and your lack of self-awareness about the identity politics in which you are so firmly stuck is a marvel to behold.

  96. Michael 2 says:

    Clev wrote: “We have an inspector in the case of climate change. He/she is called Science, or more accurately, scientists.”

    An inspector can only be one person. Facts are discovered and reported by human beings. So are non-facts. Each scientist studies one thing, perhaps benthic oxygen in a Vostok ice core. The “fact” is a particular isotope ratio at a certain depth in the ice core. Anyone sufficiently motivated and financed can replicate this fact and a few people need to do exactly that or it’s just a claim (even if still factual).

    “They are pretty much all saying the battery is dangerous.”

    But you see, *I* only have your word for it. I do not know either the inspectors OR the mechanic. Now then, you might be a reliable reporter and your best friend might be the very person that drilled ice at Vostok. If so, then the weight of your declaration is great, nearly as good as the scientist’s own report.

    So, using “fuzzy logic”, it matters how removed you are from the source of facts, and how reliable is the reporting at each “remove”. Needless to say by the 6th remove the weight of your claim might be 0.1 or less (where 1 is perfectly factual).

    This is an area where many voices DO actually matter. It isn’t exactly additive, more of an RMS thing I suspect. If a particular fact is told to 10 people, each of whom retells the story with 0.5 accuracy, then I hear that story from all ten people, the original accuracy is *nearly* restored *if* each person telling it is not colluding with the other retellers and it becomes just an echo chamber. Each person’s individual bias is noise, and the noise will largely (but not completely) cancel depending on how many voices exist. It’s a integration.

    The same noise cancelling phenomenon exists for many ephemeral claims. Perhaps last night lightning struck nearby. If only one witness sees it, whether you believe him depends entirely on his historical veracity and reputation. But if ten witnesses with no connection among them report the same thing, it is nearly as good as you seeing it in person. Some variation will exist in when it happened, its magnitude and things like that and these variations will form a Gaussian distribution clustered around the True Fact which by definition cannot be repeated or reproduced.

    “You also say ‘The Left has made a claim and must defend it.’ This is precisely the wrong way round. The Right has made a claim: that releasing trillions of tonnes of a known greenhouse gas into our atmosphere will not have drastically adverse effects. It is for them to support this claim with evidence/proof.”

    The burden of proof is on the initial claim. The world was proceeding fat dumb and happy burning coal and oil. So what exactly is the first claim? It is that doing so is dangerous. That is the claim to be proven.

    It is easy to prove the existence of a thing, just find it and show it. Proving the NON existence of a thing is often impossible, one must search ALL possible hiding places of the thing, and only then can it be declared to not exist.

    The fact of non-symmetry often shifts the burden of proof away from what is impossible to what is possible.

    To be sure, a *counterclaim* is itself a claim demanding proof. So anyone claiming CO2 is perfectly harmless has made a claim and can reasonably be expected to provide proof or evidence to suppor the claim. One such evidence is the relative flatness of global warming over the past 18 years departing from a continuing rise in CO2.

    Since I believe CO2 must warm the Earth, I conclude that something is cooling it at the same rate CO2 should be warming it, and if that cooling phenomenon ceases, then warming will resume with a vengeance. But if the cooling phenomenon itself accelerates, well then we have an even bigger problem. So I do not accept a simple-minded viewpoint CO2==Bad.

  97. Michael 2 says:

    Steve Bloom writes: “m2, your lack … is a marvel to behold.”

    I have a doubt that it is possible to behold a thing that does not exist.

  98. I’m going to build a bismuth metal based thermoelectrically cooled quantum computer that will make Elon Musk very very afraid. That will be my contribution to the carbon crisis. I will just replace the carbon crisis with yet another very different crisis. Forced evolution, that’s my credo.

    One needs to motivate rocket builders.

  99. John Hartz says:

    This thread reminds me of “Sienfeld” – the classic TV series created by Jerry Sienfeld and Larry David. It’s all about nothing..

  100. Michael 2 says:

    Steve Bloom — I didn’t mean to be so curt but it is an interesting philosophical question of observing the thing that is lacking. You cannot directly observe a lack, what you observe is the evidence that what was once present is now lacking. For instance, the high water marks on Lake Powell or Folsom reservoir are evidence that water is lacking. Without those high water marks you would simply observe the water that is present. In fact, it is similar ancient marks that revealed the existence of several huge lakes existing at the end of the last glacial period.

    In the context of your statement, “your lack of awareness about history is a marvel to behold” can be true only in the case that some sort of high water mark exists making the distance from that high water mark to my actual awareness of history worth remarking upon.

    But this is a high water mark of your own invention and thus is in your hands to either conform the high water mark to actual level, or to provide more water to fill the cup, or to simply accept that it is whatever it is and enjoy the beholding.

  101. Michael 2 says:

    An Oilman says: “Global Warming has been studied by 10s of thousands of actual in field experts.”

    Name them. Let’s see the list.

    Anyway, the point is that the mechanics (scientists) are separated from their ultimate clients (me) by brokers. I know a couple of geologists and a chemist. Not exactly relevant to the problem but useful to comprehend university science and government science.

    While I am interested in everyone’s beliefs and claims, I adjust them according to various factors, such as how “dramatic” is your claim. In your case, you claim the existence of tens of thousands of scientists. I’ve seen that claim before (my own brother for instance), but he was confused by clever manipulation of IPCC claims. If 100 people each write a paper, and each paper is reviewed by the other 99, then you have a total of 9,900 reviews which magically becomes “reviewers”. Naturally I reduce these huge claims by a factor of about 99 and reasonably presume ALL claims have been similarly inflated.

    How can there be tens of thousands of scientists when John Cook reviewed fewer than 12,000 papers? Is each scientist only publishing one paper per career? Some of these scientists are extremely prolific paper writers, if I assume each scientist has published only 10 papers, suddenly we’re looking at a thousand scientists. But is it even that many?

    How is it possible that 12,000 papers exist on climate science? It appears about 72 were directly relevant to the topic and most (97 percent) assert AGW. So if there’s 72 papers how can there be tens of thousands of scientists all working on those 72 papers?

    Exaggeration serves no purpose — and yet, it worked for you. I am reminded that many people ARE persuaded, like sheep, by sheer numbers of claimed advocates.

    Plate Tectonics was advocated for decades by a single champion. It took a few others to finally “prove” it — magnetometer readings across the Atlantic seafloor clinched it.

    “And I bet about 3% of them would give you bad advice, especially if they were paid to give you that specific bad advice.”

    100 percent would offer bad advice if they were paid to do so but their price for exaggerating would vary somewhat.

    Anyway, I believe scientists should not be offerening advice. They offer facts and perhaps projections based on those facts but not advice. The moment a scientist starts using “should” language it has become subjective rather than objective and contaminates claims of fact.

    ALL: I’m being a bit more assertive than usual as this may be our last opportunity.

    I consider my contribution to not be in the realm of science but rather the realm of communication and persuasion. Scientists and academics live in bubbles and few there are that venture out into the world where they are simply not believed. These scientists may well be surrounded by a cloud of thousands of advocates and believers, but so is the pope.

    So I too think I will take a break and if I don’t respond it is because of it.

  102. jsam says:

    Good luck, Anders, in whatever you choose to do next.

  103. John Hartz says:

    Michael2: Make it a looong one.

  104. Clev says:

    Michael 2
    Skipping your confusing if amusing analogy fest, let’s examine “The burden of proof is on the initial claim. The world was proceeding fat dumb and happy burning coal and oil. So what exactly is the first claim? It is that doing so is dangerous. That is the claim to be proven.”

    As I say, this is wrong. The world and people existed before we burned fossil fuels. The first “claim” – your word not mine, I prefer assumption – was that we could extract and burn this stuff and gain the benefits thereof without obvious bad consequences. The only thing was, we had no way of knowing if that was true or not. We just, kind of, assumed it. Fingers crossed and all that.

