66 Responses to Second Open Thread

  1. el gordo November 10, 2010 at 10:27 am #

    Would it be possible to have a guest post from Bob Carter? I need to know more about Plan B.

  2. spangled drongo November 10, 2010 at 6:12 pm #

    One of the best forms of Plan B is nuclear energy and converting coal seam and nat gas into locally available diesel fuel.
    This would take a lot of pressure off future transport, farm fuel costs and water, but producing anything in this country today, particularly stuff involving complex technology and green issues, is nearly impossible.
    You get the feeling the country has to decend into despair before any sense will prevail and sadly, by then the costs will be out of control.

  3. spangled drongo November 10, 2010 at 6:37 pm #

    Instead of turning North Stradbroke Island into another Fraser Is [dingo nursery] by removing all the sand mining it would make a perfect site for a NP and desal plant.

    And NP does not stand for national park.

  4. el gordo November 10, 2010 at 8:15 pm #

    Desalination plants around the country have become white elephants, now that the rains have arrived on time. Who is responsible for this short sighted and expensive debacle? Flummery, for one.

  5. toby robertson November 10, 2010 at 8:22 pm #

    Wouldnt it be nice/ re-assuring to here our politicains and scientists admitting that until a new technology is found we will not be able to cut global emissions and that any action is merely a “platitude”. By raising the prices of everything however we will be providing the incentive for more research and development that will, we better hope ( since fossil fuels are finite) enable us to develop an alternative source of energy.

    A clear expression of the costs and benefits of funding current “renewables” and alternatives vs funding new R and D should be mandatory. It should also be mandatory for pollies and scientists to explain that nothing we do matters in this country, and then let the people vote on what action they desire. I for one dont like the morals of pollies and firmly believe that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I also believe sadly that science is used dishonestly to sell us many things and has become massively politisised. Hence the importance of sceptics.

    Would a billion dollar prize or more be enough incentive for the worlds brilliant minds to actually find us an alternative? Prizes certainly worked in helping us to explore the planet by air and ocean.

    I think Nuclear a fine idea in Australia if we are stupid enough to decide not to burn our coal…but do we want them in countries that are “volatile” for political and environmental reasons ( ie in earthquake or volcanic areas?)

  6. gavin November 11, 2010 at 7:27 am #

    Toby; cutting back on power at every level is a simple enough measure up front!

    SD; since we are now in a typical UK spring (climate change) I’ve been quite busy fixing old storm water drains. Did you know all tree roots still drive upstream even in drought?

    El; climate change can be measured in various other ways besides bear swims. In my debunking links file is this blog and it’s been running a while at this site.

    http://daveslandslideblog.blogspot.com/

    But you can Google – G. Winter, N. Dixon, J. Wasowski et al for the latest info and it seems wind is a major factor in gaugeing the threat from landslide associated with climate change as percieved by real scientists and modelers

  7. el gordo November 11, 2010 at 8:06 am #

    Bob Carter has a few words to say about the indoctrination of our children.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/inconvenient-nonsense-infiltrates-the-classroom/story-e6frg6zo-1225951336015

  8. toby robertson November 11, 2010 at 8:30 am #

    Yes Gavin, but it wont actually lower emissions will it? Not while the rest of the world is trying to catch up with our living standards.
    No harm in reducing waste, being more efficient etc. In fact I would love to see legislation surrounding packaging, dirty public transport vehicles spewing out diesel fumes, minimizing waste from electricity distribution etc. All will save money.

    But do not con us with wind and solar as being a viable energy source at a reasonable price. And do not con us that even if we use only these that we will be saving the planet.

    So many things get done to be “green” that actually cause more waste and damage;
    think smart meters, cash for clunkers, solar panel pollution during production, ensuring that all white and electrical goods are guaranteed for 5-10 years and can be fixed at a price that makes it worthwhile etc ete.

    Without new technology we are kidding ourselves and merely pandering to a green ideology that in my opinion causes more harm and hardship than good. The western world is far less polluted, has more trees and more people that care about the environment than 50, 100 years ago.

  9. toby robertson November 11, 2010 at 8:33 am #

    Gavin sorry I added “ensuring that all white and electrical goods are guaranteed for 5-10 years and can be fixed at a price that makes it worthwhile” to the wrong paragraph, it should of course be added to my comments on where i would like to see legislation for greater efficiencies etc.

