97% Of Experts Think Tamino Will Censor My Comment

ScreenHunter_665 Mar. 15 23.32

New Mexico Snow | Open Mind

Here is a picture I took on Sunday looking from the Quemazon burn region across the Rio Grande Valley to the deep snow on the southern Sangre de Cristo Mountains, where I used to be a wilderness ranger.

ScreenHunter_668 Mar. 15 23.51 ScreenHunter_669 Mar. 15 23.54

ScreenHunter_670 Mar. 15 23.57

Here are the snow stats for nearby Chama, New Mexico. As usual, Tamino is completely FOS.

ScreenHunter_671 Mar. 16 00.15

CHAMA, NEW MEXICO – Climate Summary

Here are the stats for nearby Eagles Nest, New Mexico

ScreenHunter_672 Mar. 16 00.26

EAGLE NEST, NEW MEXICO – Climate Summary

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to 97% Of Experts Think Tamino Will Censor My Comment

  1. Do you know where to get snow depth info going back before the climate began? (seriously)… I’m curious what snow records from NM say going back to the 30’s. Google search didn’t turn up much.

  2. daveburton says:

    Tamino (Grant Foster) permits no dissent. Here are some examples of his censorship.

    I know of no Climate Movement (warmist) blogs which are not censored to prevent even polite dissent. Peter Sinclair’s “Climate Crocks” used to be the lone exception, but he’s now banned me for incivility, because I called a deceptive AP article “deceptive.”

    Does anyone know of any exceptions? Are there any climate activist blogs at all which aren’t censored to stifle skeptics’ opinions?

    • slimething says:

      Not only that, but he has deleted entire threads that put him in a bad light. One such thread he insulted the authors of a paper. Unfortunately for Tamino, the author showed up and pinned Tamino’s ears back. That thread is long gone.

      • daveburton says:

        Yes, that’s what Tamino does. Tamino calls his blog “Tamino’s Open Mind,” but his mind is not open enough to allow dissenting opinions to be expressed. Have you noticed the unanimity of opinion there? That’s because all comments are moderated, and comments that don’t comfortably confirm his opinions are simply deleted.

        For instance, in this March, 2011 article he trashed a paper (and its authors) that reported a study of tide gauge records which found no acceleration in rate of sea level rise in response to increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions:


        Tamino claimed that the authors erred, and that the rate of sea level rise has actually increased. He was wrong, and I posted the following rebuttal as a comment on his blog, explaining his error. Instead of responding, he just deleted it.

        I posted it again, and that time he deleted all but one sentence, and replied with insults. Here’s what I wrote. The bold-face sentence is the only thing that he didn’t delete:


        By conflating satellite data with tide gauge data, you’ve created the illusion of acceleration where none exists.

        Satellites are measuring higher rates of sea level rise than are most tide gauges, but we only have a little over 15 years of satellite measurements. So, if you average the satellite data in with the tide gauge data you create the appearance of acceleration commencing (of course) a little over 15 years ago.

        You could get the same result by switching tide gauge sets, and it would be just as invalid. Here in NC, you could graph Wilmington’s LMSL to 1990, and then switch to an average of Wilmington and Duck, and your graph would appear to show that sea level rise had accelerated, when it hadn’t.

        In fact, neither tide gauge data nor satellite data alone show any sign of sustained acceleration in rate of sea level rise in response to anthropogenic CO2. In fact, tide gauges records show no sustained acceleration in rate of sea level rise since about 1925 or 1930.

        The significance of that fact is that the last 80-85 years covers nearly all of the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2. Pumping up atmospheric CO2 from ~290 ppm to ~390 ppm clearly has not resulted in any sustained acceleration in sea level rise.

        Remember the Big Question! The Big Question is: does anthropogenic CO2 increase the rate of sea level rise (and by how much)?