    I would rather that you PROVED it before we go on burning more and more of this stuff. Show me the chemistry and physics and testing and empirical evidence that says this is harmless. Don’t just tell me it’s harmless, when you don’t know.

  105. BBD says:

    We need some tunes. This for ATTP:

  106. Joshua says:

    Or perhaps this?:

  107. anoilman says:

    Going out with another pointless argument with M2 is somehow fitting. Which inspires me to post this song;

    Amy Winehouse died because she didn’t want to go to rehab.

  108. anoilman says:

    M2: Consider this an opportunity to contribute somewhere else.

  109. Steve Bloom says:

    “Plate Tectonics was advocated for decades by a single champion.” Where does he get this stuff? (Yeah, yeah, denialist blogs, the contents of which he swallows whole.)

    m2 had better avoid opening his medicine cabinet. All those warning labels…

  110. John Mashey says:

    Steve: plate tectonics: yes, those ignorant of history get this wrong again and again.

    (Actually, quite a few in Europe and Australia supported Wegener’s general idea, including one of the UK’s most eminent geoscientists, Arthur Holmes..

  111. Meow says:


    the point is that the mechanics (scientists) are separated from their ultimate clients (me) by brokers.

    One such evidence is the relative flatness of global warming over the past 18 years departing from a continuing rise in CO2.

    Why do you trust the “brokers” from which you got that information?

    Exaggeration serves no purpose — and yet, it worked for you. I am reminded that many people ARE persuaded, like sheep, by sheer numbers of claimed advocates.

    Is cherrypicking a form of exaggeration? Why or why not?

  112. JCH says:

    It’s is mind boggling. In climate science, who is plate Plate Tectonics guy? Because it took so long, you have ancient and modern. The modern one is:

    James E. Hansen.

    One of his first advocates was Al Gore. What did they call him? Ozone Man. The President of the United States selected him out for ridicule on national TV.

    M2 and his brethren are the ones who have fought “Plate Tectonics”. For 17 years they think the plates have not been moving, so “Plate Tectonics” is false.

  113. BBD says:

    It will be interesting to see how future history views Hansen and his critics.

  114. Infopath says:

    I’ve enjoyed this blog tremendously, ATTP. Thank you and all of the usual suspects.

    How about a post about physics and the golf swing?

    Here’s a pipeline you can support, ‘Pipeline’ Moe, one of the straightest hitters of all time…

    And a haunting tune…

  115. russellseitz says:

    Thanks Willard– pontification on electric tanks by sofa samurai is long overdue. .

  116. anoilman says:

    Any parting advice for Anthony Watts?

  117. Vinny Burgoo says:

    Nope, just some general advice to all involved in this ‘debate’:

  118. Vinny Burgoo says:

    Re John Hartz’s comment about the North Pacific, I recently read an old newspaper article (1906, I think) that included an incidental mention of walruses being seen in the northern part of the Alaskan panhandle, near Glacier Bay. I did a lot of googling at the time but was unable to find any info on the pre-20th century distribution of Pacific Walruses. How far south did they get? Any pointers?

  119. ATTP,

    A selfish wishful-thinking part of me is hoping that you will only semi-retire and become sort of a blogger emeritus … the odd post here and there when inclement weather turns the links into a bog. Something. But if full retirement, may you have an excellent one and may your endeavors be as excellent as this body of your present work. All the best wishes and congratulations.

  120. BBD says:


    Nope, just some general advice to all involved in this ‘debate’

    Couldn’t agree more. Work on your guitar technique while commenting. Saves time. I do like that little descending whole-tone-ish lick at 1:23. I’m going to nick it.

  121. BBD says:

    that included an incidental mention of walruses [squirrels] being seen in the northern part of the Alaskan panhandle, near Glacier Bay.

  122. Vinny Burgoo says:

    Panhandle walruses: 1898, not 1906. F E Baines.

  123. JCH says:

    I play acoustic guitar. I’m a Tony Rice bluegrass clone, meaning I do what he does, and am not the least bit ashamed of it:

  124. Mal Adapted says:

    Clem, in response to M2

    The first “claim” – your word not mine, I prefer assumption – was that we could extract and burn this stuff and gain the benefits thereof without obvious bad consequences.

    Clem’s got you, M2. Isn’t it axiomatic that “there’s no such thing as a free lunch”? If so, then shouldn’t you be required to support your assumption that fossil fuels have no costs that aren’t included in their market price?

  125. BBD says:


    I play acoustic guitar. I’m a Tony Rice bluegrass clone, meaning I do what he does, and am not the least bit ashamed of it

    Nor should you be. Tidy playing, that.

  126. BBD says:


    If you are suggesting that current record-breaking SSTs were matched by past SSTs when squirrels roamed the seas, you would need to explain *how*.

    This would involve denying the evidence that CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing and that CO2 forcing increase is by far the largest driver of net change in net forcing over the last century.

  127. anoilman says:

    BBD: Vinny is consistently weak on why he thinks what he thinks. ’cause its Saturday is as good a reason as any for him.

    Here’s global surface temperatures (for people who don’t think the climate includes volcanoes and weather). Yup… straight on up for the last 18 years..

    Here’s some nice hippy music.

  128. Vinny Burgoo says:

    BBD, I wasn’t. I was just wondering about the pre-firearms distribution of the Pacific Walrus.

    That’s all.

  129. Mark Ryan says:

    ATTP, even when I’ve been snowed under with work and a new baby, this is one of the handful of blogs I have still taken the time to check in on. I too hope you switch to more of an ’emeritus’ role than to withdraw altogether.

    It seems to me that one of the big challenges for anyone who blogs on climate is to work out who is a worthwhile audience, and then to maintain discipline over addressing that audience, and not being drawn into pointless quarrels with the ineducable few -who also happen to be among the most active participants on the net.

    The discussions I’ve most appreciated here have been ones where you begin with a question, which engages the community of genuine thinkers and seekers in the ATTP milieu. The tone of those particular discussions has been quite unusual within the global warming net culture. These have not been ‘debunking’ posts. There is of course a place for debunking, and you are very good at it, but I think the key to doing it for a long time is one’s personal temperament, much more than one’s ability.

    But leaving climateball to those who actually enjoy it needn’t mean leaving this blog.

    ATTP, perhaps you can think of this site more as a group of people you would kick ideas around with over a coffee or dinner…it sure beats banging your head against someone else’s wall on twitter and WUWT. You’re not in denial about ‘cultural cognition’ are you?

  130. Marlowe Johnson says:

    [Mod: A bit disrespectful]

  131. Eli Rabett says:


    An Oilman says: “Global Warming has been studied by 10s of thousands of actual in field experts.”

    Name them. Let’s see the list.

    Jim Prall has a little list

  132. anoilman says:

    Eli: Granted that’s just the most cited list. Since this is physics, chemistry, oceanography, geophysics, biology, history (yes.. historians),, etc… the feed in is from pretty much everywhere.

    To refute Global Warming one must first refute buffer chemistry, energy absorption in gasses, smog (tell LA its not real, go ahead), ocean heating, much of what we know of weather, oh migration of birds, how plants live… even when astronomical events occurred in the past. The list goes on.

    I know an oceanographer Dr Sus Tabata who got an award for his contributions to our understanding of global warming. He never explicitly studied it at all, he was analyzing currents around Vancouver Island. He started this work in the 1950s.

    Thesis and early work, note the strong tie in with notable libtards the Navy;
    Award 53 years later;

    The point is that there is a horrific amount of feed in work, and those eyes are watching what goes on with their data as well. All that has to get swept under the rug along with everything else for Global Warming to be wrong. IMO not bloody likely, and certainly not from a bunch of keyboard surfers.

  133. MikeH says:

    I see one of your regulars “Michael 2” is taking the opportunity to pile into Sou at Bob Tisdale’s new revenge blog. Unshackled by the requirements of decorum, he is laying into the “warmists”. Still clueless and sadly it appears lacking in any self respect.

    Sou has clearly shaken Tisdale up.