  10. spangled drongo November 11, 2010 at 9:08 am #

    Plan A so far:

    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/11bn-wasted-on-solar-power-20101110-17nrh.html

    gav, you must either be very young or have selective memory. We have had similar [and wetter and cooler] springs in my lifetime.

  11. Johnathan Wilkes November 11, 2010 at 12:13 pm #

    spangled drongo
    We have had similar [and wetter and cooler] springs in my lifetime.

    One only has to look up days lost in the construction industry due to wet weather.
    Far better indication than the BOM any day, it costs money so it’s accurate!

  12. spangled drongo November 11, 2010 at 2:18 pm #

    Desal plants that run on coal-fired electricity or other FF are not smart unless there are no other alternatives.
    Australia has many alternatives and one I submitted to Peter Beattie some years ago was 1,000 ton disp silos at sea with 100 ton disp doughnut “collars” that, with every passing wave, drive a pump which accumulates pressure in excess of 70 bar that will then desalinate seawater. These silos, anchored close off-shore along the coast, near major population centres, and connected by flexible pipe to shore, would provide continuous fresh water without any electricity required.
    This is low-maint, high energy, back-of-the-axe technology that is needed for working in a hostile marine environment.
    No answer, was the stern reply.

  13. gavin November 11, 2010 at 7:36 pm #

    SD; perhaps I should remind you, as a veteran “Qualcast” pilot (push mower) and keen weekend gardener from the best the best dairy country downunder, I can recall what makes a flush spring season, a good rain every other day and thats something I know Canberra can’t expect year after year.

    What,s the bet, your hungry SEQ and tide based power won’t stall the moon even a little? Solar on the other hand can’t change orbits or turn our gen gear into lime covered beach roughage.

    For those truly interested in alternatives; there was a guy on Radio National this morning calling for a 200 % solar grid with 24 x 7 energy storage based on molten salt. He also said it was off the shelf technology!

    Toby; In my retirement I spend most weeks trying to recycle a large range of hardware items from junk sales. What often defeats my efforts is that constant barrage of cheap imports, however I can say after working with hand tools that were made post ww2, those that still carry a catalogue No are most likely to go on working another 50 years. Btw, I sharpen in daylight.

    Efficiencys must begin with a good concept of both life span and recycling ability. Growth can be a dirty word in some circumstances, e.g. a box of say 30 Sutton high speed drill bits is about 100 + dollars and a big kit of 300 assorted namless cutters is only half that??? Who is bound to use them all?

    Russia on the other hand would rather sell us a giant mining machine than a ship load of domestic junk so I say we leave ourselves open only by lowering our expectations. Building up local industry was something I was once very keen on, but it meant maintaining a high degree of independence as well as having the right gear for the job.

    Tooling up is a craft in it’s self, so is contingency planning. Wet weather is a hazzard sure, and I often need to go to BoM warts n all despite your carry on here.

  14. toby robertson November 11, 2010 at 7:53 pm #

    Gav, so are we agreed most of what we are told and is done is a con and a waste of time and effort? Do you agree without new technology we will not reduce emissions? Do you agree that even if we turned off everything in this country the planet wouldnt notice?
    Are you equally disgusted at the lies and cons we are fed on a daily basis all in the name of “green” and CAGW?

    Or would you rather avoid what is so obvious because you believe in platitudes and moral gestures and reality doesnt fit your paradigm? ( for someone(you) who appears to be so practical I find this amazing!)

  15. spangled drongo November 11, 2010 at 8:58 pm #

    gav, mine was wave powered, not tide. So it might stall the wind but not the moon.

    But a 200% solar grid would probably stall the sun as well as your dairy farms, crops and general ecology [not to mention the economy] and then even with molten salt energy storage, in this wet weather it would still run out of power in less than 2 days.

    In parts of Qld, in wet years it rains for 40 days and 40 nights then after that the wet weather sets in. Not good for solar.

  16. Neville November 11, 2010 at 9:43 pm #

    I think you blokes are wasting your time trying to get Gav to see sense, I can assure you it won’t work.

    There is nothing we can do that will reduce co2 emissions because from now on 75% of GHG emissions will be produced by developing countries.

    In this recent video Prof. Roger Pielke jnr states that the entire first world could go and live on Mars and human emissions will still increase until some new technology becomes attractive and cheap enough to make countries want to change.

    He makes many factual points in this video but the bit about China building 20 new Heathrows in the next few years is mind bogling and of course as both Wong and Ferguson have said recently China will be opening a new C/ Fired power station every week until at least 2020.

    But if you have the time and common sense this lecture proves the folly of the first world having any influence on future GHG emissions, just very simple arithmetic.

    http://mediasite.engr.wisc.edu/Mediasite/Viewer/?peid=54a04f06c40b41b8acbd0e55365a45c41d

    By the way leave the video in small size and you can then watch the very interesting power point display.

  17. toby robertson November 11, 2010 at 10:28 pm #

    Sadly Neville I know you are right from prior discussions…but we can but hope one day the bloody obvious will sink in.

    I will look at your link tom, thx.

    It amazes and horrifies me how little common sense there is in the world. And when apparently practical people like Gavin can not see this…… it is a real worry.

  18. gavin November 12, 2010 at 7:11 am #

    Toby; I sleep real easy at night and hope you do too.

    SD; aaah yes, wave motion indeed and it works best under a darkened sky; so with the salt from your desal plant out in the bay as thermal flux we can develop a system that links with the wind farm up at your place and do without carbon or nuclear power forever.

    Btw; we had Senator Milne on am today discussing the options (very wisely imo) prior to the summit with our foward thinking biz people.

  19. el gordo November 12, 2010 at 7:19 am #

    The German Greens were the first to gain real political clout on climate change and the zealots will not let go without a fight.

    http://notrickszone.com/2010/11/11/branding-of-science-dissenters-has-begun-clearing-the-path-to-a-climate-science-pogrom/

  20. el gordo November 12, 2010 at 8:53 am #

    Judith Curry is to get a hearing in the US, which should go a long way in undermining CAGW. If it really is a rational discussion on climate change, we can’t lose.

    http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/10/uncertainty-gets-a-seat-at-the-“big-table”/

  21. toby robertson November 12, 2010 at 10:07 am #

    Gav sadly i do not always sleep easy because the idiots pushing their CAGW agenda worry me and get me worked up and I worry about the dogma being fed to chidlren in schools to propogate these lies and distortions and what is probbaly a load of crap! I also worry for my own children.
    I NOTICE AS USUAL YOU AVOIDED MY QUESTIONS?
    DO YOU THINK ANYTHING WE ARE DOING WILL CHANGE TEMPERATURE?

    this letter says so much better everything most of us here have been saying for years. I particularly like ut when he says ” when the facts change I change my mind”….do you?
    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/best-shot

  22. spangled drongo November 12, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

    No gav, not in the bay, in the ocean where the swells go on forever and any excess salt is not a problem.
    But there could never be enough salt to provide base load for wind or solar.

    BTW, always check the lands on those second hand Sutton’s drills. They’ve usually done a million miles and good lands have a driving force like the crest of a wave.

  23. Neville November 12, 2010 at 2:25 pm #

    That reply by Ridley to Mackay is about as good as it gets and I’m happy to find he’s using many of the references I’ve used here over the recent past to prove the nonsense of unprecedented global warming trotted out by the ipcc and mindlessly parroted by Gav and Luke. ( +0.7c over the last 100+ years is an historically tiny increase compared to other periods during the Holocene and after the end of a minor ice age )

    His admission that he and the other fantasists were wrong about the effect of acid rain says a lot about him as well or as you quote him “when the facts change I change my mind.”

  24. el gordo November 12, 2010 at 4:53 pm #

    Classic La Nina

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/widespread-rain-expected-across-five-states-20101112-17qhy.html

    Useless Desal plants, somebody is to blame.

  25. spangled drongo November 12, 2010 at 5:29 pm #

    105 year summary of Japanese tide gauges. Nothing going on here:

    http://www.data.kishou.go.jp/shindan/a_1/sl_trend/sl_trend_graph.png

  26. spangled drongo November 12, 2010 at 5:34 pm #

    When I say “nothing going on” I should have added that it tracks the temp fluctuations of the NH for the period very well.

