JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

In brave PR move Kelloggs cancels Breitbart advertising and calls millions of its own customers “bigots”

It’s a novel marketing ploy to reach all the people who buy their breakfast cereals according to where they don’t advertise. It’s bound to appeal to at least three or four people, but at the risk of offending half the population.

I suspect that not too many kids plague mom and dad to buy Fruit Loops because it doesn’t support the evil Breitbart news outlet. (That’s the same one whose leading editor was so disconnected from the cereal-buying-masses that he backed the winning candidate for leader of the free world, and got a job as his right hand man. A media group on “the fringe”, eh?)

Politics is the new religion. What else explains this this latest marketing disaster, which will appeal to all the people who buy Wheeties because it’s a Democrat cereal. Investors are running. Kelloggs stocks dropped another 1.4% today.

It started when Kelloggs announced it wouldn’t advertise on Breitbart because of “values”:

Kellogg on Tuesday said it would pull its ads from Breitbart News after consumers notified the manufacturer that its products were appearing on the site. A company spokesperson told the Associated Press, “We regularly work with our media buying partners to ensure our ads do not appear on sites that aren’t aligned with our values as a company.”

Breitbart responded with #DumpKelloggs and declared the breakfast brand hates 45 million readers:

Breitbart News, one of the world’s top news publishers, has launched a #DumpKelloggs petition and called for a boycott of the ubiquitous food manufacturer.

Kellogg’s offered no examples of how Breitbart’s 45 million monthly readers fail to align with the breakfast maker’s values. Indeed, the move appears to be one more example of anout-of-touch corporation embracing false left-wing narratives used to cynically smear the hard working Americans that populate this nation’s heartland.

Breitbart News Editor-in-Chief Alexander Marlow encouraged the boycott of Kellogg’s products, describing their war against Breitbart News as bigoted and anti-American: “Breitbart News is the largest platform for pro-family content anywhere on the Internet. We are fearless advocates for traditional American values, perhaps most important among them is freedom of speech, or our motto ‘more voices, not less.’ For Kellogg’s, an American brand, to blacklist Breitbart News in order to placate left-wing totalitarians is a disgraceful act of cowardice. They insult our incredibly diverse staff and spit in the face of our 45,000,000 highly engaged, highly perceptive, highly loyal readers, many of whom are Kellogg’s customers. Boycotting Breitbart News for presenting mainstream American ideas is an act of discrimination and intense prejudice. If you serve Kellogg’s products to your family, you are serving up bigotry at your breakfast table.”

This kind of politico-bash is going on in lots of places where it makes no sense at all. Which marketing guide recommends turning a children’s toy into a political statement at Christmas?

It follows Danish multinational Lego pulling Daily Mail advertising because the newspaper promoted “hatred, discrimination and demonisation”.

Expect more marketing bombs from the hate-throwers in the new Trumpocene Era as closeted big-government fans, who happen to be CEO’s, struggle to remember what logical arguments look like.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (125 votes cast)
In brave PR move Kelloggs cancels Breitbart advertising and calls millions of its own customers "bigots", 9.5 out of 10 based on 125 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/h6ahbse

541 comments to In brave PR move Kelloggs cancels Breitbart advertising and calls millions of its own customers “bigots”

  • #
    Jacob Ingliss

    Amazing!

    We, who believe in free speech and democracy, must stand and fight the evil of green climate religion.

    445

    • #
      Mike

      We need to stop cereal killers !!

      652

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      Kelloggs is not interfering with free speech. It is their right not to advertise where they do not like the clientele.

      And it is our right to not buy their product for calling us deplorables,undesirables, or whatever the idiots running the company want to.

      That is freedom. And I am exercising mine.

      411

      • #
        Allen Ford

        I am expecting Kellogs, and their fellow travellers, to go down the toobs any time soon.

        Poetic justice!

        191

      • #
        Mark D.

        Yes and no Phil. By applying an economic leaver, Kellogg is attempting to manipulate speech.

        Manipulated speech is not free speech.

        130

        • #
          Mike

          If they only do it once, it does not make them cereal offenders.

          200

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          Yes and no. Yes, they are trying to suppress speech. However the right of free speech is from government intervention. Your employer can fire you (in most states) if they do not like your tweets or facebook posts (it reflects on the company).

          However Kellogg has forgotten who is the employer and who is the employee. They do not exist without buyers. Technically the buyers are the boss (except in monopolistic enterprises, which Kellogg is not). SO what they are trying to do is to tell the boss what to do.

          And even with some vegan lefties like Appell killing himself on sugar and processed flour, that does not work. Companies that piss off their customers do not last long.

          42

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I agree with Mark, in that the presumed size of the Kellogg advertising spend with Breitbart, if removed, would place Breitbart under some financial strain.

            No threats implied. No infringement of the principle of freedom of speech. Just the economic realities of the market place.

            That is the “Golden Rule”. ‘He who has the most gold, makes the rules’. Impartially is often the first victim to fall, in such circumstances.

            40

            • #

              Imparciality?

              Why would any corporation want to be mixed up with Breitbart’s sordid politics? They just want to sell cereal.

              You and others here seem to think Brietbart is the new norm. It certainly is not.

              35

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                I never mentioned politics, sordid or otherwise.

                And I have no opinion whatsoever on Brietbart. I have never seen it, nor even heard of it, before this blog post went up.

                Why are you so defensive? Getting news via the web is the new norm for the under-thirties, who want stuff on the glass, and not on dead trees.

                You are one angry individual. Get a life. Or better still, get a cat. You can learn self control, from a cat.

                51

              • #
                Mark D.

                Lets understand this David: Kellogg WAS advertising on Breitbart previously right? Did they suddenly realize their spending was useless because Breitbart readers didn’t consume their products?

                No Appell, Kellogg did this to attempt control. In the end they got no control (they lose) and they will lose customers (they lose).

                It was startling how stupid it was as a marketing choice.

                That you support Kellogg indicates how far you’d like the Left to go in pushing society. Bully.

                61

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                No, the new norm is CNN who inserts words into quotes and calls it news. The new norm are news anchors crying because a candidate wins.

                Breitbart is the answer to the new norm. It merely reports news the MSM tries to suppress. And it calls out the lies the MSM tries to pass as news.

                But then you would not know that. The truth is not known to you.

                41

              • #

                Mark D: It’s very clear what this is about. To be a climate denier now, one must also fall in line with Breitbart’s racism, xenophobia, anti-feminism, homophobia and facist mindset, and so you must hate Kellogg’s and destroy them, when all they made is a choice of where they would advertise, because you are so incredibly angry that climate science has proven AGW.

                Do you see how crazy you people are becoming? Can you look in the mirror for just 2 seconds and reflect on how very twisted this has all become?

                311

              • #

                Projection David. You project all your own flaws onto others. The people who want different laws based on race are the racists, not Breitbart readers.

                Who are the crazies here? You are the one who thinks that windmills in Albany can slow storms over the Philippines. You think solar panels will hold back the sea. It’s witchcraft, yet you bow to pagan priests who call themselves “scientists” but change the observations to fit their failed theory.

                Right back at you: “Can you look in the mirror for just 2 seconds and reflect on how very twisted this has all become?”

                154

              • #
                Mark D.

                David, I just saw this! Sorry about the slow rely.

                Mark D: It’s very clear what this is about. To be a climate denier now, one must also fall in line with Breitbart’s racism, xenophobia, anti-feminism, homophobia and facist mindset, and so you must hate Kellogg’s and destroy them, when all they made is a choice of where they would advertise, because you are so incredibly angry that climate science has proven AGW.

                Gish-gallop.

                Flawed reasoning with a dash of WTF?

                51

        • #

          PhilJourdan: I’m not a vegan. Stop lying.
          [He did not claim that you were. He said that some vegan lefties were like you. Some people would take that as a compliment.] Fly

          27

          • #

            Yes he did claim I was:

            “…even with some vegan lefties like Appell…”

            Surely you’re not going to try and deny even this?

            36

            • #
              Mark D.

              Ahhh but you didn’t mind the claim that you are a Lefty.

              I do not know a single vegan Republican. Every vegan I know is a Lefty. Based on that and assuming Phil observes the same thing, then Phil is not lying. He is grouping you together with other lefties.

              Stop lying about what Phil said.

              72

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                I have never polled the Vegans on their politics. I merely point out to them that they life style is not healthy as they do not get any B12, which is essential for the brain among other things.

                52

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              LIKE – comparison. As in the sunrise is like an orange! Except it is NOT an orange.

              If I had said “some vegan lefties, such as our Appell” you would have a point. But since it is “like” I merely compared you TO them.

              Seriously, who would pay a person to write who cannot read?

              61

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            Can’t write and now proving you cannot read! And you “claim” to be making a living as a writer?

            LOL! For the NY Crimes maybe! Where no truth is fit to print!

            41

            • #
              Rod Stuart

              “If you don’t read the newspaper you are UNinformed. If you do read it you are MISinformed”…….Denzel Washington

              31

        • #

          Kellog is not “manipulating speech.” For goodness sakes.

          All they are saying is that they won’t advertise on a site whose writings they consider unacceptable.

          Completely their right. You need to learn about the US Constitution.

          [Sigh! We do understand the US Constitution. You need to read the three comments following the one you object to.] Fly

          35

          • #

            Mod: In fact, you don’t understand the US Constitution.

            The 1A restricts government. It does not restrict private parties.

            Elementary stuff.

            18

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              Mod did not say it was restricting private speech. Mod understands the US Constitution. You do not understand the written word.

              And yet you claim to be a writer. I guess that claim is as accurate as Mann’s claim to be a Nobel Laureate.

              70

          • #
            David in Cal

            Yes, Kelloggs said they didn’t like the Breitbart content, but I don’t think it’s the whole story. I think Kelloggs was responding to pressure from the left to stop advertising on Breitbart. Now the right is applying counter-pressure. I find it sad that breakfast cereal has become politicized.

            20

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        PhilJourdan.

        “And it is our right to not buy their product for calling us deplorables,undesirables, or whatever the idiots running the company want to.”

        I don’t think Kelloggs said any of those things, so I think you are being dishonest here. But if you can find a press release or statement where Kelloggs did say those things, I will apologize.

        It can see what Breitbart is attempted to do, they are trying twist a protest by Kelloggs made against Breitbart into a protest made again Breitbart readers – propaganda 101.

        416

        • #
          AndyG55

          From Silent M on Tim Blair.

          “If Kellogg’s is truly genuine, they would ask people who do not reflect their values to stop eating their cereal. ”

          Love it !!!

          86

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          Should I link to the speech that Hillary gave? Or are you too slow to understand that?

          Kellogg does not like Breitbart and is boycotting them. Why? Because they [Breitbart] had the temerity to write stories not conducive to Hillary and the left. Horrors! Breitbart informed us of the ban. They did not tell us to boycott them. We Chose to do it (just like Levi, Target and others).

          I am sure you are going to have a great diabetic shock eating all of their sugared cereals and processed flour to make up for what the rest of us will not buy. Except for one problem.

          The left never puts their money where their mouth is.

          53

          • #

            It has nothing to do with Hillary. It has to do with Brietbart’s mindset, which many find repulsive.

            You act like we HAVE to like Breitbart.
            [David, you still have comprehension problems. Phil was only reiterating the sequence of events, as others have done. You fail to understand that, and take it all very personally. Kellogg's chose to do business with Brietbart and then didn't like what they reported. End of story. Let it go. You are wasting our time] Fly

            39

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              And many find Hillary’s mindset repulsive! But the beauty of free speech is that you are also free to be repulsed!

              I find your dishonesty, incompetence and ignorance repulsive. But I have never advocated you be banned from posting. I want all to see it for themselves. You are a walking poster for the dishonesty of the whole AGW scam.

              ANd you are not bright enough to understand that.

              81

      • #

        The Kellogg Company is an American multinational food manufacturing company headquartered in Battle Creek, Michigan, United States.

        Many of Kellogg’s investors are the agricultural interests in the US mid-west. Loosing value and insulting your own investors may be something Kellogg’s board of directors are discussing now! :-)

        170

    • #

      In the US, free speech rights are with respect to government. Private parties may do whatever they want, baring libel and some obscene speech.

      Kellog’s is well within its rights here. I respect their move and will go out of my way to buy their products.

      434

      • #
        Phil R

        Way to put it all on the line in your support of Kellogs.Is “going out of your way” three steps left or three steps right on the cereal isle?

        221

        • #
          Bulldust

          More like three goose steps.

          142

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Well, nobody could never accuse David Appell of being a moderate.

            41

            • #

              Good. THough this reply will be censored as are most of my others.

              Published 24. Not published 4 (1 repeat and 3 about moderation). Got the “facts” on your side, as usual. This is OT. No more. Thanks. — Jo

              17

        • #

          I support Kellogg’s right to say whatever they want, same for Breitbart

          Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

          34

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Quite frankly, David, we couldn’t give a toss about what you support.

            The facts as I see them:

            1. Kellogg were a major contributor to the Clinton campaign.

            2. Kellogg provided income to Brietbart, by way of advertising in that publication.

            3. Brietbart, published at least one article that was not supportive of the Clinton campaign, and so ran counter to Kellogg’s financial interest.

            4. Thus, Kellogg was at risk of losing its investment in one channel or the other, and so chose to withdraw from its advertising contract with Brietbart.

            5. As things turned out, the Clinton campaign was not successful, so Kellogg has managed to lose that investment as well. I doubt that Hillary will give them a refund.

            6. As people get their collective heads around this, they will realise that Brietbart had the necessary reproductive body parts to stick with their editorial policy, and their journalistic independence, in spite of various demands from advertisers, and advisors from the Clinton camp.

            David Appell will get apoplectic, I dare say, but I think Brietbart will come through this pretty well. They have shown that they have integrity.

            80

      • #
        AndyG55

        “will go out of my way to buy their products”

        Sending your granny to do the shopping again, hey !!

        As you say, free speech, and millions will now speak with their wallets. :-)

        155

      • #

        Seems correct that Homo-sapiens are created in the image of God! Technically\scientifically an ‘image’ is a projection on a lesser dimensional manifold. Something must be missing! It appears that what is missing is called sanity!!
        To bad in parts of the world (AU) one may not speak or write openly of well defined medical conditions such as ‘insanity’ or ‘idiocy’ (baby bagel)! Perhaps those with excessive formal education in the social sciences v.s. actual physical experience; suffer from such medical conditions more!
        All the best! -will-

        82

      • #
        RAH

        Free speech works both ways and those spending the money usually have the leverage in a free market (Unless we’re talking about Obamacare or those that gave a “donation” to the Clinton Foundation.) So for all who want to hurt Kelloggs and exercise their right to express their displeasure with their corporate bigotry, here are some of their brands not to buy besides their cereals.

        Pop Tarts, Cheez-Its, Eggos, Pringles, Nutri-Grain, and Famous Amos, Morningstar Farms, Keebler and Kashi brands.

        50

        • #

          Prediction: This quarter’s Kellogg’s sales won’t show the slightest effect from a Breitbart boycott.

          24

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            So Kellogg’s neither win, nor lose, except for the undisclosed, but presumably large, contribution they made to the Clinton Election war-chest.

            Breitbart have lost a client in Kellogg, but they came through the whole farargo looking pretty clean. That will do them no harm, in the longer term.

            30

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            Just like Target’s showed no effect. Yea, another Appell prognostication. Good enough for me to short their stock!

            60

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        No one said they were not within their rights. Leave it to you to introduce a non sequitur!

        And both libel AND obscene speech are within the right of free speech! However, the consequences are civil, not government!

        Please regale us with more of your ignorance and non sequiturs!

        52

        • #
          Mark D.

          Please regale us with more of your ignorance and non sequiturs!

          Excellent comment Phil.

          Like most of the Left, Appell applies “hate” and “bully” tactics at the same time as claiming to despise the same.

          40

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I doubt that he has many friends. Perhaps he compensates by having “issues”? Which could explain his lack of friends …

            Bit sad, really.

            30

        • #

          Libel is certainly not part of free speech.

          17

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            No, If it was speech, it would be slander.

            Are you really a writer, as Phil claims? Amazing!

            62

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            Libel is subjective. So yes it is. It can only be proven after the fact.

            You really are clueless in every subject!

            51

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    I wondered where Kellogs got the name Froot Loops because Inever realised it was an in-house description.

    452

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    Someone at Kellogg has clearly lost the plot. As a long established brand, in a highly competitive field, it has done precisely what it not only didn’t need to do but shouldn’t even have considered in the first place!

    It is highly unlikely that it will gain many, if any, new customers but almost certainly will alienate many existing customers who’ll be motivated to try other cereal brands that they wouldn’t have even thought about trying before – and that they may come to prefer.

    I can understand new organisations politicizing their brands to attract attention – that could well be a smart move – but Kellogg don’t fall into that category.

    I can imagine some very testing times ahead for a senior management team at shareholders meetings.

    ‘Doing a Kellogg’ is now poised to join ‘doing a Ratner’ in the lexicon of ’101 hilarious ways to damage your business’

    523

    • #
      Mike

      “’………..101 hilarious ways to damage your business’”

      Just employ even more cereal killers.

      The Cereal Killers Team On British Breakfast TV”
      “Published on Mar 19, 2014

      Cereal Killers creator Donal O’ Neill & the Australian cricket team doctor Dr. Peter Brukner set the record straight on British breakfast TV about low carb high fat diets!
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKN9PlXxmKc

      102

      • #
        • #
          bobl

          These days I’m not real fond of Authorities, besides it got almost no fat – it must be healthy ( It’s 90% carbs of which a goodly proportion is sucrose but we’ll just ignore that because 97% of sugar companies say that sugar is natural and not harmful – all that bothers me is what the other 3% say ;-) )

          Remember 97% of card holding climate scientists believe in climate science….

          Virtue signalling and torturing the truth has always been at the heart of the marketers toolkit, why should Kelloggs be any different.

          Bob
          Deplorable Delcon…

          100

        • #
          Mike

          If they don’t have High Fructose Corn Syrup as a sweetener then they might pass as healthy. After reading about if Kellogs corn flakes, as an example, have HFCS in it it looks like they did, but they took it out recently because enough customers must have made a fuss.

          High Fructose Corn Syrup is no ordinary sugar. Many say it is a direct cause of our health epidemic. It does very different things in the body to what ordinary sugar cane sweeteners do and more.

          Some Kelllogs products apparently still contain HFCS

          http://www.highfructosefree.com/hfcslist/cereals/hfcsfreecereals.html

          “5 Reasons High Fructose Corn Syrup Will Kill You”
          http://drhyman.com/blog/2011/05/13/5-reasons-high-fructose-corn-syrup-will-kill-you/

          30

          • #
            Mike

            for sure there are other factors about a healthy/unhealthy cereal like how much processing, if it is made from whole grain and other stuff. Not saying high fructose corn syrup is everything though there are some who say it is a huge factor.

            50

          • #
            tom0mason

            As far as understand it High Fructose Corn Syrup is so because ordinary Corn Syrup is high in just the single sugar glucose. Unfortunately glucose alone does not taste as sweet as fructose (fruit sugar)

            Fructose is the natural sugar that sweetens fruits and it is also present in honey and some vegetables. It is most commonly known as a component of high-fructose corn syrup. Fructose, which is the sweetest of all granulated sugars, is about 1.2 times as sweet as table sugar, reports the American Dietetic Association. The ADA also reports fructose is often used to improve texture, taste and stability in many food products.

            http://livewell.jillianmichaels.com/glucose-fructose-sucrose-4883.html

            Hence the incorporation of fructose in corn syrup. In fact by this method corn syrup is getting closer to the taste of granulated table sugar or sucrose, which is a disaccharide composed of one molecule of fructose and one molecule of glucose.

            Note that the body breaks down all of these sugars to glucose for it’s energy needs.

            81

            • #
              Mike

              From the article i posted in the link above it is worth elaborating a tiny bit even though there are widespread articles and videos that support the idea that HFCS is a vastly different molecule to ordinary cane sugar. The fact that the sucrose and fructose in High Fructose Corn Syrup are not bound together is just one.


              “5 Reasons High Fructose Corn Syrup Will Kill You”

              http://drhyman.com/blog/2011/05/13/5-reasons-high-fructose-corn-syrup-will-kill-you/

              From the link:
              “Since there is there is no chemical bond between them, no digestion is required so they are more rapidly absorbed into your blood stream. Fructose goes right to the liver and triggers lipogenesis (the production of fats like triglycerides and cholesterol) this is why it is the major cause of liver damage in this country and causes a condition called “fatty liver” which affects 70 million people.”

              And of course there is a lot more this amazingly industrial grade of sugar does and is linked to.

              40

              • #
                tom0mason

                Mike,
                “Since there is there is no chemical bond between them, no digestion is required so they are more rapidly absorbed into your blood stream.”
                Utter scaremongering BS with little scientific basis to it.
                Fructose goes right to the liver and triggers lipogenesis (the production of fats like triglycerides and cholesterol) this is why it is the major cause of liver damage in this country and causes a condition called “fatty liver” which affects 70 million people.”

                All fructose (fruit sugar) goes through this route even when it has come straight from fruit. The human body needs to breakdown the fructose to it’s glucose components in order to make use of it. The fructose in HFCS is no different. Sucrose has a double route to take –
                1. Enzymes decompose sucrose to glucose and fructose.
                2. Fructose then get processed to glucose be the liver.

                Sucrose (table sugar) is no more nutritious than HFCS. Fructose just makes corn syrup slightly sweeter than table sugar, and that is all.

                http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/digestion-absorption-sucrose-3680.html

                List of High Fructose Fruits*

                Fruits and Fruit Juices Highest in Fructose:
                Raisins, seedless – 1 cup, packed – 48.97g
                Figs, dried – 1 cup – 34.17g
                Dates, deglet noor – 1 cup, chopped – 28.75g
                Prunes (dried plums) – 1 cup, pitted – 21.66
                Peaches, dried – 1 cup, halves – 21.58g
                Grape Juice, unsweetened – 1 cup – 18.62g
                Apricots, dried – 1 cup, halves – 16.21g
                Pomegranate juice – 1 cup – 15.86g
                Jackfruit – 1 cup, sliced – 15.16g
                Sapote, mamey – 1 cup pieces – 13.40g
                Grapes, red or green – 1 cup – 12.28g
                Bananas – 1 cup, mashed – 10.91g
                Cranberries, dried, sweetened – 0.25 cup – 10.78g
                Cherimoya – 1 cup pieces – 10.05g
                Pineapple juice, unsweetened – 1 cup – 9.52g
                Persimmons – 1 fruit (2-1/2″ diameter) – 9.34g
                Pears – 1 cup slices – 8.99g
                Kiwi – 1 cup, sliced – 7.83g
                Mangos – 1 cup pieces – 7.72g
                Cherries – 1 cup, with pits – 7.41g
                Apples, with skin – 1 cup – 7.38g (6.63g without)
                Blueberries – 1 cup – 7.36g
                Feijoa – 1 cup pureed – 7.17g
                Grapefruit juice – 1 cup – 7.16g
                Orange Juice – 1 cup – 5.55g

                *All measures are for one serving.

                Why Fructose Matters if you have Gout

                The reason fructose should be limited in relation to gout is because it increases the level of uric acid in the body. The ideal range for uric acid is between 3 to 5.5 mg per dl, and to keep levels below that I would recommend you target fructose intake to 15 – 25 grams or less per day. In practical terms, 1 cup of watermelon balls equals 5.17 grams of fructose, or BELOW the target range.

                Why Fruit Juice Should be Limited, or Avoided

                The extra ingredients manufacturers add to these drinks act as preservatives and flavor additives, but can be compromising to your health. Potential unwanted problems include: insulin spikes, canker sores, and simply excess sugar which may increase your risk of cancer. Big Agra often fortifies these drinks with Vitamin C (ascorbic acid), calcium, and Vitamin D. What are the quality and standards behind fortification? Squeezing your own fresh fruit avoids these issues and is a safe alternative to consuming fruit juices with preservatives and added ingredients.


                SOURCE
                National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference Release 28

                From — http://halegenic.com/high-fructose-fruit/

                10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      As always, it is about the money, and access to the corridors of power, not just in the US, but also in those countries where the US has good relationships with the current Government, or political figures. “You do me a favour, and I will owe you one in return”.

      The US Government can lobby a foreign Government, in respect to preferential treatment for its goods and services. That happens all the time in a generic sense. But the Government cannot promote one company over another, in that process.

      However, on a one-to-one basis, and as a bargaining chip in negotiations, it might be possible for “exceptions” to be made for “strategic companies”, Kellogg’s being just one example.

      The exceptions might be: the removal or lowering of tariffs, streamlining of customs clearance procedures, increased bonded-storage facilities, etc. This is usually negotiated on the basis that the company shifts so much volume, that they represent a special case.

      Of course, the company in question, on finding that its trade operating costs have decreased, may decide to donate some of that money to one charitable foundation or another, in order to lower its taxation liabilities, come the end of the year.

      What the charitable foundation does with that donation, is of course, no concern to the company, nor the Government.

      Of course, should there be a change of Government, then the “Gentlemen’s Agreements” that underpin the above, may become an embarrassment, or worse still, nullified.

      Oh, and woe-betide any commercial news agency that reports on what has happened.

      210

      • #

        “Oh, and woe-betide any commercial news agency that reports on what has happened.”

        There are already many news stories on the subject. (Google it.) That’s what news sources do. They’re not afraid of Bb.

        [This is a blog not Google. If you have something to offer then do it. Otherwise you aren't interacting you are trolling.] ED

        427

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Thank you Ed.

          David Appell is a bit sensitive at the moment, it would seem.

          That is probably due to congnitive dissonance arising fromr the election result, and the subsequent exposure of some very shady dealings in the extramural activities of some senior political appointees.

