Mar 172008


At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.

This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:

Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.

Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.

Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.

(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)


10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”

  1. Here are some of the most recent comments, scroll down to continue. To see previous contributions click here.

    10 June 2008 at 15:58
    Heh, Heh, Heh……………………
    Anecdotal Climate Roundup
    Seattle has coldest first week of June since 1891
    Seattle just experienced the coldest first week of June, according to climate records dating to 1891, said Cliff Mass, University of Washington metrologist. Both 1999 and 2008 share the record, with 1917 falling in second place, he said. “Just wait until tomorrow,” he said, when temperatures are going to be even colder.
    Story here:
    Missoula water park closing due to cold weather ‘to protect children from hypothermia’
    Missoula water park closing for week due to cold weather
    Associated Press – June 9, 2008 8:24 PM ET MISSOULA, Mont. (AP) – The Missoula Parks and Recreation Department has decided to close the Splash Montana Waterpark this week, because cold weather is forecast.
    Story here:
    Lobsterman: ““Global warming is having the opposite effect for us”
    Costs up, prices down
    Water temperature played a big part in the last minute scramble that closed the season with temperatures falling so low the lobsters were not crawling.
    In order for the lobsters to crawl into a trap the water has to be at least over the 40-degree mark and Crouse said the spring season has hardly any times when the conditions are right.
    “Our spring is just not viable,” he said. “Global warming is having the opposite effect for us and we are seeing the temperatures of the water stay lower for longer.”
    Story here:
    Aspen to reopen this June for Skiing
    Story here:

    10 June 2008 at 16:10
    Now here is a sharp marketing campaign!
    Book Your Vacation Now Before The Ocean Evaporates!
    Ocean City, Md.
    The print ad, which takes up most of a newspaper page, shouts, “The Ocean Is Evaporating!”
    TV and Internet spots warn that the world’s oceans will disappear – in about a billion years.
    But what appear to be public service announcements this week, delivered with a fake sternness by Mayor Richard W. Meehan, are actually an ad campaign to encourage visits to the resort town.
    “We’re advising citizens to book their Ocean City getaway now, before the ocean evaporates,” Meehan says in the commercials; the image blurs and jumps like an old newsreel.
    The ads ran Sunday and Monday in TV markets from Richmond to New York. The Internet version is at The print version ran Monday in The Washington Post.
    The ads are part of a $1 million campaign designed for the Ocean City Department of Tourism by MGH of Owings Mills.
    Earlier this year, while searching for ideas, one staffer read about a study in the Monthly Notices of the British Royal Astronomical Society.
    The study described how, over hundreds of millions of years, the heat of the sun will steadily increase. After about a billion years, the oceans will boil themselves dry, for reasons separate from climate change.
    A light went on inside creative director John Patterson’s head – an enormous, scorching light. If the oceans boil, he figured, that “probably pretty much ruins things” for Ocean City. It was the start of a joke.
    Meehan said he felt a little funny making such frightening pronouncements in jest. “Was it kind of Orson-Welles-ish? Yeah,” he said, adding that the ads have generated mostly positive responses.
    Unfortunately, Ocean City’s problems are likely to begin long before the oceans disappear. One of the study’s authors, Klaus-Peter Schrder of the University of Guanajuato in Mexico, said in an e-mail to The Post that the earth’s warming will make the oceans to expand before they boil. That will turn Ocean City into just Ocean, he says
    “That beach in the advert will disappear long before the 1 billion years are up,” he said.