  27. el gordo November 12, 2010 at 7:39 pm #

    Sea level change is more volatile than Gavin ever imagined.

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0133f5c2f424970b-pi

  28. spangled drongo November 12, 2010 at 7:49 pm #

    AIT in Australian school curriculum. English–not science. Should be Sci-Fi.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/inconvenient-nonsense-infiltrates-the-classroom/story-e6frg6zo-1225951336015

    But you can be sure they’ll balance it with the GGW Swindle. Won’t they?

  29. el gordo November 13, 2010 at 6:54 am #

    James Delingpole wins the Bastiat prize for on-line journalism. Apparently it was his revelations on Climategate which won him success and he had this to say.

    ‘Why does the Bastiat Prize matter so much? Because it’s about the only prize left which celebrates those true journalistic virtues of scepticism and inquiry which our libtard MSM [mainstream media] has all but abandoned in its eagerness to suck up to whichever bunch of statist shysters currently happen to be in power. It’s about free markets, about small government, about liberty.’

  30. spangled drongo November 13, 2010 at 6:33 pm #

    Another reason why warming is not a problem.

    If this keeps up we’ll have no one to argue with.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/11/climate-change-forests-water-amazon

  31. el gordo November 14, 2010 at 6:56 am #

    I like Guy Pearce as an actor, but on closer inspection he appears to be an intellectual lightweight. Since the beginning of global warming alarmism the world is consuming twice as much coal.

    http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-coal-bosses-plan-mine-coal-sell-coal-repeat-until-rich-20101113-17rv5.html

  32. Neville November 14, 2010 at 1:12 pm #

    Here are all the charts you could ever want to argue against trying to fix the CAGW nonsense.
    It’s all about China and the developing world from now until 2030 and beyond, the first world won’t even make a small dent.

    http://rainforests.mongabay.com/09-carbon_emissions.htm

    See top left for more detailed info on individual countries.

  33. Neville November 14, 2010 at 1:22 pm #

    El Gordo see the chart on coal in the above link, China’s use will be huge from now into the future.

  34. Neville November 14, 2010 at 2:31 pm #

    Luke and Gav here’s an easy way to make $10,000, I mean you’ve argued forever on this blog how easy it is to prove the science of CAGW, well let’s see you really do something about it.
    Surely if you and your mates are not full of wee wees and hot air you’ll take up the challenge and make yourselves a nice little earner. That’s unless you’re a mob of corrupt liars and fraudsters and run from a fair dinkum challenge like the jellybacks I think you are.

    http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/10k-climate-challenge.html

  35. el gordo November 15, 2010 at 9:44 am #

    Christopher Booker says the carbon market is dead, the Chicago Exchange has stopped trading. I’ll have to follow this up.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8131383/The-climate-change-scare-is-dying-but-do-our-MPs-notice.html

    Luke’s pension should be paid in carbon credits.

  36. el gordo November 15, 2010 at 9:48 am #

    Yep, its over Luke.

    http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/ezra_levant/2010/11/12/16110531.html

  37. el gordo November 15, 2010 at 1:03 pm #

    Over three-quarters of Scientific America readers think ‘natural processes are causing climate change’.

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/553695/201011121850/A-New-Consensus.htm

  38. Luke November 15, 2010 at 3:16 pm #

    Well goobers if it’s over – why are you still arguing? As for old mate’s $10K – what bullshit – you make a good case – he says “nuh”. So you’d spend more than $10K in legals getting it out of the deadbeat.

    But we all know how much denialists have squatted in the past when asked to bet.

    http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/betting-summary.html

  39. el gordo November 15, 2010 at 4:58 pm #

    They are still selling carbon credits to farmers and graziers in Oz. Did someone mention due diligence?

  40. spangled drongo November 15, 2010 at 5:00 pm #

    Didn’t the IPCC say it was “very likely” [95% chance] that humans were responsible?

    That’s 19:1 on, not even money!

    Now Luke, if you want to stand by that, I’ll take your wager.

    Put $950 in Jen’s tip jar and I’ll put in $50 and the winner collects a grand.

    Now what could be fairer than that?

  41. toby robertson November 15, 2010 at 5:58 pm #

    Luke I tried to have a bet with them and they turned me down! more blog based rubbish?