        If you’re trying to answer that question, then why confuse the issue by citing an acceleration in sea level rise that occurred when anthropogenic CO2 emissions were very low? Acceleration in rate of sea level rise in the late 19th century and early 20th century, before mankind was much affecting atmospheric CO2 levels, obviously is not evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 cause increasing rates of sea level rise. If anything, it suggests that changes in rate of sea level rise are NOT caused by mankind’s CO2 emissions.

        You also complain about fitting a quadratic to detect acceleration or deceleration. But that is the method that Church & White (2006) used, and when did you complain about their use of the method?

        Their paper, which relied on that method, has been cited by warmists as proof of accelerating sea level rise ever since. Even since C&W released their revised “2009” (really just through 2007) data, in which all the 20th century acceleration had disappeared (though they didn’t mention that fact), their 2006 paper continues to be the basis for claims of 20th century acceleration in sea level.

        Here’s plot of their 2009 data, with a minimum unbiased estimator quadratic fit (i.e., the method they used in their 2006 paper), starting in 1900, and projected out to 2100:

        Note the slight deceleration.

        The big picture is simply this: the rate of sea level rise hasn’t exhibited any sustained increase in over 80 years, which means that it has not increased in response anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

        Since anthropogenic CO2 didn’t cause an acceleration in rate of sea level rise in the last 80+ years, it is irrational to expect that it will do so in the next 80+ years.

        • Snow White says:

          Steve’s now happily calling out Tamino, so at the risk of repeating myself….

          “Steve Goddard” (You tell me) doesn’t care for dissent either. Here are some examples of his censorship:


          No censorship over there, of polite comments at least.

        • Complete bullshit. Tamino took a shot at me and won’t let me post a response.

          If you don’t understand the difference between that and spam, then you are even stupider than I thought. Which appears to be the case.

          You are about to become spam too.

          You people are so disgusting, it is mind-boggling.

    • Snow White says:

      “Steve Goddard” (You tell me) doesn’t care for dissent either. Here are some examples of his censorship:


      No censorship over there, of polite comments at least.

      • philjourdan says:

        Multiple comments saying the same thing (almost word for word). That is spam. Call in the Queen – off with the spambot!

        • Snow White says:

          You will no doubt have noted that the first three are timed at 10:58, 11:07 and 15:39 on March 16th. They did not become visible here until long after my fourth comment at 17:23.

          Some people might describe that as censorship.

        • philjourdan says:

          Yours? Since they all appeared, you were not censored. Since you penned them all, you can only be talking about yourself.

          Here’s a clue for free – if you want instant results, but instant oatmeal. if you want comments that appear like magic, start your own blog.

          Last I checked, even the best of us still require a few hours of sleep a day.


        • A person with an IQ over 40 would call it automatic WordPress moderation. I am so sick of your paranoid bullshit.

    • Snow White says:

      There seems to have been some perturbation in the Force!

      “Steve Goddard” (You tell me) doesn’t care for dissent either. Here are some examples of his censorship:


      There’s no censorship over there, of polite comments at least.

    • Snow White says:

      Third time lucky?

      “Steve Goddard” (You tell me) doesn’t care for dissent either. Here are some examples of his censorship:


      There’s no censorship over there, of polite comments at least.

  3. Morgan says:

    That is the rub. If global warming were true, dissent on their blogs could easily be corrected with facts that correct their AGW arguments. But since global warming is bullshit, and dissent on their blogs usually proves it, they have no choice but to censor. The reverse is not true…when an AGW believer shows up on a skeptics blog, his comments are not removed, they are subject to severe ridicule because they are wrong.

    • Morgan says:

      edit: That is the rub. If global warming were true, dissent on their blogs could easily be corrected with facts that *strengthen* their AGW arguments. But……

    • Gail Combs says:

      It is so much fun to trounce the new graduates of Al Gore’s ‘Climate Reality’ training seminars. They could not argue their way out of a paper bag even if they had a sharp knife handed to them.

      • redjefff says:

        That is a complete fabrication Gail… everyone knows NOT to give sharp objects to ‘challenged’ people.

  4. omnologos says:

    Is Tamino tax exempt as yet? Most religious groups are.

    • henrythethird says:

      Hard to say. His “donations” go to “Peaseblossom’s Closet”, and are earmarked for “Mistletoe”.

  5. scott allen says:

    “Science is more than a body of knowledge, it’s a way of thinking. A way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those that tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious who comes ambling along.”
    – Carl Sagan
    Source: Interview with Charlie Rose

    • Peter Yates says:

      In other words, if we aren’t skeptical we could fall for any number of scams and hoaxes — such as the doomsday that was supposed to happen in December 2012. There were a lot of mainly young people that were worried about the wild claims of global disasters. The hoax even spawned a Hollywood blockbuster, much like the AGW hoax spawned ‘The Day After Tomorrow’.
      In 2012, I wrote this paragraph in case it helped with the problem :-
      “Would you believe me if I made a wild claim that a huge, very deep hole five miles across is going to appear in the South Island of New Zealand on May 30 next year? Would it make any difference to you if I said that the May 30 date is when the ancient Martian calendar ends one cycle and starts another? …. Since I haven’t said how or why that is possible I hope you won’t just assume that I am correct. Most people need some proof, or evidence, that backs up these wild claims. Otherwise, I could say something like: “I’ve found a new species of apple tree that has the apples falling upwards!” and everybody would believe me without question.”
      The take-home-lesson is: *Just saying it doesn’t make it true*, especially if the doomsayer is likely to make a profit out of the doom saying.

  6. scott allen says:

    “No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic values of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of literary or artistic expression. Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious or philosophical doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain their freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventure and the development of the human race.”
    – Richard Feynman

  7. Bob Knows says:

    I have spent many years hiking in the Jemez mountains including the Quemazon trail. Some winters I have hiked to McCauley warm springs on New Years day. Other winters depends on the local weather. Most of the Quemazon trail is on a SOUTH slope and especially at that altitude melts or even sublimates rapidly in direct sunshine. By March the snow should be gone on south facing slopes in the Jemez mountains. Mr. Tamino obviously does not know what he is talking about.

  8. Bob Knows says:

    Rainfall and snowfall in New Mexico was at a historic high in the late 20th century, a time corresponding to the peak of a natural warm cycle between glacial periods. Since about 2000 the sun has been showing a reduced activity similar to the Maunder Minimum, and we should expect NM snow pack to be similar to the 18th or 19th centuries.

  9. Snow White says:

    Steve – Are you the very same @SteveSGoddard who engaged in this conversation on Twitter yesterday?


    If so please explain why WordPress automattically put my first three posts in your moderation queue but not my (remarkably similar!) fourth. Please also explain why you ignored my heads up and didn’t bother checking that queue until half a day later.

    • philjourdan says:

      let’s interpret for the spambot

      #1 – Twitter=Wordpress – Yep! They look identical!

      #2 – Blog operators exist with no sleep or outside activities. Must be true!

      But wait! On #2, you just provided proof that the blog author is not on his blog 24×7 (he finds time to tweet).

      So you contradict yourself with your own proof! You scream censorship when not one of your posts (yet) have been censored! Here is some help for the spambot:


      [sen-ser] Show IPA

      verb (used with object)

      to delete (a word or passage of text) in one’s capacity as a censor.

      From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor?s=t

      (Yes, I skipped the noun definitions since you used the word as a verb. You do know the difference between a noun and a verb, do you not?)

      No deletions, no censoring. Moderation =/= Censoring. get it? Good! Stop spamming.

  10. That is on Twitter, you dumbshit.

    This is WordPress. I have no idea why WordPress does what they do. I check WordPress comments once or twice a day, Are you actually stupid enough to think that I am sitting there intercepting your comments 24×7?

    If you keep this up, you are going to be on spam here too.

  11. Thrasher says:

    A lot of stuff on this site I don’t agree with, but Tamino’s site is one of the most laughable out there. He is smart, but thinks he is much smarter than he is. There’s probably nothing worse than that type of blogger. I always chuckle when he accuses people of cherry picking too, since he might be the poster child on the internet for cherry picking.

Leave a Reply