    10 June 2008 at 19:25
    Hi David,
    You wrote: “You misunderstand what Spencer actually accomplished, but let’s let that pass, hmm?” No, David, let’s not “let that pass”. I understood fully what Spencer accomplished, and so did he. You apparently are not aware of the major significance of Spencer’s work, which will have a critical impact on feedback assumptions fed into GCMs. Just so you can understand it better, I will repeat:
    “What Spencer has done is to validate, based on physical observations, Lindzen’s “infrared iris” hypothesis, thereby proving the validity of a strong negative feedback from clouds. Spencer has estimated that this negative feedback is equivalent to around three-fourths of the currently assumed and model programmed 3K climate sensitivity (or about -2.2K). “
    “Your other questions are ones you ought to be able to answer yourself. I’ll just mention that the water vapor in the lower stratosphere that Prather brought up is (1) above the usual hydrological mechanisms and (2) may well be the result of the decomposition of methane. In any case, at that altitude it certainly has a strong postive global warming effect.”
    Sure I can answer them myself. But it appears that you cannot and you won’t like my answer.
    Prather does not know what has caused this apparent increase in stratospheric water vapor. He does not say that it has anything to do with increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, nor that it has anything to do with the resulting fractional degree C increase in the “globally averaged mean land and sea surface temperature anomaly” (as measured by weather stations, some of which are suspect), the even smaller “globally averaged mean land and sea tropospheric temperature anomaly” (as measured by satellites with spot checks from balloons) or the negative “globally averaged mean land and sea stratospheric temperature anomaly” (satellites). He also provides no evidence that this increase in stratospheric water vapor has an anthropogenic origin.
    It is just one of those many unknowns about our climate and what makes it change that we have to accept. But to put it into the “hopper” of “anthropogenic greenhouse warming” is absurd, as it would be absurd to assume that it is part of a “positive feedback” resulting from anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
    Sorry, David, you have not brought any sound evidence based on physical observations for your assumed feedback of 3K, so lets “let that pass”, OK?

    10 June 2008 at 23:06
    Hi David,
    Just to summarize our exchange on “climate sensitivity” (following a doubling of CO2), and elaborate on it, I am quoting from the introduction to James E. Hanson’s testimony to U.S. House of Representatives, April 26, 2007.
    “The Earth’s history shows that climate is remarkably sensitive to global forcings. Positive feedbacks dominate. This has allowed the entire planet to be whipsawed between climate states. Huge natural climate changes, from glacial to interglacial states, have been driven by very weak, very slow forcings, and positive feedbacks.”
    This rather somber estimation of how the Earth’s climate responds to natural (or anthropogenic) “forcings” has been put into serious question by the physical observation of a strong negative feedback from clouds in a study by Roy Spencer, published after the Hansen testimony.
    As the ocean warms, low-altitude clouds increase. These clouds reflect incoming solar radiation, thereby acting to cool the planet. At the same time, high altitude clouds decrease. These clouds absorb outgoing infrared radiation, which leads to warming. So the combined effect is one of strong negative feedback.
    These observations validated the “infrared iris” hypothesis of Richard Lindzen.
    Climatologists believe a doubling of CO2 levels could lead to a temperature increase of 3C, based on the hypothesis that positive feedbacks predominate (as suggested by Hansen). At a suggested climate sensitivity of 4.2K (with 2xCO2), Hansen’s assumption is even more alarmist than the “consensus” position (as might be expected).
    You quoted Pierrehumbert: “’Clouds have both a warming and a cooling effect on climate. High-altitude clouds have a warming effect, since they strongly reduce OLR either by absorption and emission, or by scattering, of infrared radiation. Clouds at any altitude have a cooling in?uence, through increasing the planetary albedo in the solar spectrum. The net effect of clouds depends on how the competition between these two factors plays out.”
    This was wisely put. Now that we have a better idea of how the climate system really responds following Spencer’s observations on clouds, it is probable that the more conservative estimate of climate sensitivity (at 2xCO2) of Shaviv and Veizer at 0.75C is more realistic than the “consensus” position prior to the Spencer study (or, even less, the Hansen estimate).
    Hope this clears up the “water feedback” part of climate sensitivity, so we can move on to other topics.

    David B. Benson
    10 June 2008 at 23:44
    manacker — Actually read
    which includes “‘But we really won’t know until much more work is done,’ Spencer said.”
    Further note that this researcher gave rise to
    which makes it difficult, most difficult, for me to take you at all seriously. As I stated before, Spencer’s work will have to be replicated before being accepted; especially in light of his
    With regard to Prather: all he did was point out that lower stratosphere water vapor had been increasing and that, at that elevation, it is a powerful global warming gas. I read and passed on the hypothsis that that water vapor is the result of methane distruction. If so, then the quantity ought to vary with methane production, methinks.
    With regard to extremely low values of equilibrium climate sensitivity, paleoclimate data makes this essentially impossible. The atmosphere hasn’t changed that much between then and now.
    But when, oh when, are you going to go read some well-regarded papers on climate sensitivity? Looks to be willful ignorance on your part. But then, it seems more and more you are only interested in ‘climatology’, not climatology. Too bad.
    By the way, here is an intresting blog about the origin of the IPCC and why it does ‘concensus’:
    And who chose the head of IPCC for the 2007 study?