    “The comments are open…there’s no moderation, except for comments with 3 or more links.”
    That should go well.

  134. MikeH,
    I was going to avoid highlighting Bob’s new venture 🙂 but since you mention it, I also noticed M2 over there and was a little disappointed that he seems comfortable with what Bob is doing. I think it is a very questionable thing to do. If he really wanted to engage in a discussion he could easily do so and he could do so while still using Sou’s chosen pseudonym. The reason he can’t engage is because he clearly does not understand the basics and thinks that if he can plot a couple of graphs, he can then compare them and infer things from simple graphs, without considering the underlying physics. If he engaged properly he’d have to acknowledge his errors and probably realises this (or suspects this).

    I noticed that Roger Pielke Sr had included some things from WUWT and from Bob Tisdale in a recent talk. When I pointed out that it was hard to take someone seriously when they used WUWT and Bob Tisdale in a scientific talk, he suggested I should refute their work in the peer-reviewed literature. When I pointed out that I couldn’t really, because they hadn’t published anything, he responded with a suggestion that I respond in the comments on WUWT, as that was a form of peer-review.

    If Tisdale had any decency, he would stop using Sou’s actual name – especially as he has suggested that he values his privacy – and he’d consider that he doesn’t understand physics/science well enough to be doing what he is currently doing. He could even go and talk to actual scientists to learn where he’s going wrong. They probably are decent enough to talk with him, despite his inability to be decent himself.

  135. MikeH says:

    An example of comments at Bob Tisdale’s revenge blog which was initially promoted to the WUWT faithful.
    “Sou seems to be obsessed with the size of the eruption….. not sure why, Maybe this sheila ain’t seen an eruption quite in some time???”

    You seem to be in your element over there Michael 2.

  136. MikeH says:

    I debated mentioning it but this could potentially get quite nasty so it seems to me much better out in the open. Sou has an excellent grasp of climate science and she has humiliated quite a large number of the WUWT regulars by routinely demolishing their pseudo-science. The pick up in trolling of her own blog is an indication that they are furious and looking for revenge.

  137. MikeH,

    Sou has an excellent grasp of climate science and she has humiliated quite a large number of the WUWT regulars by routinely demolishing their pseudo-science. The pick up in trolling of her own blog is an indication that they are furious and looking for revenge.

    Yes, I agree. It is possible that ignoring something like this might help to minimise its impact, but there is some merit to highighting how unpleasant and devious such a venture is. I get the impression that not all who comment on WUWT agree with Bob’s new venture and so maybe there is a chance that he could be convinced that he’s crossed a line here and should tone things down.

  138. Rachel M says:

    It is possible that ignoring something like this might help to minimise its impact, but there is some merit to highighting how unpleasant and devious such a venture is.

    Go on, admit it: you’re dying to write a post 🙂

  139. Go on, admit it: you’re dying to write a post

    Maybe, but I’m going to go and wash the dishes instead 🙂

  140. Sou says:

    ATTP, I’ve been busy on work stuff these past few days, and missed your sort of/maybe announcement till now. Let me belatedly add my very best wishes for an enjoyable blog retirement, if that’s what you end up doing. Time with family is precious. And if you decide to continue blogging, even if only very occasionally, and on whatever subject – I see that I’m not the only one who’ll be delighted.

    Whatever you decide, you’ve made a lot of cyber-friends over the past few months, so you’ll have to find a way to stay in touch with us all. (That’s me putting on my bossy hat :))

  141. BBD says:

    He could write a blog with a comments section…


    M2 is a disgrace.

  142. anoilman says:

    Anders… you shouldn’t read if you won’t write. 🙂

    For all those WUWT fans out there remember this bit of advice;

  143. JCH says:

    At a time like this, I do not see how you can quit. Girma is back and he has a new hobby horse.

  144. Have just left the following polite response as the first comment on the “about” page of Tisdale’s new blog.

    Bob Tisdale, by clearly stating that you will not moderate this blog, you are inviting hateful personal and misanthropic comments on this blog. Predictably, we have seen the first examples of sexual harassment already. Do you want to settle the US climate debate this way?

    Please listen to the majority of WUWT who feel this blog is not a good idea and at least use moderation and remove the worst digressions, like every decent blog does. Your science on “the long-term after effects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content” should not need this, shouldn’t it?

  145. anoilman says:

    JCH: “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

    ― Mark Twain

  146. BBD says:

    Victor Venema



  147. Steven Mosher says:

    [Mod: About moderation]

  148. Steven Mosher says:

    [Mod: Agreed, thank you]

  149. Mackey says:

    Nobody can be more than in two minds about something than Steven Mosher.

  150. [Mod: Agreed, thank you]

    Meanwhile in the real world, TIm Ball is citing from Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf to explain to his faithful how it was possible that all climate scientists would conspire against humanity and are trying to install a socialist world government via the UN.

    Do also read the comments. Almost all WUWT-er are swallowing it hook line and sinker. One person links to his own post called “adolf-hitler-the-most-lied-about-man-in-history/”. I did not dare to click on it. Seems to be acceptable at WUWT. MCourtney is the local voice of some reason and ask people not to blame to “ethno-Bolsheviks”, but to honestly call them Jews.

    Enjoy. The self-deconstruction of the mitigation sceptics.

    Have asked Anthony Watts on twitter whether he read the post before publishing it. He did not respond yet. Would be nice to get a: I am Anthony Watts and I approve this message.

  151. Maybe Victor meant to link this.

    What an excellent example of the unpleasantness that drives away reasonable people like ATTP. Presumably, that’s the point.

  152. JCH says:

    I think all Girma has revealed is temperature goes up and down with sunspots, so I actually wish somebody would take a look at it.

  153. anoilman says:

    The denial community must be desperate. Isn’t Tim’s words a lot like jumping the shark?

    Anyways, Tim Ball should talk Canadian Scientists are muzzled, and aren’t allowed out in public without political minders. A concept I first heard about from Saddam Hussein.

  154. Marco says:

    I was stupid enough to search for the webpage that Victor did not dare go to. Brrrr…..
    Completely deluded.

  155. Andrew Dodds says:

    Screaming accusations of conspiracy and nefarious intent at climate scientists means that even a fully-informed reply just looks like ‘he said, she said’. And, of course, it avoids any discussion of facts or evidence..

  156. John Hartz says:

    According to reliable sources, this OP and thread is an experiment launched by neferious collaboration between ATTP, Rachel, John Cook, and Stephan Lewandowsky. They thank you for your active particpation.

  157. Joshua says:

    That’s quite a thread at WUWT. Perhaps the best example of the genre I’ve seen yet.

    I’m curious what Richard Betts and Tamsin Edwards think when the read something like that?

  158. Joshua,
    Yup, I also wonder what those who think dialogue with the likes of Watts is possible/worthwhile do think when they read such comment threads. I kind of hope they don’t read them, because if they do and still think it’s worth trying, then I rather lose faith in their judgement.

  159. Joshua says:

    It’s hard to believe that they would change their opinion about the value of the dialogue – because surely they’ve seen similar stuff before, if perhaps not quite in such a concentrated form.

    I would guess that they are critical, but split Watts off from the comments in threads like that. It is true that the thinking displayed in the hundreds of comments is not representative of the thinking of all “skeptics” – and so I can only assume that Richard and Tamsin don’t think that Watts and Ridley consider them to be Nazis as they sit down to break bread.

    But I am curious what their reasoning is. What do they think is to be gained from dialoging with prominent “skeptics” who deliberately add fuel to the “You’re a bigger sociopath” channel of discourse that characterizes the climate wars? There is simply no disputing, that I could see, that in putting up that post and providing a forum for the ensuing thread Watts is adding to the identity-aggressive behaviors.

  160. Joshua says:

    Maybe Richard will comment?

  161. One cannot look into Ridley’s or Watts’ heads, but at least Watts let’s this happen on his own blog. It seems as if he does not find it too disgusting. Matt Ridley apparently does not find this community thus disturbing that he forgoes writing guest essays for WUWT.

