When lukewarmists attack

Posted: September 22, 2016 by tallbloke in Blog, censorship, Defence, flames, Idiots, physics, solar system dynamics, Temperature, Thermodynamics

sheep-attackIt’s a bit like being savaged by sheep. Anthony Watts and his psychotic sidekick Willis the drug-addled cowboy are at it again. They’re trying to undermine the work of Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller, who gave an excellent presentation at our highly successful London Conference. Their theory covers the underlying physical principles which determine surface temperature across a range of solar system bodies with radically different parameters in terms of insolation, surface pressure, atmospheric composition and rotation rates. There’s not a snowball on Venus’ chance of Watts or Willis understanding it, as they amply demonstrated last time they had a go.

Willis has triumphantly added to Watts’ vindictive nonsense by proclaiming to the world it was he who managed to get one of Nikolov and Zeller’s papers withdrawn from publication due to their use of pseudonyms. He bigs himself up as a hero for being a snitch.

“I was the one who wrote to the Editor of the paper (sic) and notified them of the imposture.”

“And now, we have the denouement … so yes, folks, one person can indeed make a difference in this world, the web makes giants of us all.”


I have a word for people like Willis. It’s not ‘giant’.  It’s ‘wanker‘.

But never mind, we will continue to support Ned and Karl’s work by publishing and discussing it here at the talkshop, as we have from the start when we broke the original story that WUWT then copied. Their findings on the magnitude of the ATE have been empirically vindicated by DIVINER’s lunar measurements, and we look forward to further fruitful collaboration.

The latest version of their withdrawn paper with additional explanatory sections was sent to me last night by Ned Nikolov. It’s well worth studying. In the email Ned notes the comment by Michael from ‘the Hockeyschtick’ and Anthony’s reply to it.


Hockeyschtick says “I hope Anthony will consider a hearing for better or worse here at WUWT on the scientific merits of the paper, as it would be to the benefit of everyone. What do we have to lose?

Anthony replies “Nope, sorry. Nikolov and Zeller wore out their welcome with me with some abusive emails in the past, if they want to discuss “the scientific merits of the paper” they can do it elsewhere. I don’t want anything to do with them or with Doug Cotton, who has also worn out his welcome with abusive emails, and yet persists postign (sic) under fake names as if somehow that will convince me to let him have a forum here.”

The inclusion of Cotton, as if his work is comparable, who has never posted an equation of his own devising in his life, is a calculated insult to two fine PhD scientists. A nasty small-minded attempt at damnation by association.

Ned responds:

I do not recall sending any abusive emails to Anthony, do you? Also, I have not communicated with him at all since 2012 !

I think it’s pretty clear what Anthony’s (and Willis’) agenda is – they never cared about real science or any kind of theoretical breakthrough that could resolve the climate debate for humanity. They only seem to care about keeping the online discussion going (by directing it in circles) and running their little (for-profit) enterprise.

Even Lord Monckton thought it necessary to issue a rebuke to Watts:

While I am uncomfortable with scientific papers being published under false names, such as “Nicolas Bourbaki”, it is perhaps unduly sweeping pompously to dismiss an entire scientific conference on the basis that one of the papers presented at the conference and another outlined in the conference volume are not thought meritorious.

The conference was very successful and will probably be repeated next year.

Niklas Moerner’s approach in organizing the conference was not to exercise any form of censorship, for there is far too much of that on the other side. Bad papers, presented at a high-level conference such as the London conference, will be rejected by the majority of the participants as not having justified their claims. The bad papers, however, do not make the good papers bad. So let us not become too intolerant. There is quite enough intolerance among the climate Communists.

Worth noting then , that Ned and Karl’s contribution received warm applause and elicited interesting questions from the free thinking audience. What a difference from the closed minds of the WUWT wankers.

  1. colliemum says:

    That looks to me as if Watts & Willis are the AGW equivalent of the ‘remoaners’ we’ve all come to love (NOT) here in the UK …


  2. oldbrew says:

    WUWT seems to have backed itself into a corner where progressive research into climate-related matters is frowned upon, to put it mildly.

  3. During the dark days when climate academics were insanely rushing down the blind alleyway of CO2 alarmism – I welcomed Watt’s ability to launch a tirade of criticism and dismiss any ideas he didn’t like – because anything that stopped the madness was good.

    But then I realised that whilst he’d criticise everyone else for poor quality science – he himself really hadn’t much clue about the science. Instead he seems to pick and choose what to believe much on gut reaction.

    In particular, he is clueless about how CO2 warming actually works – indeed he is worse than clueless: mindfully and stubbornly ignorant – and as a result, many sceptics – which minds far better than his – but who rely on his blog for information, are likewise clueless.

    And as a direct result, many academics look down on sceptics as ill-informed and scientifically illiterate, when there is really no need given the high scientific calibre of most of us. They wouldn’t be ignorant, If only people like Watts were informing sceptics about the real science and not stuck in the mud with his own mickey mouse ideas we get on WUWT.

    But I’ve kept quiet – because for all his failings Watts was useful. But now “global warming” – is almost dead in the water (at least in academic terms – if not politically) – and academia seems ready to discuss new ideas, Watts through his constant mindless attacks, far from helping us sceptics “win the battle”, is hampering us. Firstly by making us look pretty dumb scientifically so we lose credibility, and secondly by hampering the move away from CO2 alarmism. Because, through his constant attacks and/or refusal to discuss new ideas and his dominance within sceptic publishing, he is stopping new ideas to developing within sceptic circles. And it is only through the development and maturing of new ideas that we will ever “change the narrative” away from CO2 alarmism.

  4. DennisA says:

    Nir Shaviv is so upset with Willis, he won’t even have WUWT on his blog roll any more



    I have noticed this tendency for some time for censorship on things that don’t agree with his mindset and his coterie of like thinkers.

  5. tallbloke says:

    Thanks for that Mike. A lot of us haven’t wanted to say it, because infighting is never a good look. But now Watts is openly lying about other people and mindlessly attacking theoretical work he doesn’t comprehend because of a personal grudge from 4 years ago over some intemperate words in response to the goading given out on his blog, I think we have to call it out for what it is.

  6. He’s cutting off his nose to spite his face because the world is moving on from CO2 alarmism – and if he doesn’t broaden his appeal beyond this one “cult” following, his blog will have its own “pause”.

    With the CO2 warming – I went from thinking I’d discovered something entirely new – to realising that a lot of academics already used the idea – to wondering why sceptics hadn’t heard of it – to realising that it was largely because Watts refused to accept the more sophisticated way of explaining CO2 warming was the reason we never ever heard about it on the blogs.

    And when the one thing I most dislike about the alarmists is that they are pushing false dogma at us – to find Watts is doing the same: pushing false dogma at us and repressing better science …

    What I’m really looking forward to, is the time when everyone – whether Mann or Watts – who pushes false dogma at everyone else is told to shut up … and we can start discussing climate science like adults.

  7. tallbloke says:

    DennisA: I have noticed this tendency for some time for censorship on things that don’t agree with his mindset and his coterie of like thinkers.

    Yes. There isn’t much difference between Watts/Willis and Gavin Schmidt/Realclimate groupies in the way they run their blogs. We all have banned a few individual commenters, but that’s very different to the way WUWT have systematically tried to rubbish Ned and Karl and then refused them a right of reply.

    After I told Joel Shore years ago I couldn’t cope with the volume and speed of his thread-bombing here, Willis demanded I reinstate him or he’d leave. Willis now tries to make out I banned him. I didn’t, he banned himself. Something he had my full backing on.

  8. One cannot correct a single parameter hypothesis, based on fudged anecdotal data, with a coefficient concocted from anecdotal data. Earth has two, variable energy input systems, solar and internal Geo-nuclear. The oceans and atmosphere are transient buffering, trailing artifacts with no capability for changes in Specific Heat ratios fast enough to have any meaningful influence. This has been a rigged fake debate for decades, only due to the willful ignorance of Luke LITTLE Warmists.

  9. p.g.sharrow says:

    There was a time before the Internet when Watts realized that the temperature data was flawed due to infill building around the recording stations. He made a start at examining and publishing this. Even though the evidence of AGW seems to be a data recording problem he seems to have drunk the popular cool-aid of the warmers rather then doing the work of examining the foundations of their “science” in depth. Willis is a fine spinner of tails but the deeper details are not allowed to get in the way of his story. I gave up on WUWT a couple of years ago as it was a waste of my time. Far too much bs…bull stuff and BS…. Bad Science for my patience…pg

  10. It is tragic that Willis whose day work is as a building contractor and has only taken a college course in statistics, has become a gatekeeper for blocking interesting discussion on WUWT. It’s tiresome with his constant name calling and ranting. Another person which is pestering that site is Leif Svalgaard although he is not that nasty. He is a Danish solar physicist working at Stanford. Of course his knowledge and expertise about solar parameters are useful and welcome, but his knowledge outside his expertise is limited which is a common trait be many academics.
    I guess the way to go is to ignore the degradation of WUWT and continue with constructive discussion here and at other places and to publish results and to get them reproduced. That what I’m going to do with my results on ENSO.

  11. tallbloke says:

    Hi Per,
    Thanks for dropping by. It was great to meet you in London, and I hope the conference was fruitful for you. I’ve done my best to “ignore the degradation on WUWT” for several years, but when Watts makes snide jibes to diss our conference which Niklas worked so hard to organise, and Willis the wanker stalks Ned and Karl to get their work pulled from journals, I can’t bite my tongue any more. They are a pair of feckless cnuts and that’s all there is to it.

  12. Mike says:

    Dunning Kruger come to mind for Willis

  13. Ned Nikolov says:


    You say “… the way to go is to ignore the degradation of WUWT and continue with constructive discussion here and at other places and to publish results and to get them reproduced“. I couldn’t agree more!

    I have realized and said it publicly several years ago that, at the end of the day, solving the climate issue requires a scientific expertise, which cannot be provided by political ‘activists’ lacking the necessary knowledge in physics and math, i.e. by folks such as Anthony and Willis. This is not to say that these people did not have anything useful to offer. They have certainly made contributions in the past. However, I think the time has come now to separate ‘men’ from the ‘boys’ on the science front as the saying goes. We simply cannot afford anymore half-baked science on either side of the debate …

    There are fundamental scientific problems with the current Greenhouse theory that require moving the discussion beyond the ‘degree-of-warming-by-CO2‘ argument and into the roam of questions such as these: “Have we been confused about the physical nature of the atmospheric thermal effect for 190 years?” or “Do positive feedbacks between temperature,water vapor, and albedo actually exist outside computer models?” or “Does atmospheric composition has any relevance to surface temperature at all?“.

    A key point to keep in mind when looking for answers to these questions is that new paradigms require a whole new way of thinking about the issues. As Einstein once said “Problems cannot be solved with the same mind set that created them.” …

  14. Sparks says:

    Okay… Stop with the ‘ad hominems’ or not, I agree there is a lot more going on, it is something we have to explore together, or alone.

    Knowledge is worth nothing, without you.

  15. Jeremy says:

    Bravo Tallbloke – for saying what’s been in the minds of so many.

  16. tallbloke says:

    Mike: Dunning Kruger come to mind for Willis

    That plus the old Bolivian marching powder, I suspect.

  17. tallbloke says:

    Ned: moving the discussion beyond the ‘degree-of-warming-by-CO2‘ argument and into the roam of questions such as these: “Have we been confused about the physical nature of the atmospheric thermal effect for 190 years?” or “Do positive feedbacks between temperature,water vapor, and albedo actually exist outside computer models?” or “Does atmospheric composition has any relevance to surface temperature at all?“.

    Interestingly, Baron Fourier intuited the role of atmospheric mass having something to do with surface temperature as well as the ‘rays’, but couldn’t work out how to quantify it.

    I think composition does matter, some kind of condensing gas is present on all the bodies with atmospheres you studied. There was an interesting article I found the other day I’ll try to dig out, about unexpected clouds forming on Titan at a much lower concentration of a certain gas than expected from theory. They put it down to instrument error when voyager spotted it years ago, but it’s been verified again by the latest probe.

    Edit: Here it is: http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-scientists-find-impossible-cloud-on-titan-again

    This indicates to me that albedo is a very powerful important aspect, but is an emergent property in terms of its magnitude, determined by other more fundamental parameters. It is interesting that Titan was the body which departed the most from your curve though.

  18. tallbloke says:

    Scottish Sceptic: I went from thinking I’d discovered something entirely new – to realising that a lot of academics already used the idea

    What’s that then Mike? got a link?

  19. Eternaloptimist says:

    I like different blogs for different reasons, they are not all the same and why should they be. What has worried me lately is the way some ideas have been dismissed out of hand as if they are self evidently wrong. What i would like is a primer, like an idiots guide.
    For example how do all the different theories explain why its hotter at the bottom of the grand canyon.

  20. Ned Nikolov says:


    Yes, Fourier anticipated that atmospheric pressure had something to do with Earth’s surface temperature, but did not understand the mechanism, since his conjecture pre-dated the discovery of the Gas Law.

    The Gas Law clearly states that the relationship between internal energy and temperature of a gas is independent of the nature and composition of the gas. Our emergent relationship across planets with vastly different atmospheres suggests that this independence is also true at the macro-level.

  21. tallbloke says:

    Colliemum: That looks to me as if Watts & Willis are the AGW equivalent of the ‘remoaners’ we’ve all come to love (NOT) here in the UK …

    Nice comparison Viv. Perhaps like the ‘reluctant remainers’…

    “We don’t like the abusive and intolerant climate mainstream, but we have to play by their rules or they’ll beat us mercilessly”

    Watts and Willis are poachers turned gatekeepers.

    “Play by our rules or we’ll diss your conference, get your papers pulled from journals and cast you into the outer darkness”

    They have become the very people they used to deplore. Now they take advice from them and follow their example.

  22. Ned Nikolov says:

    Of course, composition of the atmosphere matters for the type of bio-geochemistry present on the surface of a planet, and ultimately for life itself. The evidence suggests that global near-surface temperature as a manifestation of the climate system’s internal energy is a major determinant (along with pressure) for the type and availability of condensing gases. The comparison between Earth and Titan provides a case-in-point example of this…

  23. tallbloke says:

    Ned: The Gas Law clearly states that the relationship between internal energy and temperature of a gas is independent of the nature and composition of the gas

    I didn’t know that. I assumed that like other gas laws, it dealt with a theoretical ‘ideal gas’. But another layer of complexity in real planetary atmospheres is the condensing gases varying the amount of insolation affecting the internal energy of the atmosphere. Presumably there’s a negative feedback system which operates to balance it all?

  24. tallbloke says:

    Ned: …the type of bio-geochemistry present…comparison between Earth and Titan…

    Well with its seas of methane, Titan has plenty of ‘organic chemistry’ going on, if not ‘bio-chemistry’. At least, I don’t think NASA has photographed any dinosaur skeletons on its surface yet. 🙂

  25. Ned Nikolov says:

    The Ideal Gas Law is very good (almost exact) approximation for most gases and atmospheres that are not close to the critical point, i.e. the point where the gaseous and liquid phase fuse into one. This occurs at very very high pressures and cold temperatures. We do not have a rocky planet in the Solar System, which atmosphere is even close to the critical point. So, for all practical purposes in planetary science, the Ideal Gas Law suffices …

    Yes, there appears to be a negative feedback between the thermal effect provided by pressure and the cloud albedo of a planet. Typically, the higher the surface pressure the denser the cloud cover and the higher the cloud albedo is. An interesting new finding emerging from our analysis is that, for bodies with tangible atmosphere (i.e. with pressures greater than 0.01 Pa), the planetary albedo apparently becomes an intrinsic byproduct of the climate system itself.

  26. Ned Nikolov says:

    See pp. 22-23 of our latest manuscript for a discussion about the role of planetary albedo …

  27. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Ordering intelligence agencies to focus on climate change has the potential to take this harassment of political opponents to an entirely new level. An adverse tax audit is hideously inconvenient, but it is not likely to cost you your life.”


  28. oldbrew says:

    Ned N: ‘the planetary albedo apparently becomes an intrinsic byproduct of the climate system itself.’

    It does seem reasonable that planetary albedo couldn’t cause itself.

  29. Reading the comments here is a breath of fresh air. So good to see so many people waking up to the fact WUWT is part of the problem and not part of the solution when it comes to gaining better understanding of the mechanism of climate. Watts has done excellent work on the surface stations UHI issue but is a one trick pony and completely out of his depth when it comes to the ‘hard’ sciences.

  30. USteiner says:

    I am a longtime reader of WUWT (and of Tallbloke, of course!) but that post on wuwt left me speechless. It made my personal ranking of wuwt drop from 5 star to 2 star (There is still value from others besides A & W).

    It reminds me a bit of Willis as “Blockwart” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockleiter ) from the Nazi era, a proud follower of the official rules, proudly denunciating everyone with non-matching opinion.

    But the most damning is this religious sticking to their own thinking, doing exactly what they were verbally condemning of the climate alarmists: letting only be presented what confirms to their preaching.

    Wuwt even shows posts on Cold Fusion and the like, with accompanying words like “I don’t believe it, but here it is for discussion”, giving themselves the aura of scientifc openness. Yet, when it comes to climate, it is religion only. How are they different from realclimate et al? Not at all, it seems. Just looking from a different angle.

    Sigh. At least we have Tallbloke :-/

  31. Paul Vaughan says:

    Exploration Update:

    I’m exploring empirical ensembles of El Nino Modoki indices with aggregation criteria based on ITCZ migration. Vision clears with recognition that the ITCZ is the CENTRAL aggregation criterion of climate.

    There’s a CLEAR bidecadal oscillation (BDO) in El Nino Modoki that’s ORTHOGONAL to the BDO in integrated ENSO volatility.

    Details are forthcoming …but let’s take a minute to do clean-up.

    At wuwt I read only one commentator: Bill Illis. He comments on certain types of articles. If one appears I search in-page for “ill ill” and then filter off anything where he goes outside of his competence (including aggregation criteria).

    Eric Worrall sometimes writes concise, sensible articles. He may (?) be a (good) outlier. Request: If anyone sees him showing partisan support for any of the dark agents, please alert us right away.

    Anyone who still pays any attention to any of the dark agents at wuwt is either fatally naive or underhandedly evil.

    It would be easy to replace wuwt. It’s utility is only to monitor climate news developments. That could be done without the dark agents.

    The easiest, simplest change that would make a massive qualitative difference:
    A site exactly like wuwt with the 6 or so dark agents banned.

    People have taken 5 years longer than necessary to start arriving at this realization. That rouses deep, acute suspicion. We had the proof of dark agency 5 years ago.

    Exploration is my role.
    Someone else PLEASE JUMP START a simple, easy alternative to underscore the problem:
    Mimic wuwt pretty much exactly but with the 6 or so dark agents banned.

    Never mind trying any tricks. It won’t work.

    Eclipsing wuwt will be easy:
    Mimic wuwt but withOUT the dark agents.

    That’s it. It’s pretty simple and easy. It’s a “just do it” kind of thing.

    Tip: Due to the historical spatial pattern of underhanded dark agency, Californian contributors are sure to be regarded under intense suspicion. Keep it simple: Don’t go there. That leadership is fatal. Can sensible leadership come from elsewhere in the US? I’m endeavoring to keep an open mind to that possibility, but even if so there needs to be an order of magnitude more control from outside the US because US politics has become so toxic that quite simply we need to clean up.

  32. Brett Keane says:

    @Ned Nikolov says:
    September 23, 2016 at 7:00 am: Thanks Ned, for that historical tie-up for the Gas Laws and before them. With the help of others, I had seen links between Fourier, Tyndall (his IR receiver needing to be pre-cooled), Poisson. and Maxwell, who makes some of the links himself Also, Stephen Wilde’s conclusion that an atmosphere without polyatomic gases might be lost sooner because it could have to spread out further. But I am just a retired Botanist etc., and I think this historical and empirical linkage needs more development…..

  33. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB wrote:

    “[…] infighting is never a good look. But […] I think we have to call it out for what it is.”

    – –

    Calling it for what it both is and isn’t:

    It isn’t “in”fighting when bounty hunters infiltrate as lukes to do sabotage work for the alarmists.

  34. There is a dilemma here. Though I tend to agree there is a need for a better, more open-minded version of WUWT a newer incarnation should not just be about climate science as that issue is fast nearing its expiry date. Watts has to keep alive the climate debate because that’s all he knows. If Watts relented and permitted full and open debate about the CO2-driven greenhouse gas theory it would soon be widely recognized as dead and buried (putting Watts out of business!)

    We did consider making Principia Scientific International more in the mold of WUWT but decided against it – we didn’t want political commentary and preferred to be a publishing hub for our science-qualified members who ostensibly are experts in the ‘hard’ sciences.

    WUWT succeeded for so long because there was a need for a populist forum aimed at a broad church from non-scientists and big government malcontents upwards. But as other commenters on here will probably agree, nothing is more complex than trying to figure out earth’s climate. It really needs all kinds of experts – preferably with PhD’s in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics, Geology, oceanography, etc, etc. In truth it is way over the heads of Joe Average. That’s why BS artists like Willis Eschenbach get away with so much and Watts is increasingly being made to look the fool.

    So how do you moderate what is “good” science commentary?What is needed is someone who is prepared to devote their life to the task. Like him or loathe him Watts is certainly very dedicated to his site.

  35. tallbloke says:

    Watts is a loyal person, to the point of being overly partisan. Unfortunately, he has poor judgement when it comes to those he gives free rein to. Willis is a menace to science, and Svalgaard has way too much baggage due to his longtime association with Stephen Schneider and the NSA.

  36. Tallbloke, you’re probably right. Not an easy mess to fix.

  37. p.g.sharrow says:

    Watts is a local Television Media personality and is operating an international Internet “Media” station. Station entertainment value is important, science is not.
    If you want geophysical and astronomical science this is the place. If you want more general discussion go to E.M.Smiths “Musings from the Chiefio”…pg

  38. Paul Vaughan says:

    John O’Sullivan says: “It really needs all kinds of experts – preferably with PhD’s in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics, Geology, oceanography, etc, etc.”

    Dark agency employs expertise.

  39. Annie says:

    I’m sad because I learned a lot from WUWT in the past but now don’t go there much. I come here and Jo Nova’s blog, also Notalotofpeopleknowthat, Notrickszone with appreciative occasional forays to Fenbeagleblog.
    I still have to catch up with more from your conference and other threads. I enjoy Pointman’s articles too.

  40. oldmanK says:

    Something Ned Nikolov said, or better asks, needs to be repeated for its pragmatic value. ” “Have we been confused about the physical nature of the atmospheric thermal effect for 190 years?” or “Do positive feedbacks between temperature,water vapor, and albedo actually exist outside computer models?” or “Does atmospheric composition has any relevance to surface temperature at all?“.” – and ” As Einstein once said “Problems cannot be solved with the same mind set that created them.” …”

    There are not only pragmatic questions to be asked, but downright anomalies to be addressed.

    Elsewhere TA said “Science is Fun! You never know what’s coming next.”. It isn’t, not when it becomes a form of religion for general consumption, and that many are afraid to breach.

  41. Paul Vaughan says:

    Eric Worrall quoted Lew…
    “conspiracism may be implicated when people reject well-established scientific propositions.”

    …and commented:
    “A demonstration that a theory is useless at prediction does not have to be accompanied by a settled alternative theory – simply demonstrating that the current theory is wrong is enough.”



    Why set your sights so low Eric?…

    If criticism of what’s wrong isn’t accompanied by exploration of what’s right, the critic is self-limited to protester status and failing to demonstrate visionary leadership.

    Positively exploring for truth demands orders of magnitude deeper dedication than opportunistic negative criticism.

    The people who try to frame discussion as being about science are consistently the ones causing all the trouble.

    It’s a political containment tactic.

    Exploration isn’t limited to science. If I discover a forest trail network, I can explore it joyously without doing any science. I can discover a beautiful waterfall or a spectacular lookout. That’s not science. It’s just exploration.

    The devil wears red….

    You don’t need a UN handbook and set of guidelines on how to find and report discovery of the waterfall (red tape). You can just go out on the trail, trip over it haphazardly, and informally tell people about it.

    The notion that 2+2=4 needs to be published according to some stuffy UN protocol (employing thousands of officials) is ridiculous, as are the visionless protesters intent on artificially limiting scope to science and prediction rather than opening it up to the broader realm of raw exploration.

    It’s a political containment strategy. The last thing they want to see is raw exploration. They hate raw exploration. They hate activity that can lead to discovery of the truth. They perceive the fire of raw exploration as something they have to piss on mercilessly. Science on the other hand doesn’t threaten them because they feel they can contain it with a biased rule-book.

    I recommend refraining from prediction when exploration is incomplete as that’s playing by the devil’s rule book. It’s like walking into a trap to get bait rather than looking for food elsewhere.

    Limiting discussion to settled science and prediction rather than broadly opening discussion to raw exploration is a containment strategy. Via infiltration and corruption, wuwt became the red hive’s primary arm of front line execution.

    Let’s have a little fun with conspiracy ideation:
    The wuwt dark agents work for Lew.

    Whether by design or accident — and whether with pay or without — they’re the only front line of containment.

    If that one front line of containment is ever breached (say by banning — on the Pareto Principle — the 6 or so dark agents or by eclipsing wuwt with a wuwt-mimic minus the dark agents) it will be a natural victory for independence and freedom.

    There’s every reason to be optimistic because it’s a clearly defined easy target.

    Operation Minus Lew’s Six (-LS)….

    I suggest cutting down the center stage artificial pedestals from which Lew’s dark agents wage their mischievous war of devilishly red political containment.

    Let the dam burst. The minor fallout is dwarfed by status quo tragectory.

    Commendation for the official containment manager:
    You’ve done a brilliant job spotlighting enforcement of red science by dark agents.

  42. Ned Nikolov says:


    The Springer article discussed at the WUWT blog


    claims that there is currently no alternative coherent concept to the radiative Greenhouse theory… Well, not true anymore! We do now have an alternative theory of climate drivers operating on different time scales that is based on observations. In my talk at the London conference, I presented empirical evidence that the thermal effect of a planet’s atmosphere (a.k.a. Greenhouse effect) is entirely due to atmospheric pressure and is independent of atmospheric composition. Our findings are described in a 50-page paper that went through a blind peer review and was accepted for publication on its merits:

    Click to access planetary_temperature_model_volokin_rellez_2015.pdf

    Our results point to a different set of climate drivers: On a human time scale (i.e. decades to centuries), Earth’s climate is driven by variations in the magnetic activity of the Sun, which influence cloud cover and the global cloud albedo (an increased solar activity reduces cloud cover allowing for more shortwave radiation to reach the surface resulting in warming; a decreased solar activity, on the other hand, induces more clouds leading to periods of cooling). Cloud-mediated climatic changes are small, however (i.e. ± 0.7 K around a long-term mean), since changes in cloud cover are well contained (buffered) by a negative temperature-water vapor feedback operating within the climate system. On the time scale of thousands to millions of years, Earth’s global temperature is likely controlled by changes in total atmospheric mass and pressure. Pressure variations are likely responsible for the observed mega shifts in Earth’s climate such as the 15-16 K directional cooling evident in the geological record over the past 51 M years and the glacial-interglacial cycles of 3.5 – 6.4 K global temperature variations observed during the past 2.5 M years.

    Based on the above, new research should focus on the following topics: 1) identifying the actual mechanisms, through which solar activity impacts Earth’s cloud albedo on time scales of decades to centuries; and 2) finding geo-chemical proxies of atmospheric pressure that would allow an unbiased reconstruction of past pressure changes on Earth; currently there are no such proxies available and climate science a priory assumes that atmospheric pressure on Earth has been constant during the Cenozoic (past 65 M years); and 3) studying the electromagnetic processes responsible for removal (loss) of atmospheric mass to space; this is crucial if we are to understand the dynamics of Earth’s atmosphere over time.

  43. tallbloke says:

    Ned, interesting that you think the glacial/interglacial cycles are cause by pressure change.
    1) How much in percentage terms would surface pressure have to change by to do that?
    2) What global average temperature change is involved?

  44. Paul Vaughan says:

    The thing I don’t get Ned is why people aren’t talking about spatial patterns. It makes no sense.

    For example: David Evans. Does he not realize how far off his recent prediction can be (plus OR minus) due to north-south asymmetry alone?? There’s no mention of this. This rouses suspicion. He also does not mention the BDO.

    I do not agree that identifying mechanisms should be a priority at this stage of exploration. What I see clearly is that people are not interpreting multivariate data correctly. I see people racing off to theories before listening with sufficient care to what the sun is saying… …particularly about spatial patterns…

    …but I hasten to balance my comments here:

    As a wise person said to me recently:
    Different people have different priorities.

    We can make contributions in parallel and perhaps we can disagree amicably about what the priorities should be.

    I am pleased to see that you and TB have made a strong connection.

    I’ll be sharing new results soon. Lack of free time is becoming an increasingly serious problem, but I’ve learned there’s some value in the stealth that affords. I’m in a solid position to judge what others are saying about patterns well before I’ve had time to try to communicate exploratory insight.

    Of one thing I’m sure about your work:
    Bill Illis is the ONLY wuwt commentator whose comments on your work would even acquire my attention. No one else over there is trustworthy. And a few of them qualify as the devil. I’m always amazed at how many naive sheep want to listen to the devil because he’s an expert. I caught him making 2 strategic lies 5 years ago. It’s possible to maintain a very high truth rate and lie strategically where it tactically matters most. It’s so evil.

  45. oldmanK says:

    Relevant to the above – to address somewhat the question “Are there–positive feedbacks–“, there is something I was looking at for evidence during the Holocene; 9k-2k BP, mainly for comparisons and possible leads.

    Fig 5 from Charvátová’s paper http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/2/21/2014/prp-2-21-2014.pdf and fig 1 from this paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL028155/epdf , mainly sections e, f, g.

    The latter fig 1 shows a positive feedback, a ‘bang-bang’ situation in control theory, (the drunkard’s dilemma = more drink more drunk::more drunk more drink). The system swings from one state to another, always ending at points where drastic changes then occur. On the other hand fig 5 is insensitive to those +fb swings (though it highlites other matters).

  46. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ned, I would be curious to hear (if and when you have time) how you interpret spatiotemporal ozone variations in your framework. Do you interpret them as indicating something about pressure patterns that we’re completely missing in other types of observations? (I confess that I have a currently-hidden reason for asking. We’ll get there as/when time permits. I’ll have illustrations that will confuse people. They’re going to struggle to understand how a solar temporal frequency parameter is shaping meridional spatial patterns on Earth… Several shelved loose-ends fell straight into place when I started splitting aggregates along the ITCZ…)

  47. E.M.Smith says:


    Very nice list, and close to my own.


    Well, since it looks like we are all in “confessions” mode…

    There was a time when Tallbloke and I were both moderators at WUWT. “Stuff” happened and Tallbloke was chased off. I was “unfond” of that… Mostly it centered about Barycenter arguments, I think.

    As something of an attempt at peace making, I put up comments at WUWT that anyone wishing to discuss that could come on over the may place. That both gets the angst out of WUWT and keeps the discussion going.

    Time past. More things became “non grata” and I’d say “come on over”…

    Willis would publish fun stories. Then got R training and a few basic statistics and started doing simples science. I’d point out some pretty easy “Hey, you might want to tighten up here”, and it would go nowhere. (Things like “You are looking for an 11 year fixed cycle in something with bimodal behaviour and range from 9 to 14, not going to work well”.)

    Skipping forward: I’m still a ‘sporadic’ moderator at WUWT. Mostly, since the shift to white lists and “moderator as post publish redactor”, just touching up the occasional spelling, broken link, etc. and the occasional “stuck in the moderation or SPAM queue for no reason”. Where I used to read near 100% of comments, it’s now down sharply. I only get to about 1/3 of whole articles, and then maybe 20% of comments. (Threaded comments makes it impossible to properly check in and review quickly without resort to the comment management screen that shows ALL comments on ALL articles. The change to threaded comments broke my system of comment reviewing).

    So while I hold no ill will toward Anthony, Willis, or WUWT, I participate far far less than before. (Someday I’m sure they will notice I’m not around that much and pull my moderator rights … then again, I’m careful and keep my nose clean…)

    IMHO, Anthony quite honestly is most worried about his “reputation” and if he sees something as “fringe” wants to shun it to protect that “reputation”. There are two problems with this. Defining what is “fringe” will inevitably stunt real discoveries. Defining real ‘fringe” takes skill levels not in evidence and time not available. The result has been, IMHO and abbreviated, “If it’s lukewarmer, it’s OK, if not, well, it might be fringe so no…” and with special emphasis on anyone who argues about promoting a prior flagged as “fringe” topic.

    I think that is wrong, but “not my site”. So I adapted by offering my site as an overflow space so as to quiet the waters. I think it hasn’t worked as well as hoped…

    Oddly (or maybe not so oddly…) I now find myself reading 100% of the articles here at Tallblokes Talkshop and almost 100% of the comments… and the world turns 😉

  48. Paul Vaughan says:

    People don’t even think about AW (just a stupid pawn) when they think about wuwt. The fatal reputation damage came from the 6 or so dark agents.

    Change is natural.

    There are only 2 things worth salvaging:
    1. There should be a site that points to newsworthy climate discussion developments (particularly exploratory developments).
    2. Bill Illis commentary.

    Both wuwt and ce are write-offs filled with untrustworthy spin and commentary. I suggest we be practical. That’s why I’m identifying 2 things worth salvaging from the old model (the 2 things that actually worked).

  49. Ned Nikolov says:

    E.M.Smith, thank you for the ‘inside scope’.

    You confirmed my impression that WUWT lacks the necessary scientific expertise to decide (within a reason), which ideas are real ‘fringe’ and which are likely discoveries. This fact along with Anthony’s preoccupation with his ‘reputation’ is probably the reason for the messy and incoherent responses we see now and then from WUWT .. In any case, like I said before, we need to focus on observations-backed science, and if WUWT becomes irrelevant in the process, so be it…

  50. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ned, that’s “became” (past tense), not “becomes” (future tense). The integrity testing and proof was 5 years ago.

  51. Sunsettommy says:

    Jo Nova blog had to deal with both Dr. Svalgaard and Willis Eschenbauch snotty behavior over Dr. Evans numerous blog posting about the role of the sun on the climate.

    Jo, decided to expose then in detail about their dishonest comments that brought out Lief,but not Willis who passed on without comment.

    Here is the Expose over what they really are:

    The Solar Model finds a big fall in TSI data that few seem to know about


    and very recently,

    More strange adventures in TSI data: the miracle of 900 fabricated, fraudulent days


    I like WUWT in general,but do not agree with him about the role of the sun effect in many ways.

  52. Paul Vaughan says:

    Sunsettommy said:
    “I like WUWT in general,but do not agree with him about the role of the sun effect in many ways.”

    The corrupt agents run the devilish sun-climate belief-policing campaign to fuel a backlash.