    11 June 2008 at 02:01
    Mr. Benson,
    You’re trying to bail out a sinking ocean liner with a thimble. I do admire your tenacity.
    You and your fellow Alarmists are going to have to pray and offer tofu sacrifices to Mother Gaia or something. Maybe Mother Earth will hear your prayers and speak to the Sun God to help out your rapidly fading cause.
    David B. Benson
    11 June 2008 at 02:18
    manacker — Your latest argument is #34
    Skeptic Arguments

    11 June 2008 at 19:53
    Hi David,
    Boy, you are really reaching to the bottom of the barrel when you pull out RealClimate blurbs to rebut something you cannot respond to yourself. RealClimate has absolutely zero credibility as far as being an objective source for “Real” info on “Climate” (as I’m sure you are fully aware).
    But this is a typical reaction when something new comes out of left field to shatter a paradigm. It’s called a “paradigm shift”, David. You can read up on it on the Thomas Kuhn” link I provided you earlier.
    Looks like Shaviv and Veizer were spot on with their estimate for 2xCO2 sensitivity of 0.75K; checks with Spencer’s latest findings.
    Don’t think I’ll wait until Wikipedia “accepts” it as “fact” before I accept it. Ya gotta be open to new things, David, especially new physical observations that provide new insight into what is really going on out there (rather than just relying on GCM GIGO results for your info).
    PS What’s that #34 remark all about?

    11 June 2008 at 22:22
    Hi Brute,
    You were spot on when you wrote David “You’re trying to bail out a sinking ocean liner with a thimble. I do admire your tenacity.”
    Actually, David has switched to the standard ploy of switching subjects as his story becomes weak.
    He has used this gambit in his exchange with me as well as in your exchange with him.
    We started off with the assumed 3K “sensitivity” (for 2xCO2), which he defended as the “consensus view”.
    When I referred to a recent study by Roy Spencer, which confirmed Richard Lindzen’s “infrared iris” theory of negative feedback from clouds based on actual physical observations (and thereby concluded that sensitivity for 2xCO2 should be around 0.7K), David first reacted by ignoring Spencer’s study.
    The major negative feedback from clouds is non-existent. It can’t exist today because we do not see it in paleoclimate reconstructions. OOPS!
    Then he switched to: Maybe it’s “not non-existent, but it can only have a minor role” because Gavin Schmidt said so. HMM…
    Then he waffled with: My scientist (Gavin Schmidt) is better than your scientists (Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen), with a personal opinion “at least Gavin Schmidt does not exaggerate”. OUCH!
    Then came a switch back to paleoclimate GCM studies as proof of no negative feedback from clouds. GROAN…
    Then came a link to a Joe Romm (!) blog, which labeled Spencer and Christy as “delayers” and tried to discredit them by linking them to a book allegedly published by Exxon-Mobil. HUH??
    Then came the statement: “In modern science nothing is proved”, followed by a switch to Swiss glaciers. (SWISS WHAT??)
    When I shot down his claim on rate of glacier melting with some facts, David switched to the accuracy of GCM outputs “once instrumentation errors are corrected”. (UGH!)
    When I tried to get him back on track David came with the accusation “you made stuff up (MSU); (= “you’re lying”). (BRIEF LAPSE OF MANNERS…)
    A switcheroo to “we’re in the warmest period in the Holocene today” (apparently intended to prove a 3K climate sensitivity of 2xCO2??) (PALEOREDUX all over again)
    Then came some history: Arrhenius calculated 6K sensitivity, followed by more “MSU” blurbs with a link to a Pierrehumbert model study (apparently intended to disprove Spencer’s observed negative cloud feedbacks??)
    This was followed by a humorous interlude, where David accused me of having Fear of Computers (FOC).
    Then came a requote of Gavin Schmidt’s estimate of water vapor and cloud feedbacks (as proof that the physical observations of Spencer were wrong??)
    After a chat with Joe Romm more model info on water vapor feedback (but no physical observations which “must exist out there somewhere with all those satellites up there”).
    Then, strangely, a link to a study and a quote from it that concludes that the effects of water vapor and clouds essentially balance each other out and that “water vapor does not have a strong feedback mechanism in the Earth’s climate”.
    Let me repeat that: “the effects of water vapor and clouds essentially balance each other out and water vapor does not have a strong feedback mechanism in the Earth’s climate”
    Which is what I was arguing all along! (HOORAY!!)
    David backed off from this, of course, once he realized what he had written and the exchange went on a few more days before I cut it off.
    I have had the same type of discussion with other climate alarmists, like David. The pattern of these exchanges was similar to that of the David exchange. Many are a bit more abrasive than David, who usually kept his manners. Some are downright hostile and snarly (viz. Joe Romm). Some become extremely emotional. To his credit, David did not resort to emotional outbursts or insults. But they all use the “switch and waffle” tactic when they run out of real arguments to support their position.
    I think they are taught this M.O. in the “how to talk to a skeptic catechisms” that are out there.
    But it is fun sparring with these guys (as I am sure you have also observed).

