Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > WUWT Propaganda

As you have failed so badly in this debate that you are reduced to swinging (and missing) at elderly family relatives, I'm going to challenge you to answer these three questions:

Ok, reality check. You insist your father was awarded a Ph.D but appear unable to answer simple questions about his thesis, awarding institute, etc. Here is what I believe:

- Richard S Courtney never earned a Ph.D. You assert that he did. I am calling you a liar.

- Richard S Courtney signed himself 'Dr Richard S Courtney' and 'Richard S Courtney Ph.D' in various open letters etc. thus demeaning and degrading the value of an actual doctorate. A sackable offence in academia.

- This matters. Richard Courtney gave evidence to the UK Parliament as well as the US Congress as an expert on climate related matters. Expertise he faked.

M Courtney - you could settle this in a moment. Just provide the subject of your father's Doctoral thesis, the date of the award, and the name of the awarding institute.

My prediction is that you will not and can not.

Go on. Prove me wrong.

Dec 22, 2018 at 12:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Wow! You have realised that you cannot win the rational argument, so you are going hell for leather with the ad homs!


Don't rise, Mr Courtney.

Dec 22, 2018 at 12:22 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Dec 22, 2018 at 12:22 AM | Radical Rodent

Phil Clarke ran out of Science. Now he has run out of Economics. He follows the Hockey Team/Real Climate and the IPCC very closely. Could they all run out of money even faster due to the Gatwick Drones?

Dec 22, 2018 at 12:45 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

This is silly.
Tell you what Phil Clarke - I will try to end this in a more civilised way than you deserve.

You believe you know more about my family than me? Why? Because you read it in on the internet.
You believe you know more about climate mitigation than the IPCC? Why? Because you read it in on the internet.
You believe you know more about the climate than the World's most read climate change blog? Why? Because you read it in on the internet. You pick your crazies according to your whims.

You are an idiot. Proven on this thread.
You are a liar. Proven on this thread.
You are a propagandist for mass murder in the third world. Proven on this thread.

You began this self-immolation by complaining that WUWT disagreed with you and that's not fair. The truth is that you are not fit to be heard. You spread lies from internet blogs on many subjects. You understand nothing.
You care even less.

For goodness sake, you arrogant fool, reread this humiliation of yourself. Think about what a failure you are.
And then apologise.

Dec 22, 2018 at 7:38 AM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

stoat's mate Philth

Dec 22, 2018 at 8:45 AM | Unregistered Commenterfred

I will tell you what I read on the internet. I read 'Dr Richard S. Courtney', I read 'Richard S. Courtney PhD.' I read 'Yes. My father does have a PhD.' I read the offensive diatribe above.

What I have yet to read is the title of Dr Courtney's thesis, the name of the awarding body or the date he received the PhD claimed for him.

Which is exactly what I predicted.

Dec 22, 2018 at 9:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Dec 22, 2018 at 12:00 AM Phil Clark

"This matters. Richard Courtney gave evidence to the UK Parliament as well as the US Congress as an expert on climate related matters. Expertise he faked."

Why does it matter? A PhD normally means the person has pursued some research which has been judged appropriate. It is only the START of someone's research career. Expertise develops during that career, it doesn't suddenly appear having gained a doctorate. Neither does a lack of a doctorate imply a lack of expertise. When I was doing my PhD two of the people in the UK with the greatest expertise in my subject, and who taught at Imperial College or Liverpool geology departments, were plain Mr. They were treated with the greatest of respect by countless doctorates from all over the world.

Dec 22, 2018 at 9:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

"You are an idiot. Proven on this thread.
You are a liar. Proven on this thread.
You are a propagandist for mass murder in the third world. Proven on this thread.
Dec 22, 2018 at 7:38 AM | M Courtney"
(not just on this thread!)

Phil Clarke offends the Left, Right and Centre.

UK, EU and US politicians are beginning to realise that the Green Blob are toxic and threaten their survival. The Voting public realised this a few years ago.

If only Climate Science had got honest about the Hockey Stick, and had not corrupted Wikipedia, the Green Blob would not be facing extinction.

The political Left, Right and Centre, can now unite and agree that 97% of the World's problems have been exacerbated by Climate Scientists.

