Robert Holmes aka 1000Frolly PhD. Conman is, as Conman does.

An update for those who are curious, Dr. Robert Holmes aka 1000Frolly, the character who jumped into the middle of my breakfast pounding his chest with all cap threats a couple weeks back, has slithered away back into the night.  

Refusing to let me know, the case number, name of alleged court or date of his supposed filling, or even what his alleged suit against one Bob Trenwith is about.  Nor what the heck it has to do with me.  

Seems to me if a normal person were to have actually filed a suit and then threaten others with it, they would be willing to share the particulars.  Or at least explain why one is being contacted and threatened.  Seems only decent.  Not to mention civil and legal.

But, instead of simple civil adult information, Dr Frolly Holmes followed up with an email sporting the official Federation University Australia letterhead, with its oaths of confidentiality, etc, etc,  along with a lot of condescending avoidance of my questions and the issues - So typical, these people always feel more comfortable keeping it within their own fantasy projections, rather than reality and the issues at hand.

Dr. Holmes aka 1000Frolly sends me an email (updated June 17, 9pm)

I received an email from Dr. Robert Ian Holmes this morning:

clink on image for better viewing

Dr. Robert Holmes,

Let’s be clear, you are the malicious YouTube slandering liar Frolly1000.  Your letter arrived unsolicited and I’m not bound to any confidentiality with you, in fact you can be sure my dialogue with you will be carried out in public.  

I’m curious, was your letter written on University time?  How would the Federation University of Australia feel about you using their logo as a shield to impress and intimidate?

Dr. Robert Ian Holmes, aka 1000Frolly, why are you threatening me?

Though I was given the tip years ago, it wasn't until this morning that I'm able to confirm for myself that the prodigious YouTube liar and AGW science slandering 1000Frolly is in fact one Dr. Robert Ian Holmes from Australia.  (not to be mistaken with Hulme!)  

A 'scientist' with rather tarnished credentials thanks to his efforts to convince folks that CO2 science is mistaken.  Writing that's so disconnected, even climate science contrarians dismiss it.   

click on image for better view

Welcome to the Age of Trumpkins - where truth is despised and bullying is everything.  This is what decades of liberal intellectual complacency has achieved for our global society.

Right now I really need to focus on a more important writing project, so can’t let this sidetrack me more than it already has.  Besides it would be good to let this steep awhile, since I have a number of responses and questions for this Dr. Robert Holmes, whom I actually had not had time for in years, but who seems scintillatingly upset at a couple confusing comments Bob Trenwith recently dropped at WUWTW.

“Inciting mob violence”?  Seriously Dr Holmes?  What are you talking about?  Please.  Or are we simply dealing with another frantic drama queen, . . . or what?  Can you explain yourself?

For now I'm going to settle for a trip down memory lane and a look at my tenuous involvement in this Dr. Holmes/1000frolly/Monckton distraction.

Schooling Pruitt's Red Team about our planet and its climate

I wrote the following column mid December for the Four Corners Free Press out of Cortez, Colorado.  Since then it seems that the GOP doesn’t think much of Pruitt’s Red team Blue team idea and his challenge appears dead.  Still as I explained at Confronting Science Contrarians I believe Pruitt’s challenge is worth exploring, if only in outline.  Beginning with an observation and a pointed question:

Pruitt, questioning the unquestionable is fine. 

Now, will you, can you, pay attention to the answers you receive? 

Science’s Blue team educates Pruitt’s GOP Red team

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/01/science-educates-pruitt-redteam.html

A rough outline for exploring the learning opportunities Pruitt's Red Team Blue Team challenge offers for exposing GOP's intellectual dishonesty.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following column was inspired by a lecture that Kevin Trenberth  gave at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado on November 9th, 2017.  Pruitt's "challenge" happened to jump into the headlines giving this story the hook that had been alluding me for weeks.  Worth noting is that most of what I write here at WUWT and at CSC is intended for readers up to speed on the science and the public dialogue - these columns for the FCFP force me to write for an audience preoccupied with other concerns, which produces a different sort of piece.

