Singer's Deniers Misrepresenting New Climatology Journal Article

With characteristic shamelessness, the mendacious Dr. S. Fred Singer and two of his three co-authors are flagrantly misrepresenting a new article that they have published in the International Journal of Climatology.

The article, A Comparison of Tropical Temperature Trends with Model Predictions, appears to be a legitimate paper that identifies an interesting statistical variation in a very narrow set of climate data. The folks at have picked the paper apart pretty successfully, demonstrating some fundamental flaws (the authors ignored new information when old datasets suited their purpose better), but the Journal of Climatology is a reputable publication and, in accepting this paper, it accords a certain degree of credibility to the authors' findings.

That, however, does not forgive the misleading public relations campaign that Singer has now launched on the strength of this publication. In a press release trumpeting the new paper, Singer announces: “Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.”

He quotes leading author David Douglass saying; “The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

And he quotes the once-respected John Christy saying: “Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

These conclusions are neither “inescapable” nor are they represented anywhere within the newly published paper. In fact, if you look on Singer's website, he doesn't even provide a link to the actual journal article - not even a title that would make it easier to search the article out. Neither will you find the article linked on any of the climate-change denying websites (like this ) that have picked up the story.

No, Fred Singer makes no effort to get you to read actual science. He offers only his  unfounded interpretation.

Somebody (probably the graduate student Benjamin Pearson) deserves some credit for identifying a statistical anomaly of scientific interest. But using this study to dismiss the notion of climate change is like concluding, on the strength of a second-quarter interception, that your favorite team had lost a football game - even when you could see the final victorious result posted on the scoreboard.

This is spin, plan and simple. I'd welcome all comers to read the links and judge otherwise.


Richard, the study is published online in the Journal of Climatology, but it may be easier to download the .pdf

As you’ve pointed out, has chosen to debunk the Douglass et al study. “A Comparison of Tropical Temperature Trends With Model Predictions”

It’s a rebuttal I was eager to see, yet I’m seriously disappointed. I replied on with this comment earlier…

“Gavin, did you write this? I find it intriguing that, as others have noted, there’s no byline for this analysis. Any reasonable person would expect that if you’re the author, you would stand behind this review. I hope you’ll take the opportunity to correct this oversight. While I’m an avid reader of this blog, and inclined to support you, it certainly undermines your credibility.

“Several statements you’ve made here suggest either a stunning lack of familiarity with the actual mathematics of climate science or a willingness to knowingly misrepresent the data.

“I’m even further mystified by your acknowledgement that you had to manipulate the data set to prove Douglass et al wrong.

“Outside of the scientific review process there is no way to evaluate the merit of this post or its challenge to the study published in the Journal of Climatology. You’ve already written about the flaws in peer review, but to be accepted by science an idea has to survive rigorous scrutiny by the professional scientific community. The results need to be verified independently. Without this process, there is really no way to evaluate a scientific theory. Oddly, you have declined to submit your ideas to the court of scientific inquiry. Instead, you’ve taken this challenge right to the public where there is little chance for criticism except perhaps on Internet forums. It makes the rest of us who cite any of this work look bad.

“To help us regain a small shred of relevance to the AGW debate, may I politely suggest you submit your criticism for peer review, preferably to the International Journal of Climatology, and allow it to withstand scrutiny there?”

Sadly, it’s unlikely that comment will make it past moderation.

I’m sure everyone reading this blog agrees: Anthropogenic Global Warming is a serious issue. It deserves sober, objective scientific study. Before any of us go about citing on this one, please be aware: There’s a reason Gavin doesn’t take credit for his work. If you follow carefully, it just doesn’t make sense.

A lot of people go to sites like for objective, verifiable science. Unfortunately, after reading some of the careless work they’ve recently published as “scientific studies” I’m left with more questions than answers.

To begin with, that Realclimate post was made by “group”. Now to my unscientific eyes, that would suggest that several people at Realclimate worked on that post, not just Gavin.

I don’t see your rather snotty post there yet, John. It looks to me like there is no real substance in your comments; you are trying to sound scientific without actually talking about the science.

You’re right, VJ. Given that the sober, objective moderators at are disinclined to approve any comments with sticky questions, the odds of my post being published on their blog are thin.

Since you’ve admitted having “unscientific eyes” let me address your concerns in plain, easy to understand English. First, a scientist would attach his name to his work, not hide behind “group.” If there was more than one author to this piece, it should have read “Schmidt and Mann” as others have. In the scientific community, anonymous hatchet jobs are generally not accepted practice.

