“Dr. Richard Lindzen’s Heartland 2010 keynote address“. In a room full of balding libertarians, Dr. Richard Lindzen tells it like he wishes it was. No doubt his actual remarks will be discussed shortly.
Wott's Up With That?
A response to Climate Change disinformation at wattsupwiththat.com
Wott's Up With That? 
Thanks for these notes, I always read them after my daily dip into la-la territory. Sometimes I can debunk the Watts stuff on my own, but you never fail to raise a smile.
When you’ve got only one genuine climate scientist at a climate change deniers conference, I guess it’s a good idea to make him the keynote speaker. I look forward to reading at WUWT about the papers up for publication that were presented, but I won’t hold my breath.
[Even if he has to jump through a few hoops to get to where he wants to be. – Ben]
Here is a pdf of the whole crowd detailing the co-sponsors :-http://www.heartland.org/events/2010Chicago/PDFs/ConferenceProgram.pdf
It also includes Dr Pat Michaels one of the only so called skeptics left with any credibility in the peer reviewed science journals for climate change.
A bit of a questionable rum crowd of co-sponsors .
The pdf has short notes on the background of the various speakers complete with pictures so you can put faces to the names from page 11 onwards.
Strangely no Steve Goddard is on the list, though.
IIRC, Steven Goddard is a psuedonym. Strange how Watts calls Tamino a coward for doing the same and lambasts critics for using nicknames including veiled threats to expose them.
[I did not know that! Enlightening. – Ben]
It’s pretty difficult to be sure, to be honest. Here are some who have pondered the question more:
http://www.layscience.net/?q=node/177
http://iji2.wordpress.com/category/climate-cranks-and-climate-inactivists/steven-goddard/
I see Willis Eschenbach is attributing an inflammatory statement to Greenpeace.
No link is given, cos the blog post in question has been removed from their website and disowned by Greenpeace.
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html
Usual standard of honesty and transparency from Mr Eschenbach.
Just added this to the fray in Eschenbach’s ‘Editorialising’ post:
Willis: You seem to find the Greenpeace retraction significant … me, not so much.
But Willis, my point was that you attributed the words to ‘Greenpeace’, without supplying a link, knowing that the organisation had removed them from its website. The post was unwise, but the implication that Greenpeace as an organisation were advocating protest at residential addresses fails the laugh test, GP protestors have only ever visited homes on two occasions – to install solar panels on the Australian PM’s house and to serve a writ on the fugitive head of Union Carbide – and this blog post crossed a line of acceptable language – Greenpeace themselves concede.
Yet still you reproduce part of the the post as if it were a Greenpeace communication, and it is the only such example where no link is supplied.
The cases given to paint a picture of ‘climate sceptics’ being persecuted seems to stretch the language just a tad also, relying as it does on an extraordinarily broad definition of ‘sceptic’, and such unreliable sources as ‘Newsbusters’ the National Post and as Nick Stokes has documented, attributing comments made at blogs, since deleted by the moderators to the blog authors themsleves.
[BTW – I notice one of your sources has this subhead: ‘Kneecapping Barack Obama at every opportunity.’ advocating violence or merely over-the-top rhetoric?]
A couple of similarly distasteful blog comments:-
A commenter likens Jim Hansen to the creator of the holocaust.
A thinly-veiled implication that Al Gore is distributing grossly offensive material.
Remarks like these would seem to have no place in a sensible debate, yet you can find them on this very discussion board. Perhaps using blog comments to make a case is not such a wise move?
Wonder if Anthony’s much-vaunted ‘no censorship’ policy will allow it thru?
Ben, I haven’t been able to find where you identify yourself. Please would you point me to it. I have little respect for those who hide behind false names and hope that you aren’t one of those. Regardless of what some may think of Anthony Watts he has the courage to admit to who he really is.
[Statements about “Volcanoes Cause Climate Change“ post removed. Please make them in the comments for that post if you wish. – Ben]
Based upon this, it could well be that you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims so please let me know what expertise you have in the scientific disciplines involved in improving out poor understanding of global climate processes and drivers.
NOTES: [Removed for the same reason as above. – Ben]
Best regards, Pete Ridley
[You want me to “identify myself” or else I’m “someone hiding behind false names”? Perhaps you want my driver’s license? Sorry, you’re not going to get it, the internet’s a bit too dodgy for detailed disclosure. I have chosen to expand About This Website a bit though.
Am I expert enough? Well I’ll confess that I’m not a climate scientist. I’m just a scientifically educated skeptic, in the true sense of the word, with a disgust for the self-serving deceit practiced at WUWT. On what scientific expertise will you base your assessment of my statements? Your own website seems to fall squarely into the political conspiracy school of climate change opposition… – Ben]
From your blog:
I think I’d have more chance of finding out more about Ben than I would about you, Pete, should I so desire.
P.S.
I don’t see a tip box or requests to buy stuff on Ben’s site, do you?
J (Bowers), you can do what I do, search the Internet.
I’m puzzled by your final sentence – do you see those on mine because I don’t and have no wish to.
Pete Ridley
[I think he is referring to professional “amateur” Anthony Watts. – Ben]
Ben got it in one.
Ben, I was going to post this on your “About This Website” thread but see that comments are closed there so please forgive me for posting here.
When I said yesterday that “I haven’t been able to find where you identify yourself. Please would you point me to it” you responded with “You want me to “identify myself” or else I’m “someone hiding behind false names”? Perhaps you want my driver’s license? Sorry, you’re not going to get it, the internet’s a bit too dodgy for detailed disclosure.”. This suggested that you were wary of disclosing details of yourself on the Internet. Well, after very little checking I find that you have provided an enormous amount of detail about yourself on numerous sites (Note 1), including your E-mail address. I wondered why you were being coy about yourself when responding to me but after checking the Internet I now understand – I would too.
[So you’re a creepy guy who likes to trawl the internet for things you can use to impotently disparage people whose opinions you don’t like. Good luck with that. I guess you’ve just proven that my original instinct to limit personal details here was sensible.
I’ve deleted your creepy links, but I’d advise you to be careful about holding Steven “CO2 snow” Goddard up as “a real geologist”. One of your links leads to the amusing Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered post which contains a rare retraction (although he is still trying the same deceit two years later on WUWT). Steven seems to have found himself unwelcome at The Register after that.- Ben]
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Ben, thanks for the clarification – it had me worried that others might see different things at my site that don’t show up when I log in. The sight of adverts and begging requests always make me suspicious of a site’s “owners”.
You refer to Anthony Watts as a professional “amateur”, coming across as though you are being disparaging about him. If that is the case then you should look in the mirror and ask if that expression applies to you. You are a computer systems manager not a scientist working in any of the numerous disciplines involved in trying to improve our poor understanding of climate processes and drivers.
[Remainder of this extensive comment deleted as infringing on my privacy and containing misrepresentative attempts at quote-mining. Also, please do not pester me at my private e-mail addresses nor try to misrepresent my personal information. This self-protective purpose is why your comments here have been edited. Take your obsessive Googling skillz elsewhere, Monsieur Poirot, if that’s your only contribution. I will say, in reference to your deleted supposition that I fled the debate at WUWT, that it was the malicious and deeply hypocritical comment editing by Anthony’s ‘moderators’ that abruptly ended my attempts at debate there. I truly abhor censorship, but I will not tolerate your abusive actions on my website. And as is usual with denialist bluster, I recommend a course of meditation on the actual meaning of the accusation of “ad hominem”. – Ben]
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I see Pete is following in Watts’ footsteps and cyberstalking folks. I remember when you could use your real name, your real email address, mention your employer and stuff like that on the web.
These days, you have to guard against creeps like Pete and Watts. It’s pathetic.
Ben, as is your wont when trying to debunk the genuine Watts Up With That, whether on Anthony Watts’s blog or here you fail miserably. All that you have provided in your lead comment here is an ad hominem about QUOTE: .. a room full of balding libertarians .. UNQUOTE followed by a derogatory comment about a highly respected scientist Professor Richard Lindzen. Since you are not a climate scientist or any other kind of scientist for that matter we can’t expect you to make any worthwhile contribution to our poor understanding of global climate processs and drivers. Of course Richard Lindzen was accompanied by lots of highly respected scientists at the Heartland Institutes 4th Climae Change Conference on the theme of “Science vs. Alarmism”. These included (Note 1) Professor A. Scott Denning [who carefully explained why climate change critics were wrong], Nils-Axel Mörner [repudiated sea-level change denier], Bob Carter [enthusiastic adviser to various right-wing think tanks], Don J. Easterbrook [an emeritus professor who revises presentations to conceal rising temperatures], William M. Gray [another emeritus, a hurricane specialist who fears an impending world government], etc. etc. etc.
On the other hand, you claim expertise as an IT Consultant, Systems Manager, Analyst and Engineer (Note 2 [Link deleted. – Ben]) so should be able to make a contribution about the validity of the climate projections of those computer models upon which the IPCC is so dependent for its propaganda.
[Remaining remarks deleted because of intrusive characterizations and irrelevance. – Ben]
NOTES:
1) see http://www.heartland.org/events/2010Chicago/PDFs/ConferenceBreakout.pdf
[Subsequent intrusive website links deleted. – Ben]
Best regards, Pete Ridley
[Peter, your Google power-tripping, condescension and insinuations of embarrassing private information, which I have deleted, has crossed the line. Enjoy your twilight years elsewhere, you’ve just become the first person to lose commenting privileges here. – Ben]
“.. a room full of balding libertarians…”
But they are, no ad hom. Even Judith Curry has said she leans towards libertarianism. McIntyre sorely disappointed them all by not only stating that the climate scientists/hockey team shouldn’t be prosecuted or persecuted, but he dislikes the libertarian views of the conference delegates and Heartland. He was cheered onto the stage, but halfheartedly one-hand clapped off.
Heartland is a libertarian organisation. Get over it, Pete, it’s just how it is. As a Brit, do you even know what libertarianism really is, or are you a regular Delingpole frother? I suggest you go look into the subject of extreme libertarianism a bit more (like most politics it covers a broad spectrum) and try to recognise how opposite it is to what you’re used to in Blighty.
When it comes to Pete, this quote by Eleanor Roosevelt describes him perfectly:
“Great minds discuss ideas, mediocre minds discuss events, small minds discuss personalities.”
The most astonishing part, highlighted and applauded by the WUWT commenters:
There you have it. This isn’t skepticism. This is unwavering certainty in the face of all evidence and reason to the contrary – in other words, denial.
Makes me feel good that you stopped blogging after your post on Lindzen. Apparantly you read his presentation and finally came to the conclusion that AGW is complete nonsense. Good for you!
[Sorry “Scarface”, just enjoying some personal time. If anything, the intensity of the stupidity has increased since the Heartland “conference”. I’m toying with simply flushing the most recent WUWT posts down the toilet (that doesn’t even have to be considered an analogy) and picking up from here, but there are so many juicy lies that it would be entertaining to illuminate. – Ben]
Ben…..Sit back and relax. We readers can also recognize the juicy ones. Let us add some bare lonely comments below the headings of our back-logged favorites.
Unprecedented Warming in Lake Tanganyika (WUWT, May18,2010)
This paper is one among many from an extensive research program, since 1991, on tropical lakes in the East African Rift Valley. From the University of Arizona’s description of their palaeolimnology research program:
“Strong evidence exists linking recent climate change related to regional and global warming with tropical lake warming and changes in lake circulation…”
The abstract that Anthony linked to, to supposedly provide an opposing view, was also part of this same research program. The abstract begins:
“Watershed deforestation, road building, and other anthropogenic activities result in sediment inundation of lacustrine habitats. In Lake Tanganyika, this threatens the survival of many rock-dwelling species by altering the structure and quality of habitats…”
There was no mention of Anthony’s ‘turbidity/sunlight absorption/warming’ theory in this abstract, or in two other sediment problem abstracts. Since the quote he gives is itself from the abstract, I would guess that he hasn’t looked over the paywall either.
This actually is an article about reduced algal production resulting from the reduced mixing in a warmer lake. From the Press Release:
“The researchers’ (coring) data show that during the last 1500 years, intervals of prolonged warming and cooling are linked with low and high algal productivity, respectively, indicating a clear link between past temperature changes and biological productivity in the lake.”
Skeptical ScienceJ(20May,2010) discusses this paper here.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Unprecedented-Warming-in-Lake-Tanganyika-and-its-impact-on-humanity.html
@Ben: OK, have a good time then! Wether you’re pro or con AGW, these are interesting times.
One question though. Do you really believe a skeptic doesnt believe that our climate could warm or change?
I guess you know that it’s the influence of man and the role of CO2 that is questioned by the so called ‘deniers’.
I would really like to know your position at this.
Btw, I call myself an NCC*-theorist now (*natural climate change), after the remarks of Lindzen on the term ‘skeptic’, because I totally agree with him, on this and on his view on climate change.
[A true skeptic is indeed open to all evidence, in this case the myriad sources of “climate change”. Rejecting the clear evidence of man’s influence on climate that draws the label of “denier”. Recognizing man’s climate influences is not a rejection of “natural climate change”. Both are happening, but AGW is contribution that is new and disruptive. – Ben]
This is Part III of a Steve Goddard IV-parter.
“GISS Arctic Trends Disagree with Satellite Data” (WUWT, May 20, 2010)
REMEMBER………. HadCRUT is LOW because its Arctic Ocean anomaly is the mean hemispheric temperature anomaly. This is the consequence of its Arctic exclusion.
REMEMBER………. Steve’s “number-of-station coverage” is a straw-man argument. GISS discusses extrapolation versus exclusion.
COMPARABLE RANGES?………. Can a comparison be legetimately drawn from data with such mismatched ranges?
…..The GISS table is 64°N-90°N. This is well outside the Arctic Ocean, and it includes a lot of land. It is even outside the Arctic Circle. Fairbanks and Reykjavik are at 64°N.
…..The RSS table is 60°N-82.5°N
…..The UAH table is, apparently, 60°N-85°N.
COMPARABLE BASELINES?………. Wood For Trees compares the four global series, for the overlapping years. This becomes another argument against both this specific method, and the overall conclusion.
“If you think about the different baseline periods, the reason for this is obvious. GISTEMP has the earliest baseline period, when temperatures were cooler, so its anomalies from this baseline are always higher. HadCRUT3 is somewhere in the middle, and UAH/RSS have the most recent, warmest baselines, so their anomalies are lowest now.”
http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes
HadCRUT3…..1961-1990
GISTEMP……1951-1980
UAH……….1979-1998
RSS……….1979-1998
CONCLUSION………. Steve should not be attempting such direct-from-the-tables comparisons. Q.E.D.
HANSEN’s satellite corroboration:………. “More quantitative support (for the greater Arctic anomaly of the GISS analysis) is provided by sattelite observations of infrared radiation from the Arctic (Comiso, 2006). Although we have not yet attempted to integrate this infrared data record, which begins in 1981, into our temperature record, the temperature anomaly maps of Comiso (2006) have the largest positive temperature anomalies (several degrees Celsius) during the first decade of this century over the interior of Greenland and over the Arctic Ocean in regions where the sea ice cover has decreased. Because no weather stations exist in central Greenland and within the sea ice region, our analysis may understate (!) warming in these areas…”
“Visualizing Arctic Coverage”(WUWT,May21,2010)
This is Steve Goddard’s final Part IV in this series.
III. “GISS Arctic Trends Disagree with Satellite Data”(May20)
II. “GISTEMP-vs-HadCRUT”(May18)
I. “GISTEMP is High”(May17)
GISS’ CLAIM………. Steve returns to his coverage straw-man argument. However, there is no, “GISS claim that their divergence from HadCRUT over the last decade is due to better coverage.”
GISS only explains why its EXTRAPOLATION of shore temperature anomalies is more representative than HadCRUT’s choice of the mean hemispheric temperature anomaly, that results from its EXCLUSION of the Arctic Ocean area.
VISUALIZING WHIRLED PEAS………. HadCRUT’s ‘number-of-station coverage’ is (again) an irrelevancy. Its temperature anomalies are not projected beyond the water’s edge. The overhead view that showed the actual HadCRUT global anomalies would show the Arctic Ocean as black(excluded).
The aerial view of the actual GISS global anomalies would show shore anomalies extended beyond the waters edge, and covering the Arctic Ocean. The GISS paper discusses the reasonableness of such large scale extensions.
WHAT WOULD DENIERS DO?………. I think they really would want GISS to treat the Arctic as HadCRUT does, so the area that is warming the most, is simply given the mean hemispheric temperature anomaly.
Too bad you don’t want to discuss the point I made in a now removed reply. Typical behaviour for someone who knows he’s fighting for a lost cause.
A bit like Al Gore! Well, since he’s your Great Example, it doesnt surprise me at all. Byebye! :)
[Sorry, I’m not always able to approve comments in a timely fashion. Although my friends may disagree, I do not live at my keyboard! No comment has ever been deleted here without warning and any editing is clearly identified. I don’t particularly follow Al Gore’s activities, but he’s a fantastic litmus test for climate politics. – Ben]
Sorry, I was too quick. Didnt see my earlier reply until I made another… Well, I’ve made a discussion impossible, so it ends now. Sorry!
[Nothing’s impossible… – Ben]
“Modeling the Polar Bear Tipping Point” (WUWT,May25,2010)
‘EXISTENT’ DATA……….The consequences of declining sea ice can already be seen in the western Hudson Bay subpopulation.
“Survival of juvenile, subadult, and senescent-adult polar bears was correlated with spring sea ice breakup date, which was variable among years and occurred approximately 3 weeks earlier in 2004 than in 1984. We propose that this correlation provides evidence for a causal asssociation between earlier sea ice breakup (due to climatic warming) and decreases polar bear survival…Earlier sea ice breakup may have resulted in a larger number of nutritionally stressed polar bears, which are encroaching on human habitations in search of supplemental food. Because western Hudson Bay is near the southern limit of the species’ range, our findings may foreshadow…(what the)…more northerly polar bear populations will experience if climatic warming in the Arctic continues as projected.” Regehr et al,2007
THIS PAPER……….This isn’t the computer modeling into the future that deniers won’t accept. Its just the modeling of the simple logical consequences of decreasing sea ice. Bears are born capable of a summer long fast ashore. But they may not survive longer ones caused by earlier melting and later freesing of the sea ice.
“Using this method, Molnar and colleagues calculated that 3-6 percent of adult male polar bears in western Hudson Bay would die of starvation if sea ice conditions forced them to spend 120 days ashore. However, that starvation rate leaped to 28-48 percent if they were obliged to spend 180 days ashore.”
“They found similar trends when modeling mating behavior, and found that, for example, mating success in the Lancaster Sound sub-population in the Canadian Arctic could decline from 99 percent to 91 percent or even 72 percent, depending on the extent to which declining sea ice affected the efficiency of males ability to search for females.” Discovery News, May 25,2010
NINETEEN SUBPOPULATIONS, NINETEEN STORIES……….
“Reviewing the latest information available, The PBSG (Polar Bear Study Group) concluded that 1 of 19 subpopulations is currently increasing, 3 are stable, and 8 are declining. For the remaining 7 subpopulations available data were insufficient to provide an assessment of current trend.” (Jul,2009)
A colorful map, needed to follow this population distribution story, is available here.
http://www.wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/area/species/polarbear/population/
Some old population distribution information on the nineteen areas, displayed in a useful way, is available here.
http://www.pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html#bottom
DENIERS CAN CONTINUE FIDDLING……….”…In the short term climatic warming may improve bear and seal habitats in higher latitudes over continental shelves if currently thick multiyear ice is replaced by annual ice with more leads, making it more suitable for seals…” Derocher et al(2004)
“Is 2010 Heading for a Record?” (WUWT, Jun 3, 2010)
UPDATE………. “We update the…(GISS) analysis of global surface temperature change…” This ‘Global Surface Temperature Change’ being discussed (approximately, May, 2010) is ‘draft 0601’, 37 pages.
Steve Goddard discusses an earlier update in his WUWT four-parter (May 17, May 18, May 20, May 21). ‘Current GISS Global Surface Temperature Analysis,’ ‘draft 0319’, 34 pages. Section 7, that he comments on, is essentially unchanged.
GISTEMP GOOD, HADCRUT LOW………. Section 7 explains how polar amplification makes HadCRUT’s global anomaly unrepresentative, and low. The Arctic is warming faster than any other region on earth. Yet the HadCRUT Arctic exclusion in effect reduces the Arctic anomaly to the average hemispheric anomaly.
“WHY DOES THE ARCTIC WARM FASTER THAN LOWER LATITUDES?”
“First, as arctic snow and ice melt, the darker land and ocean surfaces that are revealed absorb more of the sun’s energy, increasing arctic warming.
Second, in the Arctic, a greater fraction of the extra energy received at the surface due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases goes directly into warming the atmosphere; whereas in the tropics, a greater fraction goes into evaporation.
Third, the depth of the atmospheric layer that has to warm in order to cause warming of near-surface air is much shallower in the Arctic than in the tropics, resulting in a larger arctic temperature increase.
Fourth, as warming reduces the extent of sea ice, solar heat absorbed by the oceans in the summer is more easily transferred to the atmosphere in the winter, making the air temperature warmer than it would be otherwise.
Finally, because heat is transported to the Arctic by the atmosphere and oceans, alterations in their circulation patterns can also increase arctic warming.”
Impacts of a warming Arctic, Hassol, 2004
“Icy consensus: least ice ‘at least the last few thousand years'” (WUWT, June 2, 2010)
Anthony releases his regulars with a press release and a one word theme, ‘luck’. Then the anti-science ramps up. And we see once more the ugliness that WUWTian brain storming can produce.
Anthony previously (Sep 4, 2009) had chosen misdirection, rather than addressing the (now) corroborating 2000-year-Arctic-cooling content of Kaufman et al (Sep, 2009).
“Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling”
“The Ice Who Came In From The Cold” (WUWT, Jun 1, 2010)
Hot Topic has an earthbound explanation for the same thing.
“Tuvalu and many other South Pacific Islands are not sinking…” (WUWT, Jun 2, 2010)
Ben, This WUWT’er would fit in an ‘autogenous’ category, whose debunking can be ‘produced independently of external aid.’ No research necessary.
VERTICAL………. It’s height that matters, not area. Think high tide plus storm surge. And for existing structures, etc. how do you add extra height beneath them.
2mm/yr vs 22mm/yr………. The to-date sea level rise, at 2mm/year, is only 5 inches in 60 years.
“Webb and Kench warn that while the islands are coping for now, any acceleration in rate of sea level rise could overtake the sediment buildup”
22mm/yr would be the average rate, for 2 meters sea level rise by 2100.
[WUWT tries to invoke another denialist straw-man. Natural systems, such as coral atolls, can obviously handle many kinds of environmental fluctuations. The problem is that they probably can’t react to the rapid changes that are being inflicted by AGW. If a coral reef can’t grow upward as fast as the sea-level rise, it will drown regardless of the large, slow, changes they have handled in the past. Duh. – Ben]
“AGW=dead lizards? Maybe it’s not the heat, but the handbags and herpetology afficianados?” WUWT (June 7, 2010)
GENERALIZATION………. “Collecting and trade in the CDE (Chihuahuan Desert Ecoregion) probably should not be considered a threat to species that are relatively widely and continuously distributed, are small in size and that possess a life history characterized by relatively short life spans and high productive rate?” (Sceloporus are small lizards)
OFF THE TOP………. Anthony’s collection argument can be quickly shot down. From the second AAAS press release, Lizard I (May 13, 2010)…
And they determined that the local extinctions were temperature related.
In areas where the lizards had already gone locally extinct, there were fewer (cooler) hours during the day when the lizards could be out in the sun, foraging for food.
‘SKEPTICAL’ CRITICAL THINKING?………. Anthony Watts simply declared that the locally extinct populations…
And yet, per Google, they are sold in pet stores. And somebody in the UK was trying to sell his for 20 pounds each. Would Anthony argue that because there is a market for them, there must be a habitat somewhere where they’re becoming locally extinct.
HILARIOUS BEARDED DRAGON………. Anthony gets his argument the wrong way round. It’s because the Australian bearded lizard is bred in captivity (250,000 per year) that we know that there is no collecting pressure on the original habitat. If they were among those going locally extinct, it could be due to that other reason, global warming.
See the AAAS (‘Science’ mag) website for the complete press release, and an audio interview and video press conference with Barry Sinervo, the lead author.
Supporting Online Material for this paper is available here. Anthony might have done better criticizing the Mexican weather stations.
[Good work. I think in general the less Anthony says the better it is for his reputation! – Ben]
From Lindzen’s presentation:
Fine by me. How about ‘AGW Troofers’?
If the shoe fits and all that…
[I heard the expression “Bully victim” used to describe Anthony Watts recently. They’ll always be indignant about some imagined mistreatment. Anyway, wasn’t the term ‘skeptic’ the label the denialists wanted used before? – Ben]
“Anyway, wasn’t the term ‘skeptic’ the label the denialists wanted used before?”
Good point.
“Rootin’ tootin’ troofin’ denidiots” it is then.