  42. toby robertson November 15, 2010 at 6:13 pm #

    I was happy with 10.1, they wanted even or nothing ( so not even willing to negotiate). Now if they are so sure and so cocky they should have taken the bet IMHO. Given that I think temperature swings about it seems very unreasonable to expect me to make an “evens” bet when they are so convinced of the science and at the time I was in my infancy of scepticism.
    They are full of “it” as well……

  43. el gordo November 15, 2010 at 6:31 pm #

    Take evens for a two degree C drop in temperatures in New Hampshire within a decade.

  44. toby robertson November 15, 2010 at 6:40 pm #

    EG, apart from the obvious “how do we tell”, i reckon i would be on the other side of your bet. 2c is a bloody big drop and at evens i d sure fancy my chances.

  45. Luke November 15, 2010 at 6:47 pm #

    Pathetic – as you should (maybe do) know – you have to frame these bets as X% warmer in a decade (and strike out if major volcanism) … People have tried to frame thoughtful bets.

  46. el gordo November 15, 2010 at 7:00 pm #

    Toby, I have faith in Archibald. You’re correct in thinking its a big drop, but with an extended period of winter negative NAO it may be achievable. The Brits bet on the weather, which is where the real money changes hands.

    Luke, as I said on another thread, politicians are clueless and vulnerable on carbon credits.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/minter-ellison-partner-to-chair-federal-panel-on-carbon-credit/story-fn6s5d0v-1225948298085

  47. toby robertson November 15, 2010 at 7:41 pm #

    Luke if your “pathetic” is directed at me i would suggest you direct it at your friendly jules and james. i was open to the bet in principle and happy to negotiate the actual terms/ requirements. they were not interested. i offered theysaid no. they are just more “blog rubbish” as you would put it.

    EG ive read archibalds stuff and he may be right, but as you acknowledge “it may be achievable”..is why at an evens bet i would in principle take the bet.

    i had the cash to stump up 10k in advance in atrust 5 years ago, ive since spent all my cash on my new house so i dont have a lazy 10k sitting around to tie up in a bet anymore….

  48. el gordo November 15, 2010 at 7:50 pm #

    Landbrokes are offering 7/1 on a white Xmas at Big Ben. Too risky, this winter may be milder than the past few years.

  49. spangled drongo November 15, 2010 at 8:15 pm #

    What odds on what we know with confidence?

    http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/14/what-we-know-with-confidence/

  50. el gordo November 16, 2010 at 10:26 pm #

    Mike Hulme in the Guardian 16 November 2010.

    ‘The events of the past year have finally buried the notion that scientific predictions about future climate change can be certain or precise enough to force global policy-making.’

    Too complex, not precise enough. The chief modeler thinks its chaos out there.

  51. el gordo November 17, 2010 at 6:48 am #

    And the alarmist nonsense about the Gulf oil spill, it seems most of the coral is fine and the fish stocks are going gangbusters since the fishermen have been locked-up in port.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/253233

  52. el gordo November 17, 2010 at 8:19 am #

    More good news, the early bear gets the goose. A paper just published by Rockwell and Gormezano illustrates how an increase in geese numbers, because of a warming Arctic, has given the polar bears a new lease on life.

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/11/05/good-news-for-polar-bears-goose-eggs-on-the-menu/#more-454

  53. spangled drongo November 17, 2010 at 7:53 pm #

    “That’s yet another indication, like the vast clouds of oil-eating bacteria that live in those seeps and that disposed of the spill, of how deeply hydrocarbons are entwined in the Gulf’s ecosystem.”

    eg, Greenpeace et al just hate these sorta facts.

  54. el gordo November 18, 2010 at 6:05 pm #

    I feel a warm glow inside at the thought of those oil-eating bacteria, nature is very robust.

    A recent paper by Vladimir Petoulhov et al. is pushing the argument that the spate of cold NH winters, which we have been experiencing, is due to global warming.

    http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6AF1I1.htm

    It needs refuting.

  55. el gordo November 19, 2010 at 9:28 am #

    In search of the Petoulhov paper on the Barents-Kara Sea, I became sidetracked by another alarming story.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101025152249.htm

    Global warming is predicted to bring more intense storms. In the NH it will be a regional issue, but in the SH we’ll have intense storms all year round.

