Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Anthony Watts pushes anti-semitic conspiracy theories wrapped up as a climate hoax

Sou | 2:39 AM Go to the first of 36 comments. Add a comment
There is not much happening on the denier front. They are either licking their wounds from two hottest years in a row, or hunkering down pretending that "it's not happening". For example, I don't know if Jo Nova believes what she writes (as archived here) or if she is really as deluded as she appears. She is says she is convinced that global warming "paused" and that it's about to get very cold. She claims to be also convinced that despite the world getting much, much hotter, more people are turning into science deniers. She's an oddball. I suspect having hooked up with her husband who has been bludging off her for quite some years now, by all accounts, she's finding it hard to admit she took the wrong turn. (Jo used to accept science, some years ago, though she was always a bit odd being a goldbug.)

Solar tides and air pressure

Willis Eschenbach is wondering why the barometer drops just before dawn and again just before it rains (archived here). He didn't think to use Google. The answer appears to be solar atmospheric tides (as you might have guessed), where waves are generated by the sun's heating of the upper atmosphere. These waves propagate from the upper atmosphere to the ground as they move around the globe.

Anthony Watts is surprised by past climate variability

Anthony Watts is also surprised that different parts of the world could get hot and cold before we started adding all the extra CO2 to the atmosphere (archived here). I thought he was supposed to have studied meteorology at one time, and worked as a weather announcer. P'raps that explains why he didn't graduate and why he's no longer announcing the weather (except at his local radio station). He doesn't understand it. What's curious though is that means he doesn't know that there have been ice ages and hot spells in the past. For someone who has claimed to be running a climate blog for going on nine years, that's remarkable.

Some of you might think that Anthony Watts has gone gaga, not understanding that the Arctic in particular can have large swings in temperature. It would be different if it were somewhere on the equator, where large swings in average temperature aren't expected (unless there's a big volcanic eruption, say). That's quite possible. Today he's also promoting the opinion that global warming isn't happening and all the hoo haa about CO2 causing global warming is a socialist Nazi plot.

There is no greenhouse effect sez WUWT

Anthony Watts posted another dumb article by serial defamer (alleged) Tim Ball (archived here), who says that CO2 doesn't cause warming. He wrote:
The author [Tim Ball and presumably Anthony Watts] believes the evidence shows that human CO2 is not causing AGW, that the hypothesis is not proved. 
Now in case you are wondering if Tim thinks non-human CO2 causes AGW, then your brain isn't working properly. (I don't blame you. Tim Ball has that effect on people as you can see in the 101 "thoughts" under his article.) The "A" in AGW stands for anthropogenic. So the question you should be asking is:

What does Tim Ball think is causing anthropogenic global warming?


What does Tim Ball think is causing the global warming that originated in human activity?

Let's run with the initial question though, leaving the A out of AGW. The first question is does Tim Ball think that the planet is heating up? That's not something I can answer, because I don't recall him ever indicating that one way or the other.

Let's assume he does agree that it's getting warmer - like this:

Figure 1 | Global mean surface temperature since 1880. Data source: GISS NASA

If it's not being heated up by human CO2, then perhaps he thinks it's heating up from non-human CO2. Could it be that he thinks that the CO2 molecule from burning fossil fuel doesn't contribute to the greenhouse effect? It's only the CO2 that comes out of plants, or the ocean that is causing the warming. The CO2 manufactured by us when we burn fossil fuels is benign. It's all the other CO2 that is causing the warming.

I don't expect that's it really. After all, Tim Ball was the first author of the book that claimed there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect - Slaying the Sky Dragon. Further down Tim wrote:
"They assumed, incorrectly, that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase."
So Tim doesn't "believe" in the greenhouse effect. He's a greenhouse effect denier.

Anthony Watts promotes this nonsense on his blog several times a month. So it's fair to assume that he doesn't "believe in" the greenhouse effect either, despite what he's claimed.

Climate science is a socialist Nazi plot

The barrow that Tim Ball is pushing hasn't changed. Anthony Watts is promoting Tim's conspiracy theory that global warming is a socialist plot and a Nazi plot to boot. (Tim is a fan of Hitler if you'll recall, so it seems odd that he's blaming him for the climate hoax. He hasn't said if it's also a plot by his other dead hero, Osama bin Laden.)

You think I'm kidding? See for yourself. This is from an article on Anthony Watts' blog today (archived here), conspiracy theorising at its finest, or worst:
Kyoto provided the basis for the financial agenda. Money needed to fund the single world government was a global carbon tax. Many notable people, like Ralph Nader, claimed the tax was the best solution to stop climate change. Funding was part of the plan for the 2009 Copenhagen Conference of the Parties 15 (COP15). The COP can only act on the science provided by the IPCC. Apparently somebody knew the political agenda was based on false science and exposed it by leaking emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). This worked because the scientists controlling the IPCC worked at, or with, the CRU. They controlled key chapters in IPCC Reports, including the instrumental data, the paleoclimate data, and the computer models. They also ensured their presence on the most influential document, the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). 

But that's only part of it. The people who are implicated in the climate hoax, according to Anthony Watts' blog article include a mixed bunch. It's not easy, because like all paranoid conspiracy theories, the conspiracy involves a "they" and a "them" and you have to wade past all the "they's and them's" to find out who these scallywags are. I've done that for you. Anthony Watts and Tim Ball will be proud of me, I'm sure. Here they are:
  • Climate scientists working at or with the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
  • George Soros
  • Maurice Strong
  • Bill Gates
  • the Rockefeller’s
  • Leonardo DiCaprio
  • Ted Turner
  • Adolf Hitler
  • Alexander King
  • Bertrand Schneider
  • Paul and Anne Ehrlich
  • John Holdren
  • Ralph Nader

Interestingly, neither Michael Mann nor Andrew Weaver. I wonder why?

I don't think I've written about the conspiracy that Anthony Watts promotes a few times a month. It goes something like this.

Tim claims that a speech Vaclav Klaus gave to the Heartland Conference supports his theory that "environmentalism and AGW is a political agenda pushed by extremely wealthy and powerful left wing people most of who made their money exploiting the environment."

Tim Ball and Anthony Watts are promoting the conspiracy theory that the Club of Rome and Maurice Strong and the Rockefellers conspired to do something or the other.

Tim Ball is an inveterate liar as well as a conspiracy nutter. In one of WUWT's common if ghastly displays of forgery and misrepresentation, he wrote what he claimed was a quote from the 1991 book "The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of Rome" by  Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider (which Tim Ball said was a 1994 book - he couldn't even get that right):
Here is the closest passage, from page 75 of the book, where I've corrected Tim's misquote. I've crossed out the words that don't appear in the book, and bolded and italicised the words that Tim left out:
The common enemy of humanity is man.

Not that anyone at WUWT would know, care or bother to check. All is fair when you want the world to burn. Tim fabricated his "quote" so he could weave his conspiracy theory that:
They claim the list of enemies is designed to unite people. In fact, it is needed to overcome what they see as the divisiveness of nation-states and to justify the establishment of one-world government or global socialism. They believe that global warming is a global problem that national governments cannot resolve. The changed behavior they want is for all to become socialists.
Well, no "they" didn't. In fact "they" (Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider) specifically wrote that those items in the list were not the enemy, they were symptoms. And nowhere does it mention anything about a one-world government or global socialism! That's nothing more than a fantasy conspiracy theory that Anthony Watts and his lackeys promote. And it's an old one, which can be traced back way before the Club of Rome. It's anti-semitic, which fits with the bigotry and fanaticism you'll see at WUWT. It can be viewed as a variation of the Illuminati conspiracy theory, which spreads to David Icke and his lizard men.

Tim Ball supports Lewandowsky's moon-landing paper

Tim's theorising continues:
The process and method of setting up the AGW hypothesis through the UN paralleled those required to form a left wing or socialist government. It automatically identified those scientists who questioned the hypothesis as at least sympathetic to capitalism – guilt by association. It is part of today’s view that if you are not with me, you must be against me. Over the years, a few scientists told me they agreed with the skeptics but would not say so publicly because they were socialists.
What crap! What utter unadulterated bullshit.

Not only would no decent scientist ever talk to Tim Ball, scientists, sceptical or otherwise, don't say or not say things because they are socialists!

As for him arguing that scientists who question "the AGW hypothesis" (whatever he means by that) are "sympathetic to capitalism"... Leave out "scientists" and insert science deniers. Then think about all the fuss that WUWT made when the NASA faked the moon landing paper came out. In that paper, the researchers showed that free market ideology was a predictor of climate science denial. Oh deniers were all up in arms over that one. Now you've got Tim Ball saying pretty much the same thing and the illiterati are fawning all over him.

More of Tim's "One World Government" conspiracy theory

There is more where that came from. Tim Ball wrote:
Kyoto provided the political basis for the agenda. It was a classic redistribution of wealth that is the goal of a socialist government. Money from successful developed nations was given to less successful developing nations. To collect and redistribute the money required a government that overarched all nation-states. A single world government that managed a world banking system was the ideal. Temporarily the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund would suffice.

I don't know why he singles out Kyoto or global warming. There are a lot of United Nations aid efforts that are unrelated to climate. Either Tim doesn't know that or he knows that dim deniers are easy to hoodwink.

Anthony Watts' blog is nothing more than a wacky conspiracy blog

The bottom line is - the next time that you read about WUWT-ers complaining that WUWT isn't really a conspiracy theory wrapped up in a climate hoax. Next time you read how Anthony Watts doesn't like it when you say he runs a conspiracy theory blog -  just say the words "Tim Ball" and point out how Anthony Watts promotes his wacky theories several times a month. (He's not the only one, of course, but he's probably the worst of them. Climate science deniers are by definition conspiracy theorists.)

Newsweek recently had an article about how right wing extremists are a bigger threat in the USA than is ISIS. When you read some of the comments at WUWT it makes you wonder what these people are like in real life.

From the WUWT comments

As usual, Anthony Watts' followers come out to ratify Tim's conspiracy nuttery. The neo-nazis try to distance themselves from Hitler.

Goldrider is a rat sniffer:
February 21, 2016 at 4:50 pm
And there, in a nutshell, is why I smelled a rat and joined the ranks of the skeptics.

ristvan, who Judith Curry adores, believes in Tim's conspiracy theory, but doesn't want to get called a conspiracy theorist or be researched by Stephan Lewandowsky:
February 21, 2016 at 5:04 pm
A bridge too far, Dr. Ball. While there is some truth in what you assert (witness Christina Figueres, head of UNFCCC), it is mostly half truths. Asserting ‘Agenda 21 motives’ detracts from the skeptical rebuttal IMO, and opens our side to the conspiracy accusation nuttery of those like Lewindowsky.
Take the high science road. Use sound bites to rain rockslides down on the warmunists on the low road. And yes, I fully credited Vaclav Klaus and his book Blue Planet in Green Chains for inspiring the epithet warmunist.

February 21, 2016 at 7:08 pm
“A bridge too far, Dr. Ball.
Academia has become nasty and political. Anyone who publishes anything inconvenient to the entrenched politics WILL be punished. Unsurprisingly, it is worst in things like gender studies and anthropology but it is still unacceptably venomous in climate science.
These folks aren’t interested in the truth and they won’t be swayed by inconvenient facts.
I have just become aware of a book titled “Galileo’s Middle Finger”.
“If activists are willing to shout down scientific evidence that they don’t like, then they are no better than Pope Paul V. Even worse, they are undermining the foundations of democracy, which, she says, flows from the same wellsprings as science: the Enlightenment belief in our ability to use reason to sort out the true from the false, which relies on a politics that leaves us free to do so. “Sustainable justice,” she says, can’t “be achieved if we [don’t] know what’s true about the world.” link
Roger Pielke Jr. has written a review. He also bears scars inflicted because he had the temerity to tell the truth.
“A bridge too far” refers to biting off more than one can chew, not to being wrong. We might criticize Dr. Ball for not making his case very well. We can’t criticize him for being wrong because there’s plenty of evidence that he’s right. The fix is in and anyone who gets in the way will be smacked upside the head.
“Are Environmentalism and Global Warming Effectively Religious Socialism Totalitarianism?” The answer is yes. Socialism is way too mild.

In case you think I got Rud Istvan wrong - he says he agrees with commiebob (above) and I presume he agrees with the last paragraph. ristvan replied:
February 21, 2016 at 7:26 pm
cB, I agree with your observations. BUT handing ‘the enemy’ conspiratorial ammunition is not my idea of a good winning strategy.

John Robertson
February 21, 2016 at 5:33 pm
Good comment Dr Ball.
However I am not sure gangrene needs a governing philosophy.
Too many idle hands produce idle minds, the vacuous mob who chant “Carbon Pollution” are beyond parody.
It seems to be mostly virtue posturing, raw emoting…

Analitik goes for the "algoreisfat" conspiracy theory:
February 21, 2016 at 5:49 pm
I blame Al Gore
The bogus “scientists” (eg James Hanson), and left wing, apocalyptic lobbyists (eg Naomi Orekes) and industral profiteers (eg Maurice Strong) would not have been able to pervert the general scientific community without strong political backing and Al Gore provided this during his stint as Vice President under Bill Clinton.
The Club of Rome ran the “running out of resources” agenda for decades with only minor success but it was the political patronage from Al Gore that allowed the Global Warming/Climate Change cohort to gain traction and undermine the scientific process. And once “the science is settled” mantra was backed by the climate scientists the whole left wing, CAGW, Agenda 21 movement was able to go mainstream. 

Chris blames communism and lots else on "bankers", which is a derivation of the anti-semitic Jewish conspiracy theory, from the same parent conspiracy theory to the one that Tim Ball promotes. He or she even uses the word "kibbutz":
February 21, 2016 at 9:46 pm
Communism was created by the same bankers who promote global warming. Same with Feminism, same with the SJW’s. There were Fourier Socialists who promoted a decentralized kibbutz style of communal living before Marx and his top down central bank version. The Cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt school all came from banking families. All designed to concentrate wealth and resources under oligarchy control. Another good place to look at what’s happening is the COMER vs Ministry of Finance lawsuit. 

February 21, 2016 at 10:18 pm
I would definitely endorse Environmentalism and Global Warming Belief as being Religious Totalitarianism. Socialism normally leads to Totalitarianism as did Communism, as people start to see that the system (read CAGW) is not working for the masses, but only for a small elite, who have to introduce terror to control the masses and enforce the system. 

Mark doesn't mince his words:
February 21, 2016 at 11:53 pm
Climatism is a culture. Literally, with everything from how to live your life, beliefs, religion, outlook and even diet. Only as a cultural shift could it gain any traction. To that end, it fits progressive and socialist thinking perfectly.
It is designed to do so, to tap into the macro cultures already out there, and combine them.
Self hating humans, socialists, control freaks, intellectual bean counters, progressives and environmentalists. All rolled up into one.

richardscourtney says Tim Ball is wrong. It's not a socialist plot it's a right wing plot. (The Rev's own bold):
February 22, 2016 at 12:57 am (excerpts from a very long comment)
Tim Ball:
Your above polemical rant is a classic collection of falsehoods and misrepresentations of which Goebbels would have been proud....
...The original “political agenda” was right wing (n.b. not left wing) and was rapidly adopted by people, parties and countries of all political persuasions. Marginalisation of opponents is a common political action used by all political activists and is called ‘negative campaigning’.
The scientific hypothesis of global warming had existed for a century and was ignored by almost everyone because the nineteenth century calculations indicated that global temperature would rise by about 1°C but it had not. Then, in 1979 the right wing Margaret Thatcher came to power as UK PM, and for personal reasons immediately upon taking power she raised global warming to become a major international policy issue. Why and how she did that can be read here.
So, in reality,
An interesting pattern developed early in the official involvement in global warming. If a person challenged the claim that humans were causing global warming (AGW), it was assumed they were Thatcherite (i.e. on the political right). If you supported AGW, then you were on the right. This categorization was not related to the science, but to the politician promoting the science involved.
The USA sensibly took little interest in global warming for nearly two decades after the scare had taken hold in much of the world. The reason for this is same as the reason why other countries adopted the scare. Thatcher had generated the global warming scare by campaigning about global warming at each summit meeting, and overseas politicians began to take notice of Mrs Thatcher’s campaign if only to try to stop her disrupting meetings, so they brought the matter to the attention of their civil servants for assessment. The civil servants reported that – although scientifically dubious – ‘global warming’ could be economically important. The USA was the world’s most powerful economy and was the most intensive energy user. If all countries adopted ‘carbon taxes’, or other universal proportionate reductions in industrial activity, each non-US industrialised country would gain economic benefit over the USA. So, many politicians from many countries joined with Mrs Thatcher in expressing concern at global warming and a political bandwagon began to roll.
Throughout this time the global warming scare ceased being a right-wing issue and became an all-party concern: the rewards for gaining economic benefit over the USA would be obtained by all other countries at the cost of the USA. To this day the global warming scare remains an issue that is opposed and is supported by people and Parties across the entire political spectrum. For example, communist China put a ‘death blow’ into the scare at the Copenhagen climate conference in December 2009....

References and further reading

Why Atmospheric Pressure Peaks At 10am And 10pm In The Tropics - article at ScienceDaily.com, 14 December 2008


  1. Sou - Chris brings up "The Cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt school" - that's a particularly crazy, nasty and dangerous conspiratorial form of antisemitism (and islamophobia and white separatism/supremacy as well). This is a good article about them:

  2. We are a nats fart away from the "protocol elders of zion" being included in the conspiracy

  3. "P'raps that explains why he didn't graduate"

    Ah, but I think knowledge of whether he graduated or not is confined to a privileged few. Admittedly the distinction might be somewhat nebulous: I think when I was vetting applicants I would have treated a 'might have' degree as no degree.

    1. Ah! This brings to mind the professional letter writers who used to help millions of illiterate Indians over centuries. Which probably led to the apocryphal letter writer with the academic credentials, B.A. Bombay (Failed), who sat outside a local post office writing and reading letters for his illiterate clients. Anthony could make use of one of those chaps to polish his puff pieces.

  4. "richardscourtney says Tim Ball is wrong. It's not a socialist plot it's a right wing plot"

    Its got to be a left wing, and a right wing, and a middle ground plot: with a 97% consensus among scientists there isn't much room for any political persuasion to not be in on it.

    1. According to Courtney, global warming science only exists because Margaret Thatcher had a science degree.

      I kid you not. I won't post the link but it is easy enough to find.

      "This is probably the most important fact in the entire global warming issue; i.e. Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry). Sir Crispin pointed out that if a ‘scientific’ issue were to gain international significance, then the UK’s Prime Minister could easily take a prominent role, and this could provide credibility for her views on other world affairs. "

      Another UK nutter, Piers Corbyn (brother of) also attributes global warming science to Margaret Thatcher - apparently she invented it to defeat the coal miners in 1984-5 strike.

      "Corbyn suggests, that Margaret Thatcher came up with her most devious plan to deindustrialise Britain and defeat the miners once and for all: she would popularise and endorse the science of man-made climate change, as a way of converting Britain from coal to nuclear power. "

      Its conspiracy theories all the way down.

    2. A conspiracy theory in which only 3% are not in on it. It cracks me up.

    3. Piers Corbyn also says that Big Oil is behind the global warming "scam", because they want to push up taxes on oil.

      Also, if Thatcher was behind the conspiracy, where does that put Monckton? He claims he was one of the first to advise her to investigate global warming in 1986. Was he part of the conspiracy?

    4. Bellman, Thatcher was aware of global warming before Monckton joined Downing Street. She was told by then chief scientist, Professor John Ashworth, who left that role in the summer of 1981. Details here


      I met Professor Ashworth a number of times around between 1979 and 1981. He has had a distinguished career, at the universities of Essex and Salford, at the London School of Economics and the British Library, and earned his knighthood. Monckton is the Delboy of climate denial and got his peerage by accident of birth. If you have never heard of John Ashworth, it is no surprise, since he has always been a quietly effective professional, uninterested in self promotion. Unlike the charlatan Monckton.

    5. *97% of the 32% of the papers that stated a position. Check the paper yourself.

    6. Jim, try the following:

      Read all the biology articles published in the past 5 years. Count up how many expressly endorse evolution. Do you think even 10% would? Personally I doubt it.

      Now, "conclude" with impeccable denier "logic" that there is no consensus on evolution in biology.

      Do you see why you "logic" is not very impressive?

      Alternatively, walk on over to your nearest research university, go to the physics faculty lounge and just ask. You think there wouldn't be a solid consensus on certain basics in climate science like greenhouse gases lead to warming?

      Or, you can sit behind your computer and post drivel instead of looking at the science which is your likeliest course, of course.

    7. Maybe Jim will not believe he is an idiot unless everyone here or at least 97% says so. We do not all need to say it Jim! You are an idiot!

      That's one! Bert

    8. 100% of the prestigious scientific institutions on this planet. They must all be in on the conspiracy because they certainly have a better chance of recognising scientific fraud than the knuckle draggers at WUWT.

    9. Deniers simply hate that consensus figure, they pop up to attack it whenever it’s mentioned and they ludicrously compare themselves to Galileo

      Galileo overturned blind faith and dogma by observation and measurement

      We can observe and measure AGW – the deniers simply don’t or can’t look down the telescope


    10. Re: 32%. Just stated a fact. Don't take it personal.

    11. Re: 32%. Just stated a fact. Don't take it personal.

    12. Don't you just hate that plausible denial crap from deniers?

    13. Don't you just hate that plausible denial crap from deniers?

    14. Yup...the typical singular, out-of-context factoid meant to mislead so typical of all deniers. Never, ever the full analysis as that would, well, show their factoid to in fact BE misleading.

      Try out your factoid in a science coffee lounge at your local university and see how much coffee gets spit out at the moment of your declamation.

    15. Galileo overturned blind faith and dogma by observation and measurement

      He made very significant contributions to science but if you are talking about the helicentric theory, no. He was correct in accepting the Capurnican theory, but if you are talking about the second run-in with the Inquisition, a major problem was that his actual theory was wrong.

      The Catholic Church had no real issue with a heliocentrc theory if it could be supported. That's why they had theologians around to rejig things as needed.

      It is not a good idea to advance a dodgy theory when being hauled before a judicial body that had already told you to shape up.

      It is also not a good idea to publish a book that make the paranoid ruler of Rome think you were lampooning him. Admittedly, I don't think Galileo realized that likely effect of the book on Urban the VIII but still ...

    16. @ jim s

      look up the statistics for sexual assault convictions again women by men in Sweden, then compare them to Saudi Arabia

      now push your theory that Sweden is obviously (due to a high conviction rate) a more dangerous place for women

      I mean "just look at the facts"

      "facts" without context are meaningless

      unless you are a delusional denier and they seem to support whatever daft theory you are pushing

    17. Jim S, why would the other 68% be doing research on climate change and writing papers if they didn't believe in it?

      Oh, right, I forgot the worldwide conspiracy to preserve high-paying cushy government jobs at taxpayer expense.

    18. Small correction and some additions re the Cook13 paper:

      Of the 33.4% of papers since 1991 in which the authors stated a position on the what is causing global warming, 97.1% attributed global warming mostly to human activity, 1.9% disputed that it was mostly human activity and 1% indicated uncertainty as to the main cause. In Oreskes 2004, of the papers studied 100% attributed global warming to humans. In Anderegg2010, of the top 200 climatologists, 97% attributed global warming to human activity.

      On the world's most popular climate conspiracy blog, 98.4% Wattsonians reject 200 years of climate science and only 1.6% accept science.

  5. Tim Ball, who would never have been described as sharp-witted at the best of times even by his friends, is looking and sounding increasingly addled with age.

    That WUWT and GWPF give the likes of Ball and Patrick Moore star billing just shows how much they're running on empty. After retired geologist Bob Carter died, Roy Spencer noted sadly that there was nobody left to take his and John Christy's place when they retired. Or for that matter, Judith Curry's... all of them are in their mid-60s, none of them are currently productive and none seem to have supervised graduate students for years.

    Too bad it couldn't have happened 20 years sooner.

  6. It's tempting to laugh at conspiracy ideation but it has the power to grant Presidencies, deliver legislative majorities and decide on the formulation of superior courts.

  7. For more on the origins of the, um, 'anti-cosmopolitan' conspiracy theories of the loony Right there's a particularly timely analysis at the Guardian drawing attention to an unholy alliance between the Murdoch Empire and senior management at the ABC.

    I think we tend to underestimate the extent to which blatant crankishness now lies at the very core of so-called 'conservatism'. This is why so little has actually changed under Turnbull. Turns out Abbott was the obtuse, unapologetic embodiment of all they actually hold dear...

  8. Given that this is a thread devoted to loonies I thought that it might be suitable for posting a laugh... this is an example of the miserable quality of predatory publishing:


    I weep that this might in fact not be a poe.

    Had this been posted on a WUWT thread I am sure that many of the cannon fodder there would lap it up, especially if someone told them that climate change was a fraud because, well, models and pi is rational, see? Which only makes me weep all the more at the extent of the shallow end of the human gene pool.

    For anyone not familiar with SPG, here's Beall's commentary:

    ANd young players in the academic research area should familiarise themselves with this work, if they have not already:


    1. Interestingly, Bernard, Web of Trust doesn't like that Science Publishing Group link at all; 'Scam' 'Suspicious'.

      The suggested modification of E=mc2 to E= 1/22 mc2 is also priceless. That's brightened my day in a weird sort of way...

    2. And here's the Google street view for the address given as 'Hope Research, Hope Clinic' for the Pi paper.

      Not as entertaining as Lomborg's 'Consensus Centre', perhaps...

    3. "The author salutes IJAMR, for its integrity and open mindedness; unlike many other journals in mathematics, they do not pinch the nostrils of creativity, neither do they direct the milk of liberty in the sciences into their own suckers. Knowledge is for the free."

      hmmm.. pinch???

  9. It's a pity that corporations (in principle) cannot sue for defamation, otherwise Joanne Coding would not be able to get away with the things she says about the Australian BOM. Same with Jennifer Marohasy.

    I am all for free speech in general, but if someone is accused of something, evidence is required.

  10. Here's a reasonable link ...

    I only looked for this after doing an FFT on the entire hourly dataset (zero padding the -999.9 missing pressure values to the mean of the non-zero pressure values).

    M2 was the only lunar frequency that I could quickly see in the FFT and it was much smaller/thinner than the solar components (~multiples of diurnal cycle).

    Solar components at annual (yearly) and semi-annual (harmonic of annual?) then diurnal (daily), semi-diurnal (2X/day), 3X/day, 4X/day, ... , 11X/day (12X/day is at the Nyquist for hourly data so can't determine that one). Amplitudes are quite noticeable (semi-log) through 9X relative to background noise.

    As per the link above, Laplace appears to have figured this out two centuries ago, without observational data.

    1. From the SciAm article

      " The lunar tide, however, remains weak compared to the solar tide in the upper atmosphere. Still, at altitudes above roughly 80 kilometers (50 miles) lunar tides have been detected in winds, temperature, airglow emissions and a number of ionospheric parameters. Almost two centuries after atmospheric lunar tides were predicted and first observed, they are still studied. They represent a unique type of atmospheric motion whose forcing mechanism is known with great precision, allowing us to test our numerical models and theoretical predictions."

      Over a long career Richard Lindzen failed to see the impact of lunar forces on the upper atmosphere, but we now know that the nodal or draconic cycle drives the motion of the quasi-biennial oscillations (QBO) of stratospheric winds.


  11. Bankers created feminism is a fantastic little story, based on a deep trove of evidence. So deep you'll never find it, but trust me, it's deep.

  12. The Club of Rome, the UN and the like are an obvious left-wing, liberal socialist conspiracy to create a one-world human society which looks after the Earth and its people.

    Such extremism must be stopped.



Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.