International Journal of Inactivism (now supplanted by Decoding SwiftHack)


Crapmill back in action on May Day

cite as: F. Bi. 2008. Crapmill back in action on May Day. Intl. J. Inact., 1:23–25

Well, understandably, the global warming inactivist blogosphere blogocave1 has decided not to report on the “Heartland 500” fiasco at all. Instead, Anthony Watts and the folks at Jennifer Marohasy have quickly latched on to a new talking point, this time from US Senator James Inhofe regarding a Nature article. So I decided to ask them via blog comments why they weren’t talking about the Heartland list:

Dear Ms. Marohasy,

I deeply regret to observe that, despite your reporting of the “global cooling to 2015” story, you have failed to make any mention in your blog of Heartland Institute’s recent list of scientists who have cast doubts on global warming. Here is a sample of the list, available via

Rahmstorf, Stefan, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany; Randall, David, A., NASA; Ratto, N., University of Buenos Aires, Argentina; […lots more names…] Schilman, Bettina, Geological Survey of Israel; Schmidt, Gavin J., University of Virginia; Schmith, Torben, Danish Meteorological Institute; […yet more names…] Tappa, Eric, University of South Carolina; Thomas, Chris D., University of Leeds; Thompson, L.G., Ohio State;

As a concerned citizen and defender of freedom and all that it stands for, I have a few questions I need to ask. May I know why you are being silent on the Heartland 500 list, and the oppression from the scientific inquisiton against the academics that are mentioned on the list? Has your good self been intimidated by the forces of the Left into keeping quiet as well? Is your blog now selling out to the freedom-destroying agenda of Al Gore?

I would appreciate it if you can offer me answers to my humble questions. Thank you.

— Frank Bi, International Journal of Inactivism,

What happened was this: the Marohasy folks decided to simply drop my comment, and Watts — after a few exchanges — offered the following explanation:

well I mostly deal with weather stations and weather/climate data here, and the list just hasn’t been as interesting as what’s been happening in the real world lately.

Ho hum. Given that Watts was actually at the inactivist ‘science’ conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute and with Heartland honcho Joseph Bast giving the opening speech, I can only wonder what that means! Maybe Watts is in Gore’s pocket after all? 🙂

* * *

In the meantime, here’s a quick summary of the discussion regarding Inhofe’s take on the Nature article:

“Research shows the world will cool until 2015!”

“Hey, the research uses climate models. Didn’t you say models are unreliable?”

“Argh, I’m going to throw smoke bombs!”


  1. Thanks to VJ for the suggestion!


  1. Bi:

    With regards to the new talking point, I’ve taken the time to look through the paper itself; while I’m not a climate scientist (but see also Annan and Connolley) and my understanding of the material is amateur, I’d like to draw attention to Figure 4, which represents their model’s predictions.

    Note that the “global warming stops for 10 years” claim appears to refer to the lower range of error in a scenario that assumes greenhouse gas concentrations (not emissions, but total concentrations) are frozen at year 2000’s levels, starting this year. (The 10 years are 2005-2015, and the method of getting a near-zero slope is to connect 2005 and the lower limit of 2015’s fixed-concentration scenario. We all know how amateur this is, but this *is* being eaten up by the “no warming since 1998” crowd.)

    The hindcast model (green line) predicts rising temperatures at a rate comparable to the IPCC predictions (~0.2C/decade, give or take) in more realistic scenarios over those same 10 years (2005-2015). (It appears to flatten out briefly, but that span is only 5 years long, not the 10 as ‘advertised’. Without the data I can’t do a more rigorous analysis.)

    The inactivist’s predictions from this model can only come true if action far and beyond what any activist is calling for takes place last Thursday. But, of *course*, this is just a model, and therefore a critically flawed wing-it dead-wrong speculative what-if scenario guess.

    (The other irony here, of course, is that this article is pretty much definitive evidence that the Invisible Great Warmist Conspiracy isn’t blocking publication of papers that appear skeptical — in fact, one could argue that the paper’s abstract misrepresents its findings to appear controversial, which may explain how it got into Nature.)

    On a side note, applause on “blogocave”. It evokes the right images of both the head-in-sand and echo-chamber variety. I’ll have to see about updating the grid now.

    Comment by Brian D — 2008/05/01 @ 22:17 | Reply

  2. Brian D:

    Wow, that was fast, thanks! 🙂

    Anyway… I kind of admire the resilience of the “climate models are unreliable (but only if they predict warming)” meme, at least in its factless form. 🙂 🙂

    Comment by frankbi — 2008/05/02 @ 03:45 | Reply

  3. (PJ, if you want to troll, please at least troll more creatively.)

    Comment by frankbi — 2008/05/04 @ 03:05 | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: