The Borehole Volume 2

Edited and elided comments go here. June 21, 2013 …


  1. Bill Gates ? The one who own half a millon shares of Monsanto ? The one who teamed with Cargill to push GMO soy in Mozambique ? The one who appointed a 25 yr Monsanto exec to head a “Green” foundation? The same Monsanto and Cargill who prosecute farmers for saving seed ?

    That one ?

    Thought so.


    [ yawn -mt ]

  2. Susan Anderson writes:

    Try this:




    Of course, you’d have to take my word for it that the latter (and the family of satellite water and IR animations worldwide) have completely changed their character in the last five years. But the results are coming to a location near you.

    [ Nothing wrong with this post. This is boreholed because I promised Fuller the last word because it was getting boring and he gets awfully irritated when somebody else gets the last word. -mt ]

  3. Backslider writes:

    No Michael, the “science” has not stood up. All the touted climate models have now been thoroughly falsified by actual temperature data. All the climate predictions have failed.

    This biggest problem here is that climate models are only a tool for science, they in themselves are not science, but rather statistical analysis. Science requires a hypothesis, experiment and empirical evidence. This is sorely lacking from most quarters.

    Yet what do we hear from warmists? When the tropospheric hot spot could not be found and when temperatures have failed to rise we are now supposed to believe that the heat is somewhere way down in the deep deep oceans…. again without any evidence, again without real science.

    Yet on the basis of these models and predictions governments have been urged to spend billions, the countryside is raped for bio-fuel, and marred by inefficient and impractical wind farms and solar farms. None of these technologies can supply the power that we need and drive up the cost of what was previously cheap electricity and they cannot survive without heavy subsidies. People are dying solely due to “Green” policies.

    “Infantile” is yet more ad hominem from warmists, nothing more, nothing less.

    [ facepalm facepalm facepalm -mt ]

  4. handjive writes:


    Indeed the conversation is disappointing. Let’s summarise:

    You re-post (& consequently endorse) a report from Australia’s leading climate scientists and govt. funded body, the Climate Commission.

    After re-producing the very words of the report, it is pointed out that a major shift, a “breakthrough” in climate science, if you will, is claimed, with the news that weather IS NOW climate.

    Ignoring the fact that this “breakthrough” verifies the previous stance that weather IS NOT climate, you call the commentator a “meathead,” setting the tone for your post as “infantile name calling”, displaying exactly what the report you quote is the problem.

    Deciding that one sentence could be “easily refuted,” you then quote a 2012 UN-IPCC report, with low to medium levels of confidence, as proof that the IPCC said this all along.

    Immediately, you make fools of every person and scientific bodies like NASA that has previously towed the line, “weather is not climate.”

    Another poster links the official page for one of the consequences you claim is proof of catastrophic warming
    (the Climate Commission report is endorsed by an admiral who claims humanity will be wiped out in 100 years).

    You call this cherry picking after the report (you) endorse claimed fires as proof of catastrophic warming.

    You call people names and then claim the debate is infantile.

    You fail to address contrary points with relevant facts, further muddying the debate, wondering why you can’t convey the “science.”

    You then claim disappointment in the tone of debate, whilst further inferring your 2 commentators are infantile.

    It would appear it is Mr Tobis that is in denial.

    [ Your noticing that the consensus document you read is not the strawman you attack is not particularly a strong argument that the consensus is the strawman you attack. -mt ]

  5. Rick Spung writes:

    I went to the website you linked to. I compared current arctic ice coverage area with the last ten years. yep, it’s the highest in a decade.

    [ For this time of year, by a hair - the action is in late summer as everybody knows and the graph makes clear. This is an obvious cherry pick. -mt ]

    and regarding last year, it is widely accepted that last year’s low reading was due to a storm that broke up the ice. even NASA agrees that the storm was the primary cause.

    [ Save the desperate spin for people who might be ill-informed enough to take it seriously. Yes, there was a storm and it may have something to do with the abrupt drop, but it's not as if the multi-year ice isn't disappearing and not as if there isn't a completely new surface thermodynamics in much of the Arctic. Kindly grow up. -mt ]

  6. Ms. Anderson, I live in Shanghai. Poor people are not a statistic to me. They are my neighbors. I grew up poor. I joined the Navy because my family couldn’t afford to send me to college.

    My neighbors here in Shanghai have hope. They also have problems. One doesn’t get in the way of the other.

    This part of China has serious environmental problems, ranging from thousands of pigs getting thrown in the river to fraudulent ingredients in medicine and food that kill people.

    They are busy solving these problems.

    Last week Shanghai announced an initiative to replace 2,000 coal-fired boilers with natural gas or renewable energy sources. They didn’t say a word about global warming and it didn’t receive an inch worth of column space outside of Shanghai.

    I’ve been called a delayer by Joe Romm and a denier by Dr. Tobis. Neither of whom ever spend any time reading what I actually write. You can join them in a blanket condemnation of me because I’m on a different side of the fence regarding climate policy. Or you can read what I write.

    I try and treat you with respect, Ms. Anderson. But like others on this thread, you seem determined not to look at facts, relying on your emotional impression of what must be happening to poor people.

    If you want to help them, get them air conditioning. They can take care of the rest.

    [ Unnecessarily contentious. -mt ]

  7. Tom Fuller writes:

    Actually, Mr. Bostrom, aside from being unnecessarily rude, you are incorrect. I wrote nothing above that has not also been written by scientists. Any time you want to stop acting like a two-bit jerk, we could actually talk about the subject at hand. But I won’t hold my breath.

    [ Rude yes, and perhaps unnecessarily rude, but not pointlessly rude. He does have a point and he delivered it well.

    But your reply was much ruder without being interesting, funny, OR having a point. If you are going to have a thin skin forever you will not really advance your points very well.

    As for "I wrote nothing above that has not also been written by scientists", excluding anything some have said about tornados or hurricanes and the like, of which your position seems a shabby pastiche, the sad fact is that you probably can't support that. Another example of your tendency to go in over your head , and essentially becoming comic relief.

    I hate to do this to you. It seems cruel and malicious. Yet you keep walking into it.

    The thing is, when you stay away from science you do have interesting things to say. I am reluctant to cut you off on that account. Frankly our political philosophies are not that far apart, nor are our long term climate scenarios. Why do we argue so much? Because as a science-informed medium it's P3's mission and obligation to get the details right.

    It's a pity you have such trouble filtering your supportable ideas from your SWAGs, and that you can neither ignore amusing snark nor return it effectively, which are the better strategies.

    On the current moderating principles we will not moderate ad hominem. The thing you have to decide is whether to help move the conversation forward here (including doubting yourself and acknowledging your own mistakes) or to get all defensive. And unless you completely filibuster us into changing our policy, your comments will continue to be moderated one at a time.

    And every time you corner yourself and lose an argument completely without realizing it you'll think we're being capricious.

    Take it or leave it. I wonder if we both would be happier if you went elsewhere and oddly I'll miss you a bit. I genuinely wish you the best either way.

    But I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I certainly can't make a base hit out of a strikeout. -mt ]

  8. So rudeness is okay if it supports your point of view. Got it.

    And for someone who has lost every argument he's had with me, you are remarkably ignorant of the nature of our conversations. You show a considerable lack of self-awareness.

    Considering that you have about six comments from me that have neither been approved nor consigned to your borehole, I think your advice about leaving is appropriate.

    Once again you have showed yourself to be neither fair nor open-minded and have never missed an opportunity to apply motivated reasoning in your argumentation. It's a pity that this is one of the few climate sites I can access from Shanghai. But you can once again consider yourself free from this pest.

  9. From The Right Response to Obama's Climate Efforts, the following from Klem was booted:

    “Also unsurprisingly they recommend a revenue neutral carbon tax.”

    Frankly I’m extremely surprised. Republicans know that there is no such thing as revenue neutral taxation, they don’t exist. I’m astonished that any Republicans organization would recommend such a thing. I can see Democrats believing such fairy tales, but not Republicans.

    Aha, that explains why R Street broke away from the Heartland Institute, they’re not Republicans at all, they’re Democrats at heart. No wonder they broke away. No wonder they recommended a revenue neutral tax.

    Oooohh I’m a Democrat, tax me Obama. Assuage my guilt, tax me, tax me hard!



  10. Item by "johnb" in Risk; local vs global:

    The interesting thing is that there are enough pipelines in just North America alone to circle the globe 10 times. And, half of those are over 50 years old. Now think of these tree-huggers wanting no “new” pipelines and forcing the oil companies to ship by rail to meet demand. Keep in mind that there are no restrictions about what we haul by rail. And, we all know that railroad lines run mostly along riverbeds as well as through high population centers. Aren’t they just asking for a lot more catastrophes. If these global-warmists are are serious about saving the Earth wouldn’t they want the safest new pipelines possible and stop oil transportation by rail. Mind you, people who protest oil should also protest driving on fossil fuels and driving electric cars charged by fossil fuels. So many contradictions!

    You had something of a point. Why be childish and rude about it? -mt

  11. Item by johnb in Climate Feedback to Energy Sector:

    I went to and looked at some of their data but I doubt it’s complete and thus I’m guessing that it’s at least partially politically motivated. I’ve lived just North of Montana in the Rockies at 4500 ft. elevation for 30 years and over the last 5 years we have been getting more moisture and less heat. Our summers are cooler and our winters are milder. In addition, our province is not only a large producer of oil and gas but we also have a very large grain-belt. Crop production of all sorts are up and so is average rainfall. Keep in mind that rainfall is always spotty – not everyone gets it at the same time. Last winter I got 4 times more snow (14 ft.) and somewhat more rainfall than normal. My normal rainfall is 20″ and instead I got 25″. In the 1990′s rainfall was down to 15″ on average and my lake-shore was receding. I can measure accumulated heat and rainfall quite readily by the lake level right next to our house. I should put a watt-hour meter on our sump pump in the basement and publish this data as a weather proxy for our area.

    If rainfall and heat are making a latitudinal adjustment does that support “global warming”, “global cooling” or just “status quo”. After all, the Dirty Thirties were also a latitudinal adjustment and much worse than what is recorded today. Not everywhere on the Earth was hot, dusty and dry at the same time. If the Earth is “actually” warming in an unusual way then shouldn’t all the data points reflect the same trend.

    Calgary (100 miles N. of here) has had two 100-year floods in just 8 years. That definitely seems unusual but nobody is crying “global warming” or “climate change” up there.

    My understanding of inter-glacial warming (the natural warming that occurs after the glaciers melt) is that the oceans, on average, will heat up by 4 degrees C and then cool off by 4C as the glaciers return to as far South as Montana. I don’t see any of this data reflected at All I see is part of an overpopulated continent drying up and other parts of the Continent, as well as the rest of the World getting that “free” weather driven moisture instead. 310 million people in an area smaller than Canada is bound to use up their ground water eventually but I wouldn’t necessarily jump to the conclusion that this is proof of “climate change”. That sounds a lot more like an over-population problem combined with unfavorable cyclical weather patterns.

    I always keep in mind that even in Canada (god forbid) political organizations are prone to publishing something very close to the party line. Apparently Obama seems to like the concept of “climate change” and his funders no doubt want him to said particular things as pay-back for the funds he got when he ran for office. I’m also assuming that government funded orgs. will behave similarly. I believe that’s part of the American Way”. Therefore, we really shouldn’t expect politicians to be scientific if the lobby groups that support him are not. That would obviously be political suicide, not only for the elected person, but also for his/her party. I think we all understand this part of politics.

    Alberta is a huge energy exporter to America and I invest a large portion of my pension fund in America so I would hate to see the energy debate fall into non-scientific times where opinions and arguments like “energy consumption is bad” may circulate. If that does happen I expect all these energy misers to refuse to fly and refuse to drive their SUVs and crossovers. I’m pretty sure we can all agree that everyone who takes “climate change” and “global warming” seriously must walk their talk in order to have any appearance of integrity.

    Woefully off topic; try the open thread -mt

  12. and another johnb:

    I have a friend who is currently using small 4-stroke engine exhaust as fertilizer. It’s a patented process that he currently gives away to 3rd World farmers (India and Africa). He actually spends 9 months of each year traveling there and showing them how to do it. He says his farmers get every single penny spent on gasoline back in improved crops. If they spend $100 in gasoline for their rototillers they get $100 back in additional crop growth. The process and the appliance he attaches to the exhaust pipe directs the engine exhaust directly into the roto-tilled earth and according to him it fixes nitrogen into the soil without the use of fertilizer.

    I’m guessing that everyone will eventually catch up to his technology. I asked why he’s not selling this new technology on the open market and he says he’s still perfecting it and he wants each of his farmers to profit by it’s eventual adoption.

    Don’t worry I’m also a bit skeptical. It doesn’t seem quite right that a petroleum product can be converted to fertilizer this easily. My friend says that some soils are better at the conversion process than others but that all soils are natural converters of hydro-carbons. Just imagine if this was actually true – what a revolution in food production.

    Anyone willing to tackle this one? I’ll provide his website at a later posting.

    Unverified claims? No thanks. -mt

  13. Item by “johnb” in Has climate change stopped?

    There is no black and white in the Global Warming debate. Hopefully this blog of yours is not a political discussion that you are heading up to prove your own favorite theory. The “big picture” is pretty clear. Almost half the Earth has been covered with glaciers at least 8 times (that we know of) in the past 1.2 million years so both global warming and global cooling must be true. In other words there are no skeptics in this debate unless they are purposely avoiding the facts.

    Please pass on to your readers or followers. If you won’t provide this info I will know that you are emotionally involved in the outcome of this discussion rather than than being a rational human being that thrives on the scientific method.

    By the way, the collection of scientific facts at has nothing to do with me personally and I don’t support them in any manner except for wanting everyone to know the scientifically verified facts in this debate.

    I read a lot of your blogs and I appreciate the opportunity to share in your enthusiasm for a vibrant, positive and factual debate.

    Also check out Friends of Gin and Tonic -mt

  14. Another item by “johnb” in Has climate change stopped?

    The Earth, the Solar System and Space itself works in cycles. I assume that everyone is aware of this basic phenomenon. So, when we look at Global climate patterns it’s best to think of each year as part of a very long sequence of, more or less, repetitive events. At first it was cool, then it warmed up and then later it cooled off – sort of like the four seasons in Canada. Some years are not as cool as others and some are hotter. But, a hot year or a cool year are simply “outliers ” in statistical terms. A few outliers do not make a trend, especially if the data we are tracking is non-linear or circular.

    Since the Earth’s climate is currently composed of 100,000 year (on average) cycles of glaciers forming and melting I fully expect the “whole picture” to include up to 1.2 million years of data since that’s roughly how long ago this particular climate cycle began. Looking at a few years of data or even hundreds of years of data does little in terms of proving “global warming” or “global cooling” for that matter.

    Try to imagine that the full picture is 1.2 million pixels and so far we have only collected 200 pixels. Not much of a whole picture so far – is it?

    Check out: for a more complete discussion.

    This argument, like most denier arguments, presumes to begin with there is no actual science, just observations and models. But without science, there would be no meaningful obrervations or models. The presumption is presumptuous.

  15. I think you need to ban Johnb. His intentions are dishonorable, that's for sure. I'm afraid some of this is my fault, I seem to be dragging the deniers around. Scott Mandia also picked up a few.

    Or maybe I'm not as important as I think I am. Anyway, it is a waste of your time to have to reply to this guff.

  16. If it gets past the spam filter, we'd like to have a place for it. This is to prevent people from talking about "censorship". If anybody starts making sense, we'd really like to have the discussion happen.

    But we don't really have a software hook for this and it is a pain to do all that copying, pasting, and linking. So I'm often behind.

  17. Anyone wanting something of their own removed from this site, borehole or otherwise, need only ask.

    The purpose of the borehole is not to embarrass the people but to provide readers with an idea of our moderation policy and to defend us from accusations of censorship.

    Everything that isn't caught by our spam filters or an obvious false negative from the spam filters is posted.

  18. Dan Pangburn in Just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions

    An equation, using only one external forcing, that results in 95% correlation with average global temperatures since before 1900 is at . The equation calculates reasonable average global temperature trends since 1610 including the recovery from the LIA. Change to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide had no significant influence.

    Crackpottery and brazen curve fitting.

  19. I quite agree, but the right to a borehole appears to be part of the above. In any case, since I have no intention of running all of your six seven (!) submissions of today can I take it you will save me the trouble of pasting them into the borehole?

  20. Fine. Point taken. Anyway, I am just asking you if you want your stuff in the borehole since you make such a big deal of it, or would you rather I just delete it.

    That makes nine submissions today, by the way, six quite long and at best tangential to our interests here.

    Have you considered starting your own blog or website? You certainly have a lot to say. For all I know there are people who might want to read it. I'm pretty sure I know what P3 readers like, though, and sorry, your stuff isn't it.

  21. Sean, if you're about, I beg of you, please stop. A lot of what you have to say makes sense, but the way you push it, your disrespect for others, and the sheer volume, feels like an attempt to bully or silence us. You seem to lack the ability to see how it appears from the outside, and seem obsessed with pushing out masses of material and showing off your erudition. I like much of what Noam Chomsky has to say, but why must I make time to spend an hour and a half on a link you provide? That's just one of many.

    The idea that your words are protected free speech on a site somebody else created may not be spiteful and arrogant, but it sure feels that way. Tobis has gently and patiently encouraged my work and were it not for him neither this site nor my amateur musings would exist. I'd like you to let me have my day in the sun without pouring smog all over it.

    Being free with insults and prickly about yourself: there's a saying about that: "You can dish it out but you can't take it." Why are you so sure that you and only you know what's what?

    I would suggest listening (well reading) a bit with an open mind.

    Also, please stop using my name. The last time my name was a regular part of a blog the way you use it it was a deniers campaign to silence me, and in the end, it was largely successful. You may think it personalizes it, but it feels more like bullying to me.

  22. Item by "Sharon" on Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline gets one step closer to reality:

    Bill McKibben has done himself a great dvsceriise by swallowing the James Hansen is God garbage hook, line, and sinker. Bill has turned his burning desire for a Utopian climate where all his outdoor pursuits are steeped in perfect weather conditions into a mindless regurgitation of the attention seekers’ endless prattle about the end of the world. The only person more impressed with Hansen than McKibben is Hansen himself

    [Doesn't advance the conversation in any way -mt]

  23. Item by Khoidir in Quote of the Week:

    .1. AGW is true and Mann made some mistakes.2. AGW is true and it was wrong for Jones to ask Mann to dleete mails.3. AGW is true and it was inappropriate the hide the decline, especially when a reviwer asked that it be shown.4. AGW is true and well you get the idea.Finally, MT piece on Judith was neither well reasoned nor well written. “Judith Curry, born beyond the shark?” seriously, here argument was flawed and confusing, but she is not congenitally stupid

    [Off topic, and shallow, and rehashed to boot.]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.