Open Thread

Open threads are not something I’ve bothered with in the past, as I don’t really mind when people post off-topic comments on posts. However, I thought it was worth a try.

Post whatever you’d like in the comments, and if the discussion gets moving, open threads will become a regular fixture here.


16 thoughts on “Open Thread

  1. Starting yesterday, (Friday) I have been dueling with an anti-AGW blogger, “NetDr”, on a comment thread of a USA Today article. Any assistance you and others reading this post could provide would be most welcome.

    The article, “Bjorn Lomborg’s climate change sparks environment debate,” can be accessed at:

    I’m posting under the uername “Badgersouth.”


  2. John Hartz — “Starting yesterday, (Friday) I have been dueling with an anti-AGW blogger, “NetDr”,…”

    John, he’s leading you on a merry dance and throwing in all sorts of distractions. For a decent search engine use the Google custom Warming101. Take some keywords he uses and dig around. Here’s the link:

    Debunk one of his talking points, keep challenging him to provide sources for his claims, and don’t let him lead you by the nose. As an example, he says:

    “The damage which would be done by raising energy prices significantly would be far more harmful that CAGW would be and totally ineffective.”

    Here are some links to some scary science that raise serious doubts about that.

    Marine Phytoplankton Declining: Striking Global Changes at the Base of the Marine Food Web Linked to Rising Ocean Temperatures
    Acidifying Oceans Spell Bleak Marine Biological Future ‘by End of Century’, Mediterranean Research Finds
    Oceans in Peril: Primed for Mass Extinction?
    Ocean Acidification Threatens Food Webs, 150 Scientists Warn
    Acid Oceans Threatening Marine Food Chain, Experts Warn
    The 800 lb. Gorilla in the Ocean
    Scientists warn of global warming threat to marine food chain
    Coral doctor sounds the alarm about more acidic seas

  3. Thanks for that, Roger.

    Well, Kate, I hope the fun with Tom Fuller over at Only In It For The Gold was educational for you. I know it was for me. It was gobsmacking to realize that he was actually confused about the distinction between sea ice and sheet ice. And this is a guy who promotes himself as something of an expert on the science.

    KT seems to be a popular person to interview these days. You may have already seen it, but you’ll want to know about this.

  4. Nature News: What lies beneath Antarctic ice

    Persistent bubbling is stirring the water’s surface in the Erebus and Terror Gulf, a remote spot off the Antarctic Peninsula. When he saw the commotion in 2000, Argentinian geologist Rodolfo del Valle was intrigued — despite 38 years’ experience in the region. There was a chance the gas contained methane, and when del Valle’s team investigated the leak they discovered it to be 99% methane.

  5. I went to a public discussion during the week about the Climategate affair.

    The panel consisted of Fred Pearce, Professor Alan Thorpe, Professor Mike Hulme and Nick Pigeon from University of Cardiff.
    Mike Hulme worked with Phil Jones.

    Nick Pigeon who replaced the scheduled speaker suggested people had a ‘Finite pool of worry’ (Linville and Fischer 1991).

    I think this concept can be used in discussions to muddle and confuse. On the other hand maybe climate change is by it’s nature a subject that will always be a worry that will come second, third or fourth place in peoples minds.
    This leads to the possibility that the only way of getting it into first place is by continually pushing it to top place with publicity, promotion etc.
    But that then results in accusations of it being a ‘religion’ (because the promotion of it seems preachy), a conspiracy (because it is mainly governments that do the promoting).

    Quite a nice summation of the issue here:

    Are we fighting a losing battle to the top ‘worry’ spot?
    Or are there solutions?

  6. And…

    Probably the worst source of information for climate science is Google news, or rather if you are looking for silly and ill informed articles and blogs, it’s a really good source. Like this one:


    1. Apparently Phil Jones has admitted data has been lost (processed data has, but raw source data hasn’t).
    2. The term ‘climate change’ was invented last year??
    3. The CRU is the only source of temperature data!
    4. Phil Jones has conceded that the Earth isn’t cooling (yes that meme is still circulating)
    5. The IPCC is apparently being forced to admit their ‘dire’ predictions were wrong.

  7. I recently spent some time at ‘climatchangefraud’ and the endless repetition by know-nothings of the same old debunked denier talking-points was the bulk of all the commentary.

    I believe there are, at most, a few hundred denier blogosphere diehards who flit from blog to blog, putting up the same old nonsense time and again. They have nothing new to add, certainly – and engage in the same old tactics. I think the denier movement is running low on gas – the stolen emails gave them a charge, but they’ve just about been exhausted. Despite McIntyre’s obsession over them – as we all know, there’s just no there, there. Sure, there’s the occasional paper (like M&W 2010) that causes a stir, but once it gets the genuine skepticism treatment, it’s shown to be *not* the death knell it’s always promoted as being.

    The denier blogosphere is stuck in an endless loop with ever-decreasing energy and credibility. I believe it will eventually wither away – I mean, how many blogs are there on Ptolemy’s ideas on celestial mechanics?

  8. The Ville: the story that you linked to at helium would have made me laugh if it wasn’t so tragic. The author mentions the International Panel on Climate Change and also claims that the term climate change was only coined last year. (S)He doesn’t seem to realise that the IPCC has been around since 1988. That’s a prime example of the DK effect.

  9. J Bowers & Daniel “The Yooper” Bailey,

    Thanks for the feedback and suggestions. I’m already aware of most of your references. For this particular exercise, I’m relying heavily on materials posted on the Skeptical Science website.

    Please feel free to post your own comments on the article. I’ve been engaged in a 3-day marathon and am slowly but surerly running out of gas.

    The article, “Bjorn Lomborg’s climate change sparks environment debate,” can be accessed at:

    I’m posting under the username “Badgersouth.”



  10. Re. John Hartz — “Please feel free to post your own comments on the article. I’ve been engaged in a 3-day marathon and am slowly but surerly running out of gas.”

    Sadly, John, I’m in a bunch of marathons at the Guardian ;)

  11. Re: John Hartz (Badgersouth)

    I’ve looked over much of the most recent discussion; you’re doing as well as you can, given the audience there. Keep pushing the facts angle; short of cherry picking, Netdr et al have none and are undone by a lack of understanding of the energy flows as well as the GHE. But it would seem that a tight grip on science and reality is not a strong suite of your foes.

    Little sentient thought in evidence throughout the comment thread there. I feel you are wasting your time.

    The Yooper

  12. Roger-Romney Hughes,
    Yeah and the results have been refuted by Dr. Annan over at his blog

    Who would compare an ensemble mean to actual observations… it doesnt even make much sense for data validation…

    Friends of Gin and Tonic is a fantastic satirical site – read the article Roger linked to for a good laugh. -Kate

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.