          212

          • #
            Bulldust

            David is a hockey stick worshipper according to his web site. Probably should go easy on the poor fellow as his grasp on historic climate trends must be tenuous to say the least.

            191

            • #

              I recognize that the hockey stick is true — and that’s because it is required by the laws of physics.

              So now your problems are with the very laws of physics?

              29

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Which (law or laws) of physics would that be, David?

                I personally have no problems with the laws of physics. I have met quite a few.

                But I don’t recall a requirement that there must be a law in nature that governs or produces spontaneous hockey sticks. Perhaps I was away, on the day when it was discussed.

                Wasn’t I lucky, that it didn’t come up in my dissertation.

                Perhaps you can tell me what the law dictates?

                62

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                It is also required by the Laws of Hockey. They don’t let you on the field without one.

                40

              • #

                David, Harry,

                You could not be more wrong about the applicability of physical laws. The only physical laws that apply are COE and the SB Law. These 2 laws limit the maximum sensitivity to be less than the minimum claimed by the IPCC.

                If you doubt this, you can calculated the EXACT sensitivity of an ideal BB at the current surface temperature (0.18C per W/m^2). Then calculate the sensitivity of a non ideal BB whose emissivity is 0.62 and whose temperature is the current surface temperature and whose LTE behavior is nearly indistinguishable from Earth as viewed from space. Again. this can be calculated exactly and is 0.3C per W/m^2. If you need help differentiating the SB law and solving for the sensitivity as a function of temperature, it is 1/(4eoT^3), where o is the SB constant (5.67E-8 W/m^2 per K^4), e is the emissivity and T is the temperature. If you do not understand how this the slope of SB is the sensitivity, you need to go back and review some basic physics and math.

                What new physics do either of you propose that can increases the sensitivity from the measured LTE value of 0.3C per W/m^2 up to the range presumed by the IPCC of 0.8C +/- 0.4C per W/m^2. What kind of physics can describe an object that emits power as a consequence of its temperature and that has the ability to override the requirements of COE and the SB LAW?

                52

              • #

                “What new physics do either of you propose that can increases the sensitivity from the measured LTE value of 0.3C per W/m^2….”

                No one has, or can, calculate climate sensitivity because there is insuffient data on aerosols, which cool. And you’d need to know it as a function of not just time, but latitude, because the reflectivity of the sun’s rays depends on the latitude.

                38

              • #

                In my previous comment, I meant, of course, that you can’t calculate climate sensitivity based on any measurements or based on the historical data because we lack historical data on the aerosol distributions.

                Here’s a handy result, from Matthews et al in Nature (2009, I think):

                cumulative change = 1.5 deg C/trillion tonnes of carbon emitted.

                1.5 C is their best value. The confidence limits are 1.0 and 2.1 degC/TtC.

                38

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                “What new physics do either of you propose …”

                None.

                We are not the people vaporising over a variation of tenths of one degree celsius, per decade. We are not the people who are trying to convince the wider scientific community, that our cause is so much more important than theirs, that they should give up their funding. You are the people concerned about this. Show us the evidence, and explain the method whereby it will occur, and how the intrinsic reactions will be able to go ‘critical’.

                51

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                The hokey stick has nothing to do with physics. It is a statistical manifestation that was shown to be completely bogus by McKitrick and McIntyre. That you think it is about “physics” shows your complete ignorance of the subject and blind faith in your religion.

                51

              • #

                Rereke Whakaaro says:
                “We are not the people vaporising over a variation of tenths of one degree celsius, per decade.”

                You should. The temperature difference between an ice and a interglacial is only about 5 C. With the world warming at 0.15-0.2 C/decade, and about 0.5 C already committed to, we’ll be signifantly close to that in a short time. 2 C doesn’t look much doable now. Plus, nonlinearities are starting to kick in for Arctic ice melt and sea level rise.

                04

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            Rereke Whakaaro.

            “Perhaps you can tell me what the law dictates?”

            A rising global mean temperature will produce a hockey stick curve in the global temperature reconstruction. This result has been confirmed by a number of research groups.

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

            18

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              What happens if it is a linear rising trend?

              40

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Graeme No.3.

                “What happens if it is a linear rising trend?”

                It it was a linear rising trend, the curve would be a straight line.

                16

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Hello Harry,

              Are you a mate of David Appell, by any chance?

              I don’t know which law David is referring to, and therefore I don’t understand the mathematical approach adopted in developing this law. They don’t just pluck themselves out of thin air.

              The graph you reference is one of the reconstructions of temperature over the last 2000 years. Firstly, I have problems with reconstructions, because people usually forget to include details of how the reconstruction was developed, and also tend to forget to mention details of large number of assumptions made, and why.

              That particular graph is interesting, since it shows a dramatic uptick, starting around 1900, and continuing to this day. That would be due to the amount of military ordinance thrown around in two world wars, and dozens of lesser conflicts, since.

              So I have to question whether we are looking at natural temperature variation, or whether we are looking at the folly of mankind, in trying to kill each other off.

              In either case, I would surmise that Carbon Dioxide was probably the least of our problems. If we were going to get run-away warming, it would have happened in the 20th Century, as we tried to blow each other into oblivion.

              82

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Rereke Whakaaro.

                “I don’t know which law David is referring to,”

                He said physical laws.

                I have never heard of anyone hypothesizing that military ordinance causes global warming. It doesn’t, no where near enough energy. When a big volcano blows up it tends to produce global cooling.

                If you have issues with reconstructions, then you will also have issues with the MWP, LIA and satellite data set as they are based on reconstructions as well. You can find out more details of the reconstructions by following the references. Me, I trust that the various researchers knew what they were doing and it being published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

                To my knowledge no credible scientists are predicting runaway warming. I can’t imagine any mechanism that would cause runaway warming, the warming will eventually reach a new equilibrium average depending on the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

                39

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                I don’t think that David knows what law he referring to. As you point out, he says “physical laws”, i.e. the laws of Physics. But can he name one? No evidence so far. Hyperbole is not is no substitute for math.

                You are misquoting me, in my comments regarding reconstructions of past events, by cherry-picking five words, and ignoring the following twenty-nine words in that sentence.

                That indicates to me, and any other reader, who might be interested, that you would prefer to play the role of political activist, rather than seriously discuss the science. I am glad that we can agree on that point.

                That opinion is reinforced, when you say, “… I trust the various researchers knew …” [past tense? When is science ever settled? When does learning ever stop?] “… what they were doing and it being published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.” And then removed, revised, redacted, repurposed and republished … you forgot to mention that last point. But then a political activist would, wouldn’t you.

                You then, in conclusion, say, “To my knowledge, no credible scientists are predicting runaway warming”. I am sure that is true, since you cannot have knowledge about the current views of all scientists, credible or otherwise.

                You then go on to state, “… the warming will eventually reach a new equilibrium average depending on the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” This is what the con-artists and shysters call, “the sucker hook”. A closing line. Something to finish the discussion on. A thought to be remembered, even when the rest of the conversation has faded away.

                The sucker hook you chose, was a bit unfortunate, because I am going to ask you to: a) define what you mean by, “the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere”; b) what those “greenhouse gasses” are, and the proportionality of each; c) the chemical reactions and physical mechanisms whereby they get there; d) how long they stay there (on average); e) how they interact with other compounds in the atmosphere, and with sunlight; and f) the mechanisms whereby they are eventually removed from the atmosphere. As part of that exercise, can you also give us an estimate of what range of temperatures will represent the “new equilibrium”?

                I might even ask Jo to consider a temporary ban on you commenting here, until you have done this small piece of research for the wider benefit of the rest of us. I don’t mind if you want to ask David Appell to give you a hand. He reads like a person who needs to get out a bit more.

                72

              • #

                Rereke:

                These physical laws:

                temperature change = (climate_sensitivty)*(change in forcing)

                CO2 forcing = constant*ln(CO2/initial_CO2)

                Atmo CO2 has been increaing exponentially since the beginning of the industrial era.

                So if CO2 isn’t changing, there is no temperature change — the handle of the hockey stick.

                If CO2 is increasing exponentially, its forcing is changing linearly and hence so is the temperature — the blade of the hockey stick.

                The initial curve upward from the shaft is when CO2 was increasing superexponentially.

                QED

                27

              • #

                David, there is no law of physics that says that all forcings only work through surface temps, rather than operating directly throughout the atmosphere. Yet all mainstream models assume that. If Water vapor responds to increased CO2 by emitting more radiation, the models are guaranteed to omit that.

                They made a mistake in the architecture of the climate models. It’s so obvious, really. The laws of physics suggest that incoming sunlight will warm the surface, but the same laws of physics do not decree that heating CO2 molecules in the upper T is an equivalent forcing.

                The energy trapped by CO2 molecules is real, but it can reroute through water vapor molecules in the upper T and be emitted to space without necessarily adding to surface warming.

                All the details / quotes / model architecture at the link.

                54

              • #

                R: Your penultimate graf is, of course, in no way appropriate for a comment section. I suggest you read a textbook like Pierrehumbert’s, esp Chapter 4.
                [What do you mean by, "graf"? My dictionary defines "graff" with two "f's", as a "type of stylus", a "long distance", or "a trench serving as a fortification"] -Fly

                38

              • #
                Vlad the Impaler

                Mr. Appell:

                Could you please supply a definition for us for what a “… penultimate graf … ” is? In some Germanic cultures, a ‘graf’ is a title of nobility (most often translated into “Count”). The most famous use of which might be the heavy cruiser Graf Spee sunk in the South Atlantic off the coast of Uruguay.

                I certainly hope you did not mean ” … penultimate gaffe… “; for then the gaffeis certainly on you! Did I not read that you grew up knowing all those deplorable Trump voters of Pennsylvania? Is Pennsylvania Dutch more your forte?

                Oh, and by the way, your appeal to authority says far more about your ability to discern matters of global climate, global climate change, and the historical aspects of climate (and by historical, I’m referring to the last four billion years [give or take], and not the last two hundred years [give or take]).

                Did you peruse the 750 million-year record I referenced down in #6?

                Regards,

                Vlad

                63

              • #

                David,

                About your ‘laws’,

                “temperature change = (climate_sensitivty)*(change in forcing)”

                Yes, but this is not a physical law.

                “CO2 forcing = constant*ln(CO2/initial_CO2)”

                This is also true, except that the value of this ‘constant’ is not known, moreover; the assumption that all change is due to changes in CO2 concentrations is wrong and this is assumed when attempting to back out the constant from ‘data’.

                What you are ignoring is that the sensitivity is the slope (first derivative) of the relationship between the accumulated forcing and the accumulate temperature, which for an ideal emitting body is exactly equal to the slope of the SB curve.

                A non ideal emitter is called a gray body and the only way to modify the relationship between the accumulated forcing and the accumulated temperature is by adjusting the emissivity. The emissivity that matches the measured 288K surface temp and 240 W/m^2 emissions for the equivalent gray body model of the planet planet is 0.62 and the sensitivity of a gray body whose emissivity is 0.62 is about 0.3C per W/m^2.

                The sensitivity claimed by the IPCC is 0.8C +.- 0.4C per W/m^2, which even at the low end of 0.4 is higher than the sensitivity of an equivalent gray body emitter.

                To make a halfway convincing case for your side, you need to explain the physical laws that can connect the dots between the 0.3C of the equivalent gray body model and the nominal 0.8C value claimed by the IPCC. To be more specific, what law of physics overrides the first principles requirements of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?

                52

              • #

                Vlad, sorry. “Graf” is what editors and hence writers call a “paragraph.” I guess I’ve fallen into using it too often.

                03

              • #

                Jo: lambda = dT/dF is the *definition* of climate sensitivity. lambda is probably a constant near where we are now, but it’s not expected to be a constant. Indeed, it will be higher for the second doubling of CO2, because by then sea ice and glaciers and the big ice caps will be smaller and not reflecting as much sunlight. So relatively more will go into the land and (esp) the ocean.

                13

              • #

                “CO2 forcing = constant*ln(CO2/initial_CO2)”
                “This is also true, except that the value of this ‘constant’ is not known,”

                It certainly is. It’s 5.35 W/m2. Easy to look up.

                http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm

                23

              • #
                Vlad the Deplorable Impaler

                Mr. Appell:

                Your reference is the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, which is, in spite of your beliefs, not a scientific organization, but a political one (Inter-g-o-v-e-r-n-m-e-n-t-a-l Panel on Climate Change, not ‘International Scientific Organization to Study … … … ‘). The derived “constant” is anything but. It is purely a construct of highly problematic models (incapable of reproducing 750-m.a. of published, peer-reviewed temperature/CO2 information). Even the IPCC admits that the mythical “forcing” from CO2 decays exponentially (for the Math challenged, this means it is not a ‘constant’).

                Take a look at the 750-m.a. record; note that line labeled as “3 Celsius degrees per doubling”, and note the lack of correspondence between temperature and CO2 concentration, at all time scales. Run a cross-correlation for us. Jo and her unsung-hero mods can help you publish your results, right here on this blog.

                The IPCC’s equation is fatally flawed; the ‘constant’ is too high (some will argue by a factor of at least three, if not more) and the ln part of that ‘formula’ does not even have a physical basis in reality.

                Regards, and let’s see that X-corr soon, OK?

                Vlad

                14

              • #

                Vlad, of course you reject the IPCC. It’s the only way you have of protecting yourself from science and keeping yourself in the cocoon you have consstructed, where any evidence you don’t like can and must be immediately dismissed.

                It’s not convincing in the least.

                I don’t know what “750-m.a. record” you’re talking about, since I have yet to see you provide a citatdion for any of your claims.
                [David, This is pure projection on your part. Vlad (not his real name) is a much published scientist. You know nothing, apart from your third-grade agit-prop. The rest of us knew what he was on about.] -Fly

                33

              • #

                David,

                There’s some ambiguity in the constant ’5.35′ you cite. Line by line simulations of the standard atmosphere with nominal clouds shows that the 3.7 W/m^2 of ‘equivalent forcing’ you get by doubling CO2 (ln(2)*5.35) is the instantaneous increase in surface emissions absorbed by the atmosphere when CO2 is doubled. This is said to be equivalent to 3.7 W/m^2 of incremental net (after albedo) solar input. The problem is that all 3.7 W/m^2 of incremental solar input forces the surface, while only about half of the incremental absorbed surface emissions are redirected back to the surface to act in the same was as each W/m^2 of solar forcing while the remainder exits out to space.

                Of course, the least certain value is the sensitivity itself, whose only initial constraint was that it be large enough to just justify the formation of the IPCC. It turns out that this is about 3-4 times larger than the known physical laws can explain.

                Going back to the original question, you still haven’t been able to explain the laws of physics you rely on that override the Stefan-Boltzmann Law relative to a body radiating energy consequential to its temperature.

                As far as references for how tweaked data can result in hockey sticks, Jo provided a few examples and a simple Google search will uncover many more.

                32

              • #

                “Of course, the least certain value is the sensitivity itself, whose only initial constraint was that it be large enough to just justify the formation of the IPCC.”

                I’m not interested in further discussion with someone of this view.

                Good luck.

                16

              • #

                Jo Nova wrote:
                “They made a mistake in the architecture of the climate models. It’s so obvious, really. The laws of physics suggest that incoming sunlight will warm the surface, but the same laws of physics do not decree that heating CO2 molecules in the upper T is an equivalent forcing.”

                Didn’t know you are an expert on climate models.

                You need to immediately write a paper pointing their errors, and submit it to Nature or Science. This is an fantastically important point that the entire world needs to hear. Immediately.

                No, solar warming isn’t like CO2′s warming. The first is direct. The second requires solving the Schwarzschild equations using real molecular spectra, to calculate how much downward IR flux reaches the surface. I assume you’re doing those calculations?

                04

              • #

                David Appell says “Didn’t know you are an expert on climate models.”

                Evidently I know more about climate models than you do.

                Shame you have no reply.

                Hansen 1984 admits the climate models treat a doubling of CO2 as equivalent to a 2% increase in solar radiation.

                You say: “No, solar warming isn’t like CO2′s warming.” Who is right – David Appell, or James Hansen and David Evans?

                As for the calculations, David is way ahead of you — see:

                See: ” Correcting Problems with the Conventional Basic Calculation of Climate Sensitivity”, Dr David M.W. Evans, Chapter 20 of “Evidence-Based Climate Science”, Edited by Don Easterbrook, 2016 Elsesvier.

                42

              • #

                David,

                You said,

                “I’m not interested in further discussion with someone of this view.”

                Are you so afraid of being thoroughly embarrassed for being so incredibly wrong that you resort to this kind of self righteous crap?

                It’s very clear that you can’t handle the scientific facts as you’ve been completely unable to justify your position using the laws of physics. Now, you’ve made it clear that you can’t handle the political truth either. No wonder you can’t grasp the science.

                It seems you are unaware of the political origins of the sensitivity claimed since AR1. At the time, it was completely unknown and unless it was shown to be high enough the IPCC would not arise. It was surmised to be high based on misinterpreting ice cores as showing how CO2 is the primary driver of temperatures. Meanwhile, Hansen was pushing broken science to justify a high sensitivity which he had a large part in breaking (he incorrectly applied Bode’s feedback analysis and it hasn’t been corrected since). Hansen was influence by revenge to get back at the political right (Bush, Reagan) for rightly calling him a lunatic for his Chicken Little call of alarm, but unfortunately, when Clinton/Gore came to power, he found a fellow lunatic in Gore and climate science has only become more broken since.

                You should really go back and look at the history of all this nonsense.

                51

              • #
                AndyG55

                “self righteous crap”

                Great description. Except add “egotistical, unwarranted” in front.

                32

              • #
                AndyG55

                “I’m not interested in further discussion with someone of this view.”

                Then don’t come here. You will not be missed.

                You contribute zero to any real science or rational discussion anyway.

                32

              • #
                AndyG55

                “It’s the only way you have of protecting yourself from science and keeping yourself in the cocoon you have constructed”

                That is totally HILARIOUS coming from you.

                Your whole existence relies on you avoiding any real science and burying yourself in a propaganda cocoon constructed by your AGW handlers.

                32

              • #
                AndyG55

                “temperature change = (climate_sensitivity)*(change in forcing)”

                So when there is ZERO temperature change, like for ALL periods without an El Nino, then either the climate sensitivity or the change in forcing is equal to ZERO

                Yes.. we know that.. actually BOTH are zero when it comes to CO2.

                There is no CO2 warming signal in the whole of the satellite temperature record.

                42

              • #
                AndyG55

                lambda = ΔT/ΔF

                So when ΔT = 0, as it does for ALL periods without El Nino events. lambda = 0.

                Thank you David.

                But we already knew that.

                42

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                I’m not interested in further discussion with someone of this view.

                LOL! You are not interested in discussion period! [snip] You have yet to discuss anything. Which makes that statement the first half truth you have uttered!

                30

              • #

                David,

                “No, solar warming isn’t like CO2′s warming.”

                Again, your obstinate ignorance of science bubbles up to the surface.

                Joules are joules, watts are joules per second and every joule arriving to the surface, no matter its origin, can do the same amount of work and warming the surface takes work. You are delusional if you think that 1 W/m^2 of post albedo solar input will have a smaller effect then 1 W/m^2 of ‘co2′ forcing. Your magic 5.35 number for CO2 forcing sets this equivalence.

                As I pointed out before, there’s significant ambiguity is the IPCC definition of forcing where an instantaneous 1 W/m^2 of incremental solar input is considered the same as an instantaneous decrease of 1 W/m^2 in power passed from the surface to space, where the later (which is what the IPCC calls CO2 forcing) doesn’t account for the fact that while all W/m^2 of incremental solar input affects the surface, a significant fraction of energy absorbed by the atmosphere ends up going out into space. So in fact, your 5.35 number is really only about 2.7.

                http://joannenova.com.au/2011/01/half-of-the-energy-is-flung-out-to-space-along-with-the-model-projections/

                31

              • #

                Jo Nova wrote:
                “Evidently I know more about climate models than you do.
                Shame you have no reply.”

                Never said I was an expert in climate models.

                But my expertise in physics far far outranks yours.

                PS: A self-published manuscript by David Evans — edit by Don Easterbook! — means nothing but that he can’t leave his own little sandpile. Where are his real publications, i.e in the scientific literature, with the big boys, where it matters?

                25

              • #

                Another Ad hom from Appell.

                Your expertise in making logical fallacies far exceeds mine.

                What use is a Physics PhD if you can’t think?

                Follow your kindergarten reasoning. If having “quals” was the decider, then you outrank me, but David outranks you, and if David and I hold the same opinion, then he is right and I am wrong, and you simultaneously right and wrong. This is the illogical marsh you wallow in. Get over it. An idea is either correct or not on its own merits, and the quals of the person proposing it have no bearing.

                Notice you are filling up this thread with your own personal tutorial in logic (which evidently is failing dismally). That you got a PhD with this kind of incompetent reasoning says a lot about your uni, whatever it was.

                33

              • #

                Solar warming isn’t like GHG warming.

                Solar warming warms the stratosphere. GHG warming cools the stratosphere.

                The stratosphere is observed to be cooling, even after the effects of ozone depletion are accounted for.

                This is basic climate science, Ch 2 or 3 of any modern climate science textbook. It’s among the best indicator of AGW that we have.

                14

              • #
                AndyG55

                “But my expertise in physics far far outranks yours.”

                ROFLMAO..

                you have never shown the slightest expertise in physics.. apart from in your own mind.

                If you had any, you would be using it instead of trolling realist web sites looking for some self-gratitude and relevance, and writing junk articles for back-water rags.

                33

            • #

              “A rising global mean temperature will produce a hockey stick curve in the global temperature reconstruction.”

              Cherry picked data homogenized and distorted beyond recognition can also result in an anomalous trend and this too has been demonstrated over and over.

              A slowly varying periodic influence will also appear to be a linear trend over short time periods.

              The point here is that anomalous trends in data are absolutely meaningless and tell us nothing about whether the anomalous trend is real or just an anomaly. Most importantly, they tell us nothing about the cause.

              Anomaly analysis is usually used to identify bad (anomalous) data and broken analysis, not to find imaginary trends.

              The undisputed fact is that you have no physics to support your position and your entire body of support comes from pointing out potentially imaginary trends in highly manipulated data. If you think that there are physical laws that can explain your position, then articulate them. The data you refer to is so vacuously unconvincing its incredible that anyone with a brain would consider this proof of substantial climate change caused by CO2 emissions. But then again, political bias has a way of preventing brains from thinking clearly.

              63

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                c02isnotevil.

                Yes yes it is all a Conspiracy Theory I have heard it all before.

                “The undisputed fact is that you have no physics to support your position..”

                If I could even be bothered I would get you to prove that. But you are just making up stuff, so there is no point really. When I see people claiming to have outwitted all those scientists, I usually give up.

                210

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                Logical fallacy is all you have, Harry.
                When all of them are is exhausted you give up.

                71

              • #

                Harry,

                I asked you to name one law of physics that supports a high sensitivity and you go off the deep end and bring up conspiracies.

                Is that why you think consensus climate science is so broken? The null hypothesis is that its broken because of incompetence. It would seem that consensus climate science attracts bottom of the barrel intellects. Anyone else would apply minimal due diligence and see how wrong it is for themselves.

                91

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                Harry cannot even name one law of Physics. He has no clue about the subject as evidenced by his avoidance of trying to prove you wrong. So he dismisses it out of hand – which is typical of the alarmists.

                71

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                We know when the vapourous luvvies feel that they might be on shaky ground, because they resort to using the phrase, “Conspiracy Theory”, as if it were some form of magic incantation to ward off those truths, that they would rather ignore.

                Yes Harry, we have heard it all before. Please think of something new to say. You are getting boring.

                71

              • #

                co2isnotevil wrote:
                “Cherry picked data homogenized and distorted beyond recognition can also result in an anomalous trend and this too has been demonstrated over and over.”

                Be specific. General statements like this are useless.

                26

              • #
              • #

                Jo Nova wrote:
                “http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/threat-of-anao-audit-means-australias-bom-throws-out-temperature-set-starts-again-gets-same-results/
                http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/horrifying-examples-of-deliberate-tampering/

                SPPI? Joe Aleo? Anthony Watts.

                I don’t trust any of them.

                Ask why they are avoiding going to peer review with these accusations.

                Of course, we all know why…. They know that if they just chuck these accusations out there, some of it will stick where they want, regardless if they’re true or not, and come up on Google searches, and that’s good enough.

                They are far, far away from doing science.

                27

              • #
                AndyG55

                “I don’t trust any of them.”

                Totally irrelevant.

                All you have to do is look at the REAL DATA.. and what has been done with it.

                But you are not capable of that, are you DA. !

                54

              • #
                Mark D.

                I don’t trust any of them.

                Does science give a rats ass what you “trust”?

                Do I trust your judgement? No.

                DO you have anything to counter their analysis? No.

                Three strikes and counting Appell.

                72

              • #
                AndyG55

                Appell hasn’t hit a single ball in his whole life time.

                His “strike” count must be up in 4, maybe 5, figures by now.

                63

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                I don’t trust any of them

                Gee, and we are supposed to “trust” you? LOL! Talk about a religious fanatic!

                51

              • #

                Mark D:

                Why SHOULD I trust any of them, when they won’t submit their work to peer review?

                Anthony Watts couldn’t even graduate from college.

                08

              • #

                But it wouldn’t matter if Anthony Watts was PhD, M.S. (E.E.), M.S. (Stats) [Stanford Uni], B.Eng, M.A., B.Sc., University Medal, [Syd Uni] because even if he had those quals and was a skeptic, he’d still be wrong according to David Appell (who has what quals himself?)

                As for peer review, fifty percent of it is wrong. We aim higher.

                Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, John P. A. Ioannidis
                Published: August 30, 2005http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

                61

              • #

                It does matter that Watts doesn’t have higher education — anyone who knows the science can see right through him.

                And peer review doesn’t make a paper right or wrong — it simply checks that the paper meets the journal’s stanards, and that the work is not obviously wrong.

                “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, John P. A. Ioannidis
                Published: August 30, 2005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

                So you can imagine how much worse blog postings are.

                [Interesting. So David knows that peer review yields no assurance of correctness but how many times has he urged a skeptic to publish? Lets think this through. Appell links: "Published research is mostly wrong". Appell claims published climate science is right. Hmmmmmm.]ED

                35

              • #
                AndyG55

                “anyone who knows the science can see right through him.”

                So you are blind. He is opaque to you.

                You show ZERO knowledge of anything but the most rudimentary low-end science.

                42

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                David also knows that the climate alarmigencia are more likely to use peer review to suppress dissent to the established meme.

                Nobody needs peer review, apart from the journal publishers who want a modicum of quality control. Of itself, peer review means nothing. The science stands or falls on its scientific merit. Einstein only used peer review once (or perhaps twice), and eschewed it ever afterwards as being immaterial, and a waste of time.

                41

              • #

                Over 40 hockey sticks in the peer reviewed literature:

                http://www.davidappell.com/hockeysticks.html

                24

        • #
          RAH

          Like most leftists, he seems to believe that that free speech only works one way. It’s a two way street.

          162

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          David, My comment had nothing to do with Brietbart, whatsoever. You make assumptions, fixate on them, and then follow them down the rabbit hole.

          But, hey, I am not your analyst. Sort out the inside of your head, yourself.

          72

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      True, but they only lost 45 million customers in favour of winning over David Appell.
      He must eat a lot of flaky nuts and berries!

      141

      • #

        Prove, with data, they lost 45 M customers.

        I don’t think you can.

        David, it’s called humor. Google it. – jo

        36

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Lovely reposte, Jo. Made me laugh out loud.

          61

        • #

          I don’t think it’s humor. I think it’s how you people think.

          28

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            But at least we think, David. And we make up our own minds, and we don’t always agree with each other, but in the back and forth conversations, scientific understanding starts to emerge.

            That is what real scientists do. You demand reference sources: where do you think those sources come from?

            Climate Science used to be part of Atmospheric Physics, which was, and is, its natural home. But as far as I am aware, it has split off from there, to form its own little clique, where everybody can agree with everybody else, and nobody’s hypothesis ever get challenged. Nice and friendly, I am sure, but it ain’t science.

            The whole climate change fear thing became apparent in the 1970′s in a pre-packaged shrink-wrapped parcel, complete with press releases, and documentary mini-series. Back in the 1970′s it was not called climate change, it was about an imminent ice age (search for “the coming ice age” on Youtube).

            When that didn’t actually occur, the meme shifted once more, to the current Global Warming scare.

            But what goes around, comes around, and we now we see NASA’s Ames Research Centre (Cal) are predicting a colder earth, based on a decrease in the frequency and number of sunspot occurrences.

            My conclusion, from all this? Nobody has a clue what is actually going to happen next. As as far as the science is concerned, it is having, what the English call, “a bob each way”.

            And then there are the fellow travelers, like yourself, who don’t have a clue either, but you do have an editor or publisher who is demanding column inches from you, so you go with the flow, and report on the meme du jour. I have no problem with that, but please don’t come here and insult our intelligence by pushing a political argument. We have seen it all before.

            53

            • #

              Rereke, I’m sure it’s easier for you to dismiss anyone who knows that AGW is here as mindless followers, but this just tells me you don’t know a thing about how real science is done. Scientist think and argue constantly, but not about science that is established. They move forward at that point.

              Re: 1970s

              “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus,” W. Peterson et al, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 1325–1337, 2008
              http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

              In fact, by 1965 plenty of scientists had already been warning about global warming from the buildup of greenhouse gases, and by the late ’60s climate models were calculating the warming expected from CO2. List of some papers and reports here:
              http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html

              25

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                What arrogant hubris!

                What you say, is not correct. It is not easier to dismiss someone who is a mindless follower. You are a case in point.

                You surmise, without any evidence whatsoever, that I don’t know how science is done. You are incorrect. In taking that view, you are merely projecting your own shortcomings. I would wager that I was engaged in empirical science, before you were born.

                I agree that scientists argue constantly about science. That logically implies that there can be no such thing as “established science”. That is a good thing, wouldn’t you say!

                “Established Science”(tm) is a political concept, and you are therefore pushing a political narrative.

                I am quite aware of the political whitewash by Peterson et al in 2008. But that does not, in any way negate the fact that Stephen Schneider was the driver behind, and even appeared in, the 1975 television movie I referenced.

                The political whitewash actually appeared thirty two years after the event. It must have taken Peterson et al a long time to sharpen their pencils. Or was it, perhaps, due to the fact that the political drivers had changed, and the history was now politically embarrassing? Isn’t that an interesting question?

                You are perhaps to young to remember, but the original programmes caused a lot of concern at the time, not only with the public, but also within Congress, which provided considerable research funding to address, “the problem”. Have a look at the official records, if you don’t believe me. That was the point where the gravytrain left the station.

                Stephen, and his colleagues, made a lot of money in grants from that series of programs (there were three, from memory, plus the short version that I referenced).

                Regarding, ‘the buildup of greenhouse gasses’, I suggest you conduct a mind experiment. Find a small, empty glass greenhouse and put a thermometer in it, in a position where it can be read, but away from direct sunlight. Put another thermometer outside the greenhouse in a position where it can be read, but away from direct sunlight.
                Observe both thermometers hourly, during the eight-hour work day, and record the readings.

                The next day, release sufficient CO2 into the greenhouse to displace all of the air, and then repeat the same pattern of reading and recording of the thermometers hourly for the eight-hour period.

                Finally, on the third day, fill the greenhouse with plants and give them a good watering, and repeat the pattern of readings and recordings of the thermometers.

                What you will end up with, is what we call empirical evidence. Empirical evidence has considerably more weight in science than computer models, or philosophy.

                I have repeated this experiment, numerous times, by way of demonstration. I would be interested to learn your conclusion, to see if it is similar to mine.

                53

              • #
                Vlad the Impaler

                Hi Rereke,

                Don’t hold your breath awaiting some “results” from Mr. Appell. I tried to get him to define his statement, “… penultimate graf (sic) … ” but all I see are red thumbs for calling him out on it.

                I asked about the easily-found 750 m.a. T vs. CO2 record, and all I see are red thumbs for it.

                He appeals to authority, and click-baits his own website (must be hurting for traffic — – isn’t there some website that tracks how many visits a website gets? Seems like Anthony referenced it a couple of times … ).

                He seems to think he can rewrite the past (Orwell must be loving Mr. Appell). He forgets that some of us were actually there in the 60′s and 70′s (and starting our graduate studies, when college students were taught HOW to think, not WHAT to think). I forget who said, “Only the future is known; it is the past which is uncertain.”

                You expend great effort on Mr. Appell, but I fear your attempts to get him to actually think are in vain. Write him off as a Dr. DeHavilland clone.

                My regards to you and yours, Rereke,

                Vlad the Impaler (and The Deplorable) ( but not from Pennsylvania ) ( a little farther West ) ( as in, between Nebraska and Idaho ) ( an almost-pure-red-and-deplorable-state, except for Teton County, land of the limousine liberals [a.k.a. "Democrats"] )

                32

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Thank you Vlad. “Stick it to ‘em”, that’s the ticket.

                31

              • #

                “I agree that scientists argue constantly about science. That logically implies that there can be no such thing as “established science”.”

                Do you think scientists sit around and question Newton’s laws of motion? The law of thermodynamics? The ideal gas law? The applications of quantum mechanics to atoms?

                They do not. That is all established science.

                Every once in awhile there is an opportunity to question a law or the simple applications of laws. This is not the case in climate science — it operates under basic laws of quantum mechanics and quantum mechanics and thermodynamics.

                ANY scientist would be completely THRILLED to find a flaw in basic climate science. It would make their career, and they’ be famous forever. But no one has ever done this, because global warming is derived from basic physics and the same IR physics commonly used elsewhere. The field has moved far, far past that stage, and is researching the problems at the front of the research wave.

                24

              • #
                Vlad the Deplorable Implaer

                Mr. Appell says:

                “Do you think scientists sit around and question Newton’s laws of motion? The law of thermodynamics? The ideal gas law? The applications of quantum mechanics to atoms?”

                As we have tried to point out to you, in vain, there are several steps in the scientific process. The first step is observation, and if warranted, maybe an hypothesis. The hypothesis is tested, refined, modified, (possibly discarded if it doesn’t work). After much testing, and refinement, if an hypothesis is found to be valid, or at least working, it MAY be elevated to a theory at some point (and I tried to show you the differences between, e.g., “The Theory of Plate Tectonics” and “Plate Tectonic Theory, apparently without effect).

                After much testing, refinement (“trial by fire” as it were), and found not wanting, a theory may eventually become a LAW. Once it achieves this status, it does not need to be tested, questioned, and can be regarded as a satisfactory explanation of the natural world. As of today, we are still testing the Theory of Relativity; it is not yet a law, and may not become one for for some time, if ever. Chances are, we’ll find a flaw, or a hole, or something we cannot explain with it, in which case the eggheads who specialize in that sort of thing will try to find and repair the flaw(s).

                Do you have evidence that Kepler’s LAWS are invalid? I hope not; they’ve been used to send probes to Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Pluto, and they even make your cell phone work.

                I think you should stick to writing, but not about climate science since scientific things are well beyond you.

                How’s that X-corr going?

                Vlad the Despicable Deplorable Impaler

                13

              • #
                AndyG55

                “They do not. That is all established science. “

                But the non-science of “global warming™” is barely a hypothesis, and a FAILED one at that.

                It does NOT come under the realm of “science” It hasn’t got that far yet.

                Arguing that the “global warming™” scam is in the same league as Newton, thermodynamic and gas laws shows just how little you comprehend even the most basic tenets of real science.

                You mark yourself, yet again, as a know-nothing, low-end fantasy writer…

                … and a failed one at that.

                23

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Do you have evidence that Kepler’s LAWS are invalid? “

                Appell has never been able to come up with one solid piece of anything, that the hypothesis of AGW is in any way actually correct.

                His fantasies have been shot down so, so many times its way passed a JOKE.

                Under his effects, “global warming™” remains, as it always will.. a FAILED HYPOTHESIS.

                23

              • #
                AndyG55

                “ANY scientist would be completely THRILLED to find a PIECE OF REALITY in basic climate science.”

                There… fixed it for you. !!

                Do learn to write common-sense, not fantasy.

                23

              • #
                AndyG55

                “because global warming is derived from basic physics and the same IR physics commonly used elsewhere.”

                ROFLMAO..

                You truly do live in a FANTASY WORLD, don’t you.

                It is based on juvenile anti-science modelled conjecture.. nothing more.

                Even the most basic hypothesis, that “CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere” is totally unproven… or more accurately… totally DISPROVEN.

                23

              • #
                AndyG55

                Oh dear.. again DA shows his ignorance

                The were more than twice as many “global cooling” stories as global warming stories in the newspapers from 1960 to 1975.

                https://s19.postimg.org/wc8dk6o37/cooling_reports.png

                Why do you always DENY the truth, Appell.

                Is it that the truth always hurts your fantasy rants so much !!

                33

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                So now Appell is saying AGW is a “law”! He jumped right over theory and went straight to law! LOL! It is sad to see such a wasted life.

                Here’s a clue for Appell. Ever heard of the Big Bang hypothesis? Guess what? It is debated regularly. There is a competing hypothesis called the Brane Hypothesis. SO yes, they sit around all day and debate the 2! or more!

                AGW is not even a testable hypothesis. It is far from a law.

                And I should not have to be schooling you in basic science. But apparently you never were.

                21

              • #

                This is exactly what climate science has done, from observation to hypotheses to facts.

                03

              • #

                Impaler wrote:
                “Do you have evidence that Kepler’s LAWS are invalid? I hope not; they’ve been used to send probes to Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Pluto, and they even make your cell phone work.”

                It’s well known that they aren’t valid.

                See the precession of Mercury’s orbit. It took general theory of relativity to get the right answer.

                You cell phone requires correct GPS coordinate. That only happens if Newtonian values of those satellites is dicarded and the general theory of relativity is used instead, where time slows down in stronger gravitational fields.

                22

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                his is exactly what climate science has done, from observation to hypotheses to facts.

                Baaaap! Wrong again Appell!

                From observation, to TESTABLE Hypothesis, to THEORY. ANother appell fail.

                31

              • #
                Vlad the Deplorable Impaler

                Hi Mr. Appell:

                Let’s see: Regarding Kepler’s Laws, you state, “It’s well known that they aren’t valid.”

                Oh, so Kepler was wrong, and the orbits of solar system objects are not elliptical, with the primary at one of the foci.

                Check.

                Then the relation of the square of the period is not equal to the cube of the distance from the sun (in A.U.).

                Check.

                And, the orbit(s) do not sweep equal areas in equal time periods.

                Check.

                We all owe you a debt of gratitude for setting us on the correct path. I know I shall rest easier tonight, having been put onto the ‘straight and narrow’.

                Interesting that you cite the, “… general theory … ” (emphasis mine) ” … of [R]elativity …” to prove that Keplerian dynamics missed the precession of the orbit of Mercury. How long have we been investigating and testing the Theory of Relativity, and it is still only a theory? Yet in the short span of maybe three decades, “climate science” has gone from, ” … observation, to hypotheses (sic) to facts.”

                Yes, I reject anything and everything the IPCC says, by virtue that they are only beginning the observational phase of ‘climate science’, and have yet to produce anything resembling a testable hypothesis. The IPCC et al simply assume that carbon dioxide produces warming.

                Oh yes, and here is where you cite, ‘ … the warming cannot be explained by any other mechanism’, which I would accept if we had perfect knowledge of the whole of the Earth climate system (consisting of how many variables?), and I cannot find anyone who will make that claim (excepting perhaps yourself). Our knowledge of the entire Earth climate system is minuscule; or do you disagree?

                Kepler was not trying to find any precession in the orbit of Mercury; with his instrumentation, it’s remarkable that he was able to deduce the small ellipticity of Mars’ orbit in the first place. All of the planets (and any object orbiting a larger object) exhibit precession. Our own orbit precesses (as well as other fun things — – some have tried to link the Milankovitch Cycles to Pliocene/Pleistocene climate changes).

                Geologists have been doing paleoclimate for nigh unto two centuries now, and the window into the past (which Jo has found, and is attempting to obtain publication and citation information even now) tells us that carbon dioxide has as much to do with Earth climate as the Man in the Moon.

                Obviously, you are set in your beliefs. I wonder how set you would be in those beliefs with an understanding of four billion (or more) years of Earth history? I think you look at some two centuries of data, and draw a false conclusion, just as the IPCC has.

                Sorry you missed the boat. The rest of us are enjoying the Holocene Interglacial; come aboard and partake of some good brewskis and pi (something we all have on The Dark Side).

                Regards,

                Vlad the Deplorable (and most Despicable) Impaler

                21

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                This is exactly what climate science has done, from observation to hypotheses to facts. [3.3.1.2.12]

                Note the reliance on using the word hypotheses, the plural of hypothesis, to leave some wriggle room if somebody calls him out on his initial hypothesis.*

                So, that is the methodology of climate science, is it, David? Is that what they taught you at the school for not very bright bloggers?

                You have demonstrated that you can string some scientific sounding words together, and in the main, you get these words in roughly in the right sequence. But you fail to give them the appropriate weight or importance, and it is the weight or importance, is what is key, to the scientific method.

                Having an hypothesis is the starting point – what Richard Feynman uses to enjoy calling, “a guess”. Based on the hypothesis, we then make some clear and finite predictions about the future, or the results of an experiment. If those predictions do not come true, or the experiment does not support the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is wrong.

                We must then go back and change our hypothesis, and based on the changed hypothesis, make a new set of clear and finite predictions about the future, or the expected experimental results.

                This process is repeated until we can make accurate predictions in every case. Only when you can do that, can you claim to understand what drives the climate, and then extrapolate that understanding into the formulation of a law.

                So there you have it.

                Phil is correct, you jumped right over theory and went straight to law. Epic fail.

                (*) David does not like to be proven wrong.

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                “This is exactly what climate science has done, from observation to hypotheses to facts”

                WRONG.. “Climate science™” is not at all done that way.

                See below for a more accurate description of climate séance….

                1. Invent hypothesis based on shoddy science and irrelevant non-physics…

                2. Bend and distort real observations in a VAIN effort support the unsupportable hypothesis.

                3. Hire low-end propagandists to LIE and distort the truth.

                4. Present ZERO facts.

                You resemble all those, Appell.

                21

              • #

                Vlad: These violations of Newtonian mechanics in the solar system are well known, even on a popular level. Einstein got famous by explaining the full perihelion shift of Mercury. (Newtonian mechanics, on which Kepler’s laws are based, could not dull explain this shift.)

                Since then, the perihelion shifts of Venus and Earth have also been measured, and they agree with general relativity, not Newtonian physics.

                You need to learn some general relativity — Einstein predicted all this by 1920. Warning though: it’s very mathematically intensive. You’ll need to be comfortable calculating with tensors, and with Riemannian geometry.

                12

              • #

                Vlad wrote:
                “Yes, I reject anything and everything the IPCC says,”

                Of course you do; it’s how you maintain your bubble, your cocoon and (you think) it means you don’t have to address the IPCC reports. You just dismiss it all wholesale!

                “The IPCC et al simply assume that carbon dioxide produces warming.”

                a) false
                b) The IPCC doesn’t do any science; they just assess it.
                c) The warming of CO2 is calculated by the two-stream equations.

                “Kepler was not trying to find any precession in the orbit of Mercury; with his instrumentation, it’s remarkable that he was able to deduce the small ellipticity of Mars’ orbit in the first place.”

                Of course he was, if he could. And those who came in the 250 yrs after him spend an enormous amount of time trying to explain Mercury’s perihelion shift, via trying to account for all gravitational forces in the solar system, and even trying to account for any nonsphericity of the sun. They did not succeed — a chunk amount of the precession was always left, unexplained by Newtonian physics. We can only imagine how thrilled Einstein was when that added amount popped out of his GR equations.

                12

              • #
                Vlad the Deplorable Impaler

                Hello Mr. Appell:

                As far as Riemann Geometry, and Tensor Calculus, no worries. That orbital shifts are explained by the Theory of Relativity is additional testing the theory has passed. I do not see any such testing of IPCC climate models, except that the hypothesis has failed miserably. I’m using a very loose sense of ‘hypothesis’.

                Try looking at something other than the past two hundred years of ‘data’. The Earth has been through over four billion years of tectonic shifts, impacts, and what-not, yet life survived (because it can adapt). You exhibit a paranoia about climate change as if it is something new.

                Oh, yes: then you will pull out the ‘but it is changing faster than it ever has before’. False: in the 1990′s, it was becoming clear that transitions into- and out-of glacial conditions took place in time spans measured in decades, and. as been shown by the ice core data, temperature drove CO2 concentration, which is what you steadfastly refuse to accept. The only person denying science here, is you. Richard Alley, hardly a ‘skeptic’, has even argued that the transitions took place in less than a decade.

                Those transitions were of the order of four, five, or even six Celsius degrees. We are looking at a ‘climate change’ of, what, a Celsius degree or possibly two in a time span of two centuries? Hmmm, someone lacks comprehension of scale.

                I’m a Geologist by trade, and Earth History says the IPCC is all wet. Sorry, those are the facts; if you disagree, show me where carbon dioxide drives temperature.
                [Comment edited, email coming - Jo]

                10

              • #

                “c) The warming of CO2 is calculated by the two-stream equations.”

                I have to call you out on this one. There are no physical laws to support any equations that can quantify the 3C from doubling CO2. It’s simply the result of multiplying 2 very uncertain numbers.

                Even the 3.7 W/m^2 of equivalent forcing from doubling CO2 is uncertain, primarily due to clouds.

                The sensitivity that 3.7 W/m^2 is multiplied by to get the 3C is at least 3-4 times larger than the physics can support. As I said before, the primary requirement on the magnitude of the sensitivity was that it be large enough to support the creation of the IPCC and until you can accept this, you will never see the truth. This is precisely why it continues to be so incredibly incorrect and why it will be so difficult to get right.

                20

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            Whoops! There goes the Appell racism! “You people”! Code word for racism in this country.

            Appell is pure entertainment! If you are looking for the keystone kops of the alarmist world.

            52

  • #
    TdeF

    They haven’t lost the plot. It is a cereal.

    292

  • #
    pat

    jo, if you think Kelloggs is making a bad PR move, what would you say about Twitter?

    It’s time to ban Donald Trump from Twitter
    Washington Post‎ – 3 days ago

    Twitter: Donald Trump’s Account Will Be Banned if He Violates Rules
    Breitbart News – 2 days ago‎

    Donald Trump could be banned from Twitter, company says, but President-elect’s Facebook is probably safe
    The Independent‎ – 22 hours ago

    Will Twitter ban President-elect Trump?
    NEWS.com.au-41 minutes ago

    set aside the fact Trump is President-Elect of the US; set aside how upset his 16,475,863 followers on Twitter or the 60+ million who voted for him might feel.

    set aside the fact Obama had 20-plus techies looking after his Twitter, FB & YouTube accounts, all of which the MSM adored, even if Obama didn’t actually think up his own tweets or FB entries most of the time. Obama currently has an even larger team archiving it all for posterity, as the MSM eagerly informed us.

    US President Obama’s digital legacy to be archived, opened to the public
    Hindustan Times – ‎Nov 9, 2016‎
    On Twitter, the @POTUS handle with more than 11 million followers…

    What Happens to Obama’s Social Media Accounts When He Leaves Office?
    Smithsonian – ‎Nov 9, 2016‎
    According to Schulman, much of the digital preservation effort will be managed by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

    Twitter says it will ban Trump if he breaks hate-speech rules
    Quartz – ‎14 hours ago‎

    and how is NYT handling it all?

    30 Nov: Newsbusters: P.J. Gladnick: New York Times Wrings Hands Over Whether to Report Trump Tweets as News
    President-Elect Donald Trump just tweeted something really astounding about his domestic policy. However, should it be reported as news? What to do? What to do? Oh, what a quandary!
    Anybody with a lick of common sense would agree that, of course, it should be reported as news…
    However for the New York Times the fact that Trump uses Twitter to relay important information is a matter for much amusing hand wringing as you can see in the very title of their Tuesday angst-ridden article, “If Trump Tweets It, Is It News? A Quandary for the News Media.”…READ ALL
    http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2016/11/30/new-york-times-wrings-hands-over-whether-report-trump-tweets-news

    183

    • #

      Hmm Pat. If someone was going to set up a competitor to twitter it might be a nice start to have the US president and 16 million people on it.

      The trigger sensitive political commentariat don’t have to join it…

      432

      • #
        jorgekafkazar

        BreitBird?

        130

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I like that, Jo!

        How delightfully devious. Perhaps he could purchase the redundant Clinton Foundation servers (once they have been forensically gone over, of course)?

        210

      • #
        bobl

        I love it Jo,
        I think that the president should have his media guy issue trigger warnings in the daily briefing, and set up a safe space from the snowflake media to retire to when he’s about to say something they might not like. He can call it the CNN (Clinton News Network) Room – Then use them to show what utter stupidity they are. Mind you the snowflake media would think he was doing the right thing. I would give them the trigger warning at the start of EVERY briefing for the duration of the briefing. Wouldn’t want the CNN reporters blood pressure to get up.

        101

      • #

        Can this please be in the USA where most are free to insult; but not slander, any who disagree with self current drunken stupor opinion! Yes! name it after the now defunct Crinton-Obummer drug Cartel!

        71

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Obama currently has an even larger team archiving it all for posterity, as the MSM eagerly informed us.”

      Obarmy does not have to archive his account.. Everyone will always know he was a twit.

      145

    • #
      tom0mason

      I’m reasonably sure that when in office if President Trump were feeling obliged to, he might call the head Twit from Twitter in to the his office. He may explain that he and his security and legal people may have to review all message traffic sent on the twitter system, as many seemed to be of a dubious nature.
      Indeed Donald may say his advisors insist on having a permanent security presence on Twitter over and above what is there now, and in the spirit of open government, maybe make announcements to that effect.

      I’m sure Twitter’s Twit-in-Charge would see the light.

      91

      • #

        So you support rule by authoritarianism.

        Frankly, I’m not surprised at all. See how easily democracy scatters?

        17

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          … chips in the dweeb with zero sense of humour.

          30

        • #
          tom0mason

          David Appell
          “So you support rule by authoritarianism.”

          You’re good at extrapolating your ‘facts’ from mere facetious suggestions aren’t you?
          You are very strange, to me that is, you are very strange indeed.

          20

  • #
    pat

    I’ve got a big Twitter comment in moderation, which is EXTREMELY on topic:

    2 Dec: WUWT: Eric Worrall: Climate Advocate Outrage Over “Global Cooling” Congress Tweet
    Green outrage is growing that Congress tweeted a link to a (BREITBART) article by James Delingpole, which details how global average land temperature has just crashed by 1C (1.8F)…READ ON
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/02/climate-advocate-outrage-over-global-cooling-congress-tweet/

    233

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      There was a lot wrong with that “global cooling” article from Breitbart, not to mention it appears to be based on some other articles that are wrong as well.

      “Global average land temperature” – actually the free-air temperature over land.

      447

      • #
        James Murphy

        You fail to go into any detail… though such superficial treatment is standard practice from someone who has proven time and time again that their relationship with anything resembling any scientific endeavour or education is fleeting, at best.

        Go on, prove me wrong, explain all that was wrong, go into fine detail, amaze us with your insight, knowledge, and objective analysis…. or, reply with your usual shallow drivel. The choice is, as always, yours to make.

        383

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          James Murphy.

          Ohhhh you can throw around insults, how clever. You mum must be proud of you.

          I can sum up what is wrong with it in one word – cherry-pick.

          536

          • #
            Jim Poulos

            Pot-kettle Harry,

            I can sum up what is wrong with you in one word – ‘average’.

            357

          • #
            AndyG55

            James say “or, reply with your usual shallow drivel

            Twotter obliges.

            196

          • #
            James Murphy

            Thanks Harry, you again prove my point.

            Now, what was cherry-picked, and how would you go about explaining ‘the facts’ about this topic? Perhaps you could take the time to explain them?

            What is stopping you…?

            263

          • #
            Glen Michel

            Mate you can’t get away with saying”no it isn’t” all the time.I can understand that a sudden down tick on a graph must alarm you and you’re mindless ilk.Carry on.

            123

            • #
              Glen Michel

              Your.

              72

              • #
                AndyG55

                “you’re mindless ”

                A totally apt description of Twotter.

                127

              • #
                el gordo

                Harry has the knack of drawing a large crowd and should be gently cultivated until an alternative comes along. Hopefully some of the new graduates from Cook’s Climate Change 101 will drop in looking for a fight.

                We are ready, Delingpole says we have all the answers.

                123

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                el gordo

                “Harry has the knack of drawing a large crowd…”

                I will take that as a compliment, but I cannot understand why someone representing established science and the majority of climate scientists should be all that unusual.

                Delingpole has all the answers? Oh boy. Talk about a parade of fake experts.

                I am unable to provide any answers at present because many of my comments are no longer visible, presumed deleted. Someone associated with this blog does not want any readers to see what I have to say. Draw your own conclusion from that.

                [As hard as it may be for you to believe, harry, we do not want to block or delete your comments. We simply want them to have something to say other than an insult or an empty statement devoid of any contribution to the discussion. For instance, I'm approving this one. It's possibly not going to be popular. But we do want to allow Harry Twinotter to have his opinion.] AZ

                413

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                I cannot understand why someone representing established science and the majority of climate scientists should be all that unusual.

                As soon as somebody says, “established science”, you know that they are not a scientist. Scientific research is a process of constant refinement of what we know, and can demonstrate, about the universe, but it never definitively establishes anything. You can always learn more.

                That is what distinguishes Science from Engineering.

                Engineers know how much stress they can apply to a certain material, because of past experience, based on a large number of repeatable tests.

                Science seeks to find, or create, alternative materials that can take more stress in a similar application.

                Climate Change, as “patented” by the IPCC, is not about science at all, it is about measurement, and the devices and techniques used to make those measurements, and that is engineering.

                When you study the measurement systems, from an engineering perspective, you realise that “Climate Change” is no more than the accumulative measurement errors in the network, on any particular day.

                132

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘I will take that as a compliment …’

                You may think Delingpole is wrong, so what’s required is proof for the allegation. Global cooling has begun, do you know why?

                52

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Talk about a parade of fake experts.”

                You need to go to ClimateCentral, ThinkProgressRegress or un-Skeptical no-Science if you want to talk with a parade of fake experts.

                53

              • #
                el gordo

                Andy the weather forecast for the USA four days from now.

                https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/conus-recordcold-dec2016.jpg

                It feels like 1879, Donald’s timing couldn’t have been better.

                52

            • #
              Raven

              Harry takes strategy advice from Monty Python’s Argument Clinic.
              “Is this the five minute or the full half hour . . .”

              https://youtu.be/hnTmBjk-M0c

              135

            • #
              AndyG55

              ““Harry has the knack of drawing a large crowd…””

              Train wrecks often do that.

              95

            • #

              el gordo December 3, 2016 at 1:37 pm

              “We are ready, Delingpole says we have all the answers.”

              I disagree, with Delingpole! The anti-CAGW have excellent counter, with examples, opposing any thing the ‘Climate Clowns may Claim’, (CCC)! Yet we, like any, have no answers! Always remains WTF over!! Perhaps if the JPL\Cal-Tech folk would stop tweeking for a bit. The rest of us could catch up!!! :-)

              54

          • #
            Andrew

            So……
            - direction is downwards
            - period over which the comparison is made is “since records have been kept”
            - geographic area selected is “where 99.99999% of people live”

            Doesn’t seem like much of a cherry pick to me to report that the world has seen the most alarming plunge in land temps of all time.

            133

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            I am always amazed when people look at an article that makes an extraordinary claims and don’t bother to have a look at the data.

            It is a classic cherry-pick. David Rose is trying to DECEIVE you, don’t you understand this simple fact?

            Data set cherry-pick: the chart shows RSS data only, I assume the TLT data. No other data sets are shown.

            Region cherry-pick: the chart shows land only. What about the rest of the globe, especially the oceans?

            Temporal cherry-pick: it’s hard to tell, but the chart appears to be monthly data, and is basing it’s premise on several months of data only. Considering it is only showing data for autumn mostly in the Northern Hemisphere is is probably not surprising that temperatures are cooling; this tends to happen in autumn.

            415

            • #
              tom0mason

              The first word in cherry-picking science isYamal!

              132

            • #
              AndyG55

              roflmao..

              There are 38 other autumns in the RSS data..

              None of them show the huge drop that has happened this year.

              David is not trying deceive anyone. He stated exactly what he was presenting.

              And he was totally correct.

              The 8 months since the peak of the El Nino transient, had the fastest and deepest drop in temperature of any 8 month period in the whole of the RSS land data. UAH Land has a similar drop

              That is an absolute FACT.

              FACTS hurt you don’t they.

              105

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Harry,

              Are you familiar with the techniques of forensic analysis, when it comes to data?

              A lot of computer simulated experiment (as with climate) is done, using multiple datasets. Each dataset will have its own, internal, consistency and accuracy. Or to put that statement in a different way, each dataset will have its own, internal, variability and pattern of errors.

              When you have a dataset from a single source, the variability and pattern of errors can be accounted for.

              When you have multiple data sources, that are collectively used to imply a solution, then the individual patterns of errors overlap and enforce, or partially nullify each other in complex ways, with the result that the true (rather than reported) margin of error increases as a power law function, of the number of sources used.

              If you have enough sources, you can cherry-pick whatever results you want, by including or excluding datasets.

              What you accuse Derek Rose of doing, is exactly what everybody else in the Climate Change industry does. They mix and match data, until they get the result desired.

              It is “the gold standard”, we are told, which is true. It is the standard practice to get to the gold. It is a pity it is not science, as well.

              60

          • #
            sophocles

            I like cherry picking.
            I do it every year.
            It’s fun.
            My cherry tree had a huge flowering back in August, which appears to have been well pollinated because it’s set a lot more fruit than it has in the past. In a few months, they will be ripe. Then I will pick them. :-)

            91

            • #
              Annie

              Just bought our first local cherries of the season. They are always marvellous. The orchard is near Alexandra. There is another at Yarck. Whooppee!
              I planted a little cherry tree and it has a very few well-protected fruits on it. I love cherries!

              51

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          … explain all that was wrong, go into fine detail, …

          And thus, you gave him a chance to make a difference, and to expand everybody’s knowledge.

          But what did we get:

          … you can throw around insults, how clever.

          I didn’t see any insult. Did anybody else see an insult? Since when, was asking for an explaination in detail, an insult?

          Harry then goes on to say:

          I can sum up what is wrong with it in one word – cherry-pick

          Putting aside the fact that “cherry pick” is actually two words, whether hyphonated or not; Harry is accusing Breitbart of publishing an article that appears to be based on facts presented in some other articles. I would call that a review, or a summary, or a consolidation of ideas, possibly helping the reader to arrive at their own logical conclusion.

          The conclusion I draw from this little exercise, is that Harry is not very comfortable dealing with people who are used to thinking for themselves, and who seek sources of information that are factual, and well researched, even if not politically correct, within the Democratic Party’s lexicon.

          131

      • #
        Jim Poulos

        See, Harry, that there is inconsistency – you bleet about how global warming is causing climate change and destroying the planet yet you vigorously challenge any research that indicates global warming is natural and temporary – do you belong to a ‘Death Cult’?

        353

      • #
        Andy Pattullo

        The Breitbart article was accurate. What was wrong with it was it didn’t follow religious dogma. A large part of the media have consistently displayed a perverse bias in reporting only those items that seem to support CAGW, and ignoring a mass of scientific evidence that points to other primary drivers of climate, and minimal CO2 influence. Some media outlets have been so foolishly honest as to publicly state their policy of preventing publication of everything contrary to their pet theory.

        263

        • #
          ianl8888

          … contrary to their pet theory

          Hypothesis, please, not “theory”.

          The difference is crucial.

          181

          • #
            AndyG55

            …. assumption.

            76

          • #

            By now climate change can be called a theory — the set of knowledge about a subject that has heavily observed and and is internally consistent — and not just a hypothesis. Just like Einstein’s baby is call the theory of general realativity.

            526

            • #
              AndyG55

              No, it is a FAILED barely-was-ever hypothesis.

              Just like you are a failed sci-fantasy writer.

              Models built on the hypothesis have failed miserably

              They even had to change the name from “global warming™” to “climate change™”, because the name was a FAIL.

              Even the new name is an abject FAILURE because the climate has been remarkably stable for the last 100+ years.

              The Global warming part is also a monumental fail, with only short periods of regional step EL Nino event warming.

              Parts of the globe not affected by El Nino events, have NOT WARMED..

              The slight beneficial warming IS NOT GLOBAL.

              The CO2 warming assumption/cover-all hypothesis, has FAILED MISERABLY.

              206

            • #
              James Bradley

              David Appell,

              A theory that can be otherwise explained by numerous other phenomena and observations commencing with historical and archeological data proving natural variation is not a theory it’s an ideology.

              194

            • #
              sophocles

              David:
              Climate is known to have changed continuously for over 4GY (4 billion years). A few of the current explanations for that changing, especially over the last century, especially those emanating from the IPCC, constitute hypotheses. They cannot possibly be called a theory until they can make reliable or consistently accurate (within reasonable bounds of error) predictions and those few cannot. At all.

              So wide of the mark are most of those projections that the English weather forecaster, Piers Corban, made a lot of money betting against the UK Met Office and their “It’s CO2″ computer modelled forecasts.

              The “projections” ascribed to “the computer models” still can’t get it right even after twenty six years. They are well past their “Use By” date.

              No David. Such a magnificent long term record of Unsuccessful “Projections” means it’s all hypothetical, not theoretical.

              122

              • #

                sophocles wrote:
                December 3, 2016 at 6:24 pm · Reply
                “Climate is known to have changed continuously for over 4GY (4 billion years).”

                And CO2 has always been part of that changed.

                Those episodes are why we know the role played by CO2.
                [Since you are always demanding the evidence, elsewhere in this blog, please provide your evidence that CO2 has always been part of 'that changed' (sic)] Fly

                28

            • #
              tom0mason

              DA
              “By now climate change can be called a theory”

              No, no, no, David it is called guesswork based on a failed ideas from history saying the excess CO2 causes bad things to happen. To be a theory there would have to be some real evidence established (and verified) from observations of this world. More than 100 years of failure, surely it is about time the idea was dropped.

              By the way how are the climate models doing, still lagging miles behind the real world observations as far as I see.

              92

              • #

                thomasson: So you haven’t taken the time to learn CO2′s role in the greenhouse effect or enhanced GFE?

                Why is that? If you are interested in climate change, why haven’t you tried to learn about it?

                [Appell, you are wasting our time. Threadbombing with loaded uninformed questions. It's about Feedbacks Appell - Jo]

                29

              • #

                Jo, it is telling how you routinely criticize, and sometimes censor, dissenting comments but never comments that agree with you. Why is that?

                [Some people say there is no such thing as a stupid question. This comment defies that kind of notion. David, you should thank us for using our discretion appropriately and not letting this get approved]ED

                27

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                Oops! Bad for Appell, it got approved. LOL

                [ :) ] ED

                41

              • #

                Jo, it’s well known that your censor dissidents here. I’ve heard from, or of, many of them.

                14

              • #

                I have to monitor people who make 53 comments (published so far) on a thread of 462. It’s my role to allow free conversation but to limit the dominating bores. That’s those who abuse their publishing rights by posting many unsubstantiated, uninformed, illogical comments, and who fill up threads with junk about “moderation”.

                It is typical of your religious blindness that you can complain about being censored and getting personal answers when your comments take up over 10% of the entire conversation. Not enough for you eh? It’s never enough.

                PS: Congrats on connecting with Harry. Both of you are not welcome on WUWT I hear, yet I allow you to fill 10% of a thread, you breach the commenting rules, we try to help you, and you still waste our time complaining? I presume you are aiming to get kicked off, and are disappointed I have not banned you?

                42

              • #

                Jo, your censorship is well known.

                I am replying to questions here. Even that is forbidden? And I’m not doing it with all the crap and name calling you let others do to me. Why is that? You can’t even let a comment of mine be published with commenting on it yourself.

                I don’t know who Harry is. I’m proud to be censored at Watts — he too does a lot of it, to create an echo chamber. He has banned most of the scientific bloggers I know.

                Why haven’t you published your deletion of Phil Jourdan’s comment, and keep that hidden from your readers, and from Jourdan himself?

                http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2016/12/jo-nova-update.html

                [David, Phil uses a real name and has been given an opportunity to explain. The comment has been removed the removal isn't "hidden". It certainly isn't "hidden from Jourdan himself". Your claims in the last sentence are false.] ED

                16

              • #
                tom0mason

                David Appell
                December 7, 2016 at 5:10 pm

                Can you provide an internationally recognized definition for the greenhouse effect or enhanced GFE?

                No?
                Well I have quite a list from Universities from around the world and they’re are not identical in language, method, or effect(s).

                In other words the ain’t one.
                It is not scientific, it is not even rational, after all CO2 molecules action on the lower atmosphere is only theoretically possible in unrealistic models and overblown projects trotted out as real science.

                From Dr. Curry’s Executive Summary of her report to a group of attorneys:

                “Key summary points:

                ▪ GCMs have not been subject to the rigorous verification and validation procedures that is the norm for engineering and regulatory science.

                ▪ There are valid concerns about a fundamental lack of predictability in the complex
                nonlinear climate system.

                ▪ There are numerous arguments supporting the conclusion that climate models are not fit for the purpose of identifying with high confidence the proportional amount of natural versus human causes to the 20th century warming.

                ▪ There is growing evidence that climate models predict too much warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

                ▪ The climate model simulation results for the 21st century reported by the IPCC do not include key elements of climate variability, and hence are not useful as projections for how the 21st century climate will actually evolve.

                Climate models are useful tools for conducting scientific research to understand the climate system. However, the above points support the conclusion that current GCM climate models are not fit for the purpose of attributing the causes of 20th century warming or for predicting global or regional climate change on timescales of decades to centuries, with any high level of confidence. By extension, GCMs are not fit for the purpose of justifying political policies to fundamentally alter world social, economic and energy systems. It is this application of climate model results that fuels the vociferousness of the debate surrounding climate models.”

                The last part about “… GCMs are not fit for the purpose of justifying political policies to fundamentally alter world social, economic and energy systems.” is just one reason for any sane person, liberal or conservative, to be skeptical about CAGW.
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                41

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                Jo, it’s well known that your censor dissidents here.

                Dissidents? I thought you were part of the “consensus”? LOL! How the worm has turned. And Trump still has 5 weeks to go before he becomes president!

                52

              • #

                Jo, your censorship is well known.

                In your own head David. I’ve published over 50 of your comments on this one thread. You “know” that’s censorship (I see you hide that from your readers?) It doesn’t matter what I do. You simply can’t handle the truth eh?

                I am replying to questions here. Even that is forbidden? And I’m not doing it with all the crap and name calling you let others do to me. Why is that? You can’t even let a comment of mine be published with commenting on it yourself.

                \

                I know complex instructions are hard for you, but it’s the Rules. People who post only a few comments get away with dilute, me too, and some junk. People who post 50 comments need to do a lot better. See the rules. You are failing the simple policies about 6 ways. Self Snip. Illogical. Repetitious. About moderation. And worst, perhaps the biggest crime, … boring.

                Moderation here is based on the pattern, not necessarily each individual comment. Too hard for you to grasp?

                “I’m proud to be censored at Watts”

                Exactly, thanks for effectively admitting you hope to get banned here too.

                Why haven’t you published your deletion of Phil Jourdan’s comment, and keep that hidden from your readers, and from Jourdan himself?

                http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2016/12/jo-nova-update.html

                When I deleted it I wrote: “[SNIP, pending confirmation/substantiation - Jo]. ”

                When you made it clear you really wanted me to delete AND then publish his accusation in your comment. I did. The Streisand effect is working against you here. I’ve now published Phil’s reply, so the link is up too. Was that what you wanted?

                I see that while you accuse me of not updating, you haven’t updated your own page and don’t link to this discussion. Too scared your readers will see your domination, the lack of censorship, and our replies?

                So will you publish a link to this page or will you hide it from your readers? Are you honest enough to update your own page?

                51

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                Something perhpas not completely off topic:
                Useful information pertaining to the preparation of cider:

                Preparing apples for cider making
                Preparation is largely about chucking out rotten apples. If you use these in your cider you get an undrinkable brew with a foul smell.

                31

              • #
                AndyG55

                “If you are interested in climate change, why haven’t you tried to learn about it?”

                Seems you have only learnt the most basic propaganda pap.

                Did you fail Cook’s Climate 101 course or something ??

                It is very clear that tom0mason has considerably more knowledge about climate than you do.

                You, on the other hand, are totally locked into a brain-washed miasma that does not allow you to get past even the most basic lies or mistruths of the AGW scam no matter what the evidence against them.

                You do not have the ability to learn, because you don’t want to learn..

                The AGW scam is your whole life.

                It is the only thing you exist for.. and that is really pathetic.

                51

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                @Appell – David – thanks for the quote! Now all can read about your crimes on your own website! I noticed you did not post the link to the article. Maybe you do not want your sock puppet, Harry Twinrodent, reading about it?

                LOL! I also noted you scurried into dark recesses once I provided the documentation of your crimes. You truly are a reprehenible person.

                And Harry, just so you know, your attack on your puppet master site is affirmation of your own sins. You should learn that so you do not keep making the same mistake.

                22

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              A theory must be self-consistent, complete, repeatable, and reproducable.

              Climate change meets none of these criteria. At best it is a hypothesis. But in reality, it is closer to being merely a supposition, based on random phenomina.

              53

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Rereke Whakaaro.

                “A theory must be self-consistent, complete, repeatable, and reproducable.”

                I sometimes wonder who you are trying to lecture about scientific theories, and why you think you are an authority?

                [Harry, If you want to argue with Rereke, be my guest. But you'll come out the loser. Just say the word and I'll approve this comment.] AZ

                38

              • #

                Another waste of time empty comment. Harry, this is why I publish your “best” comments straight away (as in least awful) but trash the rest. You almost never make an argument, never a point. It’s just the same old same old variation of ad hom, “expert” authority that the sheep follow, or this insult — empty nothingness.

                104

              • #

                CO2 warming meets those criteria.

                Why haven’t you taken the time to learn the evidence?

                Meets “what” criteria exactly? – Jo

                35

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Thank you for the vote of confidence AZ, and thank you for approving his comment. I note that Jo stepped into the breach.

                That is probabably just as well. I hate having a battle of wits, with an unarmed person.

                74

              • #

                JoNova wrote: “Meets “what” criteria exactly? – Jo”

                The criteria stated in the comment I responded to.

                “A theory must be self-consistent, complete, repeatable, and reproducable.”

                A climate model is just a calculation, based on the laws of physics. The laws are expressed as partial differential equations. A computer is used to solve these equations, as best as computer power allows.

                15

              • #

                Appell, if you think climate models are only based on “laws of physics” it’s not even worth having this conversation. Seriously, you think climate models are not loading approximations, best guesses and estimates and assumptions into their calculations?

                As for your criteria… you provided nothing. The Great David Appell (remind us of your genius qualifications?) says so, doesn’t even bother to try adding anything to the conversation, and then wonders why I don’t drop everything in my day to rush to read and approve another empty comment? Appell, you specialize in nothingness, diluting the conversation.

                52

              • #

                Nova: You clearly don’t know anything about physics — your degree is in biology, right. Not a lot of PDE solving there I’m sure.

                EVERY calculation in physics, bar none, requires approximations, assumptions and estimates in it — ALL OF THEM. But since you’ve never done a single one of these calculations, you have no way knowing, do you?

                Do you even know what a partial differential equation is, let alone how to solve one?

                Have you ever once read the mathematical discription of a climage model? Do you need pointed to a couple of them?

                “As for your criteria… you provided nothing. The Great David Appell (remind us of your genius qualifications?) says so, doesn’t even bother to try adding anything to the conversation, and then wonders why I don’t drop everything in my day to rush to read and approve another empty comment? Appell, you specialize in nothingness, diluting the conversation.”

                Answered already. It’s too bad you can’t read. And that you don’t understand the mathematics.

                14

              • #

                True-to-form: David Appell, Ad hom fallacy, Tick.

                Just as I predicted.

                No argument at all.

                If only you understood the models before you stuck your reputation on defending them.

                52

              • #
                AndyG55

                WELL SAID , Jo. !!

                And totally and absolutely correct.

                Appell = empty, baseless, propaganda pap. !!

                32

              • #
                AndyG55

                “You clearly don’t know anything about physics “

                ROFLMAO.. says the low-end sci-fantasy writer.

                Appell, you have proven time and time again you are a scientific and mathematical NON-entity. Your understanding of both is WOEFUL at best.

                A wannabee… in your own scrambled egotistical mind. Nothing more.

                32

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                A climate model is just a calculation, based on the laws of physics.

                A shame Appell is not also over at Dr. Curry’s blog as there is one of his sock puppets over there claiming tat the climate model is proof of the Hypothesis!

                But Jo Nova is correct. Climate models have some laws of physics in them, but mostly they are built of ignorant assumptions and regression of past behavior. The regression is the “X” in the equation as they have no clue why the climate behaved the way in the past, and are trying to figure it out. WHich has been done very poorly given that the models are not even close to reality.

                P.S. – The “ignorant” in the assumptions is not meant as a slur, but simple reality. No one knows all the factors involved with climate change, and because of AGW, there does not seem a lot of interest in finding what the rest of the story is.

                42

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                David,

                We could give you a list of the people who contribute here, who understand the Physics, and the Higher Mathematics. [snip]

                32

              • #

                PhilJourdan wrote:
                “But Jo Nova is correct. Climate models have some laws of physics in them, but mostly they are built of ignorant assumptions and regression of past behavior.”

                False. See

                NASA GISS GCM Model E: Model Description and Reference Manual http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/modelE.html

                “Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 3.0),” NCAR Technical Note NCAR/TN–464+STR, June 2004.
                http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/docs/description/description.pdf

                MPI-Report No. 349 – E. Roeckner, G. Bäuml, L. Bonaventura, R. Brokopf, M. Esch, M. Giorgetta, S. Hagemann, I. Kirchner, L. Kornblueh, E. Manzini, A. Rhodin, U. Schlese, U. Schulzweida, A. Tompkins (2003): The atmospheric general circulation model ECHAM 5. PART I: Model description.
                http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/publikationen/Reports/max_scirep_349.pdf
                via
                http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/science/models/echam.html

                23

            • #
              Vlad the Impaler

              Mr. Appell:

              Since I do not know your native language, I would attempt to show you that the word, “Theory”, has two meanings within Science, and the English language in particular.

              In one use, a ‘theory’ is one of the steps in the Scientific Methodology. We start with a guess, or an hypothesis, and do some testing, investigation, and experimentation. If the results a repeatable across investigators, at some point the hypothesis may be elevated to the level of being a ‘theory’. Once we reach a point where the ‘theory’ has been refined, tested, re-tested, and re-re-tested, it may eventually become a Law (e.g., Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation).

              In the other context, the word ‘theory’ can also mean the governing principals of some phenomenon. For example, many decades ago I learned the Theory of Elliptical Integrals. These were not guesses, or hypotheses; these were the processes and procedures used in elliptical integration. I now teach elliptical integrals to my Math students, among many other Mathematics and their associated ‘theory’.

              Hope that helps, and my best regards,

              Vlad

              53

              • #

                Vlad: scientist use the word “theory” to mean a body of knowledge from proved hypotheses.

                They rarely use the word in your first sense, though the public thinks they do. And once in awhile scientists do use it that way. But not often. The usage follows from the context.

                Best.

                36

              • #
                Vlad the Impaler

                Mr. Appell:

                It appears to me that you have some misconceptions. Your statement, ‘ scientist (sic) use the word “theory” to mean a body of knowledge from proved hypotheses ‘ is essentially the same as my description — hypothesis, testing, refinement, theory, and if it succeeds for a long time, it might eventually become a Law.

                This phrase ‘proved hypotheses’ is most troubling. Hypotheses cannot be proven; they can only be tested. Einstein stated (regarding his newly published findings on Relativity) that, ‘no amount of experimentation can prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.’ So, yes, a “theory” can be a body of knowledge, but it remains a work in progress, and only becomes a theory when it does not fail. Once it does, it is (or should be) discarded.

                As I have degrees in Science, and Math, I know whereof I speak. E. g., though it is accepted Science these days, the Theory of Plate Tectonics is still a work in progress. We can see it happening, it explain things, but still has some gaps in the overall picture.

                The main subject of this forum, provided by our lovely hostess with the mostest, is climate change and the findings of the IPCC. The hypothesis that carbon dioxide, a trace gas, controls average global temperatures, should have been discarded long ago. Examination of geological history shows little, if any, evidence that temperatures respond to some mythical “forcing” from CO2. The 750 million-year record of T vs CO2 is quite definitive. For example, in the Cryogenian Period, the estimates for CO2 concentration range from 4% up to 13% of the atmosphere (by volume) [compared to today which is 0.04%]. At the time of this very high CO2 concentration, Earth was experiencing episodic ice ages; in some venues, it is often called “Snowball Earth”.