==========================

January 2018 - Four Corners Free Press, Cortez, Colorado

Early in December U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt told lawmakers he intended to organize a “Red team v Blue team” exercise to debate climate change science.

Pruitt is being willfully blind to the fact that the scientific aspects of global warming have already been thoroughly debated by experts. It’s expected that Pruitt will orchestrate a lawyerly winner-take-all debate. One that’s based on rhetorical trickery and a ruthless disregard for facts.

It’s a shame, since we Americans needs a constructive educational dialogue. A debate where honestly representing your opponent’s arguments and data is as important as honestly representing your own data. One where objective learning is the goal, and where truth matters.

Speaking of honestly representing the science, November 9th Dr. Kevin Trenberth (the distinguished senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder and a lead author for IPCC’s Scientific Assessment in 1995, 2001, and 2007, a giant in the field of climate assessment), gave a talk at the Fort Lewis College Climate Symposium explaining what scientists have learned about our planet. It sounded to me like a potential Blue team opening statement.

Since, today climate scientists and the science itself is under attack like never before it’s critical for more citizens to become aware and engaged. That’s why I want to share what Trenberth explained to us, along with some additional science. Information that makes clear what an internally consistent understanding scientists have achieved.

Trenberth underscored that pretty much all scientists agree. As for the few outliers, they are driven by other causes, such as religious and political inclinations. He explained that: “… as a whole the data are of mixed quality and length. If you were to look at one little piece of it you might be able to be skeptical that climate change is happening, but when you put it all together there's no doubt whatsoever that this is happening.”

#13 Debating GOP Disconnect AGW - self-interest vs. objective learning?

Here I respond to EM's points #14 to #17, no fireworks, still I found it interesting in that it nudges the dialogue towards the question of 'motivated learning.'  For instance, my life long pursuit of Earth and climate learning is driven by my need to understand this wondrous planet I was born into as well as possible. Whereas EM, and I dare say, the entire Republican pursuit of climate science is driven by its threat to their short-term economic/political "interests".

It helps explain why they can so easily ignore the overwhelming evidence in favor of the established scientific "consensus."  We are fools not to recognize this.  We are but at the beginning of the human fossil fuels burning warming trajectory and unless we rearrange our priorities in a hurry, or there will be hell to pay.  

To finish this installment I provide some sources that make plain that infrastructure and life destroying extreme weather events are being driven by an increasingly warming global climate engine and that Republicans minimize the threat at all of our own peril.  (Some touch up edits Monday morning)

National Summary Information - December 2016

Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Table of Events

National Climate Assessment - 2014

The National Academy of Sciences

ATTRIBUTION OF Extreme Weather Events

IN THE CONTEXT OF Climate Change

American Meteorological Society

State of the Climate in 2015

NOT JUST THE KOCH BROTHERS: 

NEW DREXEL STUDY REVEALS FUNDERS BEHIND THE CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL EFFORT

____________________________________________________________

1. EM’s point #14, quoting me:  If you look at this blog you’ll see plenty of very specific critiques, were I offer objective supporting evidence for my claims.  I know what I’m talking about and ignoring my critiques doesn’t make their substance go away.
1. EM responds:  I have neither the time nor the desire to read all of your blog posts, as this site is not easy to navigate and I have other things to do than read through all of your (all pretty much the same) posts. 

____________________________________

With all due respect, then you haven’t looked very far.  As for quality of presentation, I agree it leaves much to be desired.  But I’m no professional blogger, doing the best I can with what I have, in the limited moments I can spare from the rest of my day to days.  

__________________________________________________________

1. EM responds:  I don’t argue with the evidence you present; because I’m not arguing AGW’s existence or the fact that rising global temperature is a net-negative for the planet. 

____________________________________

Actually you are, in that you are dismissing AGW’s already clear and present impacts on our global society and biosphere.  

#12 Debating GOP Disconnect AGW - Science Economy Should Compromise. Say What?!