  162. Victor,
    Indeed, it’s quite hard to excuse it when it’s your own blog. Maybe writing guest essays is harder to criticise but it might be good if those who engaged on such blogs tried to insist on a certain standard of behaviour, otherwise it becomes easy to assume that they are comfortable with those kind of comment threads.

  163. Steve Bloom says:

    Well, Tamsin is engaging in therapy and Richard is running interference for the Met Office. I’m not sure how effective either is being, but those aren’t typical motivations. Taken on their own terms, probably both do justify climbing down into the cess pit.

  164. Michael 2 says:

    “he would stop using Sou’s actual name”

    [Mod – redacted]

  165. BBD says:

    You what? Unfuckingbelievable.

  166. Bobby says:

    [Mod : refers to a deleted comment.]

  167. [Mod : refers to a deleted comment]

  168. John Hartz says:

    [Mod : refers to a deleted comment.]

  169. Joshua says:

    [Mod : refers to a deleted comment.]

  170. anoilman says:

    [Mod : refers to a deleted comment.]

  171. May I suggest we close this thread and ATTP writes a new post for a friendly new start. 🙂

  172. I am missing Tamino, and I will miss you as well. Real science, well explained, is a valuable resource for those of us who aren’t in that league and need an occasional hard core assist to understand how to disassemble some of the dissembling of the ignoranti….

    Doesn’t happen all that often anymore (I haven’t heard a new argument in 5 years now), but it DOES happen.

    Maybe you could hang out on the links and if something comes up we can send up a bat signal or something 🙂 … because for the most part for most of the ignoranti and their arguments, we can get everything we need off of skeptical science and realclimate. Wish someone could keep Tamino happy too, but there’s a point here. You are entitled to a life too… and I think for most things we’re all just fine with the resources we have.

    I liked the “blogger emeritus” notion. Maybe some of those closer to you can tip you off when it might be useful for you to revisit the blog here?


  173. Victor,

    May I suggest we close this thread and ATTP writes a new post for a friendly new start.

    Maybe it is time that this thread ended, but I think I still need some more time. Enjoying not thinking about blogging – too much, at least 🙂

    Thanks. It is a pity that Tamino appears to have stopped too. I suspect that I will probably start doing something at some point in the future, but probably significantly reduced and somewhat more selective.

  174. John Hartz says:

    [Mod : About moderation]

  175. BBD says:


    I suspect that I will probably start doing something at some point in the future, but probably significantly reduced and somewhat more selective.

    That’s the spirit. Don’t let the tail wag the dog 😉

    * * *

    Modzilla has been in, I see 😉 That’s how it’s done, ATTP.

  176. miker613 says:

    I like this blog (though I seem to go into moderation these days). Not everyone is polite, but the host always has been. It makes a decent discussion possible, and I have been involved in several.

  177. anoilman says:

    Close the doors..

  178. Rachel M says:

    Ode to the blog

    The sentimentality on this thread is pathetic
    AT wants a break, his blog is too hectic
    I’ve had enough of this sobbing
    My heart is not throbbing
    The world will not stop
    And AT hasn’t yet shut up shop
    BBD will still get to be indignant
    when M2 says pig is malignant
    Willard’s cryptic comments will always delight
    And OilMan’s music is all right
    Joshua will say we’re as bad as them
    And Victor’s no longer in spam! (doesn’t quite rhyme sorry)
    Eli always talks in third person
    And Marlowe’s upset I forgot him
    Tol’s anti-consensus will never cease
    and Richard Betts just wants dinner in peace
    Mosher’s comments are often deleted
    I think he’s a little bit conceited
    Vinny just wants to bag greenies
    And Paul M is the world’s biggest meanie
    DumbSci knows it all
    There are wise words from Tall
    Bloom and Hartz want more moderation
    And Pekka and K&A require my full concentration
    There is always encouragement from Jsam
    And JohnRussell is the media man
    The two Andrews (A & D) always have something sensible to say
    John Mashey adds plenty of links to the fray
    WebHubT, I’ve moderated a few of his
    Let’s chat over coffee is what Barry says
    Foxgoose complains it’s an echo chamber
    and Richard E’s libido I’ll aways remember
    WMC, do get his name right
    And of course, AndThen, irritatingly polite.

    Apologies if I haven’t mentioned you. Feel free to add your own verse. And don’t worry, I won’t be giving up the day job to become a poet 🙂

  179. 🙂 Wow, great. We can ask Horatio Algeranon for the professional version. 😉 Had not realised how big this community is.

    I thought the nice thing of English is that almost everything rhymes. That that is also why there is so much English music.

  180. Tim Ball’s Hitler post is outrageous and anyone who endorses it loses the right to be offended at the use of ‘denier’.

  181. Marlowe Johnson says:

    Rachel if I wasn’t feeling sad and neglected before well…

    Richard that presumes that one has the right to be offended in the first place. I, for one, make no such concessions.

  182. Eli Rabett says:

    So, Eli is chopped liver:)

  183. Steve Bloom says:


    [Mod : About moderation]

    is also about moderation.

    How can we know how many times it’s been deleted and replaced by an identical passage, and how long that process might continue? Could it be happening again even as I write this?


  184. The happiness engineer strikes again! Thanks Rachel. I didn’t know you were going to make me smile. 😉

  185. Joshua says:

    Richard –

    How about some direct criticism of Watts for putting up the post? Whether he makes a statement of endorsement or not, putting up the post in and of itself is a form of endorsement.

    Watt’s, like so many “skeptics,” stokes these flames and then cries of concerns about “alarmism.” What could possibly be more alarmist than comparing more or less the entire climate science community to Nazis?

    Criticizing “alarmism” is fine with me, but it’s hypocritical to on the one hand be concerned about alarmism and on the other hand stoke alarmism.

    So, again, how about some direct criticism of Watts for putting up the post, and direct criticism of Watts for the hypocrisy?

  186. Rachel M says:

    Eli and Marlow –

    I’ve just added you both to the poem 🙂

  187. anoilman says:

    “We better get going. They come at night… mostly.”

  188. I’ve been trying to think of a way to include “and Richard B would just like dinner in peace” into Rachel’s poem, but I can’t think of a suitable line with which it can rhyme. Any ideas? 🙂

  189. Rachel M says:

    How about –

    “I want dinner in peace” says Richard Betts
    While the top hundred Richard we will never forget

  190. Rachel M says:

    AndThen has come up with this on Twitter –

    Tol’s anti-consensus will never cease,
    and Richard Betts just wants dinner in peace.

    So I’ve added it to the poem 🙂

  191. anoilman says:

    Are you gonna sing it?

  192. Willard says:


    The audit never ends.

  193. anoilman says:

    Willard, maybe if you got data from audit event horizon, it would help clear all this up…

  194. jsam says:

    Thank you, Rachel, for your encouragement. :-}

  195. Joshua says:

    BTW – Rachel:

    ==> “Joshua will say we’re as bad as them”

    Their poetry is far worse!

  196. Rachel M says:

    You’re welcome, jsam.

    And I’m very happy to hear it, Joshua 🙂

  197. Marlowe Johnson says:

    Thanks Rachel. Now that ATTP has called it a day I suppose I will as well. And since no thread is really complete without a dog gif…

  198. Ohflow says:

    Thank you for your awesome blog so far, and for the mostly civil discussions that have taken place here. For me it has been the most moderate and controlled discussions Ive seen on climate sites.
    Also as an advice for therapeutic activities you could always try discgolf, its a great family sport aswell.

  199. John Hartz says:

    Recommended reading:>Communicating Climate Change: A Story of Apocalypse, Money and Mind-Games by David Saddington, The Huffington Post, Nov 26, 2014

    Saddington’s article includes videos as well as text.

  200. jsam says:

    Tamsin and Richard Betts find no favours amongst the baying crowd. Watts posts and then backs away.M2 can be found cheerleading.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.