                Further, it becomes obvious that the estimate the IPCC uses of ’3 Celsius degrees per doubling’ is way off the mark. Many commenters here and elsewhere have pointed out that the IPCC value is much too high; perhaps by as much as 2X or 3X.

                I am going to presume that a moderator or someone will review this missive, and upon doing so, will insert the 750 million year record (since I do not know how to), and that list of papers that our hostess with the mostest compiled, which shows some 30 researchers findings that the “forcing” from CO2 is much less than what the IPCC et alassume. I took the values published, and turned them into a time series, and found a least-squares linear regression of the data; the trend is clear: researchers are “finding” that the value they use for CO2 “forcing” is on a down-trend as they approach the realistic value for CO2-forcing (less than one Celsius degree per doubling; in other words, we’ve nothing to fear from more CO2).

                On that basis, the hypothesis of man-caused global climate change must be rejected. I have done so, Jo has done so (after first having been a “believer”, and changing her mind once she examined the flimsy evidence for CAGW).

                As was pointed out earlier, whatever is happening to global climate today is no different from what has been happening for over four billion (four thousand million, for our Commonwealth brethren)years.

                Regards to you and yours,

                Vlad

                32

              • #

                Vlad wrote:
                “The 750 million-year record of T vs CO2 is quite definitive. For example, in the Cryogenian Period, the estimates for CO2 concentration range from 4% up to 13% of the atmosphere (by volume) [compared to today which is 0.04%]. At the time of this very high CO2 concentration, Earth was experiencing episodic ice ages; in some venues, it is often called “Snowball Earth”.”

                Citation?

                The Sun gains about 1% in intensity every 110 Myrs (basic solar science). So 750 Mya was almost 7% cooler than today — about 90 W/m2, with reduction via the albedo, which is huge. (Recall today’s CO2 forcing is only 2 W/m2).

                That’s easily enough to cause an ice age even when CO2 was higher than today. But in fact the data (which you have yet to cite) is not very good from back then — there are often gaps of 10 Myr between data points, and much of that long-ago data comes from carbon models.

                See Dana Royer (2006).
                http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf

                44

              • #
                Vlad the Deplorable Implaer

                Mr. Appell:

                The chart to which I refer is easily found: place into a search engine, ’750 million year T vs CO2′. About 100,000 results will appear.

                I thought I could persuade our lovely hostess (with the mostest!) or a mod to insert it into a previous comment (note that Jo placed a chart into one of her comments).

                Indeed! The sun was less luminous in the NeoProterozoic!

                Which makes one wonder, WHY would global climate ever have been warm under those conditions? According to people like you, the sun is of minor influence in global climate, so trying to cite it as a reason for cold is self-contradictory. You hypothesize that the controller of global climate is carbon dioxide, and virtually nothing else (so a cross-correlation of the two parameters would allow us to identify potential cause/effect; I do not know what you are waiting for, google it, and run the X-corr … … … unless you’re afraid to!).

                “The data is (sic) not very good from back then,” according to you. Yes, I see; anything which contradicts your belief is ‘tainted’. So what time frame of T vs CO2 do you accept? Just the past two hundred years? Jo cited the problems with recently adjusted “data” upblog. I think you should apologize to the thousands of workers who have dedicated their careers to studying paleoclimatology, disparaging their work. I see a great deal of validity in the data they have teased out from so long ago.

                In my undergrad days, we had bits and pieces of data going back only into the Cretaceous. We knew there had been PreCambrian ice ages, but they were indefinite. The data on the 750-m.a. chart are reliable, and robust. You have definitive proof these data are wrong, show it!

                I do believe you could benefit from a perusal of Gradstein, Ogg, and Ogg, Geologic Time Scale, and the paleochemical charts they include (GTS 2016 is in press; advance copy sales expected to be fulfilled in early 2017). Do feel free to tell all those researchers who have worked out (painstakingly in some cases) the geochemical environments of the past. I’m sure they’d benefit from your expert insight.

                My regards to you, but less until I see a cross-correlation of T vs CO2,

                Vlad the Deplorable Impaler (my new moniker)

                [Vlad, with 100,000 hits on a search it's not likely that we'd find the right graph. If you have a specific link use it. If you want us to insert an image it has to be a work that is not protected or used by permission (granted in writing by the creator) obviously this gets complicated. Links are best.] ED

                22

              • #

                Vlad, I’m not going hunting for any chart you have in mind. Provide a URL or I’m done on this.

                16

              • #
                Vlad the Deplorable Impaler

                Hi ED:

                Yes, of course; I sent an e-mail Thursday morning US time (which was probably late Thursday evening in Australia) with an attachment, to the address. I wasn’t sure if anyone would find the right one (there are multiple copies of it around the web).

                I do not expect there is any problem w/ copyright on the publicly available copy; it has appeared numerous places.

                It sounds like Mr. Appell has lost interest; my guess is that he does not possess the Math background to run any analysis on these data. Once he sees it, he’ll know that

                1) the IPCC-derived ‘climate sensitivity’ value is beyond wrong;

                2) if anything, the record shows that temperature drives carbon dioxide concentration, not the other way around.

                Thanks in advance if you are able to locate the e-mail (sent from my address on file w/ JoNova).

                My regards to Jo, David, and all the mods,

                Vlad

                40

              • #

                Vlad, I haven’t lost interest. I simply want to know what graph I’m supposed to comment on.

                Again, you have to provide a URL.

                PS: Jo, you sure leave a lot of my responses unmoderated. Do you do this to everyone?

                Yes, to all the dominating bores who breach this sites policy by not self-snipping, and by singlehandedly filling 10% of the thread with junky nothingness and comments about moderation. If only you had scientific evidence, instead of an endless litany of ad hom or “authority” fallacies? – Jo

                12

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              Showing your scientific ignorance again. Before it can be a “theory”, it has to be a testable hypothesis, AND the null hypothesis has to have been disproven. Neither of which has been done!

              Have you succeeded at anything you have tried?

              63

              • #

                Sorry, but scientists rarely, if ever, disprove the null hypothesis.

                They just conclude the evidence doesn’t support the hypothesis, and move on.

                The scientific process is less like you read in Ch 1 of textbooks and more like you read in Feyerbend.

                38

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Scientists rarely, if ever, disprove the null hypothesis.

                In which case, they are not researching science. Because knowledge comes from attempting to disprove the null hypothesis. That is where you actually learn something, and increase your knowledge of science, and the scientific lexicon. It is a great feeling, when it happens – a moment of euphoria.

                Just assuming that the evidence doesn’t support the null hypothesis is a bureaucratic response to getting the business out of the way by lunch time. Which is obviously the current state of Climate “Science”.

                These things are not determined by committee. Research scientists do not discover aspects of the physical world by taking a vote. They discover things by saying …”What the F…?”

                I am sorry David, but it is clear to me that you are not a scientist. Neither by training, nor by inclination. I wouldn’t even class you as a science writer, nor a capable hobbyist.

                60

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                ANother lie. In science, that is step 1 in proving an alternate hypothesis. And it is done ALL the time in real science.

                But then you have already told us you know nothing of science.

                60

              • #
                AndyG55

                “They just conclude the evidence doesn’t support the hypothesis, and move on.”

                But the FAILED CO2 warming hypothesis is not supported by any evidence what-so-ever.

                So you really should move on.

                32

      • #
        TdeF

        Harry, what is the difference and why does it matter? Is the graph real or fake, because it shows a dramatic and significant cooling which cannot just be waved away.

        254

        • #

          All they’re talking about is a decline from the peak temperature helped by the El Nino: +1.34 C (GISS) in February of this year. It’s not unexpected, and 2016 will still be the warmest year on record.

          631

          • #
            AndyG55

            El Ninos warm the atmosphere.. so what!

            Next year there will not be an El Nino.

            146

          • #
            TdeF

            Doesn’t it worry you that El Nino, La Nina are not predictable by the computer models which predict a major rise in the temperature by now?

            Why are you so certain that the underlying warming assumptions are correct when everything which disagrees is presented as natural variation with no explanation other than a name?

            How can anyone be certain that the models are right when by now after thirty years since 1990 the world should have warmed a further 1/3 of 5C or 1.7C and it has not warmed at all?

            Is anyone certain that the +0.5C in 1980s was not just the change from themometers? Is anyone so sure what the global temperature was in 1900 when we had not even been to the poles or Everest or flew?

            Why is Global Warming a political issue? Why is everyone who supports the anti coal lobby on one side of politics, apart from communist countries?

            184

            • #

              No, it doesn’t worry me. Why shoud it?

              They are natural fluctuations, more like weather. They tend to average out over the long term.

              25

              • #
                AndyG55

                “They are natural fluctuations, more like weather”

                Finally Appell admits that the small amount of warming, which is totally from El Ninos and ocean oscillations, is due to “natural fluctuations”.

                You are finally making some progress. !!

                And yes, they will average out over the long term.

                The Grand Solar Maximum which included the 4 strongest solar cycles in well over 400 years, is ended.

                La Nina will now have its turn to govern.

                That means COOLING !!

                21

          • #
            James Bradley

            You really are in a death cult, Appell.

            155

          • #
            Raven

            . . It’s not unexpected. .

            OK, please provide evidence of the prediction.
            Be precise in your answer, please.

            102

          • #
            Raven

            . . 2016 will still be the warmest year on record.

            It’s not unexpected.

            Notice anything?
            That’s right, the whole Global Warming Science™ has never been demonstrated to exceeded the bounds of the null hypophysis . . and that assumes we know what they are.

            103

          • #
            tom0mason

            And the whole idea of AGW is based on the solar peak of the 1980s-1990 giving the appearance that temperature track CO2 levels. This has never happened since, so it was just a transitory weather effect of the time.
            Since then the AGW boondoggle has been losing momentum, as slowly the world realizes that ‘climate science™’ and ‘climate scientist™’ really know every little but shout very loudly.

            64

          • #
            tom0mason

            David Appell
            “It’s not unexpected, and 2016 will still be the warmest year on record.”
            I strongly suggest you explain to these people and their families why 2016 is the warmest year and why it has any importance. I would gladly add to a fund, as I’m sure many here would, to take you round to see all these people and explain your stance.

            441 settlements in the provinces of Van, Bitlis, Mus and Hakkari blocked by snow in Turkey.

            In Lebanon citrus growers in the Akkar plain say fruit trees ravaged by truly Unprecedented low temperatures.

            15 people in Poland die of frostbite in November.

            29 Nov 2016 – Snowfall in Saudi Arabia “It is all the news in India, Russia, and Arabic countries but not in the West!”

            El Kuwait. 28th of November. TASS.

            Extremely rare natural phenomenon is observed currently in the northern and central regions of Saudi Arabia.

            As the TV-channel “Al Arabia” reports, the sand dunes have changed their usual yellow-brown colour into brightly white, – snow has fallen there.

            Especially much snow has fallen in the areas around the towns of Shaqra in the center of the country and Tabuk in the North-West.

            In the town Tabarjal (Northern province of Al-Jawf) temperature has dropped to minus three Celsius, while in the city of Al Qurayyat near the Jordanian border – to minus one degree Celsius.

            https://news.mail.ru/society/27945470/?frommail=1

            https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2016/11/27/Below-zero-Snow-covers-sand-in-some-Saudi-regions-.html

            26 Nov 2016 – Snow has surrounded a group of douars in Amilmas, Taroudant province threatening villagers in southern Morocco with starvation

            26 Nov 2016 Tokyo – First snow observed on the ground in November in 142 years

            And of course there is South America…

            South America’s springtime has been very cold with short periods (no more than a week) of ‘previously normal’ warmer days followed by cyclones, storms, hail, frosts and temperatures close to zero (Celsius) in mid-latitudes. It has even snowed in Argentina just 30 days before the solstice.

            In the south of Brazil temperature has fallen close to zero at 800m and 7C at sea level. In the State of Sao Paulo temperature anomaly reached -4C for many days in-a-row. Even the State of Acre in the Amazonia (tropical region) has been hit by low temperatures.

            The forecasts are now pointing to more incoming freeze reaching the region between the end of November and the beginning of December. If it doesn’t warm up in the last 3 weeks of springtime this means the region is coming to a situation of almost no-real springtime happening but only a kind of extension of the winter season. And we might take into consideration the meteorological winter has started 60 days ahead of time (by the end of April, not June). So the southern hemisphere is going through almost 7 consecutive months of wintertime for now.

            Meteorologists are now revising the temperatures recorded in the last years and have found that, except for the Super El Niño (from the end of 2014 to the beginning of 2016), the years of 2008, 2010, 2013 and now 2016 has consistently been showing record-low-declining temperatures for the region.

            Will 2017 be a ‘no-summertime year’ as people reported during the Maunder’s?

            Here follows the analysis of a meteorological site from Brazil (Climatempo):

            https://www.climatempo.com.br/noticia/2016/11/18/frio-de-primavera-temperatura-de-1dc-no-sul-3512

            http://www.climatempo.com.br/noticia/2016/11/04/que-frio-e-esse–2785

            http://www.climatempo.com.br/noticia/2016/11/19/mais-frio-a-vista–3579

            The world is cooling and people are noticing David. The hypothesis was nice while it lasted, and it ran for a fair time but it is over. Hottest year or not people don’t care they all feel the cold coming.

            104

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Tdef.

          David Appell answered your question. I can elaborate a bit.

          The graph is real, and it shows cooling over land over a number of months. It is interesting. But for the article author to imply that it was somehow “ignored” by climate scientists is just a lie. It wasn’t ignored, it is just not all that significant. Whenever a warm spike occurs, it is assumed that the spike will decay. The data collected by RSS is variable and noisy, so it is not unusual that a “perfect storm” of natural cooling adds up from time to time. As I pointed out in another comment the “perfect storm” in this case can be explained by the natural cooling following a warm El Nino spike plus the Northern Hemisphere cooling due to Autumn – two cooling events add up to one bigger cooling event.

          Now, is the spike significant to global mean temperature? The answer is no, it’s scope is too limited.

          417

          • #
            tom0mason

            What logic — warm spikes are real effects of global boodoggling warming, cold spikes are just, er … well they’re not.

            143

          • #
            AndyG55

            “is the spike significant to global mean temperature?” NO.

            But its all they have to claim “hottest year EVAH”
            (in like 39 years or something since the cool period of the 1970s, 1980s)

            So you can bet your alarmist cult will use it to the hilt.

            55

          • #
            AndyG55

            There have been 38 other Autumns in the satellite record.

            NONE of them has such a deep and fast 8 month cooling event.

            It seems this drop is quite unusual.

            Stands out like **** **** on this graph.

            https://s19.postimg.org/yeucrzp4j/RSS_8_month.png

            75

          • #

            Now, is the spike significant to global mean temperature? The answer is no, it’s scope is too limited.

            Can you explain any possible significance to your expression “global mean temperature”? To whom, other than Climate Clown scammers, has such phrase any significance whatsoever! :-)

            63

      • #
        el gordo

        Harry the author looked at the opposing view, so generally it was reasonably balanced.

        At the moment I can’t confirm the temperature graph (the steepest drop in temperature on record) but Roy Spencer might clarify. Anybody seen his latest?

        134

        • #
          Environment Skeptic

          I get most of my news from The Accredited Times and here is what it says there..I suggest most here are not very well informed.. [sarc] [We appreciate your making sure we know you're being sarcastic.] AZ

          https://www.accredited-times.com/2016/11/30/lord-monckton-a-pioneer-of-fake-science/

          Lord Monckton – A Pioneer Of Fake Science
          “One can only explain this uncanny level of dedication to fake science by assuming that he is working for powerful “interests who stand to lose millions of dollars as a result of measures to tackle climate change. We all know that many “powerful lobbyists such as oil and coal companies and the Koch Brothers lurk behind almost every individual and group who “questions the science of climate change, and experts suspect that Monckton is personally on their payroll. It’s sad that “some people in positions of power such as Monckton choose to use their influence for personal gain instead of doing good “in the world, as others like Al Gore and Obama have done.

          “Through the efforts of shills like Monckton, immeasurable damage has been done to climate science, which will take years “to undo. At this point, we really have to put the environment before the luxury of ‘free speech’, and start prosecuting “people for denying settled science, as the truth is, these people are contributing to the destruction of the very planet “that we inhabit, and are destroying the futures of millions of children around the world. Climate change denial simple has “to stop, and if stopping it means new laws and speedy trials for deniers, then so be it.

          11

    • #
      AndyG55

      The change in the RSS land data in the 8 months since the peak of the El Nino transient is -1.17ºC.

      This is BY FAR the fastest and deepest 8 month drop in the whole of the RSS land data.

      https://s19.postimg.org/yeucrzp4j/RSS_8_month.png

      REAL DATA, Twotter.. you should try it one day.

      306

      • #
        el gordo

        That’s terrific Andy, do you think it will stay down or bounce back?

        72

        • #
          AndyG55

          My call is that the actual temps will level out for a month or so, then start to gradually ease downwards.

          The main part of the El Nino transient has passed.

          135

          • #
            AndyG55

            Just received word that full UAH data is out. (that very early)

            Looks like UAH land has gone up a bit. Looks like mainly due to Southern Hemisphere.

            Will look at it more closely later.

            76

          • #
            Glen Michel

            Still a lot of ocean heat in the Pacific to divest.If the east/west trades pick up I gather some further cooling will eventuate.Coupling with surface water and a upsurge of denser material.Must check latest SST’s.

            72

          • #
            AndyG55

            “The main part of the El Nino transient has passed.”

            But there are still a lot of remnants that are taking a while to dissipate.

            96

            • #
              el gordo

              ENSO remains neutral and the IOD has given up its negative status.

              There’s talk around the traps that it may drop sharply then bounce back into hiatus mode.

              52

            • #
              el gordo

              The Antarctic oscillation (AAO) has been negative all month and the Arctic and North Atlantic oscillations are also negative.

              Its fantastic to watch climate changing modes, like the great climate shift of 1976, but having the opportunity of watching it in real time and not through a rear view mirror, is extraordinary.

              82

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        AndyG55.

        “This is BY FAR the fastest and deepest 8 month drop in the whole of the RSS land data.”

        What is an “8 month change in data”?

        514

  • #
    Mark D.

    In a week it might be a good time to buy Kellogg stock. Well, after a few marketing and PR execs are fired that is.

    242

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    While I dislike conflict, this particular case has an air of progress about it.

    Brexit, Trumpit and now Addit.

    101

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    Kelloggs can decide where it does and doesn’t advertise. Breitbart uses a shabby form of tabloid journalism, I can see why it does not appeal to Kellogs.

    746

    • #
      AndyG55

      And the population can decide to vote against Kellogg’s with their wallets.

      Good lucky Kellogg’s, you are going to need it ! ;-)

      316

      • #

        Kellogg’s 2015 revenue was $13.5 B with profits of $4.7 B. That comes from loyal customers. I’d expect about 95% of their consumers have no idea who Breitbart even, especially internationally, and would be just as appalled at Breitbart’s articles as most good people.

        715

        • #

          Dear David, and I’d expect you have no idea what the half who voted for Trump think. That “95%” is the same as “97%” isn’t it? Meaningless.

          Thanks to Kelloggs more people know about Breitbart today than did yesterday.

          216

          • #
            Mark D.

            Jo, I will wager most everything I own, that David Appell is not even up to the level of guessing.

            He is a pure propagandist.

            113

            • #
              AndyG55

              an impure propagandist. !

              Rotten to the appell core.

              86

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              He is actually quite a good propagandist. Whether that is by training, or natural talent, I can’t judge. I would need to see more of his work.

              I have noticed that David steps into the fray when Twinotter gets a bit overheated, looses the plot, and goes off-script.

              An example of Appell’s work:

              I’d expect about ??% of [people] would be just as appalled at [the target] as most good people.

              Appeal to morality, and a fact-free comment. Pure propaganda, and nicely executed.

              72

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                Browsing through the comments, it would appear to me that:

                Appell is a professional activist/propagandist, and as such is very much aware that CAGW is a huge con; but seeks recognition as an effective swindler, which assists him in his quest for fame and fortune.

                Harry, on the other hand, is a True Believer steeped in the Faith, and is unwilling to allow any amount of reason, logic or fact interfere with his conviction; very much like the proponents of witch craft in the eighteenth century.

                Is that a reasonable summation in your opinion Rereke?

                72

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Yes, that about sums it up, except for my observation that Harry is sort of “the Light Infantry”. He will skirmish around the edges of the issue, to test the strong points in the skeptic arguements, and by doing so, identify areas where Appell can launch an attack on the skeptic position.

                They use this tactic, not because they think they will change the attitudes of the regulars here, but rather to influence any visitors who are here as observers, or who are visiting by chance.

                41

            • #
              AndyG55

              “Appeal to morality, ..”

              Peak of irony coming from him!

              “…. and a fact-free comment.”

              Now there’s the Appell we all know.

              55

          • #
            RAH

            And possibly more important, more people now know which political basket Kellogg’s has placed their eggs in. Large donations to the Ford Foundation, George Soros, etc, and this politically motivated action against BeritBart make it clear that basket is the one that belongs to the political left and the globalists.

            40

          • #

            Thanks to Kelloggs more people know about Breitbart today than did yesterday.

            did I hear a backfire in the background there?

            20

          • #

            Jo: So? Most people consider Breitbart to be racist and anarchists. Moms buying cereal for their kids are going to dismiss them as kooks and crazies, as well they should, and keep buying the cereals their kids like.

            Jo, it is disappointing that you would join with a racist and zenophobic organization. Is that now a requirement of climate change denial, a test necessary to stay in the club?

            44

            • #

              Desperate attempt. Everyone can see you are fantasizing about “most people” and about me. You have to invent some reason to solve the cognitive dissonance, eh? Tough when the deplorables aren’t the monsters you really hope they are.

              You can’t quote anything. No facts, no surveys. no statements. You got nothin.

              64

            • #
              AndyG55

              “Most people consider Breitbart to be racist and anarchists.”

              No they don’t.

              Most people rejoice the fact that they present a more factual, less blatant propaganda, face than any of the far-left MSM.

              44

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                It is interesting that David Appell feels that he can speak for “most people”. Has he conducted a survey? Has it been published anywhere?

                40

              • #
                AndyG55

                I doubt Appell has the capability of ever conducting a survey of any sort.

                Even if he was, it would be so weighted with his unsupportable arrogance and egotism as to be totally and absolutely worthless.

                You know.. Like basically ALL his farcical comments.

                43

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              Link to the “most people” study. As Jo said, you got nuthin!

              What you really mean is YOU think that. But then only your echo chamber agrees with you. not most people. And not even thinking people.

              30

            • #
              tom0mason

              David Appell,

              “Most people consider Breitbart to be racist and anarchists.”

              I assume that your have official adjusted and homogenized figures to back-up this vacuous remark?

              31

          • #

            “That “95%” is the same as “97%” isn’t it?”

            I have no idea what this means. 95% didn’t vote for Trump.

            I know all about Trump voters. I grew up among them, in the mountains of western Pennsylvania.

            I know far, far more about them than you do, Jo — including about their racism, anti-Semititism, complaints, problems, difficulties, their getting screwed over, and dependence on government.

            26

            • #

              You said it “I’d expect about 95% of their consumers … would be just as appalled at Breitbart’s articles as most good people.”

              And I replied that your blustery, invented number “95%” was the same as the “97%” — meaning the infamous, fake “scientific consensus”.

              Keep leaving the hate quotes. Proves our point.

              44

            • #
              Mark D.

              And here we have a rare look into the soul of David Appell.

              David claims throughout this thread that Breitbart is xenophobic. Please compare what David has just typed about Trump voters. See how Trump voters are both foreign to and feared by Lefties

              Projection David, classic Projection

              40

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              You know nothing except anecdotes! you did not grow up with 60 million people! YOu are even clueless when lying!

              You have shown you cannot write, yet you claim to be a writer. You have shown you know no science, yet claim to be an expert. You have shown no compassion, yet claim to be compassionate.

              It is safe to say, based upon your own actions, that everything you claim is a lie. You have yet to demonstrate any that are not.

              41

        • #

          Please try to explain why their shares are dropping in price. Pissing on some advertising gimmick is one thing.
          Pissing on your investors is insanity! :-)

          90

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          Let’s update the DA Talley.

          He does not know how to write, but claims to be a writer.

          He knows nothing of science, yet claims AGW is now a theory.

          And now he claims to be the CEO of Kelloggs and have insight beyond what even the insiders at Kelloggs have!

          What other outlandish claim will he make next about some omniscient ability that is proven false with his first attempt at writing it?

          [snip]

          42

          • #

            The more you must resort to personal insults, the more I know you have no better responses. And no science.

            Says the non-stop hate-slur-and-slander-man. You are normally better than this David. Did you get an email from Harry Twinotter today? – Jo

            24

          • #
            AndyG55

            I see no insults.. just the truth.

            So David, if you take offense at that truth, its your problem., no-one else’s.

            34

            • #
              Mark D.

              I agree with you AndyG, there are no insults from Phil at all. David Appell seems to resort to that slur whenever he has no option.

              He is using more propaganda techniques to attempt to cover up his previous propaganda.

              40

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                It wouldn’t be so bad, and I wouldn’t be so offended, if his attempts at propaganda were not so amateurish. I know good propaganda when I see it, and his aint it.

                21

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Yes it can decide that but choosing to politicise its company has now tainted them as activists and will lose sales to the percentage of potential customers they just demeaned, not forgetting they rely on consistent repeat customers to profit its not a very smart business decision.

      Nice try Weevil.

      161

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Geez Harry I hope you don’t eat their products.What did the consumer publication “Choice” say once?”There is more nutrition in the packaging”

      112

  • #
    Radical Rodent

    Odd how the champions of the free market become its archenemy as soon as they are at the top of the pile.

    203

  • #
    mc

    No, no, no, it can’t be… the company that makes my beloved Fruit Loops and Coco-Pops is in danger of going bust because of a customer boycott, I can’t let it happen, I can’t! but what to do…of course!… grab all the credit cards I can find, jump in the station-wagon, go to the nearest auto-teller, max out my daily cash withdrawal, head for the local super-market and buy up every box of candy coated, golden flaked, just-like-a milkshake-only-crunchy goodness that I can lay my hands on and if that doesn’t help restore the fortunes of Mr Kellogg I don’t know…oh wait, isn’t that Brittney Spears is on the telly,,, just give me 5 minutes Mr Kellogg, ok maybe maybe 10… Ah stuff it, this chick is hot, I’m stayin in.

    181

  • #
    AndyG55

    Kellogg’s? .. I never did like Corn Flakes that much, anyway. ;-)

    196

  • #
    cedarhill

    The good and the better.

    The good is as the Trump opposition continues their “attacks” it just constantly reminds people why they voted for Trump in the first place. If this continues, Trump may even win California in 2020 (kidding).

    The better is that Kellogg is part of the huge food industry lobby which have foisted off the idea that carbohydrates and corn oils are simply great to “reduce the risk” of diseases — all of which is 100% false. Carbs are converted to sugars almost immediately by the body which produces insulin since unbound sugars cause huge problems in the body. More carbs, more insulin and, over time, type II diabetes from insulin resistance (aka “metabolic syndrome”). Sugars also cause inflammation of the arteries which contribute to heart attacks. The micro biologist in the past few years have figured out all the chem reactions of the metabolic pathways. An amazing piece of work. You actually should eat a high fat, low carb diet. We’d all be lots healthier without Kellogg since they’re killing you with carbs and their lobbying dollars.

    192

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Someone once claimed that the benefits of the average packaged Breakfast cereal could be duplicated with a cup of sugar and a mouthful of shredded cardboard.

      60

  • #

    Fed-up people learn fast they can do without the paid smirkers on the commercial channels and the paid scowlers on “serious” tax-funded media (like our sucky, manipulative ABC). A week without MSM and they wonder what the attraction ever was.

    A week or two without Froot Loops, Apple Jacks, Corn Flakes, Frosted Flakes, Rice Krispies, Special K, Cocoa Krispies, Pringles and Pop-Tarts…and punters might realise what they have NOT been missing on the breakie table.

    Briefly, when you are selling junk and people are actually buying it, just be grateful and stay humble. Don’t push stupendous luck.

    382

    • #
      Robert Rosicka

      Better still why don’t Kellogg’s refuse to sell their product to deplorables and republicans surely that will teach them a lesson .

      130

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        … why don’t Kellogg’s refuse to sell their product to deplorables and republicans …

        Because they can’t identify them, right now.

        Had the outcome of the US Federal election been different, I would have expected laws to have been passed to the effect that all deplorables would have to wear a badge on their coat, in public.

        Apparently that technique was tried somewhere in Europe, way before the current batch of politicians were born, but it was shown to be quite effective at the time. So there is a precident that provides justification for the same solution to be tried again.

        50

  • #
    DonB

    My email to Kellogg:

    CustomerCare@KelloggStore.com

    Dear political activists and cereal makers,

    Please take this in the best possible way: Your marketing and PR people are idiots. Do they believe only liberals eat cereals?

    I am boycotting Kellogg products.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/30/dumpkelloggs-kelloggs-declares-hate-45-million-americans-blacklisting-breitbart/

    Best wishes,
    Don Bxxxxxx

    262

  • #
    Gary

    Doesn’t Kelloggs buy some of its raw ingredients (corn, wheat) from mid-west farmers who don’t share its “values” and voted for Trump? Maybe it should switch to recycled NY Times newsprint in protest.

    292

  • #
    tom0mason

    You might as well eat highly sweetened cardboard for breakfast, it would probably taste the same as many breakfast cereals.

    Why not have eggs they are very healthy…
    The latest anecdote showing that the low-fat, high-carb diet is bogus comes with the news of Emma Morano, who today turned 117 today. She is thought to be the oldest person on the planet. A key to her long life, say reports HERE, has been her daily intake of three eggs per day.

    Ms Morano’s longevity, she admits, is partly down to genetics – her mother reached 91 and several sisters reached their centenary – and partly, she says, down to a rather unusual diet of three eggs – two raw – each day for more than 90 years.”

    100,000 eggs consumed over lifetime

    _____ — And now a word from our sponsors — _____
    ¯
    ¯

    :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

    Has the bottom fallen out of your world??
    Eat Kellogg’s BRAN FLAKES and …
    let the world fall out of your bottom!

    :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

    233

    • #
      GD

      tomOmason, I agree with your comment about ‘highly sweetened cardboard for breakfast’. I ate a raw egg for breakfast every morning during my school years. Mum disguised it in a glass of milk with nutmeg. She called it an ‘egg flip’. I reckon it offset the ‘sweetened cardboard’ that was the other half of my breakfast. To this day, I eat two eggs each morning. At sixty, my cholesterol is normal.

      Before the AGW scam, there was the fats/cholesterol scam, which led to high sugar diets and subsequent ‘low fat, hidden sugar’ products proliferating on supermarket shelves. While not being as costly in terms of governmental spending as AGW, the anti-dietary fat scam has cost as much in real life outcomes; increased obesity, heart disease and diabetes.

      222

      • #
        Mark Fraser

        We should recall that Kellog’s corn flakes were designed to be bland, so as not to sexually arouse brekkie eaters. Ironic that cornflakes are sometimes sprinkled on tuna casserole.

        153

      • #
        tom0mason

        I was always suspicious of the fats/cholesterol ideas.
        I understood that the mammalian bodies digestive system fully breaks down food into the required component parts. Indigestible parts of the food are excreted. Fats and cholesterol are broken-down into the prototype molecules the body either stores or uses. Under stimulation from other parts of our body the gut allows or block absorption of the nutrients. Our bodies have many inter-relating dependencies and feedback systems governing what gets through. The misunderstanding in most dietary and nutritional explanations is shown by the complete absence of mentioning the macrocosm of bacteria, yeasts and other microbes necessary in our gut to properly digest food. How our gut’s micro-biotic flora helps or hinders our use of nutrients is not understood, however it is known to have huge effects on our health and nutritional desires.
        The problem with sugar/salt/fats/cholesterol is as we age our ability to regulate our requirements for these nutrients becomes worse. The decline in this regulation is often exacerbated by living unhealthy sedentary lives, and eating too much refined sugar, salt and chemically altered fats.

        Breakfast cereals are a case in point where the blandness of whole grain porridge and gruel gave way to more processed crisp cereals, and now to extremely refined products full of sugars and salt, artificial colors and flavors, etc.

        122

        • #
          GD

          Refined sugar is the culprit. Refined sugar isn’t available in the natural world. Refined sugar makes up a large part of most processed foods. Almost everything you buy on the supermarket shelf contains refined sugar. It is unnecessary, however, due to the scare about ‘fats’, the excess sugar is used to provide the taste that the removal of the fats takes away.

          For most people, this excess of refined sugar isn’t a problem, unless consumed to excess. Unfortunately, today, processed foods, high in sugar, are consumed to excess by unknowing customers who are led to believe they are eating ‘healthily’.

          121

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            I worked in the sugar industry for some years. One of the problems was people who insisted that raw sugar was better and molasses worked wonders. I remember having to start the Caterpillar and charge (literally) the raw sugar pile in the warehouse with the bucket set edge first. That broke the crust and lumps could be scooped up and dumped onto the shaker.
            There were 2 sieves on the shaker, the top coarse one removed the large concrete like lumps plus the dead rats and pigeons. The smaller finer sieve removed the rat and pigeon [[snip] droppings]. What filtered out would be packed into 70 lb. hessian bags and thrown on the back of a truck and delivered to Health Stores, who would repack it into 2 & 4 lb. bags and sell it at double the price.
            When the Company decided to produce “raw sugar” for food use they installed all stainless steel equipment, steam sterilised the sugar and packed it into plastic. There was a torrent of complaints about it not having the proper taste.
            Molasses in the refinery wasn’t so carefully handled although the dead rats were filtered out. One worker drank a pint of (warm) molasses for a bet. He spent the next 3 weeks in hospital with intestine damage.
            As someone said – you could get the benefits (?) of molasses with a tablespoon of sugar and a teaspoon of Epsom’s Salts.
            White sugar is refined to a very pure state. The impurities left are made into soft brown sugar and golden syrup. Dark brown sugar is the impurities from cane sugar, and what is left is (refinery) molasses most of which goes to make rum.

            70

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          I wonder how many here are familiar with Red River cereal?
          I grew up on this stuff, and on a cold Manitoba morning my father would cook up a batch for the Percherons before harnessing them up.
          The only processing it has endured is a quick trip through the grinder. And it’s fantastic in meat loaf.
          Apparently they stopped selling it south of the border. Pity! Only in Canada, you say?

          40

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          I wonder how many here are familiar with Red River cereal?
          I grew up on this stuff, and on a cold Manitoba morning my father would cook up a batch for the Percherons before harnessing them up.
          The only processing it has endured is a quick trip through the grinder. And it’s fantastic in meat loaf.
          Apparently they stopped selling it south of the border. Pity! Only in Canada, you say?

          30

          • #
            Mark Fraser

            Red River took longer to cook than either oatmeal or cream of wheat. Hence, it was almost always badly scorched in the pot by the time we got it. To this day I won’t eat porridge. Edmonton was just as cold.

            20

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Eggs come from a cloaca,
        they go nice in a batter,
        but when producers of bland,
        show their political hand,
        it always comes out of the clacka.

        90

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          You are not fooling anybody Yonnie. Nobody thinks that you are Ruari, in drag.

          90

          • #
            Yonniestone

            It’s like nobody wants you unless you’ve got tits like Dolly Parton Bill Shorten……..

            51

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              I didn’t know that Dolly Parton, or Bill Shorten, for that matter, kept averies. What strange hobbies some celebrities have.

              40

      • #
        Glen Michel

        I love steak Tatar with raw egg in the crater.I’m going to have one for lunch.Anyone who would like a good recipe please tick(green)preferably.

        52

        • #
          Glen Michel

          Tartars of course we’re a semi- nomadic people from around present day Russland,or thereabouts.Raw meat was kept under the saddle to tenderise it.Maybe old Indian legend.How old Chief?So old nobody remember…

          41

          • #
            Glen Michel

            Due to popular demand!! 150g good lean beef chop finely into a mince.Add 2 dill pickles finely chopped plus a good tablespoon of Worcester sauce.Salt and pepper.Fashion into a large meatball and refrigerate until chilled.Now you can fashion your meatball into any shape you want.This is the real fun part!I like a cone look into which I dig a little crater.Sit back and look at your creation and then crack a fresh Goog into it.It appeals to volcanologists. Bon apéritif!

            41

    • #

      Pepsi is another commercial giant to come out against Trump.

      Its gifts to the world are even more bustin’-with-goodness than Kellogg’s: Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Lay’s, Gatorade, Tropicana, 7 Up, Doritos, Cheetos, Mirinda, Ruffles, Pepsi Max, Tostitos and Fritos. But don’t despair of “healthy alternatives”. They also sell tap water in plastic bottles with blue labels. Apparently this tap water is “the perfect companion for happy bodies everywhere”. Far from being a wasteful and hyper-expensive way to quench thirst, Pepsi’s tap water represents a “global initiative” to encourage people to, er, drink some water. (You don’t have to ask if Pepsi have jumped right on board with Michelle Obama’s campaign to improve the health of “our kids”. They can’t do enough!)

      Needless to say, Pepsi is terribly green these days and does all sorts of nice things for “the planet”. And it wants to save us from Trump – which probably rates as the ultimate “green job”.

      Sadly, partisan political posturings have not made “happy bodies” of shareholders, no doubt concerned about sales of Cheetos in fly-over country. I notice that Google and Wikipedia have had to do the sort of obliging thing they do for good globocrats and have moved the anti-Trump blatherings of the Pepsi CEO, Indra Nooyi, to the far end of the news and info queue with amazing speed.

      You know what, Indra? You make 20 million a year selling absolute junk, mostly to kids. Good luck to you. But don’t give us Hillary and World War 3 on top of Doritos and Pepsi Max.

      80

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    Politics is the new religion.

    Possibly the most profound line you have ever written, Jo.

    82

    • #
      tom0mason

      Maybe soon we’ll have a radicle change and religion will be the new religion!

      102

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I hope not. The last time we seriously tried it, we ended up with the Crusades. And we are still getting the occasional re-runs and spin-offs, from that series of mismanaged fiascos.

        30

    • #
      Dean from Ohio

      Politics is the new religion, but the new religion is the same as the old religion.

      Idolatry of the state has been with us since the Tower of Babel, and Progressives have fused it with worship of other idols: nature, sex and infant sacrifice.

      Progressivism poisons everything.

      20

  • #
    ken h

    To add to their potential downhill spiral, there is a video that apparently shows a Kellogg’s employee peeing in the cereal:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-caught-camera-urinating-cereal-kellogg-plant-article-1.2563060

    92

    • #
      Steve Keppel-Jones

      Urine trouble now!

      171

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Just from the stl photo, the stream seems to be a bit large.
      May be coming from a hose?
      Anybody watch the movie.

      91

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Had a look KK and a bit skeptical also, the origin of the stream is blurred out, I’d say it was faked during the labour dispute so if caught in the act it was just water, perhaps its part of the cleaning equipment for those machines also?

        50

  • #
    ken h

    More on Kellogg’s…they donated $900,000 to Black Lives Matter…the group that incites violence and promotes hatred of cops:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/01/kellogg-foundation-provided-nearly-1-million-support-black-lives-matter/

    182

  • #
    jim2

    From the link: The institutional left’s funding behemoth W.K. Kellogg Foundation has partnered with and given major donations to George Soros’s Open Society Institute and the Tides Center as part of its massive push to promote a far-left agenda.
    The W.K. Kellogg Foundation is the nonprofit arm of cereal and sweets giant Kellogg’s, based in Battle Creek, Michigan. The Kellogg Company is chiefly known for its breakfast brands, including Special K™ cereal, Eggo® waffles, and Pop-Tarts®; but its namesake nonprofit W.K. Kellogg Foundation is one of the largest institutional funders in world and is the seventh largest philanthropic foundation in the United States.

    The Kellogg’s website explains the history of the Foundation:

    As the United States sunk into the Depression, W.K. Kellogg declared, “I’ll invest in people.” He split shifts and hired new employees to work them. He also founded the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, whose mission — to help children realize their potential — complements that of the Kellogg Company to this day.

    In recent years, however, the focus of the Foundation has drifted away from just helping children toward promoting left-wing political issues.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/02/kellogg-foundation-gave-big-to-soros-organization-tides-foundation/

    152

  • #
    Leo Morgan

    “…big-government fans … struggle to remember what logical arguments look like. ”
    Well, yes.
    Except, I doubt that many of them ever knew.
    The culture wars are being lost in the classroom. We need to take action to ensure children are taught how to use logic, and what the nature of evidence is, and how to evaluate rationally, the loonie left will triumph.
    Strangely, the devastation they inflict will harm themselves as much as the rest of us, but their failure to recognize that means they act as if that devastation was what they desired.
    The time to act was thirty years ago. But better late than never.

    111

  • #
    Pathway

    Don’t throw stones at people who can sling ink.

    103

    • #
      tom0mason

      Where’s ink in rock-paper-scissors?

      82

      • #
        Vlad the Impaler

        Well, let us see:

        The ink, a modified hydrocarbon, must have come from the rock to begin with, but it ends up on the paper.

        But the scissors, which are steel, which came from iron ore, which came from a rock, is not good news for the paper or the ink thereon.

        But the paper, with or without the ink that came from the rock, is not good for the rock.

        And the rock, which gave rise to the ink on the paper (if present) and the scissors, is not good for the scissors.

        But then I suppose we could say that the rock also gave rise to the paper, since decomposed rock is something we call soil, which permits things called “trees” to grow, which when cut down by fossil-fueled chainsaws (which coincidentally came from rock also) and cut into lumber (at fossil-fueled lumber mills, which have really big saws made of steel, which comes from rock), the dregs of which are sent to paper mills (in fossil-fueled trucks, which consist of steel that came from rocks … ) which are powered by fossil-fuels … … … … …

        Somehow, it would seem that ink, paper, and scissors all owe their existence to rock, so it must be that rock wins in all circumstances, since the others cannot exist w/o rock in the first place.

        What am I missing (besides a bit of sanity … … … )

        131

      • #
        Angry

        better to play……

        rock, paper, GUN !

        21

  • #
    Ruairi

    A company cuts off its nose,
    To spite its own face I suppose,
    By risking a slump,
    In huge sales to Trump
    Voters, they think of as foes.

    261

  • #
    Kevin Angus

    Jo Nova #5.1
    https://gab.ai
    GAB for those of us that are sick and tired of SJW crap

    22

  • #
    David Maddison

    Target in the USA suffered significantly with the transgender bathroom policy implemented against the will of its customers.

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/26/following-trans-bathroom-policy-targets-sales-tank/

    Also, the Pepsi CEO has disillusioned Trump supporters with her comments.

    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/pepsico-ceo-mourns-trump-win-2016-11?r=US&IR=T

    140

    • #
      TdeF

      Two more cases where an ego driven CEO thinks it is reasonable to alienate half the population, half the customers and half the shareholders just to please a few friends. It confirms that some CEOs did not rise to the top on ability.

      201

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      Nooyi said she was disgusted by the language Trump has used when discussing women.

      Did she listen and comment on Jay Z’s rap for Hillary?

      Nooyi and friends need to go incognito among groups they are not familiar with. Some folks are disgustingly frank (my mother’s view) and not just the males. I’ll guess she could not understand much of the banter [good-humored, playful conversation].

      60

  • #

    “US President Obama’s digital legacy to be archived, opened to the public Hindustan Times – ‎Nov 9, 2016‎”

    Will this include the emails sent to and from Hillary’s private server and other government business discussed using other private sector email addresses?

    81

  • #
    crosspatch

    Since Andrew Breitbart died, Stephen Bannon has turned that site into a sewer. It needs to die. I do not understand why the family allows that site to use it’s name. It is basically Bob Mercer’s private propaganda outlet.

    819

    • #
      Raven

      Well, it’s a free country, crosspatch, and no one is forced to read it.
      Breitbart readership is climbing fast while The Guardian is falling away . . so you work it out over your cornflakes.

      232

    • #
      Glen Michel

      You ever been over to “Akademik” site ” The Conversation” lately?taxpayer funded-just like all left-wing sites.Tendentious?

      112

    • #
      Angry

      crosspatch,
      Simply buddy.
      DON’T READ IT THEN !

      11

  • #
    John

    Warning – This Cereal Company May Contain Nuts

    110

  • #
  • #
    David Maddison

    O/T

    Peer reviewed study shows most scientists skeptical of AGW. What I find alarming is the number of “believers” even though they are a minority. I guess when your snout is in the trough of millions of “climate change” research dollars it’s difficult to remain impartial and scientific.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#341e43c171b7

    103

  • #
    Tommo

    If you meant “weeties” instead of “wheaties” then you’re maligning Uncle Tobys.

    20

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    It follows Danish multinational Lego pulling Daily Mail advertising because the newspaper promoted “hatred, discrimination and demonisation”.

    Always did consider Lego to be a very inferior version of Meccano.

    20

  • #
    pat

    from the Ministry of Truth:

    2 Dec: Washington Examiner: (John) Kerry: People can’t tell ‘what’s real and what isn’t’
    By Joel Gehrke
    Secretary of State John Kerry lamented Friday that technology has allowed the quick spread of false information to the point that people are struggling to “know what’s real and what isn’t.”
    “This is one of our chief challenges today, is to manage information and to do it in a way that average folks at home can know what’s real and what isn’t, what’s true, what’s false, and try to build consensus around a common set of understandings,” Kerry said during the Mediterranean Dialogues Conference in Rome. “Technology has brought the world closer, yes; but it’s also enabled bigots and demagogues to spread messages of divisiveness and hate with the click of a button, with the push of a finger.”…
    “Now, none of us should have any illusion about the challenges that we face. They are real, and frankly, they require our collective courage,” Kerry continued. “And, I might add, they require all of those things based on truth.”…
    More broadly, Kerry faulted media outlets for contributing to an unnecessary degree of fear among their audiences and lamented the skepticism of trade agreements and climate change science that undermined some of the Obama administration’s top second-term priorities…
    “There are some truths, folks. Hard sometimes for people to discern, but it is true that the Earth is warming even as we have climate deniers in the world today,” he said…
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/kerry-people-cant-tell-whats-real-and-what-isnt/article/2608745

    50

  • #
    Analitik

    OT – Sorry if this has been brought up before but I haven’t seen it mentioned here

    The federal government confirmed to news.com.au it has not renewed any of its partnerships with the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, effectively ending 10 years of taxpayer-funded contributions worth more than $88 million.

    This goes against the previous government statements of support for the Clinton Foundation

    In a press release dated September 22, 2014, Ms Bishop committed to five years of support for the Clinton Health Access Initiative, the sister organisation of the Clinton Foundation.

    Australia ceases multimillion-dollar donations to controversial Clinton family charities

    And Michael Smith reports how Trump has indicated governments will be “encouraged” to investigate why some of their members have been directing funds to the Clinton Foundation. Bad times ahead for Julia Bishop?

    Clinton Corruption investigators to target Australian Ministers – who’ve had plenty of warning

    150

  • #
    pat

    read all:

    2 Dec: WND Exclusive: Chelsea Schilling: 46 U.S. companies join anti-Trump Breitbart blacklist
    Leftist plot to attack top advertisers, blame ‘fake news’ for president-elect’s win
    As of Thursday, Sleeping Giants followed only 23 Twitter users – some of whom are actively helping Sleeping Giants publicize its campaign against Breitbart. And nearly all are linked directly to President Obama, left-leaning publications or far-left causes.
    LONG LIST …
    The following are some major companies that have committed to blacklisting Breitbart…
    LIST
    http://www.wnd.com/2016/12/47-u-s-companies-join-anti-trump-breitbart-blacklist/

    70

    • #
      Mark D.

      This appears to me to be a “knee Jerk” reaction of younger liberal middle managers. Just wait till the stockholders react.

      70

  • #
    pat

    as with CAGW, the losing side still thinks they will win if only they can control ALL the messaging!

    3 Dec: BusinessInsider: Alex Heath: Facebook wants to create ‘Collections’ of curated content from media partners, similar to Snapchat
    Facebook’s effort to create Collections comes as it struggles to distinguish between high-quality content from established media outlets and the glut of low-quality, fake news stories that go viral across the social network. The company has faced sharp criticism for its role spreading fake news stories during the US presidential election.
    The move could also help Facebook forge stronger ties with publishers as it competes with fast-growing Snapchat. The app’s Discover section of youthful, tabloid-esque news stories is seen every day by its more than 150 million users…
    The company’s last experiment around curated content from publishers was a breaking news app called Notify that the company shuttered earlier this year after only seven months. The social network’s Trending news section came under fire earlier this year after it was reported that Facebook’s editors were purposely suppressing conservative-leaning news items from appearing on the list.
    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/facebook-working-on-curated-collections-section-for-news-feed-with-publishers-2016-12?r=US&IR=T

    2 Dec: PolicyMic: Jake Horowitz: Obama considering post-presidential digital media career, sources say
    (Jake Horowitz is the Founder of Mic. Before Mic, he worked at Change.org. Jake graduated from Stanford University)
    President Barack Obama has been discussing a post-presidential career in digital media and is considering launching his own media company, according to multiple sources who spoke on background because they were not authorized to speak for the president.
    Obama considers media to be a central focus of his next chapter, these sources say, though exactly what form that will take — a show streaming on Netflix, a web series on a comedy site or something else — remains unclear…
    When contacted for comment, White House communications director Jen Psaki told Mic in a statement, “While the president will remain actively engaged in inspiring young people and he is interested in the changing ways people consume information, he has no plans to get into the media business after he leaves office.”
    According to another source, Obama met privately with Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg in Lima, Peru, on the sidelines of the recent APEC summit to discuss the matter…
    That it’s Obama who is mulling a media career marks an intriguing twist for an election year in which President-elect Donald Trump’s rumored television plans have become a subject of debate…
    Over the course of his presidency, Obama has made a point of using social media and engaging with digital outlets in creative ways — including producing his own short-form web videos, which get posted directly to his social media accounts…
    When Rolling Stone asked the president about his future plans, Obama said he would begin “organizing my presidential center,” where a top subject would be, “How do we rethink our storytelling, the messaging and the use of technology and digital media, so that we can make a persuasive case across the country?”
    In recent days — even before Trump’s surprising victory — Obama also mused openly about what he views as the dangerous state of media and his desire to play a role in fixing it…
    Obama has been outspoken in recent days about the faux news phenomenon, arguing that the rise of conspiracy theories and the easy propagation of fake stories has made it difficult to establish basic facts to frame a debate. “And now we just don’t have that,” he told New Yorker editor David Remnick.
    PHOTO CAPTION: AL GORE… READ ON
    https://mic.com/articles/161028/obama-considering-post-presidential-digital-media-career-sources-say

    50

    • #
      J.H.

      If Obama gets a show on Netflix…. I scrub my Netflix account. Simples.

      Netflix is for entertainment, not politics. If Obama wants a venue for a streaming service for his politics he can use Breitbart or Huffington or whatever…. Netflix and other entertainment streaming services would be wise to separate themselves from the cesspit of political propaganda. People go there to get away from politics.

      Media career? It’d be a bluddy short one I reckon. I don’t think Obama as a ex Presidential product would sell.