    If global cooling replaced global warming we would get the same result. This must be what Luke means by ‘untangling’.

  56. el gordo November 19, 2010 at 10:24 am #

    There was a rapid drop in NH sea surface temperatures between 1968 and 1972 of about 0.3 °C and they don’t know what caused it. Then from 1979 to 2001 the jet streams in both hemispheres shifted towards the poles.

    Is there a connection?

  57. spangled drongo November 19, 2010 at 12:23 pm #

    Well, we knew this anyway:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/its_all_about_money/

  58. spangled drongo November 19, 2010 at 2:53 pm #

    “A recent paper by Vladimir Petoulhov et al. is pushing the argument that the spate of cold NH winters, which we have been experiencing, is due to global warming.”

    eg,

    Lindzen was repeating at the recent congressional pow wow that if AGW is greater at the poles than the tropics [which is what the GCMs predict] then future weather events will be milder.

    But this way we can have it all!

  59. el gordo November 19, 2010 at 6:52 pm #

    It was my understanding, looking at natural climate history, warmer times were less volatile. It has a lot to do with the jet stream.

    http://www.stormsurfing.com/cgi/display_alt.cgi?a=natla_250

    The blocking anticyclones at high latitudes are of particular interest because where they are situated will help forecasters. The classic example of 1963 where an anticyclone off the coast of Oregon and another just south of Iceland caused minor havoc in Europe.

    In one month during that miserable winter Poland had a negative anomaly of -10 C, while western Greenland was ten degrees warmer. Lamb said the ‘overall effect in 1963 was that the mean temperature of the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere did not deviate appreciably from the climate normal.’

    For the people on the ground it felt like abrupt climate change.

  60. el gordo November 20, 2010 at 6:03 am #

    Ryan Maue got to the bottom of the Petoulhov paper and said the conclusions are very speculative to say the least. This is the case with many of these types of climate scenario experiments.

    ‘Step one is to find a phenomenon that goes against the AGW consensus: here it is a cold winter in the Northern Hemisphere. Step two is to construct an experiment which explains the phenomena in the context of AGW. Step three is to connect step 2 to step 1 and issue a press release containing facts not in evidence.’

  61. spangled drongo November 20, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

    Intended consequences. The Greens get their way:

    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/212160/Winter-deaths-to-soar-as-5-million-homes-struggle-to-pay-fuel-bills

  62. spangled drongo November 20, 2010 at 4:08 pm #

    A few bon mots from CR on the aniversary of climategate:

    “Any Crown prosecutor would slaver over the evidence against Jones. The leaked emails conclusively proved Jones admitted his criminal intent. Not only did he implicate himself he asked his colleagues to conspire with him to destroy key data because he said he would destroy everything in his possession rather than comply with the law.

    Indeed, when the police went in they found that Jones had carried out his threat- all the metadata – the calculations used to dishonestly ‘homogenize’ cooler raw temperatures into warmer ‘official’ data were gone. The ‘Jones dog ate it.’ What more proof does it take get the British government to admit that climate crimes were committed?”

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6674

  63. el gordo November 20, 2010 at 9:28 pm #

    Guest post by Bob Tisdale over at Watts: ENSO RULES!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/19/integrating-enso-multidecadal-changes-in-sea-surface-temperature/

  64. Luke November 21, 2010 at 9:21 am #

    Do have a really good tug Spanglers – one year on – ya got nuttin …. denialists know that the big ruse didn’t work.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/11/one-year-later/

    Meanwhile it ain’t getting colder.

    ENSO rules – idiotic ! Publish it or go the way of McLean et al. Giggle.

  65. el gordo November 21, 2010 at 12:38 pm #

    The satellites tell us its cooling from sea surface to the top of the atmosphere. Take a wander and see for yourself.

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

  66. Travis December 20, 2010 at 6:05 am #

    For an unknown reason I have this site still bookmarked. Scheller posts something with no facts yet again. The loyal followers jump off the cliff after him. Now I remember why this site is still bookmarked – my place of solid laughs and amusement RAOTFL!!!!!! Keep at it..please, LOL!

Website by 46digital