    David B. Benson
    11 June 2008 at 23:27
    manacker — Follow the link to learn about #34.
    As I quoted, even Spencer does not claim for his work what you do. And I’ll not bother linking to the RealClimate threads, becuase it is clear your mind is made up and you don’t want to be confused with the facts.
    Indeed, you don’t dare read Gregory et al. (2002) which provides information based on observations. These show that climate sensitivity is unlikely to be small.
    Worse you don’t dare read Annan and Hargreaves because you might actually be forced to learn something new (for you).
    And, by the way, you have also used #22.
    “QUIZ: Who said, ‘People who deny the whole global warming thing. They’re just a little crazy.’”

    JZ Smith
    12 June 2008 at 00:41
    Brute, Robin, Manacker,
    While I haven’t been posting much here, I have been following fairly closely this thread. I, as well, vigorously tip my hat to The New Statesman for allowing such an open and unedited debate. Free speech is the lifeblood of a free society.
    I am surprised that any of you continue to post at Joe Romm’s site, since like so many left-of-center sites, he chooses to edit that speech with which he finds objectionable. Stalin would be so proud! (How ironic, then, Robin, to see the piece you posted on AGW.) In Brute’s case, I’m sure his motivation (for posting on Romm) is purely one of sport.
    Manacker, your post above summarizing your long exchange with DB Benson was very instructive. The thing that I have observed with Mr. Benson and his predecessor Peter Martin (They are sly… I never even saw their hand-slap as they swapped positions in the ring), was the predilection to call for “peer-reviewed” studies and calling into question the credentials of anyone holding a contrarian view to the Alarmist position. It’s straight out of the Warm Words AGW handbook. (yes, there is actually a handbook See this:
    Manacker, you, and the original David Whitehouse article that started this long debate are using simple, observed facts that simply don’t fit the predicted outcome. The GCM’s, as you so eloquently put it, cannot accurately predict the future of a chaotic system like our climate.
    Things don’t look so good for the AGW crowd, and I suspect they will soon become even more emotional, vindictive, and shrill in their calls for “change”.

    JZ Smith
    12 June 2008 at 00:47
    A follow-up to above: I think Brute gets credit for finding the Warm Words document. If not Brute, then someone else on this of the original DW column did. It was not me!

    David B. Benson
    12 June 2008 at 01:19
    JZ Smith — It is called science. The conclusion is clear. Now action is required.
    Of course, AGW is not the only problem. Consider the sad state of the oceans.
    In any case, I feaar that you too have been taken in by the
    being handed out by the climate-astrologers such as poster manacker.

    12 June 2008 at 01:52
    Glad to see you’re still around. Your comment was the first, right?
    It was either Tony from Harmless Sky or Robin who posted the Warm Words link/information. In any event, it wasn’t me. Give credit where credit is due…..that’s one of my creeds…… that and “Real men have huge carbon footprints”.
    Just built a replica 1965 8 cylinder sports car…….345 Horsepower, no catalytic converters or emission pump….. headers to straight pipes…….should be finished next week. British chassis, American engine. I’m thinking of getting a personalized tag that reads “MOCO2”….get it?
    Maybe Martin just logged off and re-signed as Benson?
    Their arguments are falling on deaf ears. People aren’t worried about paying attention to the Alarmists fantasies when they can’t pay for fuel to get to work or heat their homes. Thankfully, the weather…..err……. “climate” is doing the job. If the Sun continues this weak phase it will get very cold this winter and people will be drilling for oil in their backyards with their Makita’s.
    The temperature here was 94.75 degrees yesterday, today it was 85.25 degrees. Talk about climate change! The week before it was in the upper 60’s. That’s typical spring/summer weather here……
    A 10 DEGREE temperature difference within 24 hours and not a single cute furry creature died from this MASSIVE temperature change. Amazing how all of God’s creatures adapted so quickly!
    Benson, Martin and Romm are all cut from the same cloth……mindless servants of the environmentalist agenda, no semblance of objectivity. They’ll never change their minds; and you’re right, it is entertaining to tease them, especially Romm. I back him into a corner and when his Queen is in check he upsets the chessboard….deletes my posts. He threatens to “ban” me…..whatever that means. Maybe I’ll be sent to a Gulag in Siberia to a re-education camp to “get my mind right” ala Cool Hand Luke…..Brings back memories of grammar school for me actually…..maybe I’ll have to stand in the corner.
    I’m formulating a really good comment to “push him over the edge”…..the borderline psychotic that he is.
    This link is sort of neat:

    David B. Benson
    12 June 2008 at 02:02
    Brute wrote “Maybe Martin just logged off and re-signed as Benson?” I assure you not.
    Maybe just that Martin becme tired of this, as I am becoming?

    12 June 2008 at 02:13
    Don’t let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out……………..

    Robin Guenier
    12 June 2008 at 07:30
    JZ Smith: I’m glad to see you’re still around. Yes, this has been a remarkable discussion and all credit to the New Statesman for hosting it and allowing it to happen and to continue.
    My congratulations to you for, as Brute notes, writing the first comment (on the Whitehouse article) back in December – and, incidentally, to Brute for his 01:52 comment today which, if you combine the two threads, was number 3,000. Incidentally, it was TonyN from Harmless Sky who posted the Warm Words data.
    I agree that things don’t look so good for the AGW crowd these days – but they still have most powerful friends amongst politicians and the media. Although, if the latter switch allegiance, they can be unpleasantly vindictive. If cooling continues for the next few months or so, things may get interesting.
    Re Romm, I too enjoy goading them: see my various comments on…#comment-14322

  2. OK, folks, here we go!

  3. (Thanks for letting me get (pseudo) #1 post again!)

    Robin, I heartily agree with your thinking about the “unpleasantly vindictive” part of the media. I would also add that the AGWers and their powerful, rich, liberal friends are not likely to let their best ever opportunity to control all of human activities go without a vicious fight. Remember, all dictators, no matter how brutal, are always doing ‘what’s best for the people’.

  4. Who else made it?

    Funny, I feel “safe” at this forum.

    I hope my old buddy Peter Martin checks in, haven’t seen his posts for a couple of weeks.

  5. Re: #4, Brute

    Funny, I feel “safe” at this forum.

    That sounds as though it could be a complement to the management, but on the other hand ………?

  6. Hi guys, I’m checking in but with a changed ID. I liked “Black Wallaby” originally on an old blog where I had a little photo ID, but I no longer think it is cool.

    Just to muse a bit, I noticed that a certain AGW fundie asserted that ice core samples were evidence that there was no MWP. It’s funny really; these loonies argue that the huge number of data of strong warmth over a span of around four centuries, from around the world are misleading because they did not all happen at the same time…. They were all regional effects!
    Well really! You could not have a more regional sample than in an ice core. It represents a tiny part of the globe, and in an atypical environment!
    Also, in the case of Antarctica, there is debate as to whether the ice which traps air bubbles, deep below the firn, may be 6,000 years old when it finally traps diffused air from the surface

  7. Tony,

    A compliment. I know that everyone will get a fair chance here.

    The commenter formerly known as Black Wallaby:

    I liked Black Wallaby better than Bob….Wallaby has more pizzazz.

  8. Hi brute,
    There are two reasons why I went-off Black Wallaby;
    1) I had an argument with some physicists over at ClimateAudit that the idea that cold air can heat the warmer ground below, which is a standard part of greenhouse theory, poses a paradox since the second law of thermodynamics describes that heat cannot flow from a cold to hotter body. (just like water cannot flow naturally uphill. In a refrigerator this problem is overcome by using a compressor. So, I challenged them to demonstrate where is the pump in the climate system. To cut a long story short it got rather heated over there, and I had to change my ID to Bob_FJ in order to be not ignored on other topics.
    2) In Australia, to call someone a “Wally” is an insult.