This one starts slow, but then gets to the heart of the matter, EM fancies he is

"pointing out the hypocrisies of both sides of our system" and he "would simply like both sides to be less quick to the trigger" he also resents that there's "no concessions from market intervention thinkers" and seems to defend  "special interest groups" to "protect their(s)."

Unfortunately he loses sight of the difference between building your case on objective verifiable science and building your case on fabricated story telling and misrepresenting the truth.   

Oh and Yes.  There are objective truths out there we had better heed or expect to be bit.  Not many links in this installment, though at the end I have added a 'Tillerson EXXON collection' of links to informative articles.

_____________________________________________________________

EM’s point #6, quoting me:  “I’m curious have you listened to any climate scientist lectures, such as UCTV Perspectives on Ocean Sciences?” 

EM responds:  again, not denying any of this.

_______________________________________

I’m afraid your easy dismissal indicates you don’t know the half of it.

Worse your other words project an attitude that you think climate scientists don’t either. 

Viner 2000 - No More Snow - SAY WHAT?

My dialogue with Lawyer continues, even as it's turned into another Whac-A-Mole exercise, where every response from me, is answered with avoiding my answers, along with ignoring my counter questions, instead willy-nilly piling on one rotten red herring after another.  

One of her diversions, hit the mark because it's such a perfect example of their contempt for accuracy - and in fact, an example of their practice of malicious manufactured slander with intent to harm and vandalize an honorable professional and his work - that saturates the climate science contrarian community. 

Specifically, the claim that Dr. David Viner predicted in 2000 that “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past” - when in fact he never said that, an editor fabricated that copy selling headline.  It was nothing more than bait to sell papers and confuse people, not anything that Dr. Viner actually predicted.  

While researching this on the internet I was astounded at how well the Republican/libertarian PR machine has saturated the internet with repetitions and variations on this piece of malicious, I dare call it "criminal" mischief.

That's why I believe a DeSmogBlog Repost is in order.  This time it's an article by Graham Readfearn with more details about this fraud:

Climate Science Denier James Delingpole Calls For "Alarmists" To Face Court With Death Penalty Powers

I IMAGINE only a small percentage of people reading this have had any journalism training, but don't let that stop you from pondering the following ethical question. If you read a newspaper story that included a direct quote from someone - let's say, for instance, UK climate scientist Dr David Viner - would it be acceptable…

A look at Scientific Consensus, by Dr. Keith Strong

   
I like to think I get around YouTube pretty good, until I get reminded of just how narrow my bandwidth is.  Last week while researching some project I stumbled onto the YouTube channel drkstrong and a totally new collection of refreshing climate science enlightening videos and he's been producing a lot of them.  An accomplished scientist himself, he brings that expert's ability for level headed clear explication to these videos.  My kind of roll model for what serious teaching and learning is all about.

He's actually been around for a few years, near as I can tell he joined YouTube 2010, though his first videos were in 2012.  But, it seems like in the past year or so he's refined his technics and caught fire.  With nearly three million views to his credit, I hate admitting I'm late to the party.  I hope to make up for it by featuring some of his videos since they fit right in with what I'm trying to convey with my parade of blog posts.  I follow the video with my usual notes and I finish up with the text of the April 20, 1998 National Academy of Sciences statement regarding Fredrick Seitz's Oregon Petition cover "paper" fraud.   

The scientific method and scientific consensus what's it mean?

THERE IS NO CONSENSUS 

Dr. Keith Strong  |  10:24 min  |   Published on Feb 23, 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGV7Su4Q_pg

What is the scientific consensus?  

A LOOK AT WHAT CONSENSUS MEANS

0:25  -  The Scientific Method

A review of the Scientific Method

(#B) Further dialogues with the disconnected

It wasn't an hour before my pal fired back (If you want to know about the background to this thread, check out the previous post).  

If you're someone who wants to confront climate science contrarian types, this will be worth your time.  I dare say valuable background for your future endeavors.   Others need not waste their time.  

The Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine series would be a much better use of your time.  {fixed typos and other edits 2/20/16, 12:45 PM}
_______________________________________________

Dude writes:

I think you're in the mood for battle. I've read your blog post. Nobody with half a brain, outside of yourself, believes carbon dioxide has historically been the primary global climatic driver. Co2 traps a little heat, but it is not the primary driver. 

ENSO is a massive signal in comparison. Maybe we should say ENSO drives climate? 

___________________

CC:  How can you say that considering those were NASAGoddard videos and data, not mine?

"Primary driver", that would be the Sun, but it's been closely observed and it's been very steady for a very long time.

Can you explain the difference between driving weather patterns and the state of the planet's climate regime?

Do you not believe our atmosphere acts as insulation for our planet and the climate system within?

How does ENSO produce or take away heat from the global climate system?

_______________________________________________

Dude:  Some, and I disagree with these, believe that Co2 drives our current climate. Now comes the easy part. Please provide evidence that Co2 drives climate today, but if you stray from  empiracles... You lose.

___________________

That's pretty confusing not sure what you're claiming.  

The whole way you're looking at it seems backwards.  CO2 is an integral part of our atmosphere and is a major regulator of the amount of heat that's held within the global climate system.  The temperature at which our climate engine is running is profoundly tied to the amount of warmth our atmosphere holds, and the way the ocean basins are formed and its waters are circulating, even land masses and plate tectonic behavior, volcanoes, all, and more, interact with our atmosphere.

We are talking about complex systems science that won't submit themselves to your simplistic disingenuous lab bench expectations. 

Where is your empirical evidence showing that experiments establishing CO2's "greenhouse properties" are wrong?

Then perhaps - can you explain why we have dozens of modern marvels that would be impossible without that thorough empirical understanding of how greenhouse gases behave in the atmosphere?

Further dialogues with the disconnected

I left a simple comment at the following YouTube video, basically sharing notes I'd put together.  Next thing I know I wind up in another textbook exchange with a climate science contrarian type, I swear Heartland must have brigades of faithful combing the internet.  Since it turned into another vehicle for explaining my position and exposing the tactics of climate science contrarian pros, I'm going to share it, first the short build up, then I have a closer look at his most recent challenge.  His words are unaltered and in Comic Sans font.  
{sorry about the typos - touch up editing 2/20, 10:30 AM}

CO2 & the Atmosphere

Earth: The Operators' Manual

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9eGzPxA1Dg#t=36

0:00  -  What CO2 does was confirmed by Air Force atmospheric research.

0:10  -  Studying the physics of the upper atmosphere for communications and heat seeking missiles.

1:00  -  "The air force hadn't set out to study global warming, they just wanted their missiles to work.  But physics is physics.  The atmosphere doesn't care if you are studying it for warring or warming.  Adding CO2 turns up the planet's thermostat."

1:20  -  Works in the other direction also, remove CO2 and planet cools.

1:30  -  Glacier studies

3:00  -  Glacier cross-section, deposition, accumulation, record of the past.

4:30  -  Orbital and rotational variations and their impact on sun's insolation.

5:10  -  Ice ages

6:00  -  Glaciers as earth mover

6:35  -  Time-lapse animation of glacial advance retreat

7:15  -  Orbital/rotational driven insolation variations interaction with Earth's many CO2 reservoirs and cycles.

8:00  -  {eye witness to a disintegrating glacier}

8:50  -  Place thermometers any where on this planet and they show warming.

The evidence is clear, the Earth's climate is warming.

__________________________________________________________

Dude writes:

Co2 was not the driver of climate over the last several thousand years.  The AGW debate today,  centres  around  the  notion  that  carbon  dioxide  drives today's  climate due  to  its  volume.  But  according  to  the  ice  core record,  rising  levels  of  Co2 followed warming by  several  hundreds of  years. 

Accepting the Challenge: What's so special about today's AGW

There's a new commenter at CFI (Center for Inquiry) forum who tossed down a challenge that I took up this morning.  Since putting together my response required plenty of time and effort I'm going to add it to my WUWTW's 'considering debate' collection.  

I haven't changed his words though my response is a bit more detailed than over there and as usual I share many authoritative links to support and explain the claims and arguments I make.  

I figure it's an interesting case study others may find helpful.  

_______________________________________________________

Dude writes:  Nice evidence and empirically referenced discussion so far. 

Here are my questions regarding this vital topic. It is only vital due to the implications of mass destruction of our planet. Otherwise, who GAF (give a *&#$%$F word)

1. What is the evidence that warming of the surface of the planet is happening today?

_________________

Your phrasing is telling.  Why do you single out "surface of the planet"?  

Don't you appreciate that the oceans are an integral part of what's happens to surface temperatures?

For starters there are copious thermometer records that are recording a warming surface.

https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/1036/record-high-temperatures-far-outpace-record-lows-across-us

https://www.wmo.int/media/content/wmo-2015-likely-be-warmest-record-2011-2015-warmest-five-year-period

There is also plenty of real down to Earth physical evidence, among the most obvious,

A)  Cryosphere is melting throughout the world

B)  Hydrologic Cycle has intensified

C)  Lakes and river temperatures are increasing

D)  Sea level rise
E)  Ocean warming

AGW vs Terrorism? Open Letter to Matt Ridley, Benny Peiser, WSJ

Dear Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser,

The ease with which you two misrepresent the facts in your Wall Street Journal op/ed “Complete Guide to the Climate Debate” is appalling.  Your opening shot reveals a determined self-imposed ignorance regarding the seriousness of today's AGW threat to our planet's life support system that demands a pointed rebuttal.  

You write:  "In February President Obama said, a little carelessly, that climate change is a greater threat than terrorism." What do you mean?  "A little carelessly"!??  Where do you two get off belittling the physical reality and future consequences of ongoing documented trends?  You willfully ignore decades worth of global news so as to remain "innocent" to the evolving situation.
(At the end this letter I share a response to the op/ed's lies from 7 leading climate scientists.) 

What terrorist threat to New York is greater than the threat of it's streets, subways and subterranean infrastructure being inundated by the ocean?  What terrorist threat is greater than killer heat waves, such as the one visited on France in 2003 and sure to revisit?  What terrorist threat is greater than the potential impacts of continued severe drought on California?

Any objective awareness of the evolving world news would make you understand that I could fill pages with examples of such monstrous real world threats from our warming and rapidly evolving global climate system - threats that far outweigh our self created and fueled, terrorist problems.

STOP HIDING !    TAKE A LOOK !

http://www.climatehotmap.org

_____________________________________________________________

The Human Cost of Weather Related Disasters.  1995-2015

http://www.unisdr.org/2015/docs/climatechange/COP21_WeatherDisastersReport_2015_FINAL.pdf

The Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED)

CRED’s Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT)

The UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction

Foreword

Who we are

Executive Summary 

Chapter 1 . . .  Weather-related disasters 1995-2015

Chapter 2 . . .  Human costs of weather-related disasters

Chapter 3 . . .  Impacts of weather-related disasters by country

Chapter 4 . . .  Weather-related disasters & national income

Chapter 5 . . .  Counting the economic costs of disasters 

Acknowledgements 

_________________________________________________

A warming planet promises threats for our modern top heavy society, that only an appreciation for it's complexity will allow one to grasp.  Sadly your Republican/libertarian PR Machine has been very successful at confusing and dumbing down the public.  When honest education is what's required, you conjure fairytales, hostility, lies, bullying and slam your minds shut.

It is simply ludicrous pretending our weather doesn't have a deep impact on the wellbeing of our economy at every level, from agriculture, to transportation, construction, communication, the power-grid, even your beloved military-industrial complex and beyond.  Not to mention our own wellbeing as we go about our day to days. 

Lord of the Flies (#8 Poptech's Truth)

(did some morning touch up edits 2/2/16)

I thought I could avoid Anthony Watts and Poptech's attack piece on me, figuring I'd get to it later.  But my old pal AL (a debate mate from this past November 23 to December 13th in the "debating sock-puppet" series.) just couldn't resist rubbing it in my face, and since his link went to Poptech's post, I figured, OK in for a nickel, in for a dollar.  

AL writes Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 1:19 citizenschallengeYT Hahahahaha…:P  http://www.populartechnology.net/2016/01/the-truth-about-whatsupwiththatwatts-et.html?m=1

Oh boy, talk about desperation to dig up shit, well they dug and they dug and oh the facts and links they've unearthed. But, even more impressive than what they unearthed - is the bizarre theatrical spin they put on everything.

All dedicated to maligning me and ignoring the evidence and the ideas I challenge them with.  What they deliberately ignore is that I'm just a messenger talking about the science and I am always ready to support my claims with references back to the authoritative science I learned from.  If you don't believe me, try me.

On the other hand these clowns spend all their effort putting their fantastical labels on people and spinning hallucinatory yarns while claiming superiority and victory... as though it's their's to claim.  They make lots of noise about the science, yet they never produce any serious science when they are challenged.  Instead it always reverts to a malicious mud fight.  It's worth making a big deal about because powerful leaders like Inhofe and Barton and the rest hide behind this sort of insanity to justify doing nothing and wasting precious time.

I've copied Poptech's "Truth about WUWTW" and pasted it below and diluted the 'horror' with some more facts and commentary.  I eliminated some links, but I kept most, to be honest it was cool revisiting some of those pages.

__________________________________________________

The 'poopie' color Comic San font seemed appropriate for Poptech's words.  

Saturday, January 30, 2016

The Truth about What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al. according to Andrew Poptech.

______________________________________

"Your resident dummy reviewer... [referring to himself]"

- Peter Miesler, Skeptical Science Forums

{What's wrong with that?  
At least I don't take myself so seriously, nor do I have illusions about being smarter than actual scientists.  Yo, poppy do you have any sense of humor, or self-skepticism?}

"Keep the Debate Alive!" (#7 moral of the comments)

Thanks to Hotwhopper and it's tracking of Anthony's latest antics, I found out a little while ago that WattsUpWithThat has featured me in a rather scathing post.  I haven't looked at it, no time for that distraction right now.  I'm sure I'll get to it eventually.  

See, I want to stick with some thoughts I woke up with and wrote down before having to run off to get on with other chores.  Now I only have a few moments available and want to keep my eyes on the prize, as some say.
________________

I woke up thinking about the Climate Science Contrarian's plaintive refrain: 

"Keep the Debate Alive!" 

yet when someone like me comes along who wants to debate with them for real, it's always the same song and dance. 

First the self-certain wildly mistaken claims.  

Then, ignoring all the evidence I provide, dismissing my argument with a wave.
Then, the denial and resentment at being questioned.

  

Then rather than counter-arguments, and getting specific about where my errors in logic or facts are, they resort to insults (occasionally threats - kudos to Poptech for not climbing into that gutter.) 
and arm waving, basically whining that - It's not nice to challenge someone's faith.  

Then they back out of the discussion with their chorus of "Debate is healthy - you are stupid..." while their ears, eyes and minds remain firmly plugged.

{Then he/they slink off to their club houses and let me have it.  So it goes.   Poptech and Steele's claims are ever more convincing when kept within the sanctity of their self-imposed echo-chambers.}

_________________________________________

One of the important basic questions Poptech refused to discuss is:

What kind of DEBATE is worth having?

The debate I keep chasing is a constructive affair.  

It's about a willingness to expose one's own ideas/understanding to skeptical reviews. 

It's about considering and better understanding competing information and ideas. 

It's about being willing to hear about flaws in one's own understanding.  After all, that is how we learn!

Poptech's debate is the political/lawyerly affair, where "winning" the argument is all that matters.
  
That sort of debate feeds on conflict and confusion rather than on learning anything constructive.  Nothing more than a sort of ad hoc exercise in self-justification.  

It's a wretchedly dishonest affair, the stuff of power politics.

Not the stuff of learning or understanding.