We’ve often looked at some of the tricks deniers use to make global warming seem nonexistent. But perhaps the most common of all is to focus on the noise rather than the signal in data. And perhaps their favorite way to do so is to choose a time span so short that the signal is almost invisible while the noise dominates. That’s their strategy — make noise.
While climate is typically defined as 30 years, those in denial will happily use less than a year. Hell, they’ll even use a single month, or a single snowstorm, or whatever they can get their hands on to make the globe seem cold — even for a moment. It’s their modus operandi. In fact I have a prediction: that Bob Tisdale will deny he meant what he meant with his deceptive graph tricks, instead he’ll plead that he was just talking about the “trend” since 2003. Yeah … since 2003.
It’s all smoke and mirrors.
And it depends on the fact that just about every geophysical variable shows short-term noise. In fact “short-term” doesn’t just mean day-to-day fluctuations, but month-to-month and year-to-year fluctuations. They’re very real. And they’re noise, not signal.
One cure for the short-term noise is to smooth the data. And one of the most reliable, and simplest, ways to smooth is nothing more complicated than just to average the data over longer time spans. So, let’s take some climate-related data and average it over time spans longer than a single year. I won’t even get all “climatic” on you and insist on 30-year averages, I’ll keep it short — let’s use 5-year time spans. Frankly, 5 years isn’t a long time in climate terms, it’s not at all impossible for even 5-year averages to “buck the trend” for no other reason than random noise. And for some of these data the latest 5-year period is incomplete, which will make the noise even bigger and increase the chance of accidentally contradicting the trend. But hey, let’s compute them and see what happens.
We’ll start with global temperature from NASA:
No doubt about that one. When the noise is cleared away, the trend is crystal-clear. Upward.
How about sea level?
Watts & co. love to go to extreme short time scales with this one — ludicrous short times. But the long-term trend is still clear. Upward.
How about ocean heat content?
Let Bob Tisdale and Anthony Watts focus on too-too-short time scales — when you look at the big picture, again the trend is clear. Upward.
What about the “canary in a coal mine,” the Arctic? It’s temperature trend is way faster than the global average:
Not only is the trend clear, it’s downright scary. Upward.
And how about the extent of sea ice in the Arctic?
Another clear, inexorable trend, and as expected in a warming world, it’s downward.
How gullible do you have to be not to see what’s really happening? How long will people swallow the “trend reversal last year” bait hook, line, and sinker — only to be fed a different bait as each one resumes its trend and the deniers have to switch to another? As for Watts, Tisdale, Goddard, Morano, etc…. how do you explain the fact that when we stop focusing on momentary ups-and-downs, so many trends become so clear, so obvious, so steady, for so long?
What’s the cause of the global warming, the trend which hasn’t shown any sign of stopping or even slowing down?
Open Mind 
nice post.
you should link to original graphs/data on NASA’s website.
[Response: You’ll find most of the data links here. The graphs are my own.]
Tamino, could you be clearer about how you construct the graphs. It looks like the data points are successive non-overlapping five year means. Is that right? And what is the smoothing function plotted by the red line?
[Response: Yes, the data points are successive non-overlapping 5-year means — about as simple as it gets. The smoothed curves are a lowess smooth of the original data.]
Another advantage of using simple five or ten years average data is that it can be posted in table form in blogs, where drawing graphs isn’t possible, and is still fairly comprehensible and obvious – and the data can be checked by anyone with basic skills.
Of course, you then run into the second line of defence: “all the data is made up by crooked scientists in the pay of the ecofascist communist enviroMENTALists intent on taking over the world and making us all live in caves”.
[Response: Been there. Deleted that.]
At that point I usually find myself musing at the extraordinary depths to which the human mind will go to avoid facing unpleasant realities.
I have a sales idea – the ‘Denialist monitor’
A standard monitor with a swivel mount, and some image recognition software that can instantly pick out any on screen graph and quickly rotate to make said graph look flat.
All I need to find is somewhere to advertise which is full of rabid denialists who would send their cash off at the drop of a hat..
The graph for Arctic temperature rise creeps me out … I wonder what happened ~1990 after which the steepness suddenly increased …
That Bowie, eh? What an alarmist…
I always think of this last CO2 series when people talk about “panic” caused by “alarmism”.
See how the world is “overreacting” to the climate change issue by… emiting more and more GHG.
Maximus,
My theory is that the Arctic temperature rise after the 1990s is being accentuated by warm SSTs associated with the positive AMO. That plus the anthropogenic forcing has the potential for a lot of warming…then you include ice albedo feedbacks already shown to be greater than modeled, scary stuff…
Yes, the data points are successive non-overlapping 5-year means — about as simple as it gets.
Just to clarify, the last complete interval would be Jan 2005 – Dec 2009, and the final dot on each chart is for the incomplete interval Jan 2010 – [most recent datum]? For annual data, that would mean only 2010, for monthly it could be through March or April 2011. Is that right?
[Response: Yes.]
Assuming that my assumptions are all correct, I was curious how much uncertainty there would be in the 2010-2015 mean, based on the 15 months of observed GISTEMP data (Jan 2010 – Mar 2011).
So for each non-overlapping 5-year interval, I looked at the relationship between the means of the first 15 months and of the full 60 months. Here are the data I used:
Year 16month FiveYear
1880 -0.245625 -0.267333333
1885 -0.324375 -0.2805
1890 -0.3875 -0.327833333
1895 -0.25625 -0.183666667
1900 -0.07375 -0.2235
1905 -0.226875 -0.2975
1910 -0.37125 -0.286666667
1915 -0.13125 -0.264666667
1920 -0.1775 -0.207
1925 -0.0975 -0.145166667
1930 -0.0825 -0.087833333
1935 -0.1375 0.0035
1940 0.060625 0.089666667
1945 0.060625 -0.0185
1950 -0.175625 -0.0295
1955 -0.12375 -0.010333333
1960 0.025 -0.004
1965 -0.09375 -0.023166667
1970 -0.0125 -0.0035
1975 -0.075625 0.0025
1980 0.23375 0.163833333
1985 0.09375 0.185666667
1990 0.36625 0.240333333
1995 0.3575 0.385833333
2000 0.355625 0.478833333
2005 0.59875 0.5535
2010 0.603333 ???
Oddly enough, the 5-year means tend to be slightly lower than the first 16-month mean, which doesn’t make sense to me for a trend that’s generally increasing — I assume it’s an artifact of the small sample size. Nonetheless, just working with the actual data, I calculated a 95% confidence interval of 0.47 to 0.66 for the 2010-2015 interval.
Unless I’ve messed up somewhere (always possible!) the 2010-2015 mean will probably be greater than the 2005-2010 mean, but there’s a non-trivial chance that it will be lower. There’s a ~3% chance it would be as low as the 2000-2005 mean, and a negligible chance of it being as low as any previous interval.
It would seem like a neat idea to show some kind of uncertainty bars around the last point in each of the graphs in this post. Is the way I’m going about this reasonable? Does it make sense to use only non-overlapping intervals to calculate the 15-month and 60-month means, so as to avoid spurious autocorrelation? What about the unrealistic prediction that the mean of any given 60-month interval should be lower than the mean of the first 15 months?
Thoughts, suggestions, comments?
Horatio likes averaging, but some clearly prefer “temperature witching” (especially since 2001)
Yes, this was the basic burden of my somewhat more satirical piece, “When Did Global Warming Stop?” which came online a couple months back.
For those who may have missed it (and with Tamino’s indulgence) you can find it here:
http://hubpages.com/hub/When-Did-Global-Warming-Stop
I attempt to highlight the point Tamino makes above with the question:
“How long will people swallow the “trend reversal last year” bait hook, line, and sinker — only to be fed a different bait as each one resumes its trend and the deniers have to switch to another?”
Let’s not allow this “bait and switch” to go unremarked. Let’s hold ’em accountable for the lies they continue to promulgate.
Wow! Quite a response to my link.
Thanks to all who took a moment to check the article out.
They never admit they’re wrong, no matter how obvious it is. They’re deniers. They don’t even experience cognitive dissonance: they can believe multiple conflicting things simultaneously without feeling any discomfort whatsoever. (Of course explaining this to them is futile for this very reason.)
It does seem so. However, the process of logical ‘cornering’ does tend to bring more and more obvious nonsense out for the edification of any bystanders.
UPDATE
For those interested, all graphs are produced with native R. No addon package was required, just make good choices in the parameters when calling the plot function.
Spare & strong graphics. Well done.
Fantastic post – clear and straightforward, hammering it in.
Keep it up!
Lucid as always Tomino, you’ve produced some of the most clearly convincing material on global warming I’ve seen, keep up the good work.
Anthony Watts’ recent paper (Fall et al) suggests that the diurnal temperature range trend of the US has not changed much. A declining trend is anticipated under GHG warming. Discussing this with a climate ‘skeptic’, I did a simple linear regression on Australian temperature data from the Bureau of Meteorology, using the period beginning 1975 to present. The trend is increasing.
(BOM annual diurnal temp data here – http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/dtr/0112/aus/latest.txt ((annual))
I googled up some of the literature and found, like my experimenting with Australian data, that a decreasing diurnal trend is clear from mid 20th century or earlier, but if the time period starts in the mid/late-70s – 30 to 35 years ago – the trend seems to be less clear. Eg,
and
Like a cooling stratosphere, a decreasing diurnal temperature range (temperature minima warming faster than maxima) is meant to be a fingerprint of the greenhouse effect.
I understand that 30 years is a good minimum to establish a statistically significant temperature trend re climate. I also know that the mean temperature trend for regions as large as Australia is positive over the last 30 – 35 years. However, it seems that the diurnal range trend for large regions is not so uniform for this period, and it may be the case that there is no global trend at all from the mid/late 70s.
A skeptic, after being told umpteen times that ’30 years is the gold standard’ for climatic temperature trends, and learning that the diurnal temperature range trend is a fingerprint of GHG forced climate change, won’t be satisfied with equivocation. How do I answer my interlocutor? I wonder if there is good reason not to apply the same standards for statistical significance or area to DRT as for mean temps.
Tamino, can I request that you look at diurnal temperature range trends for the globe? It might be worth doing before Watts’ paper goes online, as it appears the focus therein is going to be on diurnal range trends (for the US), rather than the mean temp trends, which accord with the official records apparently. Might be good to get a post in beforehand.
And of course, it would help me in the conversation I’m having in a remote online backwater. :-)
Nice use of the Bowie song! Excellent version of Five Years.
Tamino.
Might I suggest that you extend to Watts and Tisdale the rights of reply, with word and grapics limits similar to your own posts, where said personages are explicitly focussed upon?
I would be enormously interested to see:
1) whether they have the courage of their convictions to accept such an offer, and
2) what their science looks like if it is constructed for presentation here, rather than on WUWT.
They have a lot to say about climate science – let’s have them emerge from their bunkers and say it here, with working shown.
And then we can comment upon their best efforts…
I have a challenge for all of the Denialati out there…
State a future mean global temperature anomaly that will represent for you evidence that the planet is warming.
In your statement, detail which temperature record you use as your reference, whether you are using a particular year value or an inteval-smoothed mean, and what your time to exceedence is. Please include any and all other statistical information that you deem relevant.
It’s a simple challenge. Register here the limit of your denialism, and sit back and wait for time to prove you right or wrong.
I’ll bet that not one in a hundred of WUWT’s regulars will take the challenge.
BernardJ, you present a false argument. Most skeptics do not deny that temps are rising, but that the impacts of that rise is catastrophic, and that attempts to stop that rise make any sense in the real world. Recent comment from Greenlanders are fascinatingly representative.
For a number .45-60C by 2100, and who cares.
Any of the temp records will do.
Probably only about one in 100 WUWT readers are allowed to post here. Indeed this is another test.
CoRev said:
Au contraire, the argument that you present is false.
Consider the very premise of this thread. Denialists misuse statistics to disguise the presence of warming: thus your premise fails.
Consider also that Watts, who’s rattling around the newsosphere at the moment, predicates much of his output on the premise that there is no warming: again, your premise fails.
Of course, if you are correct you will be able to point us to a survey of denialists that actually determines the proportion who accept that it is warming…
And whilst you’re doing it, you might also wish to quantify the proportion of denialists who dismiss a relationship between temperature increase and CO2 increase.
If temperature increase under a business-as-usual scenario, the rise will be “catastrophic”, as you are wont to say, both for civilised human society, and for many species and ecosystems.
Again, if you can point to supportable work that indicates otherwise, please do so.
[Then follows a bit of incoherence…]
Oh, that’s a lovely statistic. Please support this with data, so that Tamino can shred this silly claim to pieces too.
BernardJ, I realize you have strong beliefs, but a quick google shows that you are quite wrong re: GW skeptics believing “that the planet is warming.” (Your own words) You also claimed: “Of course, if you are correct you will be able to point us to a survey of denialists that actually determines the proportion who accept that it is warming…”
This survey show that ~68% of FoxNews viewers believe that “the earth’s temperature has been rising.” Now you can say that FoxNews watchers may not be representative of GW skeptics, but I would posit it is much closer than any other subset of our general population. The can be found here.
Moreover, this 09 PEW Research survey says: “As expected, views about the seriousness of global warming are also related to whether people think there is solid evidence the earth is warming and whether it is human caused. A third of those who do not think there is solid evidence of global warming say it is a very or somewhat serious problem while 65% say it is not too serious or not a problem at all.”
Your black and white views of what skeptics might believe about GW allows you to use pejorative terms such as “deniers/denialasts”, but worse makes you misinterpret Tamino’s far more nuanced argument in his argument.
Finally, your view of skeptics not believing that the planet is warming is disproved many times over.
Don’t be so ridiculously pedantic. You’re the one who started with the sweeping generalisations – turning around and splitting hairs just makes you look silly.
Go and troll somewhere else.
CoRev, you need to parse my posts a little more carefully.
I used the terms ‘Denialati’, ‘denialism’, and ‘denialists. And I explicitly referred to Watt’s blog and the regulars who live there.
If it’s not clear to you I will explicitly point out that there is a difference between people who deny climate change, and those who are sceptical of its human origin. Moreover, the term ‘sceptics’ includes people who are not only sceptical that humans are the major cause of contemporary warming, but that warming is occurring at all, sosome ‘sceptics’ can in fact be included as “climate change denialists”.
So, let’s be clear about this, as it seems difficut for you to process. My challenge is to those folk who deny the existence of warming. Geddit? Again, for your benefit, the subject of this thread is the employment of short-term noise in order to obscure (and to deny) an underlying, longer-term trend: at what point will deniers of an upward trend accept that such a trend does in fact exist? I am asking them to step forward with a temperature point and a time interval that will, for them, indicate that the trend in temperature trajectory is not random; that there is in fact a statistically significant warming occurring. I would especially like them to provide the statistical rationale behind their lines in the sand, and if they have half a clue they will know that Tamino has elsewhere already done most of the hard work for them…
I’m not so much interested in the ‘sceptics’ of the human origin of warming, and I did not aim my challenge to such people. However, I could well extend a challenge to them, and ask them to frame the statistical/scientific proof that they require to accept that:
1) the planet is warming as fast as climatologists say
2) the warming is primarily due to human activity
3) the warming will have serious social and human consequences
4) that humans can do something about it before it’s too late, or
5) any other possible scenario that can be anticipated and that deniers/sceptics use as an excuse to avoid accepting the analyses and advice of the vast majority of professional, relevantly expert scientists.
As Tamino points out below, many people who previously denied warming now accept it, but do not accept that it is as great in magnitude as climatologists say, or that it is caused by human activity. What I am trying to do is to flush out all of these folk who continually fall back to a new, almost-as-convenient position that refuses to acknowledge the veracity of mainstream physics and climatology, and have them put forward the scientific basis upon which they will acknowledge that science was correct all along.
It’s interesting that not even you came foward to frame the evidence that you personally would require in order to accept the science. Is it because it would emphasise the lack of scientific validity in the type of evidence that you would accept, or is it because when such a point is inevitably reached you would have to publicly acknowledge the depauperacy of your ideological resistance to simple scientific fact?
Heh.
CoRev, I’ve just been reminded of a little fact that rather deflates the thrust of your claim:
at least in the context of Watts.
From Watts’ SourceWatch page:
Read those last four words carefully. And remember that Watts has not, as far as I know, recanted, retracted, or otherwise disavowed his signing of the “Leipzig Declaration”.
But, wait a minute, Watts’ own recent paper says there isb warming; how is Anthony going to reconcile that?
BernardJ, since we are busy finding evidence of singular belief changes, when will we have an open discussion of one warming leader’s latest paper?
[edit]
[Response: If you want to have an intelligent discussion of Hansen’s work, this is an excellent place to do so. But if your idea of “open discussion” is to spread dishonest, malignant spin, then you’re in the wrong place. There are plenty who welcome that; you could start with Anthony Watts’ blog.]
I think that most so-called “skeptics” do not deny that the planet is warming.
But they sure as hell tried to do so for a long time. They cast aspersions on the temperature record (they still are), they championed the idiotic “no global warming since 1998” meme as long as they could, they made as much hay as possible out of Phil Jones’ remark about no *statistically significant* warming since 1995 (and deliberately tried to twist it into “no warming”). They made every attempt to suggest, or claim outright, that the planet isn’t warming, and the only reason they’ve (for the most part) abandoned this strategy is that it’s now so bleeding obvious, even Anthony Watts can no longer deny it.
It’s extremely telling that in Pielke’s WUWT post on the surface-stations paper, Pielke gives a list of “Questions and Answers” and felt the need to make the very first one: “So is the United States getting warmer?”
Deniers have tried so hard for so long to claim that the globe isn’t warming, then that the U.S. isn’t warming, based on a vicious smear campaign or incompetent analysis or no analysis at all, that I hardly think Didactylos can be blamed for taking exception to characterizing them as accepting the warming of the planet.
But now Pielke has no choice but to answer: “Yes in terms of the surface air temperature record. We looked at 30-year and 115-year trends, and all groups of stations showed warming trends over those periods.” The very next question addresses another forlorn hope of deniers: “Has the warming rate been overestimated?” Rather than simply say “No,” Pielke responds: “The minimum temperature rise appears to have been overestimated, but the maximum temperature rise appears to have been underestimated.”
“Not warming” truly was the claim of deniers for a very long time. Many will still insist that we’re headed into an extended period of global cooling. But “not warming” is now so untenable, you can’t even sell it to tea-baggers. That is why it’s no longer claimed by the majority of those who deny the reality, human causation, or danger of global warming.
Didactylos, pedantic and generalization? I supported my comment with two references describing what was believed by the general and skeptica lpopulations.
Tamino, the history lesson was interesting, but just anecdotal. My references show that the beliefs in GW actually reached a tipping point before Copenhagen and climategate, but, in my opinion, climategate coupled with a terrible economy dropped the interest level way down the chart. Until the economy recovers, it appears GW will remain a low interest political issue. Politics is critical to implementing a solution and the politics surrounding the science, your blog being an example, is where most of the discussions aggregate.
CoRev:
and in support says
Copy-pasting a statistic regarding those who don’t think there’s solid evidence of global warming to support a claim that must GW skeptics believe the world is warming is … odd.
CoRev is leaving out the fact that 60% of that 68% believe the increase “is caused mostly by things people do or about equally by things people do and natural causes.”
In other words, 60% of the 68% that believe the world is warming, aren’t denialists. They didn’t ask how many believe that “the increase is partially caused by things people do, but less than change due to natural causes” which would be a mildly skeptical but certainly not denialist position.
Given that 53% of them answered “yes” when asked if they “trust scientists”, while clearly 100% of the denialist community doesn’t, it’s *clear* they’re not representative.
CoRev is missing something obvious here … despite the current stance of the tea-party elected leadership of the Republican Party in the House, a majority of people in both major parties believe that 1) it’s warming and 2) people are at least partially responsible for it.
Poll after poll after poll has shown this, though among conservatives the number’s dropped due to the constant “climate science is a fraud” meme being driven down people’s throats by certain segments of the media and the current leadership of the Republican Party.
dhogaza, I’m not sure of what you point is. Most of what you provided confirms my point that most skeptics actually believe it is warming. You said: “…a majority of people in both major parties believe that 1) it’s warming and 2) people are at least partially responsible for it.” That’s what my referenced polls also said.
CoRev.
In case it escapes your attention, I’ve tried to unpick your confusion in a post above.
CoRev,
It isn’t reasonable to reduce denial to a simple either/or dichotomy. There are different levels of denial:
1. The planet isn’t warming.
2. The planet is warming, but it is natural.
3. There is some human caused warming, but it is mostly natural.
4. It is mostly human caused, but the beneficial effects out-weigh the deleterious effects.
5. The deleterious effects out-weigh the beneficial effects, but action to mitigate is economically and politically impossible.
6. The consequences are truly catastrophic, but we’ve delayed taking action for too long, and it’s the climate scientist’s fault for not communicating the threat forcefully enough.
Feel free to pick your own level of denial.
Luminous, thanks. That was my point from the beginning. We are in violent agreement.
BernardJ, your simplistic, incomplete, poorly phrased and non-nuanced question will never be answered. This is the wrong forum, as few skeptics care to come here to debate commonly understood concepts, or overly broad ill defined subject. Its has taken you two tries to get an understandable question, and you seem to think it was I who was confused. If you want a discussion take it over to WUWT, where you presume denialists/denialati exist. I think you will find few takers, as your basic assumption is wrong.
Perhaps a better term for the group you are seeking for answers is the ignoranti, and they would, by definition, be unable to answer your question.
For some strange reason you and Tamino seem to think those who have learned and changed their understanding of GW from that material to be inferior in some fashion. A strangely arrogant position to have.
G’day to Y’all.
CoRev.
Get over yourself, diddums.
If you couldn’t perceive that I was speaking to those who deny the fact of warming, when I used the d-word and posted in a thread about disguising warming trends, then the matter is one of your inability to comprehend, rather than one of mine in presenting my question.
Which still stands, by the way. And you are welcome to answer it, in any way that you see fit. We will assess it upon whatever extent you are able to manage.
And if you and your comrades are too shy to post here, you are welcome to lodge your answers on Watts’ blog, or on Deltoid, or on any of a number of other fora. Contrary to your paranoid victim complex, you and your friends are very unlikely to be censored for registering your ‘lines in the sand’, but if you really are too scared to post here, then post elsewhere – we’ll find your answers sooner or later, and dissect them.
Stop flapping your wrists, and just stand up to explain what you think will constitute evidence of warming, and more particularly evidence of human-caused warming, and finally evidence that warming will adversely affect humanity and the rest of the biosphere.
As to what I think… don’t give up your day job for a career in telepathy. If you feel the need to change occupations, consider making scarecrows – you are a seasoned constructor of strawmen.
I suspect that you have similarly misread Tamino, but I for one am not going to second guess his thoughts.
CoRev:
Well, actually, your referenced poll was stronger … supporting the reality that people are *at least* as responsible as natural variation …
Your case for denialists being mainstream is non=-existent, and this applies to you, too …
If you want to argue that “people like CoRev accept that we’re screwed, but we are burying our heads in the sand” …. I’ll likely agree.
Is that your point??? really ???
CoRev:
And this is particularly stupid, since LB never claimed she agrees with any of the denialist points she lists, but rather asked “which of the above do you agree with?”.
And you say … we’re in [violent] agreement. But she’s no denialist, and she asked you to pick your poison (or stupidity, or whatever term you want to assign to agreeing with her classification of denialism).
Talk about an own goal … you didn’t even understand the game LB’s playing.
Sheesh.
CoRev,
Whether one is in denial of the warming itself, the cause of the warming, the degree of warming or the consequences of the warming, one is still in denial. The evidence is overwhelming on all of these questions.
AKA Lomborg’s Dictum
If the Greenland ice sheet slid into the sea tomorrow, the likes of Kloor and Pielke Jr. would blame James Hansen. For all their tone trolling, faux reasonableness, they are deniers, too; they’re just being coy about it.
As long as we’re categorizing types of denial, what do you call it when someone does the following two things:
1) upon being _directly questioned_ by a “hottie”*, professes acceptance of the implications of the science up to a point…but then rather than denying implications beyond that point overtly, appeals to uncertainty (often exaggerating it, but not necessarily) as a conversation stopper. E.g.:
“Sure it’s warming, and sure people are contributing–pretty much everyone acknowledges that, despite what you damned hotties seem to think. It’s just that X isn’t well-enough established for it to make much sense to talk about what we should DO about it yet. [where X may be % human contribution, climate sensitivity, or whatever] You see I’m very pro-science and suspicious of political meddling, so I’m going to need a lot more science before I’m convinced this ‘mitigation’ stuff is needed and not a political ploy to screw me over.”
2) When not interacting with a hottie, seeks out and uses the output of Tisdale, Goddard, Monckton, et al. in roughly the way a chronic and compulsive masturbator seeks out and uses pornography, then rants on internet comment threads about what a hoax global warming is, how stupid hotties are, how academic institutions are hotbeds of commie brainwashing (except GMU), etc. etc. etc.
Whaddaya call that? And does anyone think I’m describing an imaginary animal? Because I’m pretty sure this sort of behavior is ALL OVER THE PLACE. And if I’m mistaken about that, it would really cheer me up for someone to convince me otherwise.
*(or “alarmist” or “warmista” or whatever…someone not on any of Luminous’s denial levels–I like “hottie,” don’t remember where I picked it up, probably SkS)
@ Kevin Stanley
Hotties vs Frosties? by John Brookes
Yes, that was a fun one. Brought out the tone trolls…
Ah yes…thanks!
A lying sack of rat feces, perhaps? No need to develop technical jargon.
In addition to these is another consequence of DVM in zooplankton that eat near the surface and excrete and breathe in the depth below the thermocline and take nutrients from the system.