      Nah, he’ll be finding ways to keep swimming in the Tax Pool or swamps like the UN for as long as he can. It’s all he knows how to do.

      60

    • #
      Raven

      Obama said he would begin “organizing my presidential center,” where a top subject would be, “How do we rethink our storytelling, the messaging and the use of technology and digital media, so that we can make a persuasive case across the country?

      Dear Barry,

      You seem to have missed the point.
      1. People have lost interest and trust in the traditional carefully packaged message.
      2. If your case is “persuasive”, the punters will be able to see that.
      3. Nowhere do I see a mention that listening to your audience is being considered – go back to step 1.

      70

  • #
    J.H.

    Well then. Kellogs is on my sh*t list and off my shopping list.

    151

  • #
    pat

    2 Dec: GWPF blog: New Paper: Climate Scepticism Is A ‘Perverse’ Effect Of ‘Actively Open-Minded Thinking’
    Kip Hansen, Climate Etc.
    Dan M. Kahan (Yale) and Jonathan C. Corbin, of the Cultural Cognition Project, have a new study titled “A note on the perverse effects of actively open-minded thinking on climate-change polarization” appears in the journal Research and Politics (October-December 2016) [link to full manuscript].
    The study is summed up by the first two sentences of its abstract:…READ ON
    http://www.thegwpf.com/new-paper-climate-scepticism-is-a-perverse-effect-of-actively-open-minded-thinking/

    Trump’s youtube channel:

    Youtube: Trump News
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU4XbXbpWbR-KMmMfaoNRXQ

    by extending the first row of videos, u will get to Trump’s great “Thank You” tour speech in Cincinnati, Ohio yesterday. if u don’t have time to listen to it all, listen from about 15mins in, which leads into the hilarious run-down of the MSM and election night:

    YouTube: President-elect Donald Trump Speech Today 12/01/16 Holds Victory Rally in Cincinnati, Ohio
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gi_2-k6dbZw

    50

  • #
    doubtingdave

    Some times you just have to laugh at the absurdity of life don’t you , I have not read the comments on this article , so don’t know other peoples views on it , but it reminds me of reading Michael Crichton’s ” state of fear ‘ essay , that talked about Eugenics and efforts to control populations , I know that the Kellogg family where involved in that movement , but at the moment I have my three eldest daughters and their kids stopping over for a family celebration and whilst the young ones are in bed I’ve shown my girls this video from Infowars , whilst at the same time I have a six pack of diet coke in the fridge and a cupboard full of Coco pops for the grandkids when they get up in the morning , I don’t know for sure if there is anything in this video from Infowars but my daughters and I , have just cried laughing when watching it ; https://youtu.be/zvTzF1tfXEA

    60

  • #
    RAH

    I signed the boycott petition. Like I said before. We ran Target out of town within 18 months after they banned Salvation Army bell ringers. Then Target went with the stupid gender bathroom stuff and they lost their stock holder over 3 billion. Arby’s got stupid also and quickly changed their tune. I have no doubt that Kelloggs stock holders are going to be hurt by this stupid crap also.

    110

    • #
      doubtingdave

      RAH , thanks for some great memories , I am a Nottingham lad born and bred , William Booth began the movement in the inner city area that I was born in , as a young man I hitched around Europe and you was always guaranteed a bed and breakfast no matter what Town you were in , providing they had a Salvation Army office locally

      80

  • #
    Alfred

    Hopefully this piece of amazing corporate stupidity will encourage people to check out what goes into childrens’ breakfast cereals.

    This is the Australian government version:

    The APVMA has completed its assessment of the IARC report and other recent assessments of glyphosate and has concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans

    And here is the reality:

    17 Scientists Speak Out: Monsanto’s Roundup is Causing Cancer

    The corruption almost palpable.

    Of course, Monsanto has known for 35 years about this:

    Monsanto Knew of Glyphosate Cancer Link 35 Years Ago

    When are Australian governments going to take care of Australians and give the finger to rapacious American corporations?

    61

  • #
    AndyG55

    The big question is…

    Why are Kellogg’s wasting corn on Cornflakes, when it would be much better used as ethanol fuel ! ;-)

    145

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    So let’s boycott or let’s dump Breitbart or take your pick… Anything to kiss up to this or that faction in human society, anyone you think will increase your standing with… …with exactly who? And I might ask why as well.

    The children have come out to play one more time. That’s all. It’s been this way for quite a while and looks like continuing. They have no idea the harm they do or the futility of marching in the streets to protest the outcome of an election or anything else they do.

    The root of the trouble is that mommy and daddy have been paying attention to one too many, no make that several too many experts in the field of child raising and no longer have the fortitude it takes to turn junior over their knee and apply some discipline and some common sense. As a consequence several generations of parents are children themselves. And so it goes…

    Honesty is not on parade in these days of nearly open warfare between different points of view.

    102

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Too true, Roy.
      All this “boycott” crap is mob rule dressed up to look like democracy.
      It is distressing that such a large segment of the population stoop to this herd mentality as opposed to individual reason and logic.

      71

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Rod,

        I expect it’s been this way all along throughout human history. I can’t say for sure but human nature is what it is and it’s built in so it takes over if we’re not taught a better standard from childhood. I think the only difference is that the stakes are higher now for each faction than they have been since before WWII. Thus we see more extreme actions in defense of their respective positions.

        It really is necessary to teach that higher standard of thinking and acting to our children or we lose it. And it looks to me, even though I’m not a great student of history, that it took a very long time to finally learn that turning to violence, name calling and all the other nonsense we see now is not productive. We’ve come a long way and now… …I hope I’m wrong but these days look like the last stand at the gate before the invading army breaks through and takes over our precious democracies and republics.

        40

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Well put Roy.

          As a species we don’t seem to have made any progress in my lifetime with regard to neighbourliness and human decency, however that might be measured.

          Leadership is in a perilous state and the art of manipulation of others is the current mode of individuals and companies and politicians.

          But, hope reigns supreme, we may be entering a new era where the people’s revolt is demanding something better.

          KK

          50

  • #
    Chris

    To be fair – Breitbart is something special. This isn’t the wall street journal or National Review.

    Have you read the comments on Breitbart?

    60

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      Read the comments on Breitbart? Not a chance. The signal to noise ratio is too low. Breitbart appeals to a demographic I have no time for, no way am I going to wade thru pages of predictable and boring comments. Most comments sections in the media is a waste of time these days anyway, there is too much organised commenting going on so all you end up reading is someone’s propaganda.

      311

      • #

        “Breitbart appeals to a demographic I have no time for,”…

        And their deplorable opinions do not count. Sounds like an intolerant bigot…

        ” too much organised commenting going on ”

        Conspiracy theory too eh?

        124

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Jo Nova.

          Is “deplorable” the way you refer to BreitBart commenters?

          I do find the whole situation amusing. Kellogg’s uses their freedom of choice, and BreitBart responds like a bunch of whining sore losers. Kellogg’s joins a list of other companies that have done the same – I wonder who will be next?

          [I'm also approving this.] AZ

          311

          • #
            AndyG55

            “I do find the whole situation amusing. ”

            People voice their free speech about Kellogg’s making politically based decisions, and Twotter gets all confused and upset.

            It obviously affects him very deeply that other people are allowed to actually have a response.

            114

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              But first, Harry intentionally misquotes what Jo said, in order to score a cheap point, enpassant. How pathetic.

              Had he stuck to the line he started with, he could have made some good points. But he blew it.

              52

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                His cheap point, enpassant as you called it, captured nothing and his opponent’s pawn is still standing. That seems to be the way cheap shots end up, no?

                Were I harry I would give up trolling this site and go hide somewhere out of shame if for no other reason.

                31

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                How is the weather in Sunny California, Roy?
                I believe that you might have assumed that Hairy is aware of the emotion called “shame”.
                His natural home is with Sow, and in that place no shame is known.

                31

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Rod,

                We have a beautiful clear and sunny Sunday with the temperature right now being 71° F (about 21.7° C) at 3:00 PM. I couldn’t ask for a better day unless it was one with some snow falling in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Make that a lot of snow falling.

                I think even Harry knows what shame is. But he has some personality problem that won’t let him take a cold hard look at himself. I’m no psychologist but he doesn’t add up any other way.

                31

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                Virtually identical here in beautiful downtown Tasmania! A beautiful day follows a visual and audio display last night from Natural Productions as a summer thunderstorm made the journey from West to East.

                20

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                For the non-chess players: the term “enpassant” refers to the taking of a porn as it is passed. The word is french for “in passing”, but I was just showing off.

                31

              • #
                Mark D.

                The taking of a “porn” as it it is passed?

                That makes chess more interesting I suppose

                20

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                @Roy – Were you Harry, you would not be trolling in the first place.

                20

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                @Rereke –

                the term “enpassant” refers to the taking of a porn as it is passed

                spicing up an ancient game? LOL

                20

          • #
            Rod Stuart

            I do find the whole situation amusing.

            No, you don’t.

            42

          • #
            AndyG55

            “I do find the whole situation amusing.”

            We find your comments quite funny, too, in an bizarre, inept clown, sort of way. :-)

            Thanks for the continued frivolity…

            65

          • #
            tom0mason

            Harry,

            “Is “deplorable” the way you refer to BreitBart commenters?
            No Harry.
            Jo was merely using the same adjective as Breitbart used it.
            As a sarcastic badge of honor against the Clinton mob and the complacent MSM. As Shawn Steel explained –
            “Bannon’s crime was providing us deplorables with an alternative source for news. ”
            here –
            http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/19/steve-bannons-real-crime-providing-deplorables-news-alternative/

            63

            • #
              AndyG55

              ““Is “deplorable” the way you refer to BreitBart commenters?”

              I really don’t think Twotter pays any attention to anything going on around him, or in the world in general.

              74

          • #
            Raven

            Kellogg’s uses their freedom of choice . .

            Yes, true, but you’re still not getting it, Harry.
            Sure, I expect Breitbart was not exactly a household name but Kellog certainly are.

            By Kellog taking a partisan stand, they’ve just catapulted Breitbart in front of everyone’s eyes.
            Read up on the Streisand effect.

            . . and BreitBart responds like a bunch of whining sore losers.

            Nope, Breitbart are doubling down on Kellog’s silly move and will milk it till the cows come home . . if you’ll pardon the pun.
            Certainly they’re exploiting the situation, but they can’t lose.
            This will bring more people to Breitbart and thus, increase their readership.

            I do find the whole situation amusing.

            Me too.

            50

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Harry, Take up rifle. Insert ammunition. Cock rifle. Release safty catch. Aim at foot. Pull trigger.

              51

          • #
          • #
            PhilJourdan

            Interesting. See how the left tries to use a double standard in framing the issue. Kellogg uses “freedom” of choice, yet when others do the exact same thing, they are “whining sore losers”. That pretty much sums up the whole AGW debate. Opinions are “flowers” when they agree with the meme, but they are “heretical devils” when they do not.

            The most amusing part is that the poster has no clue of what he just did.

            41

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          Sounds like Fritz Hollings to me.

          “Too much consuming going on!”

          LOL

          31

      • #
        AndyG55

        “The signal to noise ratio is too low”

        Too much signal, not enough noise, for Twotter’s liking. :-)

        That Twotter’s problem, he doesn’t realise his posts are just noise.

        95

      • #
        AndyG55

        “no way am I going to wade thru pages of predictable and boring comments”

        You would rather produce them yourself, obviously.

        74

      • #
        AndyG55

        [SNIP enough tit for tat. This post is not about Twinotter]

        44

        • #
          AndyG55

          “Breitbart appeals to a demographic I have no time for”

          But obviously you DO have time for that demographic.

          Otherwise, why are you here ?????

          Typical of the far-left trog…. say one thing, while doing the opposite.

          64

  • #
    Chris

    Let’s see how kellogs is doing in 12 months. I think they’ll be fine. To equate Breitbart as being the same as supporting Trump, is just ridiculous.

    52

    • #
      RAH

      Never mind that this is supposedly about BreitBart being “fake news” that caters to “the alt-right”. Or that Steve Bannon ran BreitBart before becoming the president elects Chief Advisor. Of course that has nothing to do with this and is completely unrelated. Right?

      31

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Do you have something to offer us, other than circumstantial connections?

        Now, if you could demonstrate cause, and effect, and premeditation, with some evidence …

        40

  • #
    Bob in Castlemaine

    Kellog, sugar coated rubbish, nothing to offer, good riddance.
    Try Uncle Tobys Oat Brits, they’re OK!

    92

    • #

      h/t to Gail Combs 2 December 2016 at 2:30 pm

      THE WRATH OF THE AWAKENED SAXON
      by Rudyard Kipling

      It was not part of their blood,
      It came to them very late,
      With long arrears to make good,
      When the Saxon began to hate.

      They were not easily moved,
      They were icy — willing to wait
      Till every count should be proved,
      Ere the Saxon began to hate.

      Their voices were even and low.
      Their eyes were level and straight.
      There was neither sign nor show
      When the Saxon began to hate.

      It was not preached to the crowd.
      It was not taught by the state.
      No man spoke it aloud
      When the Saxon began to hate.

      It was not suddently bred.
      It will not swiftly abate.
      Through the chilled years ahead,
      When Time shall count from the date
      That the Saxon began to hate.

      I think Kipling has a much better handle on the ‘Deplorables’ than the progressives and media has.

      41

  • #
    pat

    MoronicStreamMedia is at it again, some claiming Trump called the Taiwanese President, most quoting unnamed “experts” criticising Trump. it’s been the usual mass media freakout, but here’s a sample:

    Trump risks showdown with China after call with Taiwan
    CNN-4 hours ago
    (CNN) President-elect Donald Trump spoke with Taiwan’s President Friday, threatening to ignite a diplomatic showdown with China

    Donald Trump risks China rift with Taiwan call
    Highly Cited-Financial Times-7 hours ago

    Fairfax rolls out Chinese expert Rudd!

    Donald Trump blunders into conflict over Taiwan, knowing little and caring less
    The Sydney Morning Herald-3 hours ago
    On Friday this week Kevin Rudd wrote an analysis of China’s potential response to the incoming Trump administration, noting that what Beijing feared most was uncertainty.
    The following day the president-elect’s transition team issued a jaunty statement confirming that Donald Trump had arbitrarily upended 35 years of careful American diplomacy by speaking on the phone with the President of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen, conceivably putting the United States on a path that ends in direct confrontation with China over one of the most explosive geopolitical flashpoints on earth.
    It is difficult to exaggerate how significant – and how provocative – this action was…

    So, Why Can’t You Call Taiwan?
    In-Depth-The Atlantic-4 hours ago

    the thing is Trump didn’t make the phone call:

    Trump tweet: @realDonaldTrump: Interesting how the U.S. sells Taiwan billions of dollars of military equipment but I should not accept a congratulatory call.

    MSM hasn’t said too much about any of this – protecting the Nobel Peace Prize Pres, no doubt:

    26 July: The Nation: William D. Hartung: The Obama Administration Has Brokered More Weapons Sales Than Any Other Administration Since World War II
    When American firms dominate a global market worth more than $70 billion a year, you’d expect to hear about it. Not so with the global arms trade. It’s good for one or two stories a year in the mainstream media, usually when the annual statistics on the state of the business come out…
    The numbers should stagger anyone…
    ***In the past two years alone, the United States has offered more than ***$15 billion worth of weaponry to allies in East Asia, with ***Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea accounting for the bulk of the sales…
    https://www.thenation.com/article/the-obama-administration-has-sold-more-weapons-than-any-other-administration-since-world-war-ii/

    sales to Taiwan alone (about which China was none too happy) amount to more than $14 billion under Obama!

    Wikipedia: List of US arms sales to Taiwan
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwan

    41

    • #

      Two highly respected folk congratulating each other on overcoming vast odds on actually being elected under very different political conditions. Perhaps now we can progress to deplomacy rather than WAR! I would be interested in Vlad Putin’s actual persional comments, on this, rather than those of the politburo!
      All the best! -will-

      40

  • #
    jestercourt101

    Reading the comments here and elsewhere, it is clear Kellogg’s has gone down the Social Justice Warrior rabbit hole. BreitBart has a long history of standing up to SJWs. It is an interesting tactic by Kellogg’s, I doubt it will succeed and distract from their poor 3rd world practices such as using products made by child labor.

    http://www.kelloggdiversityandinclusion.com/en_US/home.html

    70

  • #
    pat

    Tim Blair looks at a piece in The Age by Premier Michael Baird’s sister, Julia headlined “Facts are dead, long live facts: there’s no simple solution for how to dissolve the fog of lies”:

    the piece begins:

    - So now it is just being baldly stated: facts are dead. This week Trump henchman Scottie Nell Hughes said on NPR that “there are no such thing as facts”. Just like that. On air. When people were listening.
    I think we can all agree that is as daft as it is dangerous. -

    the piece also has a PHOTO CAPTION: President-elect Donald Trump promoted conspiracy theories for months during his campaign.

    Julia writes that “post-truth” is Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year, but doesn’t give a link. here it is:

    Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year 2016 – Post-Truth
    (SCROLL DOWN FOR MORE WORDS THAT MADE THE SHORTLIST, & CHECK ALT-RIGHT, AND THEN GO TO THE LINK “Find out more about the word’s rise.”)
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/word-of-the-year/word-of-the-year-2016

    3 Dec: Tim Blair Blog: POST-TRUST ERA
    The ABC’s Julia Baird identifies an “insidious trend”.
    It’s the demise of the expert:
    Baird: “Politicians and pundits ridiculing of those who bring knowledge to bear on public debate by those who have none. Learned scientists dismissed as raging greenies. Eminent lawyers – Justin Gleeson, Gillian Triggs – dismissed as disobedient hacks. Journalists who report and record and check cast as partisan.”…READ ON incl COMMENTS
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/posttrust-era/news-story/03578ffa677a8831d8c89223e6842e4b

    more to come.

    41

  • #
    pat

    as Blair calls his piece “POST-TRUST ERA”, I thought it would be fun to check if that’s another meme going around, and it is:

    Jan 2014: FinancialPlanning: John J. Bowen Jr: Communication Tricks for the ‘Post-Trust Era’
    Investors are more skeptical now than ever about the financial advice they’re getting – and the professionals giving that advice. This is not just a financial services industry trend. A significant number of Americans now view the government, the media, corporations – even nonprofit organizations – with rising suspicion and distrust.
    ***Author Michael Maslansky calls this a “post-trust era.”…
    Try following what Maslansky calls the four principles of credible communication:…
    http://www.financial-planning.com/news/4-communication-tricks-for-the-post-trust-era

    note the following headline doesn’t include “solar power” as in the URL. did the “messaging guru” think it was best to excise it!

    29 March: HuffPo: Kate Sheppard: This Messaging Guru Is Helping Utilities Clean Up Their Appearance
    The industry’s new crisis communications expert advocates “reputation management.”
    The U.S. utility industry, beset by stricter pollution regulations and market forces that have made renewable energy more competitive, is seeking to rebrand itself into something more appealing to the public.
    CEOs of many of the country’s major utilities met at a January board meeting of the Edison Electric Institute, the trade organization representing investor-owned electric companies. The institute revealed that it has hired a communications consultant who will help utilities upgrade their image. That includes shifting language, for example, from “utility-scale solar” to something friendlier, like “community solar.”…
    The Huffington Post obtained a full audio recording of the meeting and a transcript from a source who was present, as well as a 2016 corporate goals document and a recap of 2015…
    Wolff said the industry group had hired New York crisis communications expert Michael Maslansky to help develop a new communication plan that would be presented to members this month…READ ON
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/messaging-utilities-solar-power_us_56f45cd6e4b014d3fe22b572

    so many in these two comments, trying to control reality, and failing.

    41

  • #
    Lewis P Buckingham

    My problem with Kelloggs was always their cornflake packaging.
    When you opened the box, the top was empty.
    In small print was some comment about how the contents settled.
    So why did they not ‘settle’ the contents before packaging and shipping it.
    Just shake it, like happened in a truck anyway.
    To me, this is deceptive, deceptive packaging.
    This tells me a lot about their’ values’, probably about controlling supermarket shelf space,
    together with visibility and colour.
    The end result is to ‘maximise the bottom line’.
    Irrespective of their politics, there is no need to buy their stuff anyway.
    Doing so damages our balance of trade and stops us buying our own produce.
    Now if we could sell more beef to the USA, things could change.

    100

    • #
      RAH

      Do you folks down under have price tags at the grocery store that break down the cost per a specific measure for each specific product? Here typically, besides the price for a box or bag of a specific cereal brand there will also be a price per ounce. Using that price allows one to quickly compare prices between brands even if their package sizes are not the same.

      30

    • #
      Monna Manhas

      Lewis P Buckingham –
      The cereal boxes are filled in a factory, by a machine. If they “settled” the cereal before packing and shipping, they would have to fill the box, shake it, fill it again, shake it, and fill it again – until it was full. Not very efficient – you might as well do it by hand.
      Instead, they fill the box, seal it and ship it. That’s why the contents settle between the factory and your breakfast table.

      21

      • #
        Monna Manhas

        Cereal is sold by weight – not by volume.

        41

      • #
        Lewis P Buckingham

        You must understand marketing.
        Its all about perception.
        It’s true that price per 100 g is shown on those small stickers on the shelf, in small print black and white.
        It’s also true that the manufacturers and retailers were dragged kicking and screaming to bring in this innovation, long after Kelloggs established and conned people into thinking boxes with partial contents were OK.

        My point is that by having a big, colourfull box with lovely comments about the contents and the games on the back, the intent is to make the purchaser buy on big brand and volume.
        Its an emotional/ loyalty/ perceptive buy.
        At home there is the sugar rush to boot.
        Your idea that it would be an imposition on a manufacturer to actually fill boxes just assists them in their deception.
        If a truck can do it, why not a filling line with a shaker.
        That would trump things.

        On a lighter note
        Two ants were running round a dotted line on the back of a kellog’s cornflake packet.
        One ant asked the other ‘Why are we doing this?’
        The first ant replied
        “Because it says here ,’Please tear around the dotted line’.

        70

        • #
          Monna Manhas

          Cute joke – I like it!

          I do understand marketing – I studied it in university. And what I learned has served me well (as a consumer) ever since. A few years ago, I even explained marketing to my (then) 4-year-old granddaughter. The part about being sold by weight instead of volume isn’t new – it has been on the cereal boxes since before I was old enough to read it. I know this, because as a child I used to read every word on the cereal boxes. I can still remember the wording: “This product is sold by weight, not by volume. Packed as full as practicable by modern automatic equipment, it contains the full net weight indicated. If the package appears less than full when opened, it is because the contents have settled during shipping and handling.”

          Most of the marketing stuff on the boxes that you are talking about is targeted at children. They don’t buy the groceries, and they don’t pay the bills. All it takes is a grown-up (yes, I know – they seem to be in short supply these days) to say, “no, we aren’t buying that”. It’s that simple.

          31

          • #
            Lewis P Buckingham

            I did some marketing as a management course, not at Uni though.
            What you say is all true.
            They have taught you well.
            The problem for the parent and the opportunity for the marketer, is that the kids drive the product.
            They demand it.
            So the ads always occur on prime time children’s programs.
            What you say is so true about how one must look at products, read the fine print and make educated adult decisions.
            However the market is not you or others that do this.
            The mass market is attractive to children,as well as adults, because the box is colourful and covered in games.
            In the old days the toy, when our six children were young, was in the bottom of the box.
            Now they got that in the right place.
            The ‘big box’ is there to hang the games, not deliver the contents.
            So Kellogs is in the entertainment game as well as the quasi PC health game and, of course , the ‘nutrition’ game.
            Remember your marketing.
            The basic question is ‘What game am I in?’
            It would appear that Kellogs has decided to politicise adult and children’s foods.
            So its entered the ‘ I’am Righteous’ game, so look after me, for I am ultimate Good.’
            That may be a good idea until the wind changes.
            If they alienate say 10% of their market then Aldi or Woolworths will gladly step up to the mark.
            The business question for any Harvard trained accountant is always,
            ‘What will this do to my bottom line?’
            Wait for a bot army to crash offending sites, a twitter campaign plus facebook,
            rounded off with trolls disrupting the conversation and declaring the virtue of Kellogs.

            Popcorn, Aldi of course, anyone?

            30

  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    May Kellogg learn that such blind arrogance toward the public is exactly what defeated the elite, one-world globalists in the 2016 Presidential election.

    70

    • #
      RAH

      I’m not sure they will learn without the roof falling on their heads. After all Kellogg is Headquartered in Battle Creek, MI. Michigan just went for a Republican presidential candidate for the first time since 1992.

      60

  • #
    Reed Coray

    Supermarkets arrange their products by kind–i.e., bakery items in one place, cleaning supplies in one place, etc. It would be an interesting experiment to group items by the political leanings of the manufacturer–e.g., far left, left, apolitical, right and far right. In California buyers patronizing the right/far right aisles would have to wear bags (recyclable bags, not plastic bags) over their heads to hide their shame.

    30

  • #
    clive

    “JFK put a man on the moon, Obama put a man in the little girls room”

    100

  • #
    tom0mason

    A to Z of Cereals (excluding Kellogg)
    Addams Family Cereal – Ralston (1994)
    Almond Delight – Ralston
    Alpen – Weetabix Limited
    Alpha-Bits – Post Cereals (1958 – present)
    Apple Zings – Malt-O-Meal Company
    B
    Boo-Berry Cereal – General Mills (1973 – present)
    Booty-O’s – WWE (2016 – present)

    C
    C-3PO’s – based on the Star Wars character C-3PO (1980s)
    Cabbage Patch Kids Cereal 1980s
    The California Raisins Cereal – Post Cereals
    Cap’n Crunch – Quaker Oats (1963 originally named after football champ captain Lance (crunch) Rickman
    Cap’n Crunch Crunch Berries – Quaker Oats (1967 – present)
    Cap’n Crunch’s Oops! Choco Donuts – Quaker Oats (2003–2004)
    Captain Planet Cereal (1994)
    Caramel Crunchfuls- (2010 – present)
    Ceccettio’s – Italian localization of General Mills’ Cheerios
    Cheerios – General Mills; Cereal Partners Worldwide in Europe; 1941–1945 named “Cheerioats”, renamed Cheerios to this day[1][2]
    Apple Cinnamon Cheerios (1988 – present)
    Banana Nut Cheerios (2008 – present)
    Berry Burst Cheerios (2003 – present)
    Berry Burst Cheerios – Strawberry (2003–?)
    Berry Burst Cheerios – Triple Berry (2003 – present)
    Cinnamon Cheerios (2004 – present)
    Cinnamon Burst Cheerios (2011–present)
    Cinnamon Nut Cheerios (1980-present)
    Chocolate Cheerios- (2010 – present)
    Frosted Cheerios (1995 – present)
    Fruity Cheerios (2006 – present)
    Honey Nut Cheerios (1979 – present)
    Millenios (Cheerios) (1999–2000)
    MultiGrain Cheerios (1991 – present)
    MultiGrain Dark Chocolate Crunch Cheerios (2014-)
    MultiGrain Peanut Butter Crunch Cheerios (2012-)
    Oat Cluster Cheerios Crunch (2007 – present)
    Team (USA) Cheerios (1996) – (special edition, discontinued)
    Yogurt Burst Cheerios – Strawberry (2004 – present)
    Yogurt Burst Cheerios – Vanilla (2004 – present)
    Chex – Ralcorp (now Ralcorp) (1937–1997); General Mills (1997 – present)[3]
    Apple Cinnamon Chex (2012–present)
    Chocolate Chex (2007 – present)
    Cinnamon Chex (2009 – present)
    Corn Chex (1958 – present)
    Double Chex (1990s)
    Frosted Mini-Chex (2002–2006)
    Graham Chex (Mid 1990′s)
    Honey Graham Chex (1986- early 1990s)
    Honey Nut Chex (1999 – present)
    Multi-Bran Chex (1990 – present)
    Rice Chex (1950 – present)
    Strawberry Chex (2008–2010)
    Sugar Chex (1970s)
    Vanilla Chex (2013-)
    Wheat Chex (1937 – present)
    Choco Crunch (Original) – Quaker Oats (1980s)
    Choco Crunch (Re-introduced Version) – Quaker Oats (2007 – present)
    Chocapic – Nestle
    Chocolate Donutz – General Mills (Early 1980s)
    Chocolate Crunchfuls- (2010 – present)
    Chrebet Crunch (1999)
    Chocolatey Peanut Butter Crunch – Quaker Oats (2006)
    Chocolate Toast Crunch – General Mills (2013-)
    Christmas Crunch – Quaker Oats (1988 – present)
    Cinnamon Crunch – Quaker Oats (1970s)
    Cinnamon Toast Crunch – General Mills (1984 – present)
    Cinnamon Toasters – Malt-O-Meal
    Circus Fun – General Mills (Late 1980s)
    Clackers – General Mills
    Clusters – General Mills
    Coco Roos – Malt-O-Meal
    CoCo Wheats – Little Crow Foods (1930 – present)
    Cocoa Puffs – General Mills (1958 – present)
    Cocoa Puffs Brownie Crunch (2011)
    Cocoa Puffs Combos (vanilla and chocolate puffs mixed) – General Mills (2008)
    Colossal Crunch – Malt-O-Meal
    Comet Balls – Spix/Sulava & Company (2006 – present)
    Cookie Crisp cereal
    Cookie Crisp (1977 – present)
    Cookie Crisp Brownie (2013-) (available in the U.K)
    Double Chocolate Cookie Crisp (2006-2008)
    Oatmeal Cookie Crisp (1978-1980)
    Peanut Butter Cookie Crisp (2005-2007)
    Cookie Crisp Sprinkles (2009-2012)
    Vanilla Cookie Crisp (1978-Mid 1980′s)

    Corn Bran
    Corn Bran Squares
    Corn Bursts – Malt-O-Meal
    Cracker Jack Cereal – Ralston (1983-1985)
    Cranberry Almond Crunch – Post Cereals (1997 – present)
    Cranberry Wheats – Asda
    Crazy Cow – General Mills (late 1970s)
    Crazy Flakes – Tasty
    Cream of Wheat (1893 – present)
    Crispy Critters – Post Cereals (1963-1980s)
    Crispy Rice – Malt-O-Meal
    Crispy Wheats ‘n Raisins – (no longer in production)
    Cröonchy Stars – Post Cereals (1988–1989) featuring the Muppets’ Swedish Chef
    Crunch Berries – Quaker Oats
    Crunchy Bran – Weetabix Limited
    Crunchy Corn Bran – Quaker Oats
    Crunchy Nut Cornflakes

    D
    Diamond Shreddies – General Mills/Cereal Partners
    Dinersaurs – Ralston (1988-1989)
    Dinky Donuts – Ralston (1980s)
    Donkey Kong Crunch – Ralston (1982–1983)
    Donkey Kong Jr. Cereal – Ralston (1983–1984)
    Dudley Do-Right – General Mills
    Dunkin’ Donuts Cereal – Ralston (late 1980s)
    Dyno-Bites – Malt-O-Meal

    E
    E.T. Cereal – Ralston (1984)
    Engine 2 (Rip’s Big Bowl) – Whole Foods
    Elixir Cereals – Known by brand name Nutri-Crisp (2011 – present)

    F
    Frosted Mini Wheats
    The Fairly OddParents Cereal! – Post Cereals (2003–2004)
    Fantuz Flakes – Prepared for Federated Co-operatives Ltd, Collectors Edition for Saskatchewan Roughriders 100th season (2009–2010)
    Fiber One – General Mills
    Flutie Flakes – General Mills
    Force – (1901–1983 in the U.S.; 1902–present in the UK)
    Fortified Oat Flakes – Post Cereals
    Franken Berry (1971–present / seasonal since 2010)
    Freakies – Ralston (1972–1976; reintroduced version 1987)
    French Toast Crunch – General Mills (1995–2008, 2014-present)

    Frosted Shredded Wheat – see Shredded Wheat
    Frosted Toast Crunch – General Mills (2012-)
    Frosties – see Frosted Flakes
    Frosty O’s – General Mills (1959-early 1980s, repackaged as “Frosted Cheerios”)
    Fruit & Bran – Post Cereals (discontinued)
    Fruit & Nut Granola Cereal – Sunbelt
    Fruit Harvest
    Fruit Islands – Ralston (1987)
    Fruit Wheats – Nabisco (1986)
    Fruity Dyno-bites – Malt-O-Meal
    Futurelife SmartFood

    G
    Granola

    Gaia Muesli[5]
    G.I. Joe Action Stars – Ralston (1985)
    Ghostbusters Cereal – Ralston (1985 -1988)
    Ghostbusters II Cereal – Ralston (1989)
    Go Lean Cereal (Crunch) – Kashi
    Golden Crisp – Post Cereals (formerly known as Sugar Crisp, Super Sugar Crisp, and Super Golden Crisp; 1949 – present)
    Golden Goals – Quaker
    Golden Grahams – General Mills (1970s-present)
    Golden Nuggets – United Kingdom – Nestlé
    Golden Oaties – Quaker (c.1982)
    Golden Puffs – Malt-O-Meal
    Gorilla Munch – Nature’s Path
    Granolove – honey roasted granola; Springfield, MO
    Granula – the first manufactured breakfast cereal, James Caleb Jackson in 1863
    Grape Nut Flakes – Post
    Grape-Nuts – Post Cereals (1897 – present)
    Gremlins cereal – Ralston (1984)
    Grins & Smiles & Giggles & Laughs – Ralston (discontinued)
    H
    Honeycomb

    Halfsies – Quaker Oats (1980s)
    Harvest Crunch -Quaker Oats
    Heart to Heart – Blueberry Oat Cluster Crunch – Kashi
    Hershey’s Cookies ‘n’ Creme Cereal – General Mills (2013-)
    Hidden Treasures – General Mills (1993–1995)
    Honey Bunches of Oats (1989 – present)
    Honey Bunches of Oats with Almonds (1990–present)
    Honey Bunches of Oats with Apples with Cinnamon Bunches (2011 – present)
    Honey Bunches of Oats with Bananas (2004–2005)
    Honey Bunches of Oats with Peaches (2004 – November 2011)[6]
    Honey Bunches of Oats with Strawberries (2002 – present)
    Honey Bunches of Oats with Chocolate Clusters (2008 – present)
    Honey Bunches of Oats with Cinnamon Clusters (2006 – 2012)
    Honey Bunches of Oats with Vanilla Clusters (2007 – present)
    Honey Bunches of Oats Just Bunches (2008–present)
    Honey Bunches of Oats Fruit Blends (2012-)
    Honey Bunny
    Honey Buzzers – Malt-O-Meal
    Honeycomb – Post Cereals (1965 – present)
    Honeycomb Strawberry
    Honey Cups
    Honey-ful Wheat – Mom’s Best Naturals
    Honey Graham Oh’s – Quaker Oats
    Honey Graham Squares – Malt-O-Meal
    Honey Maid – Post Cereals (2007-2008)
    Honey Nut Clusters – General Mills
    Honey Crisps – Honeywell Cereals
    Raisin Crisps – Honeywell Cereals
    Honey Nut Shredded Wheat – Post
    Honey Nut Toasty O’s – Mom’s Best Naturals
    Honey & Oat Blenders – Malt-O-Meal
    Honey Puffs
    Hot Wheels – Ralston (1990)
    Hulk Cereal – Post (2003)
    I

    Ice Cream Cones – (1987) (limited edition availability in 2003)

    J

    Jurassic Park Crunch – General Mills (1997)[7]
    Jets – General Mills (c. late-1950s to early-1970s)

    K
    Kaboom! – General Mills (1969 – present: Limited Distribution)
    Kashi- Indigo Morning, NON GMO, Organic
    King Vitaman – Quaker Oats (1970 – present)
    Kix – General Mills (1937 – present)
    Berry Berry Kix – (1992 – present)
    Honey Kix – (2009–present)
    Koko Krunch – Nestlé – (Asia)
    Krispy Kritters 1960s – 1980s General Foods
    Krunchios (1989 [approx])
    Krusty-O’s – fictional breakfast cereal, one of the many products produced from The Simpsons. This cereal was produced in limited quantities and sold at 7-Eleven convenience stores as a promotional item for The Simpsons Movie.

    L
    Life – Quaker (1960s-Present)
    Baked Apple Life – (2002)
    Cinnamon Life – (1978 – present)
    Chocolate Oat Crunch Life – (2006-2008)
    Honey Graham Life – (2004-2009)
    Maple & Brown Sugar Life – (2008–present)
    Raisin Life – (Mid 1980′s)
    Vanilla Yogurt Crunch Life – (2005-July 2008)
    Low Fat Granola Cereal – Sunbelt
    Lucky Charms – General Mills (1964 – present)[7][8]
    Berry Lucky Charms (2006–2009)
    Chocolate Lucky Charms (2005 – present)

    M
    Marshmallow Mateys
    Mallow Oats – Mom’s Best Cereals
    Maple & Brown Sugar Mini Spooners – Malt-O-Meal
    Marshmallow Alpha-Bits – Post Cereals
    Marshmallow Mateys – Malt-O-Meal
    Magic Puffs Cereal – General Mills (1970s)
    Maximize – Bokomo
    Mickey Mouse Magic Crunch – Post (1988–1989)
    Maypo
    Milo Cereal – Nestlé
    Milo Crunchy Bites – Nestlé
    Milo Duo – Nestlé
    Mini Cinnamon Churros – Post Cereals (2011-)
    Monopoly Cereal – General Mills (2003)
    Monster Cereals – General Mills (1971 – present)
    Boo Berry – General Mills (1973 – present)
    Count Chocula – General Mills (1971 – present)
    Franken Berry – General Mills (1971 – present)
    Fruit Brute – General Mills (1974–1983) New Version (2013)[7]
    Yummy Mummy – General Mills (1988–1993) New Version (2013)
    Moonstones – Ralston (1970s)
    Morning Funnies – Ralston (1988–1989)
    Most
    Mr. T Cereal – Quaker Oats (1984)
    Mr. Wonderful’s Surprise – General Mills (1970s)
    Muffets – Quaker
    N
    Neopets Islandberry Crunch – General Mills (2006)
    Nerds Cereal – Ralston (1985-1986)
    Nestlé NesQuik – General Mills/Nestlé (1999 – present)
    Nickelodeon Green Slime Cereal – General Mills (2003)
    Nintendo Cereal System – Ralston/Nintendo – (1988–1989)
    Nion-Nion – Achalandage

    O
    Oatbox Cereal Co. – Cranberry, Rosemary & Raw Cocoa Nibs Granola (2014)
    Oatbox Cereal Co. – Chai Tea & Roasted Pineapple Granola (2014)
    Oatbox Cereal Co. – Old fashioned Apple Crumble Granola (2014)
    Oatbox Cereal Co. – Pumpkin Spice Granola (2014)
    Oatmeal Crisp – General Mills (Oatmeal Raisin Crisp, now in multiple varieties)
    Oatmeal Squares – Quaker Oats (previously Oat Squares, also Cinnamon version)
    Oat Bran Squares – Quaker Oats
    Oatibix – Weetabix Limited (2006 – present)
    Oat Crisp – Quaker Oats (Late 1990s?-Present) (replacement for Oat Krunchies)
    Oat Krunchies – Quaker Oats (1970s–late 1990s?) Image (replaced by Crisp then Oat Crisp)
    Oats & Honey Blend – Mom’s Best Naturals
    Oh’s – Quaker Oats Company (mid-1980s)
    “oho!” breakfast cereals (1991)[9]
    Orange Blossom – General Mills (1981)
    Organic Wild Puffs – Barbara’s Bakery
    Oreo O’s – Post Cereals (1998–2007) (Still available in South Korea)

    P
    Fruity Pebbles

    Pac-Man – General Mills (Early 1980s)
    Palaseja – Lithuania (1994)
    Peanut Butter Crunch – Quaker Oats (1969 – present)
    Peanut Butter Toast Crunch – General Mills (2004–2005)(2013–present)
    Pebbles Cereal – Post Cereals (1969 – Present)
    Bamm-Bamm Berry Pebbles – Post (2007–2009)
    Cinna-Crunch Pebbles – Post Cereals (1998–2001)
    Cocoa Pebbles – Post Cereals (1970 – present)
    Cupcake Pebbles – Post Cereals (2009–2011)
    Dino Pebbles – Post Cereals (Early 1990s)
    Dino S’mores Pebbles – Post Cereals (2008)
    Fruity Pebbles – Post Cereals (1969 – present)
    IceBerry Pebbles – Post Cereals (2006–2007)
    Limited Edition Smurfs Pebbles – Post Cereals (2011–)
    Marshmallow Mania Pebbles – Post Cereals (2005–2007)
    Marshmallow Pebbles – Post Cereals (2010–)
    Pebbles Boulders – Post Cereals (2011–)
    Poppin’ Pebbles – Post Cereals (2014-)
    Winter Fruity Pebbles – Post Cereals (2003)
    Pink Panther Flakes – Post Cereals (1972–1974)
    Powdered Donutz – General Mills (Early 1980s)
    Pro Starz (feat. Wayne Gretzky on the covers) – General Mills.
    Prophet’s Pastry Pops – Amber Franklin Cereal Products(2013-)
    Pronutro, Bokomo, South Africa
    Puff – Kashi
    Puffed Rice – (Quaker Oats) (Malt-O-Meal)
    Puffed Wheat – (Quaker Oats]) (Malt-O-Meal)
    Puffkins – UK, c.1960
    Puffins – Barbara’s Bakery, early 1990s
    Punch Crunch – (Quaker Oats) (1970s)

    Q

    Quake – Quaker Oats (1965–1970)
    Quake Quangaroos – Quaker Oats (1971–1974)
    Quaker 100% Natural Granola
    Quaker Oatmeal Squares – Quaker Oats
    Quaker Oh’s – Quaker Oats
    Quisp – Quaker Oats (1965 – sold online and in limited distribution)

    R
    Raisin Bran
    Rice Krispies

    Rainbow Brite Cereal – Ralston (1985)
    Raisin Nut Bran – General Mills
    Ready Brek – Weetabix Limited
    Reese’s Puffs – General Mills (1994 – present)
    Reptar Crunch – Post (1999)
    Rice Bubbles
    Rice Honeys Nabisco
    Rice Krinkles – Post (1951-1970s)
    Richard Petty 43′s – General Mills
    Rip’s Big Bowl – Engine 2 Diet
    Rocky Road – General Mills (1986 – 1987)[7]
    Rail Road tracks – Joey Mickladlen (1986)

    S
    Shredded wheat
    Shreddies

    Sesame Street Cereal – Post Cereals (2013-)
    Shredded Oats – Barbara’s Bakery, 1980s
    Shreddd Spoonfuls – Barbara’s Bakery, 1980s
    Shredded Wheat – Post Cereals (originally Nabisco Shredded Wheat) Barbara’s Bakery (US), Cereal Partners (UK) – (variants and generic versions sold under various names)
    Shreddies – [Post Foods]
    Shrek’s (NOT Donkey’s) – Shrek-themed cereal made by General Mills
    Sir Grapefellow – General Mills (1972)[7]
    Slimer! And The Real Ghosterbusters Cereal – Ralston (early 1990s)
    Smart Bran
    Smart Start
    S’mores Grahams or S’mores Crunch – General Mills (1980s–1990s)
    Smurf Berry Crunch – Post Cereals (1983)
    Smurf Magic Berries – Post Cereals (1987-early 1990s)
    Snow Flakes – Nestlé (Eastern Europe, Asia and South America)
    Spider-Man – Ralston (1995)
    Spiderman 3 Cereal – General Mills (2007)
    Sprinkle Spangles – General Mills (early 1990s)
    Strawberry Blasted Honeycomb – Post Cereals
    Strawberry Shortcake – General Mills (1980s)
    Sugar Crisp – Post Cereals (1949 – present)
    Sugar Jets – General Mills (1950s)
    Sugar Puffs
    Sugar Sprinkled Twinkles – General Mills (1960–1965)
    Sun Crunchers – General Mills (discontinued) (1990s)
    Sun Flakes – Ralston (discontinued)
    Superman Stars – Post Cereals
    Sweetened Wheat-fuls – Mom’s Best Naturals

    T

    Team Flakes – Nabisco
    Teddy Grahams Breakfast Bears Graham Cereal – Nabisco (1990)
    Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles – Ralston (1989–1991)
    Tiny Toon Adventures Cereal – Quaker (1990)
    Toasted Cinnamon Squares – Mom’s Best Naturals
    Toasted Wheat-fuls – Mom’s Best Naturals
    Toasties – Post Cereals
    Total – General Mills (1961–present)
    Total Cinnamon Crunch
    Total Corn
    Total Cranberry Crunch
    Total Honey Clusters
    Total Raisin Bran
    Triples – General Mills (1993)
    Trix – General Mills (1954 – present)
    Turbo Cereal – Post Cereals (2013)
    Twinkles – General Mills (1960s)

    U

    Ultima Organic Cereals – Barbara’s Bakery
    Uncle Sam Cereal – U.S. Mills (1908 – present)
    Undercover Bears – General Mills (1990–1991)
    Urkel-Os – Ralston (1991-1992)

    V
    Vanilly Crunch – Quaker Oats (1970s)
    Veggie O’s (popular cereal in Yemen)

    W-Z
    Wackies – General Mills (1965–1967)
    Waffelos – Ralston (Late 1970s-early 1980s)
    Waffle Crisp – Post Cereals (1996 – present) (sporadic availability)
    Weet-Bix – Sanitarium Health Food Company
    Weetabix – Weetabix Limited – (generic equivalent branded as “whole-wheat biscuits” or similar)
    Weetabix Minis – Weetabix Limited
    Weetos – Weetabix Limited
    Wheat Honeys Nabisco
    Wheat Stax – General Mills – (1966)[10]
    Wheatena
    Wheaties – General Mills – “The Breakfast of Champions” – (1924 – present)
    Yog-Active
    Zany Fruits – Western Family

    32

  • #
    Richard

    I so wish I ate Kellogg’s products so I could boycott them. Alas, I must leave that pleasure to others.

    50

  • #
    Phil R

    I don’t know if this has been posted before, but Mark Steyn has an interesting article about the Kellogg controversy.

    http://www.steynonline.com/7621/the-road-to-wellville

    30

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    In the U.K., in the early eighties, there was a satirical TV programme called “Not the Nine O’Clock News”, so named because it was on the Beebyanka’s second channel at the same time as the most watched news broadcast in Britain was playing on the first (if you want satire nowadays, just go straight to Beebyanka news, available in television, including a twenty-four hour yawnathon, radio and on-line formats).

    I approximately remember a joke about Kellogg’s:

    “A Kellogg’s spokesman has angrily rejected suggestions that Corn Flakes have no nutritional value.

    “‘Corn Flakes are full of nutrition,’ he said, ‘especially when sprinkled on food.’”

    40

  • #
    Angry

    Join the Movement Against Kellogg’s Bigotry

    344,728 people have joined !!!!!!

    http://www.breitbart.com/dumpkelloggs/

    21

  • #

    OT I know, but still!
    dpy6629 says: 06 Dec 16 at 1:18 am

    “Its not going to help to rehash the satellites vs. surface station argument which is a false choice.”

    A measurement of ‘something’ remains a measurement of ‘something’ here\now. Even if the measurer has no idea of what that something may be! Most measurement is not trivial, but the very best measurement that can be done here\now of that something! Any adjustment of the numbers obtained by such measurement must be treated by all society as the most obscene travesty of science possible!
    All sort of discovery of ‘what was measured’, and errors of measurement of such, can be explained with sorrow of stupidity. The numbers of the ‘original’ measurement must remain pristine! I still ‘thunk’ at digital readouts, trying desperately to get a better ‘measurement”!
    -will-

    22

  • #

    255 companies have now pulled ads from Breitbart.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/12/sleeping_giants_campaign_against_breitbart.html

    (“The Sleeping Giants account says 255 companies have pulled ads from Breitbart as of Thursday. Of them, Kellogg’s, the company behind a dizzying array of breakfast and other foods, has gotten the most attention. After the company removed its advertising from Breitbart on Tuesday, the site responded with a #DumpKelloggs countercampaign. “Boycotting Breitbart News for presenting mainstream American ideas is an act of discrimination and intense prejudice,”)

    24

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      Yep, more fake news. Kind of like when they reported that “over 50″ sponsors had pulled their ads from Rush Limbaugh. When it was only 4 (and 2 of them begged to come back).

      Appell, never one to stop spreading fake news! LOL

      51

    • #
      tom0mason

      David Appell,

      This is up to your ususal high standards of reporting…
      Puff piece of low journalistic standard allowing a self glorifying advertising press release to be the story. The Slate has done no cross-checking, no verification of the figures.
      So I can safely assume this report is the usual fact-free MSM fake-news story.

      Who is Sleeping Giant?
      “Sleeping Giants is an organization dedicated to stopping racist sexist homophobic and anti-Semitic news sites by stopping their ad dollars.”

      30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Quoting Slate … what more needs to be said?

      30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      David,

      Have you had a chance to look at the mind experiment I posited to you at #3.3.1.2.1 ?

      I am quite keen to know your thoughts.

      30

  • #

    Rereke Whakaaro December 17, 2016 at 5:28 pm

    “David, Have you had a chance to look at the mind experiment I posited to you at #3.3.1.2.1 ? I am quite keen to know your thoughts.”

    Keen to know The BOT David Appell’s thoughts (if any)???
    Why not do something fun!, like poke yourself in the eye with a pencil? Here we go, needs repeating:

    Rereke Whakaaro #3.3.1.2.1 December 10, 2016 at 10:06 am ·

    But at least we think, David. And we make up our own minds, and we don’t always agree with each other, but in the back and forth conversations, scientific understanding starts to emerge.

    Indeed some understanding, as opposed to religious\political catechism\brainwashing.

    That is what real scientists do. You demand reference sources: where do you think those sources come from?

    Scientific reference can only be produced from measurement, never from pal review of pfantasy!

    Climate Science used to be part of Atmospheric Physics, which was, and is, its natural home. But as far as I am aware, it has split off from there, to form its own little clique, where everybody can agree with everybody else, and nobody’s hypothesis ever get challenged. Nice and friendly, I am sure, but it ain’t science.

    Indeed! All comes from 400 year old meteorology, a shamed and kicked out part of the Astrology Guild, an honorable profession, with excellent records of the position of solar system major bodies in relation to the observable constellations.

    The whole climate change fear thing became apparent in the 1970′s in a pre-packaged shrink-wrapped parcel, complete with press releases, and documentary mini-series. Back in the 1970′s it was not called climate change, it was about an imminent ice age (search for “the coming ice age” on Youtube).

    With the same players of no personal integrity!

    When that didn’t actually occur, the meme shifted once more, to the current Global Warming scare.

    With the same players of no personal integrity!

    But what goes around, comes around, and we now we see NASA’s Ames Research Centre (Cal) are predicting a colder earth, based on a decrease in the frequency and number of sunspot occurrences.

    With the same players of no personal integrity!

    My conclusion, from all this? Nobody has a clue what is actually going to happen next. As as far as the science is concerned, it is having, what the English call, “a bob each way”.

    Nicely put!

    And then there are the fellow travelers, like yourself, who don’t have a clue either, but you do have an editor or publisher who is demanding column inches from you, so you go with the flow, and report on the meme du jour. I have no problem with that, but please don’t come here and insult our intelligence by pushing a political argument. We have seen it all before.

    :-) All the best! -will-

    30