    But, if you like B.W. I’ll see if the system will allow me to switch back
    This was my self-image on an older blog website.

    Regards Bob_FJ

  9. Hi brute,
    There are two reasons why I went-off Black Wallaby;
    1) I had an argument with some physicists over at ClimateAudit that the idea that cold air can heat the warmer ground below, which is a standard part of greenhouse theory, poses a paradox since the second law of thermodynamics describes that heat cannot flow from a cold to hotter body. (just like water cannot flow naturally uphill. In a refrigerator this problem is overcome by using a compressor. So, I challenged them to demonstrate where is the pump in the climate system. To cut a long story short it got rather heated over there, and I had to change my ID to Bob_FJ in order to be not ignored on other topics.
    2) In Australia, to call someone a “Wally” is an insult.

    But, if you like B.W. I’ll see if the system will allow me to switch back
    This was my self-image on an older blog website.
    Tried sending this as B.W. and it seems to want a different Email address!

    Regards Bob_FJ

  10. Hi Brute,
    If you would like to discuss things with Joseph Romm, he is a frequent author at Gristmill, a fundie site which is surprisingly tolerant of opposing viewpoints and insults.
    Here are his two latest leads, but if you go to HOME and scroll down there are many more.

    Still, waters run deep
    Mainstream media misses connection between global warming and Midwest floods
    Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 2:37 PM on 12 Jun 2008

    Toying with you
    Something for everyone in the emerging green market
    Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 9:59 AM on 12 Jun 2008

  11. Hi Brute,
    If you would like to discuss things with Joseph Romm, he is a frequent author at Gristmill, a fundie site which is surprisingly tolerant of opposing viewpoints and insults.
    Here are his two latest leads, but if you go to HOME and scroll down there are many more.

    Still, waters run deep
    Mainstream media misses connection between global warming and Midwest floods
    Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 2:37 PM on 12 Jun 2008

    Toying with you
    Something for everyone in the emerging green market
    Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 9:59 AM on 12 Jun 2008

    TonyN: Sorry about the delay. As this comment had several URLs WordPress decided to assign it for moderation. I’ll change the settings.

  12. Wally is an insult? Who knew?

    Is a Black Wallaby like an Albino, animal or person? I thought Kangaroos were all brown….

  13. There are 47 (?) kangaroo species coming in various colours and sizes. Wallabies as a group are a little smaller and have pointy faces compared with the more horse-shaped common kangaroos. there are also some little guys like poteroos and wallaroos. The eastern grey kangaroos are very common locally, like mobs of a hundred or more, and if the big males hop across the road, it can be very serious.

    Where’s Max? Maybe he’s on his way back to Switzerland. And the other guys?

  14. Don’t know where they are. Also Benson isn’t here……no one to fight with. How has the winter weather been there Down Under? Maybe we should stir up some Alarmists and post links to this site….pick a fight……

  15. Hey Brute,
    Just a QUICKY, it’s my bedtime. (beyond)
    Here’s a new Joseph Romm blog at Gristmill that’s busy and fun: 21 posts already.
    There’s even a guy Christophers who declares that both Romm and us rationalists are equally wrong. I don’t think Goebbles will be enjoying it so far! Some cross linking might be interesting. I have two posts lined-up for there tomorrow.

  16. Wallaby/Bob,

    This one is funny………..

    Global Warming My Ass

    By Bob Wire, 6-11-08

    No sir, I don’t like it.