Dec 22, 2018 at 11:21 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Dec 22, 2018 at 9:44 AM | Supertroll

In Climate Science, qualifications and awards seem to be so important, they give them away.

Most Professional bodies and Academic Institutions take a particularly dim view of their Members/Associates/Employees indulging in fraudulent activity, but Climate Science sees no evil, provided they were "On Message".

Climate Science cannot self correct bad science, or bad "scientists. The do not deserve taxpayer funding, it should be reduced by 97% to match their corrupt consensus.

Dec 22, 2018 at 12:50 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Michael H, Indeed claiming a degree you have not earned is pretty nasty to those who actually did the work to gain theirs, and would count as dismissable misconduct in most academic posts. But I withdraw the question, and curse my fading memory, it seems already to have been answered...

Dec 21, 2018 at 1:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

You seemed to have missed my point (something you also seem to make a habit of).
You attempted to belittle a person of one name with some allegations against someone of a similar name. It matters not whether the allegations are true, or whether the two persons are related. As far as I am aware, they are two separate people who deserve to be treated as such. You appear to simply wish to grab anything at hand that might be useful to personally attack a person who disagrees with you.

Your motives always seem unpleasantly transparent (or perhaps transparently unpleasant) in that you put far more energy and time into attacking the credibility of your opponents rather than the veracity of their arguments.

If you are unable to understand why all this matters I am willing to email you privately about things I could have posted about a person called Phil Clarke, but choose not to. Perhaps you should instead actually do the same yourself first, by google-searching people called Phil Clarke associated with something unpleasant. Then imagine how you you would feel if somebody posted that information directed at you on a blog forum and merely said "Of course I'm sure it's not you who did that, is it?"

Dec 22, 2018 at 5:16 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart


If sea level rise accelerated enormously to, say, one metre per century, it would still be largely irrelevant to most people living or working close to sea level because all the existing buildings will be knocked down and re-built at least once anyway in the intervening years.

A 1 metre sea level rise would inundate 20% of Bangladesh. You would build a sea wall around the whole country?

Wow. This discussion board seems to exist in a parallel universe.
Dec 19, 2018 at 9:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke


...And, yes. As others have pointed out, London does it, and the Dutch have been doing this for centuries without modern-day wealth. Not just protecting themselves from the ocean and living below sea level, but actually stealing land from the North Sea. You need to get up to speed with what already happens in the real world before you start talking about parallel universes.

This is symptomatic of the whole global-warming alarmism scam. Cities like, say, New York already know that they have to build better sea defences. London did so before global-warming alarmism went main stream. But meanwhile, lots of people in New York are saying how they need to shoot themselves in both feet with carbon taxes but nobody is getting on with building better sea-defences. It may well be a failure of politics to find the will and funding to do what they already know to be necessary, but throwing money at climate modelers who are going to tell you what you already know is a complete waste of time and money. They are just parasites.

We already know most of the problems that need attention. Finding potential new problems decades in the future to distract us from present needs just is madness.

Qui-Gon Jinn: Don't center on your anxieties, Obi-Wan. Keep your concentration here and now, where it belongs.
Obi-Wan Kenobi: But Master Yoda says I should be mindful of the future.
Qui-Gon Jinn: But not at the expense of the moment.

Dec 22, 2018 at 5:58 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Dec 22, 2018 at 5:58 PM | michael hart

Climate Science has had to ignore Historical and Archaeological evidence, ever since Mann fabricated his Hockey Stick. Now they have abandoned all pretence at honesty too.

Dec 22, 2018 at 7:50 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I took a time out and gave Phil Clarke time to apologise. He didn't. He doubled down on his insults. So then I wondered why?

Let's face it, very rarely does anyone lose a debate as badly as Phil Clarke has here. There are three ways to be wrong and he hit all three:
1) Factually wrong. He argued that climate mitigation was required. The debate clearly demonstrated that is not and wait and see is the only justified approach.
2) Logically wrong. He argues that climate mitigation was justified from principles. But there is no evidence it will do any good at all (false premise) and lots of evidence it hurts the poor ignoring inconvenient conclusions)) . It was not justified.
3) Morally wrong. It doesn't matter f you think something is so and have reason to believe that if the outcome is so evil that it must be opposed anyway. Phil Clarke's willingness to kill the poor for no benefit is such an evil.

What an abject failure. How did he do it?
The answer is that he was completely wrong of course. But that's not the root cause. The real root cause is that he forgot the first rule of Climate Activism -
Do not expose your lies to debate!
Everyone knows that he is completely wrong on both sides of the debate. The sceptics enjoy the cut and thrust of debate in order to expose falsehood and reach towards truth; we are eager to debate as we win. The Climate Activists refuse debate in order to hide their deceptions.

But not Phil Clarke. He broke the first rule of Climate Activism He tried to argue that he was justified in his callous disregard for the poor and so obviously lost.
How could he make that mistake?

Obviously I cannot understand the mind of a person like Phil Clarke. But we can observe his behaviour on this thread.

-He began the thread by spreading disinformation about WUWT. He tried to call them liars in order to hide the fact that they were right. This is standard practice for Climate Activists. They cannot win the debate so the best they can do is throw mud at everybody and hope they come out looking slightly less dirty. It's standard practice for all those who daren't defend themselves. So Phil Clarke began the thread by following the first rule of Climate Activism.

-My usual response when I see lies is to call them out. This because I am honest. I did it on this thread as you can see.

-Phil Clarke suddenly went off his script and tried to pretend that he was justified in his silly views. He wasn't and lost the debate as we see.

-Then Phil Clarke went back on the script. Remember how he threw mud at WUWT in the start? At the end he throws mud at me - and missed. Firstly because I am not my father, Secondly because he banana-skinned through two comedy films. He actually got Annie Hallled and then tried to fight on like the Black Knight in Monty Python.

So what does this tell us? Well, firstly he's very stupid and is out of his league here. But secondly that he is guided. He had a playbook, left it and was guided back.
So who is his handler? (He may not know he has a handler as he is very stupid but he clearly has one).

Obvious option is some Green activist group. But I think not. They know the first rule of Climate Activism and would avoid a place where people know about the subject.

The clue came when Phil Clarke felt nothing at the exposure of his demand for the death of black children. Almost anyone would have rushed to deny that they meant that to happen (even if it 's an obvious outcome of his demands). But Phil Clarke felt nothing.
Then came his Birther play. He got the closest thing to a primary source on my father as he is ever going to get and yet he now wants the papers. I bet Stormfront Phil still wants to Obama's Birth Certificate as he doesn't believe the one that's shown.

Nothing will ever satisfy Stormfront Phil.

Dec 22, 2018 at 9:17 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Dec 22, 2018 at 9:17 PM | M Courtney

"The Hockey Stick Illusion" by Andrew Montford revealed the same pattern of behaviour, as demonstrated by Phil Clarke, permeating the self certifying hierarchy of Climate Science. I am sure they are very pleased with Phil Clarke's lack of honesty and integrity.

I wonder if William M Connolley will adjust this Wikipedia entry, to suit his (and Phil Clarke's) purposes?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_operandi

"Modus operandi
For other uses, see Modus operandi (disambiguation).
A modus operandi (often shortened to M.O.) is someone's habits of working, particularly in the context of business or criminal investigations, but also more generally. It is a Latin phrase, approximately translated as mode of operating.

Contents
The term is often used in police work when discussing crime and addressing the methods employed by criminals. It is also used in criminal profiling,[2] where it can help in finding clues to the offender's psychology.[3] It largely consists of examining the actions used by the individuals to execute the crime, prevent its detection and facilitate escape.[1] A suspect's modus operandi can assist in their identification, apprehension, or repression, and can also be used to determine links between crimes.[4]

In business, modus operandi is used to describe a firm's preferred means of executing business and interacting with other firms.

... )

Dec 22, 2018 at 10:10 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil Clarke's hero is portrayed by Watts Up With That very favourably here, and there is another cartoon by Josh.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/11/pushing-back-against-the-stupidest-scientific-paper-ever-published/

Harvey et al very kindly identified Mann's pet websites and blogs, and they all loved the attention and praised Harvey et al.

Dec 22, 2018 at 10:26 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Nothing will ever satisfy Stormfront Phil.

Oh dear, oh dear. Touched a nerve there.

I gave you an out. We could have agreed on the fiction of Dr Richard S. Courtney. You could have accepted my apology. But no.

So we now have two options, either of which I would deem satisfactory….


1. You provide verifiable data on the doctorate claimed by Richard S. Courtney and yourself. Really, how hard can this be? Do this, and I will apologise profusely.

2. We conclude that Richard S. Courtney inflated his credentials, signing himself 'Dr' and 'Ph.D' without ever having earned anything resembling a Doctorate. I deem this more probable.

This is a sideshow really, 'Dr'. Richard S. Courtney's views never gained much traction in the scientific mainstream. However the willingness amongst the contrarian side of the bench to embrace such 'fake news' speaks volumes, in my humble opinion.

Over to you. Knock yourself out.

Dec 23, 2018 at 12:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

More reasons why WUWT is a reliable source, proof of the deceit by Harvey et al, and confirmation that Climate Science is all about money and ego for liars like Phil Clarke.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/22/biologists-escalate-conflict-over-inuit-management-of-polar-bear-populations/

Dec 23, 2018 at 1:05 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/21/william-connolley-demonstrates-once-again-why-wikipedia-is-an-untrustworthy-reference-source/

William Connolley demonstrates once again why Wikipedia is an untrustworthy reference source
Anthony Watts / August 21, 2014
Wikipedia_ministryI saw this coming a mile away.

On Wednesday August 20th, Dr. Roy Spencer noted how John Cook’s well debunked 97% ‘consensus’ claim, based of statistical sleight of hand and pal review, was used as an example of propaganda techniques

Wikipedia Page on Propaganda Techniques Uses 97% Meme

Roy opined:

I wonder how long the example will stay there, without William Connolly to play gatekeeper. I also see “Hope and Change” is given as an example. Hmmm…sounds vaguely familiar.

Like a moth to a flame, William M. Connolley showed up in comments, and accused Dr. Spencer of adding the 97% example himself:

You’re fast. That example was added only a few days ago. Its almost like you did it, or someone did it and then told you. No? Seems like a pretty bizarre coincidence otherwise.

Having boobed the date, he later had to retract that statement:

> only a few days ago

A month and a few days. So, not so fast.

Connolley is equally fast it seems, because he immediately went into Orwellian 1984 Winston Smith mode and re-wrote the entry, simply because he himself believes in the 97% consensus meme. Roy writes today:

Censorship Alive and Well at Wikipedia

That didn’t take long. Less than 24 hours after I noted the use of the “97% of scientists agree” meme as an example of “propaganda techniques” on Wikipedia, the example has disappeared.

And who did the change? Well you know who:

07:29, 21 August 2014‎ William M. Connolley (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,792 bytes) (-53)‎ . . (Undid revision 617361920 by 130.22.49.227 (talk) better to use a non-controversial example)

Dec 23, 2018 at 10:57 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil Clarke, can you confirm whether this was failed propaganda, or a series of deliberate mistakes by Skeptical Science?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/12/monday-mirthness-more-sceptical-science-kids-scienz/

"Josh writes: Nic Lewis has a very amusing comment over at Lucia’s about a paper written by Gavin Cawley, Kevin Cowtan, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Ari Jokimäki – all part of the ‘SkepticalScience.com’ team . There’s also a post at BishopHill Sans science, sans maths, sans everything. ..... "

Dec 23, 2018 at 12:15 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I have no wish to take advantage of the tragedy relating to the latest eruption of Krakatoa, and the result tsunami and consequent loss of life, to make cheap points. It did, however, get me thinking about how many deaths can with 100% confidence be attributed to AGW (none, if any,I suspect) and how many can, with 100% confidence, be attributed to earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, all of which are natural events we cannot control (very many). Then it got me to thinking about how much money we are being asked to invest in trying (probably Canute-like) to control "man-made" climate change, and how little good, if any, that expenditure might bring about.

Of course I accept that the climate-concerned would not unreasonably point out that climate change isn't just about the effect on humankind, but on species and vegetation all across the planet. Nevertheless, it occurred to me that if we didn't spend the money we are being told we should spend, but instead saved it and kept some of it in abeyance ready to spend on disaster relief when tragedies like that unfolding in Indonesia occur, how much more good that might do.

The awful events of the last 24 hours relating to Krakatoa got me thinking in their own right, but also because I not long since finished reading "Catastrophe", a book speculating about a 6th century eruption of Krakatoa (on a spectacularly greater scale than anything seen in more recent history) and the devastating impact it had on humankind (and no doubt on other species) at the time. That in turn sent me to a quick online search about Krakatoa in the 6th century, and I offer up this link:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/sixth-century-misery-tied-not-one-two-volcanic-eruptions-180955858/

"Sixth-Century Misery Tied to Not One, But Two, Volcanic Eruptions
The ancient event is just one among hundreds of times volcanoes have affected climate over the past 2,500 years"

"In the summer of A.D. 536, a mysterious cloud appeared over the Mediterranean basin. “The sun gave forth its light without brightness,” wrote the Byzantine historian Procopius, “and it seemed exceedingly like the sun in eclipse, for the beams it shed were not clear.” In the wake of the cloud's appearance, local climate cooled for more than a decade. Crops failed, and there was widespread famine. From 541 to 542, a pandemic known as the Plague of Justinian swept through the Eastern Roman Empire.

Scientists had long suspected that the cause of all this misery might be a volcanic eruption, probably from Ilopango in El Salvador, which filled Earth's atmosphere with ash. But now researchers say there were two eruptions—one in 535 or 536 in the northern hemisphere and another in 539 or 540 in the tropics—that kept temperatures in the north cool until 550.

The revelation comes from a new analysis that combines ice cores collected in Antarctica and Greenland with data from tree rings. It shows that the sixth-century tragedy is just one chapter in a long history of volcanic interference. According to the data, nearly all extreme summer cooling events in the northern hemisphere in the past 2,500 years can be traced to volcanoes."

And much more in similar vein. Read for yourselves if you're interested - I don't want to infringe copyright.

The point, I suppose, is that if anything like this happened again, we'd be desperate for some global warming.

Dec 23, 2018 at 8:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Phil Clarke will "spend the night in Utah

in a cave up in the hills."

(Friend of the Devil).

Dec 23, 2018 at 8:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterCharly

Phil Clarke, can you give the date and time of your apology?

Dec 23, 2018 at 8:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterCharly

"The point, I suppose, is that if anything like this happened again, we'd be desperate for some global warming.
Dec 23, 2018 at 8:37 PM | Mark Hodgson"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
"The year 1816 is known as the  (also the  and )[1] because of severe climate abnormalities that caused average global temperatures to decrease by 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F).[2] This resulted in major food shortages across the Northern Hemisphere.[3]

Year Without a Summer

1816 summer temperature anomaly compared to average temperatures from 1971–2000

Volcano Mount Tambora Date April 10, 1815 Lesser Sunda Islands, Dutch East Indies (now Republic of Indonesia)
Caused a volcanic winter that dropped temperatures by 0.4 to 0.7 °C worldwide

Evidence suggests that the anomaly was predominantly a volcanic winter event caused by the massive 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia). This eruption was the largest eruption in at least 1,300 years (after the extreme weather events of 535–536), and perhaps exacerbated by the 1814 eruption of Mayon in the Philippines."

If this was a tsunami, what caused it?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Channel_floods,_1607
"The , 30 January 1607,[a] drowned many people and destroyed a large amount of farmland and livestock. Recent research has suggested that the cause may have been a tsunami."

Dec 23, 2018 at 10:13 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Bishop Hill. Where the truth comes to die.

So long, suckers.

Dec 23, 2018 at 11:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

You seemed to have missed my point (something you also seem to make a habit of).
You attempted to belittle a person of one name with some allegations against someone of a similar name. It matters not whether the allegations are true, or whether the two persons are related. As far as I am aware, they are two separate people who deserve to be treated as such. You appear to simply wish to grab anything at hand that might be useful to personally attack a person who disagrees with you.

M Courtney is rather more than just 'someone of a similar name' to Richard S.

M Courtney claimed that Richard held a Ph.D, but was unable to supply any details that would enable anyone to verify that qualification. Nullius in verba as they say at the Royal Society.

Richard signed various 'anti action on climate change' petitions and open letters as a Ph.D or 'Dr Richard S. Courtney. To the best of my knowledge, despite challenges, he has never disclosed where he earned his doctorate.

This is obviously ad hom, however Professor Ray Pierrehumbert (Halley Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, Fellow of the AGU and author of 'Principles of Planetary Climate') wrote this at dot earth after Marc Morano used Courtney and his Ph.D as a reason for scepticism
:

Now let’s take a look at what Richard S. Courtney has written. A search of Science Citation Index under “Courtney RS” turns up a total of seven written documents (excluding another RS Courtney who has worked on personnel management).

One of these is a two page discussion summary on Environmental Economics in a 1995 issue of the Journal of Power and Energy and all the rest are Letters to the Editor. Three of the Letters to the Editor are in the popular science magazine New Scientist. The most recent of these is on butterfly wings, and the next most recent concerns a patent dispute over a wind energy generating device. The oldest letter in New Scientist (1991) is titled “Not So Little.” I haven’t read that and can’t comment.

There is one Letter to the Editor that appeared in the journal SPECTROCHIMICA ACTA PART A, pertaining to an article that appeared in that journal that claimed to prove that neither water vapor nor CO2 could act as a greenhouse gas. The article itself was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of local thermodynamic equilibrium. This was set right in a reviewed Technical Comment in the same journal by Houghton. There are several other reviewed technical comments on the paper, but Courtney’s comment for some reason was published as a Letter to the Editor instead. I’ve read this letter and it doesn’t say much. It criticizes an analogy used in one of the technical comments and basically praises the original paper without addressing Houghton’s rebuttal. In any event, the original paper, like the opus by Gerlich, would — if true — disprove all greenhouse effects of water vapor and CO2 everywhere, not just the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. If either Mr. Morano or Richard S. Courtney know of some way to account for the temperature of Venus or the Earth without any greenhouse effect whatever, I would be delighted to know of it.

Then there are two Letters to the Editor in Nature. Note that these are correspondence, not the short reviewed articles which in Nature go by the name of “Letters.” The first letter, titled “On Changing Water into Wine” deals with the psychological basis for religion. The second is a five-paragraph comment concerning the procedure the IPCC used to handle a flawed chapter in the Working Group III economics report, at the time of the Second Assessment report. This may be a useful statement of Dr. Courtney’s opinion on one facet of long-past IPCC procedure, but it provides no justification for the rather remarkable opinions about climate science voiced in the quotes you reproduce on the Inhofe 400 web site.

So, failing to find any sound published basis for Courtney’s skepticism — indeed hardly any published basis of any sort — I turn at least to the arguments expressed in the two paragraphs of the Canada Free Press op-ed which dealt with climate science and which presented arguments rather than just making declarations. The arguments amount to the following: (a) Global Warming stopped in 1998, and (b) Antarctic cooling is inconsistent with anthropogenic global warming. The first is a common fallacy that arises from fitting a trend line to the endpoints of a short time series. For a discussion of this point, see the recent article “Uncertainty, noise and the art of model-data comparison” on RealClimate.org . The statement about Antarctica is just untrue; the small Antarctic interior cooling seen in a relatively short recent part of the record can be adequately accounted for in terms of ozone depletion and atmospheric circulation changes, even in the face of increasing CO2. That is discussed in the article “Antarctic Cooling, Global Warming,” Dec. 3,2004, on RealClimate.org.

And you needn’t believe RealClimate; you can just go directly to the peer-reviewed articles cited there.

So that sums up what I have been able to find of Richard S. Courtney’s arguments. No peer reviewed articles in any journal that shows up in Web of Science, two marginally relevant Letters to the Editor, of which one is essentially an endorsement of a paper proved to be wrong, and two fallacious arguments expressed briefly in a Canada Free Press op-ed.

If I have overlooked anything I should have discussed, please do let me know and I’ll have a look at it.

Dec 24, 2018 at 12:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke