Category Archives: Fake climate sceptics

Pattern obfuscation of ocean pH

Posted on 18/09/2017 by richard telford

I noticed that my blog had been cited by a couple of papers, so I went to have a look. Albert Parker has a paper in Nonlinear Engineering. I’m sure this journal wasn’t chosen for the relevant expertise of the … Continue reading →

Posted in Fake climate sceptics, Peer reviewed literature, Silliness | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Bob Irvine’s zombie paper (hide the tin foil)

Posted on 08/09/2016 by richard telford

A couple of years ago, I criticised a paper by Bob Irvine published by WIT (a publisher on Beal’s List of possibly predatory publishers). Shortly afterwards, the paper was retracted with the editor writing “I have now received the result … Continue reading →

Posted in Fake climate sceptics | Tagged | Leave a comment

CFC concentrations not emissions affect ozone

Posted on 26/10/2015 by richard telford

Steve Goreham has written something for WUWT. That is enough to know it is going to be bad. How bad? This bad: Another year has passed and that stubborn Ozone Hole over Antarctica refuses to go away. Data from the … Continue reading →

Posted in Fake climate sceptics, WUWT | Tagged , | 13 Comments

Dissembling with graphs: Murry Salby edition

Posted on 29/04/2015 by richard telford

Perhaps the easiest way to mislead your audience, or indeed yourself, is to generate deceptive graphics. Murry Salby is to be saluted for his mastery of this art, with several fine examples in his recent London lecture. Here are the … Continue reading →

Posted in Fake climate sceptics, Silliness | Tagged , | 18 Comments

The most interesting part of Murry Salby’s lecture

Posted on 28/04/2015 by richard telford

I watched Murry Salby’s London lecture: it was awful. Salby addresses what he calls the core issue of climate change (0:2:30) “Why is atmospheric CO2 increasing?” The answer is obvious – because of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and … Continue reading →

Posted in Fake climate sceptics, Silliness | Tagged , | 22 Comments

The Sun’s apparent orbit is not an icosikaitetragon

Posted on 11/03/2015 by richard telford

The Sun appears to go around the Earth. Round that is, like a circle, not jumping every hour from one side to the next of a 24-sided polygon. Despite this, it is convenient to represent the Sun’s position in climate models as if … Continue reading →

Posted in climate, Fake climate sceptics, Silliness, WUWT | Tagged , | 4 Comments

Willie Soon at Heartland: “The sun is big”

Posted on 23/02/2015 by richard telford

Dr Willie Soon is in the news again. His recent paper with Monckton et al ended with the conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. A statement seeming at odds with his long … Continue reading →

Posted in Fake climate sceptics, Silliness, solar variability | Tagged , | 6 Comments

Solar science Heartland style

Posted on 22/02/2015 by richard telford

[I wrote this some time back, but got distracted by Lord Monckton’s inability to use a scroll bar, and then lost momentum. Given Willie Soon’s return to media attention, I thought I should give his presentation a little loving, but … Continue reading →

Posted in climate, Fake climate sceptics, Peer reviewed literature, solar variability | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Was China 6-8 K warmer in winter 6000 years ago?

Posted on 18/01/2015 by richard telford

Monckton, Soon, Legates & Briggs have published a paper in the Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), which, despite having an impact factor of 1.365, is “one of the world’s top six learned journals of science”. Allegedly. In their paper, … Continue reading →

Posted in climate, Fake climate sceptics, Peer reviewed literature | Tagged , , , | 11 Comments

Media coverage of a dubious paper

Posted on 16/01/2015 by richard telford

Most scientific papers receive no media interest: nothing in the newspapers, nothing on TV, nothing on blogs. Given the number of papers published, this is probably inevitable. Some papers receive lots of media attention. Ideally, these would be the most … Continue reading →

Posted in Fake climate sceptics, Peer reviewed literature | Tagged | Leave a comment