Quite some time ago I re wrote the Dada article on wiki to be more in the spirit of the movement. It didn’t last long. My thoughts were irrestistably drawn to that when I saw a can climate count global How lay on skeptic’s view warming (“thanks” R) at WUWT; here I present a translation that makes more sense than the original, a sort of anti-Dadaist art, if you will.

A a a a a a a a a agitated alarmists am an an And and and any apart apple apple argue ask at back bodies Bowring but But by call Cambridge can can century change Christopher climate climate climatology dare dare day denier discovery distance does drop each England enquire It experience expert explodes field force from global global global global Grantham Gravitation greatest greet have have he He head him How I I I I I I I I I in in in in in in invalidates inversely is is is is is is is is Isaac Isaac Isaac’s it it It It Law law lay Let Lincolnshire living looking looks Lucasian made man masses Mathematics me mind models my my Newton Newton no nobody nonentity nonsense Nonsense Nonsense of of of of of of of of of often on on or other out path period point predicted Professor proportional proportional Putting question quite Really rebuttal recent refute renowned repel replies respectable respond response How return right runaway say says science scientist see seventeen seventeenth Short simply Sir Sir Sir Sir sitting skeptics smiles square standard steady story sunny take temperatures that that that that the the the the the the the the the the the the their their their there this to to to to to to to tree tree two under universe University us warming warming warming What what What When which who wig with with with with wonderful world wrong wrong year you you your

Weasels ripped my flesh, again

wrmf Andy Skuce has an SKS article (with which I largely agree) disagreeing with a previous article that Myles Allen wrote for the Mail in May 2013. And now MA has an article in the Graun saying similar things. At Wotts, Rachel has an article approving of MA’s piece; Wotts himself seems rather more dubious, and I’m with him.

MA does say some things with which I agree (e.g. if you suppose that the annual UN climate talks will save us, forget it. I met a delegate at the last talks in Doha in December who told me he had just watched a two-hour debate that culminated in placing square brackets around a semi-colon). But in his frustration with that process, he flails about and settles on something that won’t work. Its almost as though he is using a (non-applicable) process of elimination: we carefully examine X, Y and Z: none of those solve our problem, so lets do W, which we’ll carefully avoid examining.

The current-context for this is the rather confused state of the UK’s “green” policies: a few years ago, the govt of the day decided it would be a wizzard wheeze to dump a pile of costs (for home insulation, solar-panel subsidies, and the like) on fuel bills. But this wasn’t heavily advertised. The thinking (I’m guessing) was that any subsequent rise in prices could be blamed on the fuel providers. Alas, now that times are tight and people are whinging about their fuel bills, the energy companies have decided it would be a wizzard wheeze to blame all their price increases on the govt-imposed surcharges. The debate around this is hopelessly muddled and the details are not terribly relevant. But the Key Insight I take from this is that trying to hide taxes – imposed, perhaps, for good reasons – isn’t a good idea. Because people will eventually find them, and there will be little or no support for them. You have to build the support upfront. Which can only be done if they aren’t hidden.

I think MA’s fundamental point (this is from May, but I don’t think its changed) is:

Subsidising wind turbines and cutting down on your own carbon footprint might mean we burn through the vast quantity of carbon contained in the planet’s fossil fuels a little slower. But it won’t make any difference if we burn it in the end… There’s been a lot of talk about ‘unburnable carbon’ – the carbon we shouldn’t burn if we are to keep global temperature rises below 2C. A catchy phrase, but can we really tell the citizens of India of 2080 not to touch their coal?… If you’re using fossil carbon to drive a car or fly a plane, you just have to pay someone else to bury CO2 for you.

Which I parse as: if carbon taxes (etc.) just mean you burn the carbon slower, you have the same problem. Therefore, we need CCS.

We need to distinguish two viewpoints here, which I’ll call “taxing” vs “prohibition”. I was going to call them the more natural names “economic” vs “scientific”, but if I did that you’d naturally assume the “scientific” one was correct, whereas its just a label (like “skeptic”, which in the GW debate actually means “credulous”).

The “taxing” viewpoint is that if a thing is bad (like CO2 emissions) we should discourage it by a tax in order to pay for the bad effects [* sigh. See below]. That doesn’t apply to all bad things – e.g. murder – but it does work for things where the chief problem is uninternalised externalities: or, in plainer words, emitting CO2 is free: someone else will pay the costs. There is very little disagreement that the “standard economic response” to this is taxes, in order to reflect those externalities. There is, of course, plenty of disagreement about what the level of those taxes should be, whether this is really fair, is it politically feasible, and so on.

The “prohibition” viewpoint, which I often see from science-types like MA, is to decide that CO2 is damaging, and some (semi-arbitrary) level like 2 oC should be a limit, and then effectively prohibit exceeding this limit. Coming back to MA’s fundamental point, that fits in as “we’re going to exceed the carbon emissions for 2 oC, so we need to bury the excess carbon”.

The “taxes” reply to that is: “but the costs we’re imposing by taxation are those costs that are calculated as the damage; we’re trading costs against benefits. If we imposed your solution, the overall costs would be higher”. And the prohibition reply (if they reply at all, MA doesn’t) is something like “but you can’t reduce everything to money”.

I’ve argued, before, that we should not try to solve GW as an issue of morality.

MA, in the Graun, frequently talks of solve the problem of climate change as though we’re all agreed what the “problem” is. But we’re not, and writing it in this shorthand disguises a lot. In this case, it disguises MA’s assumption that 2 oC (or something) is a limit. It isn’t. There is no real justification for that rather arbitrary number. MA doesn’t engage with the “taxes” viewpoint at all: all he does is state that it won’t “sovle climate change”. I’m sure that’s what he believes, but he needs to clearly say exactly why; and to do that, he’s going to need to understand what his “neoliberal colleagues” are saying.

[* From above: I “paraphrased” uninternalised externalities, which is correct, into in order to pay for the bad effects which is wrong (or at least, Timmy says so in comment 3, and he’s probably right). This happens often when people talk about things they don’t fully understand.]


* CCS implies over-regulation as I’ve said before.
* The world will one day adopt a carbon tax—but only after exhausting all the alternatives
* Quick Recap of COP19 from a Geoengineering Perspective from Geoengineering Politics

Mann vs Muller

Michael Mann has an article in the HuffPo, Something Is Rotten at the New York Times. He’s complaining about the ill-informed views of Koch Brothers-funded climate change contrarian Richard Muller which is language that would normally put me off. But in this case I looked, and Muller’s A Pause, Not an End, to Warming does seem rather objectionable.

Some of it is just a mixed bag:

My analysis is different. Berkeley Earth, a team of scientists I helped establish, found that the average land temperature had risen 1.5 degrees Celsius over the past 250 years. Solar variability didn’t match the pattern; greenhouse gases did.

That’s him blowing his trouser trumpet. As everyone knows, the major feature of BEST was that it was boring. In the sense that it produced the same answers as everyone else. Muller’s implication that “Solar variability didn’t match the pattern; greenhouse gases did” is a result from his stuff is just drivel. But, at least he does acknowledge it as a result.

But it gets worse:

As for the recent plateau, I predicted it, back in 2004. Well, not exactly.

No, not at all. What Muller “predicted” was Suppose… future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) He didn’t predict anything, he merely made a supposition; and the thing he supposed hasn’t happened. Apparently, to him, “that’s close enough” (if a clear cooling trend is close enough to a pause, then a clear warming trend must be close enough to a pause, so by Muller’s own logic he has nothing to write about).

But the bit where it really gets silly is:

If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously — that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small…

which makes no sense at all. Muller was suckered by the septics waay back, and in 2004 wrote Global Warming Bombshell: A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. That was wrong then, and wrong now, but Muller is clinging to it. Not only is the fundamental point of his 2004 piece wrong, but the conclusion he pulls from nowhere – that the Hockey Stick implies natural fluctuations are small – is drivel too.

[Update: just to make that last point more clearly: what Muller is burbling about is the “the [MBH] Hockey Stick shows less variability than other reconstructions” idea. See for example And there is truth to that. But there is no truth to the idea that the Hockey Stick in any way contradicts decadal-scale fluctuations; indeed its obvious from the graph that Muller displays in his 2004 piece that these exists. So I really don’t understand what he’s been smoking.]

Just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions?

That’s what the Graun says.

Timmy says Complete and total bollocks here. Or, if you prefer a more measured version he says Fossil Fuel Companies Do Not Cause Carbon Emissions, We Consumers Do.

Timmy is right. The Graun is wrong.

The Graun says

Climate change experts said the data set was the most ambitious effort so far to hold individual carbon producers, rather than governments, to account.

But it isn’t. Its an attempt to shift the blame off us lot so we can all relax and spew out yet more CO2 and say “oh no, its not our fault, look, the Graun says its all the fault of those nasty fossil fuel companies over there”.

[Update: the paper is Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers, 1854–2010 (as you expect from the pile-of-poo referencing standards of a newspaper, the Graun doesn’t provide a link: they want you to read their words, not the original source). It says (my bold) The purpose of this analysis is to understand those historic emissions as a factual matter, to invite consideration of their possible relevance to public policy, and to lay the possible groundwork for apportioning responsibility for climate change to the entities that provided the hydrocarbon products to the global economy. And later While not disputing the logic of the UNFCCC, the analysis presented here suggests a somewhat different, and perhaps useful, way to consider responsibility for climate change

So its clear to me that the Graun has no distorted their words: “Dick” Heede really is talking bollocks; he hasn’t been misrepresented.]


* It won’t be long before the victims of climate change make the west pay, Chris Huhne.

Downtime / Uptime

Dscn1358-w-umbrella [Update: and we’re back]

ScienceBlogs is migrating to a new server / service, so I’m told. This will occur on “Wednesday”.

Please look on the main ScienceBlogs page for more details. You should avoid posting any comments that you care deeply about until then; or at least, make sure you take a backup.

I’ve noticed recently that I don’t always get emails about comments received; hopefully the move will resolve that.

Data Canny Wow (anag.)

Ha ha, fooled you. I don’t really have much to say about Cowtan and Way. Various people have said just about everything there is to say already; VV has a nice post dissecting JC’s failure; to which I commented

> The main serious critical voice seems to be Judith Curry at Climate Etc

I think you’re being overly generous here, if by “critical” you mean “careful reasoned analysis”. I get the strong impression that she hadn’t really read the paper. I think she skimmed it well enough to put up a few quibbles, and you’ve discussed those. But as the comments by C+W show, her comments are shallow and in many cases are answered by the paper itself.

Even those quibbles are too weak to justify her “doesn’t add anything” sneer; that’s really rather pathetic of her. She isn’t brave enough to reject it, she’s not inclined to accept it, so she’s trying on an elder-statesman like distain. Which is what her followers want, and its good enough to get her quoted. But as a logical argument, its nothing but hole.

The other thing to say is that what C+W has done is in a sense obvious; and anyone could have done it. Well, not quite, because they did it carefully. NS has a cut-down version that is really rather similar, but probably without the original wouldn’t have been convincing. Most climatologists wouldn’t have done it at all, because the “pause” stuff is hard to take seriously in scientific terms; but it does make good PR (I’m not dissing C+W as PR-hunters, BTW. What they did makes sense, at the time they did it). The “pause” is shaping up to be the “but the satellites show coolingde nos jours. Don’t laugh; it used to be dead exciting; you could hardly talk to a septic without them talking about the satellite record.


* Mind the Gap!

Their own private reality

Over at Scottish”Sceptic” there’s an attempt at a report of what not-Prof Salby said at a lecture recently. The talk sounds to have been not too dissimilar to the Hamburg one I commented on and if you read the comments a variety of people make a variety of the obvious points as to why its all a pile of dingoes kidneys. Not terribly surprisingly it all bounces off, because if SS were the kind of person to listen to reason, he wouldn’t have written the post in the first place. And really, although you can play around with fancy ideas, if you can’t answer “so where did all the human-emitted CO2 go?” its all a waste of time.

I rather started blipping through the comments, there are more than 50 now, and like some slow-motion train wreck there are no end of people happily offering advice to the driver, but he’s not listening. The trouble, in this argument, is that there are just so many reasons for the bleedin’ obvious. SS does have the advantage of being polite – well, mostly – and apparently reasonable; but the reason is a veneer of words.

After a while, I realised he was still calling Salby a Prof, even though he knows full well Salby isn’t one. Its all a bit embarrassing for them, but still: isn’t Dr good enough? Its a real title that you earn and get to keep; Prof comes with the job, and when you lose the job you lose the title. I pointed this out and got the bizarre response:

I’ve checked and anyone can make anyone a professor,. so we’ve decided to make him and honorary professor of the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum.

Is this an attempt at humour? Its not funny. It just comes across as a total disconnect from reality. JBL complains too, and gets told:

What actually matters is whether someone warrants a title. I am more than happy that Prof Salby warrants the title so I will use the title. If you don’t agree then I can’t force you to do so.

So that’s it then. In “sceptic”-world, anyone can award anyone else any title they like, purely based on their own opinion. This would be mindbogglingly stupid, if it was what SS believed.

But actually, he doesn’t believe a word of it. The answer is worse: he’s been caught out in an error, and can’t bear to correct himself, no matter how blatant the error may be. Given that, what’s the point of attempting a scientific argument with him?


For my sins, I decided to listen to Murray “I have a theory” Salby talking about his ideas about why the recent rise in CO2 isn’t human-caused (note that isn’t his most recent UK tour; that’s back in April). By all means read my notes below if you’re interested in the various ways that he is wrong; but if you’re interested in how we know the increase really is human-caused, then try RealClimate from 2004, a somewhat pithier response from me, point 5, in 2005, or the ever-popular Skeptical Science version; and Eric Wolff is excellent. Or, if you belong to the Dark Side, then perhaps (note! nofollow to make VV happy :-)) or will help.

Before I go on, I can’t resist saying that all of this is very very silly; I’m playing along in this post but I won’t forever. There are interesting areas to explore in climate science and palaeoclimatology, but “is the CO2 rise human-caused” isn’t one of those areas. Its settled, done, and nailed down. If you don’t know the science, or have read some words but found them too hard to understand, then you may fairly claim to not know for sure either way. In which case, you’re going to have to believe some authority; but you’re definitely not making any interesting contribution to the debate, because all you’re saying is “I haven’t been able to look”. But if you claim to have investigated and end up believing that the rise isn’t human-caused, then you’re lost, wandering in the wilderness, and I doubt I can help bring you back.

It often seems to me that the extreme fringes of “skepticism” are showing their fear: although they profess to believe in science, and the implication that the long chain of science needed to make “…and GW is a problem that needs addressing” needs to be true in all its aspects, nonetheless they are afraid to allow even the most basic and obvious points of that chain to be accepted. I’m not sure why; its clearly not logically necessary.

This post is culled from Presentation Prof. Murry Salby in Hamburg on 18 April 2013. I haven’t included all his charts by any means. Note that is isn’t correct to speak of him as a prof in the present tense, as he has been de-proffed. The PR for his recent UK tour makes this elementary error.

Here’s the first chart of interest. Its some kind of 50kyr-filtered version of the std.Vostok ice core temperature and CO2 record. It shows that the two are correlated; this isn’t controversial.


Salby provides no key to the literature here; its impossible to tell from his talk whether he knows this is old stuff, or not; its impossible to tell whether his audience knows.

One thing worth noting is that he makes no quibbles about the quality of the record at this point: this figure, and the little he says about it (he speaks very slowly, as though he needed to spin out his words), would make no sense if you didn’t trust the CO2 record. Later on, he does decide not to believe the CO2 record; that makes most of his discussion of this figure dubious, in his terms. Of course, since he is wrong about the problems with the CO2 record, what he says about this figure here is, in fact, true.

He does note that CO2 is a proxy, but he’s wrong about that. A proxy is something standing for something else: like the length of a column of mercury as a proxy for temperature (if you buy a decent thermometer and expose it carefully then it will be a very good proxy for local temperature, but its still a proxy). By contrast, the CO2 in the bubbles in an ice core isn’t a proxy for ancient air, it actually is ancient air (it turns out later tha he doesn’t really believe this, but he’s wrong; see later).


Next up is the correlation between CO2 and temperature from the ice cores. If you’re interested in this, I’d recommend Eric Wolff’s words and/or more of mine. Salby (incorrectly) says the correlation is highest at small positive lag; as you see from his picture, its highest at zero lag. However, he draws no conclusions from his statement.

Then a coherence (then phase) spectrum, which shows that CO2 and T are well correlated on timescales longer than ~10 kyr. Again, there’s no source or ref to the literature. Phase is described as “hovers near zero” (he does get some Brownie points for not going on about the silly leads-by-800-y stuff).

At 8:45 he repeats the assertion that CO2 is a proxy, and says that we need to understand how in-ice CO2 and atmospheric CO2 are related.

Then shows the “observed” atmos CO2 and “global temperature” from 1960-2010,


(note in passing here that this is a CO2 record showing a strong seasonal cycle. Note also that (as you expect) the change is negative during part of each year) and then its correlation:


Unlike before, he provides no significance levels. He asserts that this is significant, but without numbers that’s dubious. No-one in the audience reacts. Indeed, at no point does anyone in the audience react to anything, even to Salby’s ponderous little “jokes”. If there are questions afterwards, they’ve been cut out of the record. Nor does he tell you which CO2 record he is using. If you look at, say, the bottom pic of you’ll see that’s rather important: there’s a strong seasonal cycle in CO2 in the NH, and there’s a seasonal cycle in the global temperature record, so if you just correlate them you’ll see that; and the lag-lead relationship will tell you nothing interesting about causation (its odd how good people can be at chanting “correlation does not prove causation” when it suits them, and then forgetting it when it doesn’t).

Salby draws some kind of conclusion from this, but its a vague one; but he clearly likes that CO2 lags temperature. Onwards, to “net emission” of CO2 vs temperature anomalies:


But notice something odd here: the line is smooth, but always positive. So it isn’t the slope of the CO2 record he presented earlier. Its been smoothed in some way. So has the temperature. But in what way? He doesn’t say. Indeed he doesn’t say its been smoothed at all. Note also that the first, and last, 5 years have been cut off the record (again, not remarked on). Is this some kind of 10-y wavelet filtering? 2 year filtering (it sort-of looks like it, but if it was 2-year, why would that lose 5 years at start and finish)? Salby’s results depend very heavily on whatever he’s done here, so he needs to tell us what it is.

Salby then asserts that this demonstrates that d(R_CO2)/dt = (lambda)(T – T_0) (I’m using R_CO2 for the reservoir of CO2 in the atmosphere; changes in this are the net surface fluxes). As I’ve noted above, I don’t think that’s valid.

Here’s an alternative explanation which could even be true, even granting him his wiggle-matching: short-term (annual) fluctuations in CO2 are driven by short-term fluctuations in temperature (oceanic outgassing, perhaps, though I don’t know; you’d need to poke around in Henry’s law to know; Wotts does this a bit; see-also this from SKS especially its fig. 2) and this is superimposed on a long-term trend of increasing CO2 from fossil fuel burning, and a long-term trend of increasing temperatures from the greenhouse effect.

Salby is talking to his audience at a very low level – he pauses to explain what an “integral” is. Indeed his whole manner is desperately portentous. Its also very fake – there is no way that anyone who needs to have “integral” emphasised is going to follow the subsequent manipulations and Fourier transforms.

At this point he is asserting that the CO2 and T “evolve coherently” in both the “observed” (1960-2010) and the “proxy” (by which he means ice core) records. But differently in the two. Cue a closer look at the ice core CO2 record. There’s a pile of equations thrown at us here – cue Salby saying “Are you ready? take a deep breath” – which amounts to explaining why he thinks CO2 should be in-phase with T over long timescales and out-of-phase over short timescales. I don’t have objections to that, so will skip over it.

There’s some more incomprehensible equations, at the end of which Salby convinces himself that the ice-core record CO2 underestimates the atmospheric changes by a factor that increases with timescale culminating with the assertion (I kid you not) that on the 100 kyr scale, atmospheric CO2 changed by a factor of 10 more than the ice core; i.e., by approximately 1000 ppmv. And therefore in his view the 20th C changes aren’t unprecedented. If you believe the std.preindustrial holocene values of 280 ppmv, then this leads to a massive negative amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is obviously impossible; so I presume he is forced to believe in ~1000 ppmv CO2 during previous interglacials, and perhaps early parts of the current interglacial. This, if he believed it, would be a massive challenge to current theory. Its the sort of thing that if you believed it, you’d dwell on the details, tease out the implications, try to reconcile it with the ice core records (later on he accepts the CO2 record since 1830 (why 1830? He doesn’t say), which includes ice cores, but makes no effort to reconcile that with the view he expresses here, that the cores are wrong), whatever. But he does none of these things; he just moves on.

[Note that this need to believe in implausible glacial-interglacial swings has been noted before; see John N-G quoted in various places, e.g. Wotts, though I actually came across it in JM’s preprint. But note that, at least in Salby-world, this isn’t a fatal flaw; its a part of his theory. As so often with these descent-into-madness things, simply pointing out the obvious flaw isn’t enough, because they say “aha! I’ve thought of that!” and you have to go another step down.]

Ah, I think I know how he has got here: he has assumed non-conservative processes in the ice (but doesn’t say if that’s removal or addition). Since he’s done this with no observations or theory to justify this, its all unjustified. There’s a whole wide literature of how CO2 behaves in ice cores (the answer, broadly, is that its conserved in southern hemisphere cores. There is some interesting work there, and there were some early problems with the Greenland cores, but all of this is absorbed and explained and understood by the std. literature, which Salby ignores) and he refers to none of it. So his equations and graphs become meaningless. This is like the antient Greeks theorising about epicycles but not bothering to measure the planets orbits.

He then goes on to try to deal with diffusion in ice. And ends up drawing a graph. But he does all this without determining the diffusion coefficient. This is impossible, so he must have just made one up. This is impermissible.

He presents nothing formal as a proof that this is correct, only a picture of the T-CO2 cross-correlations predicted by his theory:


They look a bit similar. Is that good enough? No, not even close. Because “diffusion” or analogues are such omni-present processes. You get the same broadening of a peak from anything: measurement error, “random” fluctuations caused by “other events”; whatever (note that its also weird that his “spike” of without-diffusion is not just broadened but also amplified by his diffusion; that makes no sense).

Note that in all of this he is assuming the temperature record (which unlike the CO2 really is a proxy) is accurate; he never mentions this assumption.

Then he tries to address the “C13” problem; but that was more than 30 minutes in and I was losing the will to live. I might go through that some other time. After (45 mins in!) that we’re onto CH4. Then what Co2 would look like if it followed his theory backwards; but he is careful to stop at 1880. How he thinks he can reconcile the essentially-monotonic CO2 with the clearly-not-monotonic temperature series I really don’t know. 54 mins: we’re into the global energy budget, some silly stuff with climate models which doesn’t seem to be relevant. Then there’s the obligatory reference to Feynman (poor chap, he has become the new Galileo) but without reading the important bit, “how not to fool yourself”. Its always the other people who are fooling themselves.

Don’t read me, read Eric

If you’re thinking all of this is too much, you’re right. Wading through dis/mis-information is more painful that just reading the right answer. In this case, Eric Wolff’s the main evidence that the ice core record of CO2 is a good representation of the past atmospheric concentration is perhaps the best technical reference.

TL;DR: what’s wrong with Salby?

He does a lot of “theoretical calculations” but at no point does he point out that those calculations can’t be done without assuming values for some basic parameters (CO2 diffusion in ice, for example; or the non-conservation of CO2 in ice) and that his values for those parameters are wildly at variance with the ones anyone else would use.

He doesn’t engage at all with existing literature, or indeed the bleedin’ obvious: we’ve emitted all that CO2: where does he think its gone?

He won’t write any of this down.


Something I thought at the time: I’m doing Salby too much honour by even bothering to read his stuff. But I’m also doing him more honour than any of the Watties and so on: for whilst many of them fawn over his conclusions, none of them can be bothered to read or understand any of his words(some of them know he’s wrong, of course, but AFAIK none have bothered analyse why, for example, his graphs derived from diffusion in ice are drivel). See for example this cri-de-coeur:

Note: In all the many times (and some of you realize that it has been, indeed, many,) I have posted my hero, Dr. Salby’s, lecture on this site, NOT ONCE HAS A SCIENTIST OF WUWT given us his or her detailed comments on the complete content of that lecture. While I have taken notes from it and could post a detailed summary of the video, I have nothing to add. Has all my posting of Dr. Salby’s lecture been for nought? Has NO ONE watched his lecture? Why–in–the–world haven’t you?

In fact the cri is wrong: just a little higher in the thread WE (and I think he counts as a “scientist of WUWT”, snigger) has told her that its all a pile of donkey’s dildoes. But he’s done it in honeyed words (I don’t think WUWT regulars are allowed to diss the potty peer yet) so she can’t read it.


* Emissions and Concentrations–How Closely Are They Correlated? – The Lukewarmer’s Way
* W h y d o e s a t m o s p h e r i c C O 2 r i s e ? Jan Schloerer, Version 3.1, October 1996. Via rmg.


1461082_10151973458857350_1113137741_n An advert in the Economist, and here’s the M$ puff online. M$ are trying to persuade the world that Evil Google is invading your privacy by auto-scanning emails to target ads. I can’t get exciting by this. Google, and Gmail, are supported by ads (aside: I’m astonished to discover just how much money their is in ads; only with Google did it become clear how much of such useful infrastructure they could support) and I’d rather they read my mail in order to send me useful and/or interesting ads (like this rather tasteful one I’ve inlined; I got that for searching for same) than spamming me with irrelevance like Facebook does.

And amusingly, the M$ page I ref comes up with: By using this site you agree to the use of cookies for analytics, personalised content and ads.