    Well, I was going to take down the Christmas lights today. But now I may as well plug ‘em in. When I woke up and looked out the bedroom window this morning, my reaction was enough to propel both of my kids out of their beds.
    “Dad, what’s the matter?” asked Rusty, reacting to the string of epithets flowing from my room. “Did you have that dream again, where you were a sex slave for Condoleeza Rice?”
    “No. Look out the window.” He looked.
    “Whoa! Wouldn’t it be cool if we had a snow day?” he said, eyes widening.
    Tomorrow’s the last day of school at John Colter Elementary. The kids are on the verge of three straight months of “snow days.” But instead of bundling up swimsuits and beach towels for a pool party, I’m digging out recently-stored snow boots and winter coats.
    I can’t see out the front window because the birch tree in the front yard is humped over by the weight of the snow, touching the ground.
    The tomato and pepper plants in our backyard garden surely will not survive this, will they? I can see deer on the hill behind our house, scratching their heads and double-checking the date on their complimentary Field & Stream calendars.
    But who do I complain to? What can I do? How am I supposed to get my revenge for this cruel joke? I mean, I’ve done my time, man. I trudged through seven long months of this winter wonderland bullshit. I’ve already made the switch from whiskey to gin. I’ve already gotten two sunburns this year. Criminy.
    Like the rest of Missoula, I’ll just continue with my day, trying to avoid the inevitable string of fender benders resulting from carefree drivers who fail to remember how slick the roads get when the snow meets the oil on the asphalt.
    I know the white stuff will be gone by tomorrow, or even later today. But I still feel like throwing a tantrum, because it just isn’t fair. I should be playing golf. I can’t throw horse shoes when the pits are full of snow. It makes me livid to have to crank on the heat: I’ve earned a lower power bill after writing a half dozen $300+ checks to those ruthless criminals at Northwestern Energy.
    Maybe the Republicans are right. Maybe this whole global warming thing is a fairy tale.

  17. I’ve been wondering why some of the guys are absent from debate, and upon making enquiries, I’m sad to say that there is bad news. Bob Clive is in mourning because his pet tortoise has died:

  18. TonyN: many thanks for this initiative – I was worried about getting withdrawal symptoms with the ending of the remarkable NS thread. (Incidentally, well done JZ for sneaking in with the first post – although I’m rather proud of having made the final post to the NS.) I am worried, however, that we only seem to have sceptics here so far. If that continues, however, this might be a useful clearing house for links to useful information and suggestions re contributions to alarmist sites. Wallaby/Bob’s gristmill proposal sounds like a good start.

  19. Hey! Robin!

    Glad to see that you caught up! Just like ole times………….

  20. Re: #16, Robin Guenier

    Perhaps the warmists just heaved a sigh of relief when the NS pulled the plug.

    Did anyone else see this?

  21. TonyN,
    Actually, I think that David Benson’s departure is just a matter of how he was so easily confused or misinterpreted so many things. I recollect that Brute wished that David take care as he left house to make sure that his screen door^ did not strike him on the rear end. I fear that DB, in typical confusion did not interpret this as Brute’s best wishes, but rather the opposite.

    Does anyone have DB’s Email address so that we could explain to him not to be hurt by a silly misunderstanding?

    Footnote^ for Europeans. I did not know about screen, (or flyscreen) doors until I arrived in South-East Australia in 1969 from England. They are a secondary door on a self-closer, that keep the bugs out in summer, and they can smack you if you are not careful

  22. Here’s some grim news:
    But I was cheered by JZ’s article in the Lost Tooth society blog (see TonyN’s link above). BTW JZ, would it be rude to ask what the “Z” stands for? Unusual, although I have a friend in LA called Zenaido.
    As you say, Brute, just like old times – although the edge will go if we don’t attract some alarmists. Still looking forward to that beer: I have a great pub next door.

  23. Uh-oh… Busted by Tony’s trackbacks! Yes, I have a blog, and yes, with you four or five readers, my audience is up to five or six (seven, when my mother sometimes reads!)

    I started blogging in 2004 or 03, and for a while posted quite often. Unfortunately, it got to be too much of a burden as my kids got older and needed more and more of my time. I enjoy posting my thoughts there, although no one but me ever reads it.

    Robin, I must also confess that “JZ Smith” is a pseudonym. My real name is sometimes associated with my business, and I prefer to keep my political views separate from business.

    I’m sorry that I don’t know what the “Z” stands for; a grandfather (several generations back) changed his name to “James Z. Smith” after an ‘incident’ with the law in the wild west days of Kansas in the 1870’s, and moved further west. I thought it would be a good pseudonym for me as well!

  24. Hi guys – I have enjoyed the banter at the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs almost since the begining and am glad to see it continue here!

    Anyway – I’m sure you’ll see this sooner or later but if anyone had any lingering doubts that the AGW hysteria has moved from a poorly thought-out scientific speculation to a full blown religion those doubts may be dispelled here:

    Truly amazing to me what is happening. I am busy signing as many petitions as I can find, writing my congressmen and generally educating myself about this phenomenon as quickly as I can.


  25. A note to Tony: I didn’t mean to imply by my comment above (“…you four or five readers, my audience is up to five or six…”) that your blog has such low traffic. I’m sure you have a very large audience!

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha