Climate Curious Blog/Addendum Page

This is a blog for my main essay at New (to me) papers and technical notes are at the end.

November 1, 2015
I am working on a rebuttal (two, actually) to the “Climate Change is Real and Important” rebuttal, but in the meantime, a lovely man named Tim Hunter bravely defended my essay against this ad-hominous attack. Please follow him (@badgerbod) and sign up for the WUWT newsletter to stay abreast of the latest.

October 31, 2015
First, I was flattered by a massive response piece by some of the lower priests of global-warming alarmism. It’s kind of fun to read but gets boring after a while. It’s well written, but it’s all about defending beliefs and making fun of others who don’t believe what they do. I ask readers to compare the sources of the two stories and make up their own minds. I’m preparing an interesting response. If you want to learn when it comes out, please subscribe to the newsletter at

Here’s a recent NASA paper showing that ice in Antarctica is actually accumulating, as I pointed out in my essay. It’s a good short introduction that will help anyone speak knowledgeably about Antarctic ice.

October 20, 2015
Matt Ridley posted today about the benefits of CO2. He’s one of my favorite authors, so I hope people will subscribe to his blog.

I had to add a fifth “smoking gun,” one I’ve been meaning to add for a while now. I just found a second metastudy, so now I can say:

Smoking Gun #5: All metastudies so far disagree with the IPCC projections.

I guess the main thing that convinced me to doubt Al Gore & the IPCC wasn’t the increasing number of PhD scientists who have changed their views and become more vocal about the science. It wasn’t even the many peer-reviewed papers debunking the claims of the IPCC. It was the metastudies. So far, we only have two, but they are significant:

I learned today about — looks at first glance like a great resource.

Volume tapered off a lot today. Only about 6,000 visitors and 1,500 readers. I am wondering when some big blog will notice. Where are the Huffpo bloggers? I finally weighed in at the WUWT page for my piece.

October 19, 2015
Now up to 30,000 visits and 5.5k reads. I keep wondering when it’s going to get picked up by some big media site and really hammer the servers. Plenty of posts here on Medium go well over 1m views. I doubt I have any chance to be on the staff recommended list, because the staff of likely believes global warming is man-made. Too bad. I really want liberal readers. If anyone can reach out to publications like Slate (heavily biased), Huffpo (also unfortunately biased), Daily Kos, Gawker, maybe NPR?

Can anyone help with Digg, Reddit, Upworthy, Stumbleupon, etc? I don’t really know how you get your page on those sites.

Amazing: well over 400 comments on the WUWT page, and fascinating to read! I’m humbled and thrilled that people are “coming out” and telling their stories of how they came to disbelieve the current climate dogma. I’ll have to respond gently but haven’t figured out the right words yet.

One super nice guy told me there were over 250 links in my document and helped me chase down some that were broken — thanks Bob!

If you’re reading this, you may enjoy my YouTube channel on Bayesian reasoning.

An exercise in critical thinking: read this piece on ocean “simplification” and discuss why it may be wrong. Is there any evidence, or is it theoretical models and analogies that may or may not be valid? Substituting one bit of thinking for another bit doesn’t necessarily lead to a correct conclusion, yet this is what passes for climate science. People really are getting paid to do this “work” and others are getting paid to report it. This is pseudoscience, even if the people who wrote it have PhDs.

October 18, 2015
In the first 48 hours after publishing the essay, over 18,000 people went to the page and more than 3,400 people actually read it. This is a phenomenal read rate for a 9,000-word essay. Thank you to all the people who have read and shared my piece. It’s rewarding to see so many people appreciate my work.

Many have said I’m brave. Several have said I WILL lose friends as a result of this (it’s true — I have had several nasty emails from old friends). Some have told me stories they don’t want their friends to know, for fear of being ostracized. I have even heard from scientists who submitted papers to Nature Magazine and the Nature editors wanted them to link their research to global warming before they would publish.

I really believe science is broken, in many ways. I have written a bit about that in my piece, People Don’t Click. My dream is for a billionaire to give me enough money to start my own institute and try to fix the science problem. The closest I’ve seen so far to that is The Breakthrough Institute, whom I believe are doing excellent work.

As I’m looking for consulting work, a few people have offered to help me find clients to work with. I really appreciate that. I have found that 100% of this kind of coaching/consulting work comes from referrals, not from web sites. It’s about the relationship much more than about the actual delivery of value. So if you know any companies that want to become more effective, make better decisions, and create a great place to work, please contact me.

A friend said that had picked up the story on my essay. I emailed back, saying “What’s” Apparently, it’s a conservative rag of some kind.

Matt Ridley sent me a personal email praising my piece — wow!!!

Here’s what I’ve noticed: People take one look at my essay, decide whether it agrees with their political worldview or not, and then react immediately, firing off canned versions of messages/arguments they have used many times before. I get a lot of messages either congratulating me for my bravery or pointing out my huge mistakes (without really checking the links I refer to). VERY FEW people take the time to learn from it. I hope a few people will learn it to learn from and add to their world view.

Thank you for all the emails and comments!

Papers of Note
For those interested in the science, here are a few papers people have pointed me to since I published:

An Advanced, Two-Layer Climate Model by Hermann Harde

A nice exploration of the statistical significance of warming claims on

Provocateur, professional heretic, slayer of myths, speaker of truthiness to powerfulness, and defender of the Oxford comma.

Provocateur, professional heretic, slayer of myths, speaker of truthiness to powerfulness, and defender of the Oxford comma.