Rahmstorf (2011): Robust or Just Busted (Part 5): Why a paper about “robustness” « Climate Sanity

Which projection do I endorse? None of them. Make no mistake – the Rahmstorf model is bogus, no matter what the inputs are. I am just playing games with it. The Rahmstorf model is an illusion that hooks you with a simple truth: It is a pretty good bet that higher temperatures lead to higher sea levels. But the Rahmstorf model is not much better than a Ouija board for quantifying how much.

You can still see the Warmist in Judith Curry

Judy gal (chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) has come a long way since she started listening to climate skeptics but there is still a supercilious "know-it-all" attitude about her. Note this quote from her:

"Propaganda is pretty much the mission for ClimateDepot, but stealth propaganda is becoming increasingly apparent on the ‘science’ blogs, as revealed by the recent SkS hack of their Forum"

The most chaitable thing I can say about that is that she does not know what she is talking about. She is academic enough to quote her definition of propaganda but that very definition gives the lie to what she says. The definition says that propaganda is one-sided. If she thinks Climate Depot is one-sided she needs to get on its mailing list. I receive mailouts from Climate Depot daily and they send me roughly as many bits of Warmist reporting as they do skeptical reporting.

The idea of sending me Warmist articles is of course the expectation that I will rubbish them -- which I do. Rubbishing Warmism is as easy as stealing candy off a baby -- and grown up babies is what many Warmists sound like. They want authority (Daddy) to give them the truth.

Judith is just plain wrong, almost wrong enough to be defamatory. But her failure to attend to the facts is of course very Warmist.

She also seems broadly sympathetic to this comment:

“Finally, it is concluded that the climate change discourse has been stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis and that in order to advance the discourse, there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted.“

Too much science in the Warming debate? Science should be communicated as an ideology? In my 40 years in science I have never heard anything so blatantly anti-intellectual -- aside of course from Nazism and Communism. Dr Goebbels would agree -- JR

Romm : 1923 Was More Than 1,800 Years Ago | Real Science

In 1923 it was warmer in Svalbard than it is now.
...
Romm says that current temperatures in Svalbard are the highest in 1,800 years, so we can deduce that 1923 was more than 1,800 years ago.

The New Nostradamus of the North: Australia´s Queensland government shows how to deal with Greenpeace

"The Queensland government places no weight on any report that Greenpeace prepares.
''They are scaremongers of the first order and never let the facts get in the way of their predetermined views," Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development Jeff Seeney said.
...
Also the Queensland Resources Council knows how to handle Greenpeace reports:

The Queensland Resources Council also dismissed the report, calling it a "comic book".