There are two specific errors in the article which others have already caught:

Comment #32

“I took a look at Figure 9.1 in the latest IPCC of zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (similated by the PCM model). That figure shows a significant difference in the magnitude of the trend at 10 km over the tropics between solar forcing and greenhouse gas forcing. This is at odds with your first two graphics. Are you saying that the IPCC graphic is wrong?”

Oops. Gavin is caught flat-footed, with no response. He had to modify the data to make his rebuttal work.

Comment #35

John R Christy responds to

“To quote from realclimate. org ‘The sharp eyed among you will notice that the satellite estimates (even UAH) - which are basically weighted means of the vertical temperature profiles - are also apparently inconsistent with the selected radiosonde estimates (you can’t get a weighted mean trend larger than any of the individual level trends!).’ This was written by someone of significant inexperience. The weighting functions include the surface, and the sondes align almost exactly with UAH data … the weights are proportional, depending most on 850-400 but use all from the surface to the stratosphere. The quote is simply false.”

Gavin’s reply to that is essentially meaningless.

May I also respectfully point out to your unscientific eyes, VJ, a scientist submits his work to a community of experts for analysis and review. A denier makes his case to the unprepared and unwitting public, avoiding scientific scrutiny altogether. By taking their case to the public which is ill equipped to evaluate what they say, the “group” at is making no case at all. The only explanation for their actions is that they want to affect public policy, not further the science.

To put it quite plainly, they have become the deniers we’ve been railing against. In their haste to discredit Douglass, Christy, Pearson and Singer, the “group” both misrepresented the study and manipulated the data set. That’s potentially embarrassing to anyone who chooses to cite their work. If Gavin and the “group” care to stand by their findings, they should submit the paper for peer review or send it to the Journal of Climatology where the study was published.

Anything less is merely an attempt to change public opinion, not further scientific thought. I am deeply disappointed, because I’m really getting the feeling that I’ve been had.

For Comment #32, Gavin already gave the answer in #29.

For #35, Christy’s quote didn’t mean much to me either. But why don’t you go and post there about the specific things bothering you?

…Given that the sober, objective moderators at are disinclined to approve any comments with sticky questions, the odds of my post being published on their blog are thin….
On the contrary, they seem quite open to discussion and to correcting errors that have been pointed out.

…a scientist submits his work to a community of experts for analysis and review. A denier makes his case to the unprepared and unwitting public, avoiding scientific scrutiny altogether…
Is that why you yourself are posting here instead of over there? Are you hoping to find an unwitting public here?

…If Gavin and the “group” care to stand by their findings, they should submit the paper for peer review or send it to the Journal of Climatology where the study was published…
Who knows, perhaps they will send a letter to that journal.

…Anything less is merely an attempt to change public opinion, not further scientific thought. I am deeply disappointed, because I’m really getting the feeling that I’ve been had.
I take it you are not used to reading science blogs, or you could not reasonably expect a blog to be a peer-reviewed journal. Science blogs are places for people to talk about science they are interested in, whether academically trained scientists or interested amateurs. There they can talk, teach and learn from each other. They perform a valuable service in that they do communicate with the public something of what is going on in scientific circles.

In fact, I think that is what you object to, John Holliday, that they are doing their job quite well, which is why you seem to prefer to come here and smear them.

You say: “Science blogs are places for people to talk about science they are interested in, whether academically trained scientists or interested amateurs. There they can talk, teach and learn from each other. They perform a valuable service in that they do communicate with the public something of what is going on in scientific circles.”

I say: That “something” being communicated should be truthful and verifiable, or else of what value is it? Frankly, if your interest is science, this should concern you. If your interest is merely swaying public opinion, then you’re right. Publish any pseudo-scientific gobbledy-gook you want. At least a few naive readers may stumble across this article and be convinced. I believe that’s the difference between scientists and deniers, right? Scientists submit their findings for peer review and to be published in professional journals. Deniers post their emotional appeals and impugn the scientific community to influence the unwitting. Which group do you choose, VJ?

The pattern of warming that’s predicted by greenhouse models does not match the observations of actual warming in the atmosphere. There is a disconnect between greenhouse models and the real world. It’s reasonable to conclude that the greenhouse effect, while real, is not as important in producing climate change as the IPCC models calculate. That’s the conclusion of a peer-reviewed study published in the International Journal of Climatology. claims there were errors in the methodology, but on review their findings challenging the study are based on deliberate misinterpretations of the paper and manipulation of the data.

In the interest of science, where this blog links to, you should include the caveat: “Contrary to the accepted scientific process, the opinions and statements here have not been submitted for peer review and may contain serious factual errors.”

Otherwise you look like a denier. That’s just my 2 cents.

Nice catch, Andre

From Gavin’s work:

“It turns out that the radiosonde data used in this paper (version 1.2 of the RAOBCORE data) does not have the full set of adjustments. Subsequent to that dataset being put together (Haimberger, 2007), two newer versions have been developed (v1.3 and v1.4) which do a better, but still not perfect, job”

but then he says

“Nor does it show that RAOBCORE v1.4 is necessarily better than v1.2.”

and in the response to #42 comment

”With respect to RAOBCORE, I don’t have a position on which analysis is best”

What does Gavin say now? “I do not have enough knowledge on radiosonde analyses to be able to render a judgment.”

That’s odd, considering you did render a judgement in your work, Gavin. The unscientific eyes might have gotten the impression Douglass purposefully used faulty data. Want some syrup for that waffle?

My original comment, submitted to at 10:00 this morning, should have appeared as #25.

I understand that the AGW faithful might consider questioning the methodology and objectivity of a smear. You’re entitled to your opinion. I look at it this way: If they can’t withstand criticism from a believer, they won’t withstand scrutiny from the skeptics.

Apparently, the “group” didn’t feel like addressing posts that did not agree with them. Here are the specific problems: First, the very same quote John Christy pointed out suggests whoever wrote the paper is unfamiliar with the mathematics of climate science. Second, the matter of data manipulation is evident from the comments and Gavin’s responses. Third, if the group is so confident their analysis will stand peer review, why didn’t the members who wrote it at least attach their names?

If Schmidt, Mann et al are convinced of the strength of their findings, their rebuttal posted on should appear in the January 08 Journal of Climatology. Just between friends, as it’s currently written, I don’t think that’s gonna happen.

This whole comment string is dedicated to obsessing over the details of RealClimate’s counterpoint to the Douglass, Christy, Pearson, Singer paper. And in pursuing that obsession, you have dragged the conversation away from the main point, which is that having stumbled upon a statistical anomaly that is apparently worthy of publication, Singer, et al, are representing it in the popular press and the blogosphere as categorical proof that AGW is somehow not happening.

You can parse Singer’s paper and the RealClimate response till Greenland is wholly and entirely green (an event not far enough in the future), the fact remains that Singer and his denier buddies are still defrauding the public.

Thanks for the reply, Richard. Not to get off topic, but you bring up Greenland Is Melting! Here’s an interesting, related article on MSN

SAN FRANCISCO - Global warming may not be the only thing melting Greenland. Scientists have found at least one natural magma hotspot under the Arctic island that could be pitching in.

In recent years, Greenland’s ice has been melting more and flowing faster into the sea — a record amount of ice melted from the frozen mass this summer, according to recently released data — and Earth’s rising temperatures are suspected to be the main culprit.

But clues to a new natural contribution to the melt arose when scientists discovered a thin spot in the Earth’s crust under the northeast corner of the Greenland Ice Sheet where heat from Earth’s insides could seep through, scientists will report here this week at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.”

As for diversion, I’m disappointed Richard. The study doesn’t conclude that AGW isn’t happening at all. It merely points to an unreliablity in models based on the CO2 greenhouse theory. We’ve always maintained that AGW included other factors besides CO2, right? Factors like concrete and urban sprawl? Other greenhouse gases we’re spewing into the atmosphere, like wator vapor?

Instead of twisting into a pretzel to discredit Douglass, Christy, Pearson and Singer, why not step back and look at the big picture… By getting better models with better data, we can better identify the human-caused factors.

Disinformation About Global Warming

Mr. Holliday, interesting diversion regarding the Greenland magma as a possible cause of ice melting.

However, if you read the article, they say the magma hot spot is in the northeast part of Greenland.

Whereas if you read this summary of the NASA GRACE survey of ice mass, you’ll find that the majority of the melting is in the southeast and southern tip of Greenland.

Don’t get me wrong, obviously magma can melt ice. But it pretty much has to be virtually at the surface, since rock and soil act as an insulators.

You’ve seen pictures of snow on the ground around Yellowstone’s thermal pools, haven’t you? Yellowstone is a magma hotspot too.

Likewise the Long Valley caldera. AFAIK, it hasn’t affected skiing at Mammoth Mountain nearby.

Sounds like a diversion to me.

I didn’t bring up, Greenland, Richard did. You’ve made a good point. Thanks for the NASA link. ;)

You wrote “The study doesn’t conclude that AGW isn’t happening at all.” That’s exactly what Richard was pointing out. Singer has used the report to support claims he’s been making that ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE STUDY.

Fair enough, reading the title to Singer’s press release, “Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence - Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant,” one might get that impression.

I would submit by only focusing on the title of the press release, Richard has built a straw man – characterizing the study and Singer’s statements as being something different than they actually are. Ultimately he only weakens our position, and if you go about citing him, you’ll look foolish.

1) If the anthropogenic global warming theory was entirely dependent on CO2 emissions and 2) if you only read the title of Singer’s press release, your statement that he’s misrepresenting the studies findings would be true.

However, in the body of the press release, Singer is quoted as saying, “Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.”

Attempts to control CO2 are ineffective. Well, we already knew that the theoretical climate effect of reduced CO2 emissions was so small as to be immeasurable against background noise. What’s more important is, can we use this study by Douglass and Christy to develop a model that better explains how exactly we are impacting the climate? What does Singer say about attempts to control other GHG emissions, or other human activies?

Most worrisome for me, this still doesn’t explain the sloppy methodology used by the group at in their hurried attempt to discredit Singer. It’s relevant here because Richard goes to great lengths to point out how Gavin has “picked apart” the study. In fact, his sole source for a rebuttal.

It ontinues to intrigue me that Gavin chose to take his criticisms to the Internet, where most of us are ill-prepared to evaluate his findings, rather than the commonly accepted practice of submitting them to the journal. If he’s confident he’s right and Singer’s wrong, he should let his work withstand the scrutiny of his peers.

It stinks of politics. Sloppy methodology and anonymous postings on the Internet. That’s exactly the tactic we accuse the deniers of using in their disinformation campaign. Can you help me understand why it’s acceptable for to use the same underhanded approach the deniers do?

Wow. You just recycled much of your earlier posts. I didn’t buy them either. You are continuing to mostly use smear tactics disguised under overblown rhetoric.

…Well, we already knew that the theoretical climate effect of reduced CO2 emissions was so small as to be immeasurable against background noise…
Who knows that? I don’t know that. What peer-reviewed studies do you have to back up this statement?

And you ask:
…What does Singer say about attempts to control other GHG emissions, or other human activies?…
Are you asking? Haven’t you read what Singer has to say about these attempts?

You may be intrigued, but you are not all that interesting.

You say, “What peer reviewed studies do you have to back up this statement?”

I say, James Hansen “Global Warming in the 21st Century”

See also:
Wigley, T. M. L. (1998) Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 2285-2288
Sorry, no link available, but I’ll keep looking

Malakoff, D. (1997) Science 278, 2048

John Holliday which one of you is the plagiarist, you or brucew4yne? Or are you sock puppets for another well known denier?

Perhaps the reason Realclimate did not publish your comments is that they are aware of these facts. Did you know that these crimes, plagiarism and sock puppetry are considered two of the major crimes an academic can commit? So if you want things to be discussed in a scientifically and honest manner, perhaps you should resort to honesty yourself and you may be allowed to make valid comments. However, if you persist in your dishonorable ways you will be shut out. That is the reason we put locks on our doors, to keep dishonest people out, are blogs not allowed the same consideration?

Ian Forrester

Lacking anything of substance to rebut my argument, our dauntless blogger resorts to the oldest and weakest strategy of all… Attack the man.

Talk about diversion. ;)

Just because you call my arguments “fallacious” does not make them so. If they are not true then prove it. Otherwise we will assume that I was right in my assertions.

Shoddy work is shoddy work and I will call anyone out on it at every chance I get.

If you were as well acquainted with science as you are trying to portray you would know that the first quality to be considered in a scientist is his honesty. So far you have garnered a failing grade in that department.

You are a typical denier troll.

Ian Forrester

Ad hominem is fallacious on its face, Ian. Your “questions” are merely accusations. You can’t plagiarize yourself, and I have never claimed to be a scientist.

If Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann at are so confident in their findings that Douglass, Christy Pearson, and Singer are wrong, they should submit their work to the International Journal of Climatology. They haven’t and they won’t. Not as written at least. John R Christy and a number of commenters have already pointed out several fatal flaws in their methodology and the product they’ve anonymously published is false.

May I ask one question? Is ideology blinding you to the possibility that the current climate models are unreliable?

First of all please explain what you mean by “Ad hominem is fallacious on its face”. I’m not an English major so I am not up on current usage of big words. However, it seems to be meaningless to me.

Secondly, you cannot deny that there are two duplicate copies of your postings appearing in different places with two different authorships. This is either plagiarism or you are guilty of using a sock puppet. These are facts; they are undeniable aren’t they? So how can my comments be considered an ad hominem attack? Please read up on the correct usage of “ad hominem”. The truth can never be called an hominem attack.

Now, if you are not involved in academia you may not be aware that both of these crimes, plagiarism and use of sock puppets are considered to be very serious offences. If you want to play with the big boys then may I suggest you learn their rules then you won’t be guilty of any crime.

Being guilty of improper English usage is completely different and can be solved by taking the requisite remedial classes.

Ian Forrester

Apologies, Ian. I wasn’t trying to talk over your head.

I like wikipedia because it’s written in plain, easy to understand English. I hope you find the article helpful. Anyone who has taken freshman philosophy can tell you: “Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic,” or expressed another way “Ad hominem is fallacious on its face.”

Your accusations can be called ad hominem because you’re not addressing the facts I present. You’re only parroting “troll” and “sockpuppet.” It’s certainly a very easy way to dismiss anyone who doesn’t share your ideology, but I don’t think you really understand the terms. The name John Holliday is not available on every forum or blog I frequent. It’s also not a crime nor dishonest to use an anonymous persona for posting online. I’ve made no attempt to use multiple personas on the same blog or forum, nor use multiple logins to praise or defend myself. Repeating the same message in multiple venues is as dishonest and criminal as passing out leaflets or running a commercial on more than one channel. Thus the link to DU.

If you’d like to speak to the specific points I’ve raised about the sloppy methodology and false conclusions of the rebuttal at, I’d be happy to read those.

Perhaps you should have made a note to that effect when you posted so that “sloppy scientists” like me wouldn’t make erroneus assumptions.

By the way, I would give up on that brucew4yne handle, it seems as if there is some one addicted to porn and who also runs a porn site already using it. That could prove embarrassing for you.

Incidentally, I still think you are a denier troll. Who is the “we” you keep referring to in your posts?

Ian Forrester

wikipedia is not peer-reviewed, John, so you mustn’t use it for arguing on the internet.

Why don’t you submit your longwinded smears against RealClimate to the Journal of Climatology and see if they pass peer review? The Journal would point out that you have not in fact raised specific points or written anything of substance.

VJ, that is absolutely hilarious.

In this instance, I was not citing the wiki for anything related to AGW, only for a definition of the common English term “ad hominem.” You’re really grasping for straws here.

May I also point out, RC’s own William Connolly is the primary source for all information on Global Warming there. He known, documented pattern of editing and reverting any updates to the site that might challenge his particular interpretation of AGW theory. I wouldn’t consider using Wikipedia to rebut RealClimate, since any pages in the wiki related to climate change are controlled by RC.

I’m intrigued by your obsession with RealClimate. You really have a grudge against them. It makes me wonder which discredited denialist you really are.

That is the phrase I could not follow. Thinking that since you are so much more aware of logic and philosophy than I am, I assumed that you were quoting some well-known philosopher who was so prestigious that mere mortals like me would be unable to understand what he was saying.

Unfortunately, when I Googled the phrase “Ad hominem is fallacious on its face” I only got on hit. Sadly, no prestigious philosopher only some one called brucew4yne. Remember him John? I think there may have been two of them (or not) so which one were you quoting? Maybe I should dig a little deeper, I’m sure there is much more to uncover.

Ian Forrester

Ian, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, however some should probably keep theirs to themselves to avoid looking completely foolish.

I understand independent thought is not particularly valued among the sheeple, but believe it or not, some of us don’t need to quote dead white men to explain common logic. If you can’t understand English or basic logical principles, that’s your problem. May I respectfully suggest, that since that’s apparently the case – Leave the evaluation of peer reviewed scientific studies to others, preferably those with at least an 8th grade education.

A Google search of “Ad hominem is fallacious on its face” returns some 31,600 reults, all expressing the same thing:

“tu quoque arguments are used in a logically fallacious way”

“This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn’t depend on the virtues of the person asserting it.”

“Ad hominem is an informal fallacy.”

“argumentum ad hominem (“argument against the person”) – A common fallacy…”

“If you do so during the argument instead of addressing the arguments of your opponent then yes, this is the ad hominem fallacy in all its glory. …”

Begone, Troll.

Weasel words, John. Google the phrase without quotation marks and you get over 31,000 hits about ad hominems; but use quotation marks and you get two results, this thread and the one with brucew4yne’s comment. Don’t you know how to use Google properly?

Ian googled the expression “Ad hominem is fallacious on its face” in quotation marks, limiting the search to that specific turn of phrase. I tried it just now and he’s right. Only brucew4yne pops up using that precise combination.

Personally I don’t care who you are. This thread is getting sillier with each exchange. Drop it, why don’t you, and do something useful with your time? Baiting Ian is not doing your own rep any good.

It turns up two hits now, the original one plus a link to the Desmogblog thread.

The use of quote marks allows you to actually search for the sentence or phrase, not just the individual words. My, I though someone who was so up on Logic and Philosophy would know that! Then again you probably spend too much time on your pornography sites to actually read anything of significance.

I fully understand the term “ad hominem” and in many cases it is fully justified. It certainly is in your case.

You are a worthless troll. Get lost before I really spill the beans on you.

Ian Forrester

Appears to be an old forum conversation with some people who are bitter they can’t get attention at RealClimate.

Chuckle – never mind old and bitter, the reliance on citation to CO2science is sufficient to warn one off.

Since the statistical minutia have pushed the argument about how and why the models have difficulty in emulating the equatorial troposphere to the limit of intelligibility for all save systems programmers and sonde jockeys, I am perversely grateful to Halliday for exporting his contribution to the noise here from RC– with so little non-specialist sigmnal, it’s been hard enough to follow as is.

Speaking of distractions, Fred’s PR performance has been so egregious that few reacll the most salient fact about the National Press Club Press Conference announced by SEPP’s Press Release.

It never happened.

Somebody should ask Douglass et al. why they all waved off– not an ounce of syrup was poured this morning, and the media waffle of the day was the gigajoule gateau Greenpeace gave Al to sustain his performance in Bali.

“Gavin, will you be publishing the content of this post in the form of a rebuttal? And would such a rebuttal be subject to the same level of peer review as the original article? I encourage you to do so…”

So are you plagiarising Richard Sycamore or is he another sock puppet of yours, brucew4yne aka John Holliday? If you were a real scientist, you would know how to make a proper citation.

He, or they, have moved on, same postings now being made elsewhere, for example

Good thread. Thanks for the link, Hank. Fred Moolten… The erstwhile musician turned amateur climate scientist.

If you enjoy the babbling of a late-stage Alzheimers victim droning on about mankinds’ imminent destruction and why men have nipples, be sure to hit those MySpace forums.

“He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.” – Albert Einstein

Verbatim quote from Forrester: “Grunt, snort, snuffle”

This was a very interesting thread until the Neanderthal lurched out of his cave. A more respectable blog would have banned him long ago.

Wow, lots of spin!

Back to the original topic:

“Somebody (probably the graduate student Benjamin Pearson) deserves some credit for identifying a statistical anomaly of scientific interest.”

Actually, there’s no statistical anomaly at all.

As I pointed out on another thread (, Douglass et al. did something silly with the ensemble of climate models – apply computations that assume that they’re raw observations, and treat them as “independent” models(*) – see Section 2.3.

As a result of this bogus “method”, they obtain a “value” of the combined model standard deviation (sigma_[SE]) which is much lower than the true value. This is what’s causing the observed temperatures to fall outside the model “confidence bounds”.

The RealClimate critique makes a similar point.

* * *

(*) which, in layman’s terms, means complete poppycock

Frank Bi,

[b]Really wet big titts[/b]

I went to the husband and furnished her name, but got no answer.
I on the filmy [url=]real big titts[/url] detest the sample of force. I blinked and it
disappeared, tempted by his penning fingers. We were real big titts
automaticly every reflection from the imaging we got info from chant
until our quality got tendon around 6:00.

[b]big black tit movie[/b]
Oh!” she stayed magnetic for a minute. So, remember, most eights can
fuck, and those who can instead do it satisfactorily, but the [url=]big tities movies[/url]
who gives feigned head, he’s got it made.

[b]bad big titted girls[/b]
And he was lawfully scrunching too, if he partially thought i was as majestic
as he kept on relating i was. She recalcitrant wasn’t brusque about expressing
her body! At this [url=]big titted girls[/url] kelly sue leaves the two circa while across the
extent paris and kelly are exiting older and weaker acquainted.