“Earth itself is telling us there’s nothing to worry about in doubled, or even quadrupled, atmospheric CO2″ (June 2, 2011). According to Anthony Watts, Pat Frank writes excellent essays on climate science. The beaming Anthony helpfully offers a new example of his excellence, copy-and-pasted from his echo chamber partners at The Air Vent: “Future Perfect“, which asserts this comforting “fact”:
Spread the word: the Earth[‘s] climate sensitivity is 0.090 C/W-m^-2. [This of course begs the question: how did the Earth ever enter or leave an Ice Age in the geological past?]
Anthony Watts and his readers embrace Frank’s dim-witted numerology wish-fulfillment with surprisingly open arms. Frank’s conclusion (based on his intuitive grasp of climatology?) is that all this alleged warming is somehow merely the recovery from the Little Ice Age and that we can pump out as much CO2 as we like.
Once again Excel is put to good use, disproving those dang climatologists and their thinkin’. Nothing like invoking from thin air a “combined cosine function plus a linear trend” to explain everything, without the bother of actually explain anything. If Frank could actually explain why his magic squiggle occurred, he’d actually have something. Sadly, it’s clear that he simply pecked away at Excel until he stumbled across an equation that sort-of matched the historical record.
More of a citizen-scientist’s mind at work: “The rest of the analysis automatically follows.”
Pat Frank discovers that Excel can draw flat lines.
My “technical analysis”: Frank has discovered that if you subtract a bunch of numbers from themselves you get zeros! You’ll aways get a flat line when you plot a squiggle that’s a pretty close fit to the data and then remove the squiggle.
Tamino at Open Mind lays out how a sentient person might respond to such nonsense, first with the quick double-take post Circle Jerk and in more detail with Frankly, Not.
Some nuggets from the keenly skeptical comments at Anthony’s blog:
- Andy G55 – “This is the sort of REAL analysis I love to see. propa science !!! well done, mate !!”
- Shaun D – “I agree. This is real science. But I have no idea what it means.”
- Alan the Brit – “Sound, common sense, well thought through, & logially applied, so it won’t be published in the MSM then!”
- Ryan – “Fantastic post Mr Frank, very plausible and difficult to refute.”
Wott's Up With That? 
Oh sure Tamino might have gone through some of the reasons why this is a terrible analysis but let’s not forget the analysis of the analysis
Tada! Anthony doesn’t like the title so there!
[Funny coming from the self-appointed policeman of thermometers. Of course, that’s exactly what Anthony tries to do: cherry-pick two points and connect them. – Ben]
Pingback: We’re the Echo Chamber Crowd? « the Air Vent
“At the moment your May 24th version of Pat’s ‘analysis’ has 32 comments vs the 132 at Anthony’s June 2nd reposting. Not only are you part of the echo chamber, you’re dependent on Anthony’s megaphone for your audience.”
…meanwhile the count at your site is to, no that’s not it; too, oops wrong again; two (2); that’s it! From the way comments are attributed it may not even be two (2) it may be won; there I go again, one (1)!
I came here from the “echo chamber,” I suspect that your traffic count today will also reflect that fact. By the way, if you’ve ever taken the time to read tAV you’ll find it’s no echo chamber and everyone–on both sides of the issue–benefits from Anthony’s traffic.
[Nothing to say about Pat Frank’s revolutionary insights? Hmm. Just here to bluster then. Anthony plays the “shout them down” traffic game, I don’t. Jeff and Anthony are symbionts, the fact that they scratch at each other sometimes doesn’t change that. – Ben]
Wait, I thought science wasn’t a democracy of opinions. But somehow we’ve progressed from quoting opinion polls to counting blog comments as an indicator of who’s science is bigger?
[Anthony’s repost was what got the attention, Jeff depends on Anthony’s echo chamber for a large part of his audience. But what’s your opinion on Pat Frank’s science? – Ben]
Nice try. You’re the one who brought up the the traffic game. It was the weakest link in your weak chain of…oh, ok argument.
Pat Frank can speak for himself. He answers some interesting questions and raises even more interesting questions which should be considered regardless of what side you’re on. I don’t think what he’s saying is revolutionary…perhaps counter-revolutionary? at least from your perspective.
[Whatever. Pat is doing a pretty lousy job of defending his ideas elsewhere, but if you think they’re “interesting”… – Ben]
So taking out the warming trend means there is no warming trend, now that Global warming has been prevented perhaps they can get on to finding a way to cure cancer, not counting patients seems like a good start in bizarro world.
[They could start shouting about the “new” placebo effect. – Ben]
I hate the use of the word “dang”. Bo Duke is the only person who can pull that off.
[True, I should have prefaced it with “them”. – Ben]
Let’s see, you have seven comments, that’s bigger than 6, and absolutely 0, butkuss, goosegg, nada. zilch, in the way of actual analysis of Pat Frank’s article. I guess the open mind has allowed all your thoughts to blow away!!
You should thank me for adding to your traffic on such a sorry site.
[Oh thank you thank you thank you for gracing me with your charming presence. – Ben]
No, this value can’t be explained by crickets since their numbers have gone down with the invention of DDT.
“Both sides benefit from…. –Anthony’s traffic.”
No they don’t. Anthony’s site is a joke. Complete bunk.
But then, David Archer was right.
So, Anthony allowed his guest writer “Pat Franks” to prank the rubes with fallacious mathturbations of utter nonsense.
The follow up by J Storrs-Hall under the impressive title “Earth, fire, air, and water” (the last airbender?) on June 6th, is equally as funny, or about one who is in total denial of real world laws of physics!
The motto of the UK Royal Society :Nullius in verba — Latin for “On the words of no one”
Consider the following definitions. Genuine skeptics consider all the evidence in their search for the truth. Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with their pre-determined views. (source Joe Romm’s Climate Progress:-http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/02/234774/skeptic-climate-science-denier/)
Perhaps, what Anthony Watts really meant to say was “Pat Pranks the Rubes!”.
Thanks Ben, insightful as ever.
[I haven’t had time to return to Anthony’s blog, this sounds like a good one… Perhaps I’ll have to skip ahead. – Ben]
So 2 wrongs don’t make a right but 132 wrongs do. I finally learned something from T.Watt.
[Hasn’t that the point of Anthony’s blog from day one? :-) – Ben]
Speaking of Dunning-Kruger, here’s Willis’s idea of the proper approach to science:
Science, if lawyers and agents did science.
[Willis is a rich source of material… = Ben]
OK. So WUWT is compiling ‘AGW quotes’.
——
I’ve submitted a few, as a counter to the ‘climategate’ email quotes, op-ed nonsense, selective, fabricated and mistranslated soundbites so far received, feel free to pop over there and add a few of your own … this could be fun, Anthony loves crowdsourcing….
Naomi Oreskes surveys the literature
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change Science 2004
The National Academies of Science of Japan, Russia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, the UK Royal Society and the US NAS.
UK House of Commons Science & Technology Committee
Oxburgh Panel
The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review
US EPA ‘Myths vs Facts.’
Dessler et al 2008
[This got caught in the spam filter (too many URLs?) and seems truncated. Nice reality dose though! – Ben]
Thanks Ben,
you and folks like Tamino and the bunny helped me to realize that there is a lot of propaganda and spin in climate world !
[I get the feeling you’re disparaging the “conventional” climate world, but it puzzles me why Anthony and his partners are so eager to repeat their misrepresentations. You’d think they’d move on but I guess when you only have two tactics you have to recycle… – Ben]
Never mind, I just heard the breaking smelly carbon pollution news!
The sheeple down under, will get a revised version of this head in the sand nonsense in July, 2011, when Lord (don’t mention my carbon footprint, Al’s yes, mine no!) Monckton, returns for a profitable low tax paid working holiday.
The schedule shows eleven tour engagements, all expenses paid, not exceeding two hours per event (or so it would seem) at a cost of $25-00 per head minimum! Way back in 2009, it was a mere $10-00 per head, to listen to the similar debunked bunkum (John Abraham rocks)! This 150% conflation, is truly rough!
The unfortunate Sydney head in the sand luddites, will be receiving a triple enema dose of complete bull dust, with David ‘debunked heat spot’ Evans and Jo ‘not a skeptic’ Nova listed as supporting speakers. Strangely, Ticketek shows several lectures of climate misinformation nonsense are total sell outs in old Sydney “Gullible” Town.
Nice, short monthly working hours for a very small minority, in this carbon pollution denial propaganda dispensing business, I really must be in the wrong business, but I can sleep well at night with a clear conscience.
Talk about fleecing the sheeple!
[My take on these “tours” is that they’re fleecing the same rubes over and over again. They really should consider the efficiencies of touring with Andrew Wakefield. Of course, there’s nothing Monckton likes better than the sound of his own voice. – Ben]
These rubes have powerful friends, his Lordship is speaking at the Association of Mining and Exploration conference 2011, along with Tony Rabbet (leader of opposition) and talks sponsored by the CSIRO and Geoscience Australia, how such a quak can be in the same room is beyond me, if the CSIRO and Geo Australia had any ethics they would dump their sessions in protest at the legitimisation of the fraudster. I don’t expect it though, Australia is the miner’s bitch.
[I think someone’s trying to sneak into the back row of the “real scientists” photo… – Ben]
Hi Ben,
I would like to ask a few questions which some deniers asked me in the pub a few days ago. Embarrassingly, I did not have the figures at hand. They claimed that they did. Perhaps you could tell us the correct answer?
[Golly you’ve worded your “friends questions” quite carefully…]
They asked me (in not so many words of course):
1. If human emissions were to completely cease (impossible of course) then how much would the planet cool by over the next 50 years? They claimed something ridiculous like 1 degree, perhaps, maybe. Then they claimed that “natural variations” could very probably swamp that and the planet could turn out to be warmer anyway. [
YouThey are trying to misrepresent our biosphere’s chemistry. CO2 impacts have long latency, while temperature variation responds to more than just CO2.]2. What is the percentage decrease in the atmospheric CO2 that will occur due to the new Carbon Pricing scheme in Australia? They claimed it was less that a hundredth of a percent! I told them that was nonsense, but I did not have a source to cite. [
YouThey are simply repeating a numerical deception. In 2008 Australia contributed 1.32% of global anthropogenic CO2, how much doyouthey think initial reduction efforts should achieve?]3. Will the Carbon Pricing be applied to Chinese imports to Australia, to put a price on the CO2 emitted by the Chinese as they manufacture goods which will no longer be manufactured in Australia due to the Carbon Pricing? I.e. what is being done to stop the Carbon Pricing from resulting in loss of jobs in Australia with no actual decrease in CO2 output (since China will be doing the emissions on behalf of Australia)? They were very concerned about this. [Sorry, not really interested in
yourtheir economic policy angst.][Golly you’ve worded your “friends questions” quite carefully…]
Thank you, I tried to write as concisely as possible. In some aspects I failed, but thank you for recognising my efforts.
[
YouThey are trying to misrepresent our biosphere’s chemistry. CO2 impacts have long latency, while temperature variation responds to more than just CO2.]They might be. Could you elaborate? In any case, can you answer the question? How much cooler do you believe the planet would be 50 years from now if we did cease all CO2 emissions today compared to the case where we do not? Do the IPCC have predictions of that?
[Sorry, not really interested in
yourtheir economic policy angst.]That’s a pity, because “economic policy angst” is very important to working families. People who used to have jobs, will no longer have jobs. They are told it is in order to reduce CO2 output – but if Australia imports from China the things it refuses to produce for itself, then the same amount of CO2 is still released. Those people, the majority of people actually, are very concerned about losing their jobs. Fortunately for you, as a software engineer, this will not be a concern. I guess that nobody is asking software engineers to make that sacrifice.
[Not interested in tunnel-vision word games. Best of luck convincing
yourself‘the denialists you spoke to in the pub’. I suggest you stay away from explaining economics though, you seem to have an extremely poor grasp of it. – Ben]This dialogue with you has shown me that those guys in the pub had a good point about the attitude of those who they call the “bed wetters”. I asked you a simple question and received abuse in return.
[“Chris”, you’re lousy at role-playing. You need to understand where your character came from, what really motivates him. Draw out the conflict, explore it. Don’t flip into pedestrian bitterness so fast, give your audience time to sympathize with you before the reveal. – Ben]
You refused to answer a simple question- how much cooler do you believe the planet would be in 50 years time if we cease all emissions today compared to the case where we do not?
You claim that if we continue to emit CO2 then the planet will be warmer 50 years from now. When you are asked how much warmer that is, what figure is in your mind – you refuse to answer and claim the Climate System is too complex.
So you have no idea how much the policies you support will cost the economy and you have no idea how much they will reduce CO2 output and you have no idea, or you refuse to say, how much that reduction will cool the planet by. But you insist that you are rational and hurl abuse at me for politely asking you those simple questions.
[Why don’t you Google these questions that trouble you so? Your rhetorical questions have been thoroughly answered many times over, as you know. Why should I waste my time on them? – Ben]
To answer your question, How much do you they think initial reduction efforts should achieve?
The Carbon Pricing plan will not reduce global output at all – because the emissions are just being shipped to China via imports. Australia will output less CO2, but they will increase imports, whose manufacture and transport will result in increased CO2. All in all it will either balance out, or increase the rate of global emission.
Of course, after a few decades of the policy in action the economy will sink as more jobs go abroad and imports will become too expensive. The poorer future Australians will no longer import so much or manufacture so much, and that probably will reduce their global contribution to CO2. But then again, so would shooting them all!
[See above. (Try shaking your head more. If either of your brain cells bump into the other your thought processes may restart.) – Ben]
Thanks Ben. You have been very helpful. People can read your (non-)responses to simple questions and make up their own minds.
[I wonder why someone who claimed to be an impartial inquiring mind looking for AGW support in an argument would post a call-to-arms on Anthony’s website? I think this conversation will prove more educational than you expected.
– Ben]
You are right, you should not “waste your time” typing in a single solitary number which is the answer to the question. It would take ages to do that, after all! Best to spend your time instead hurling abuse at anybody who asks you any questions.
PS I took your advice and used “Google” to try to locate an answer. It said 0.001C. This may or may not be correct and if you have a more correct estimate, say from peer reviewed sources, then feel free to post it. Otherwise let’s assume you tacitly agree with this tiny number since it comes from the source you referred us to.
What will we learn from it? That I asked for help from people on the website you berate to wade into a discussion where you have given an unsatisfactory answer? Don’t you want people to ask questions and leave comments on your website? Isn’t that the point of your creating a website with a comments section?
[We’ve learned that you’re a run-of-the-mill denialist pretending, badly, to be a naive newcomer. With a clear love of his own voice and a sense of his own importance. Sort of a Monckton-in-training. Perhaps you are this Chris Smith, right-wing talk radio agitator. I remain uninterested in your attempts to twist the debate toward topics that you enjoy posturing about or your attempts to bog down discussion with out-dated denialist talking points. – Ben]
My understanding is that you are pushing the argument that the planet will be dangerously warmer in the future due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Is that understanding correct or incorrect?
Some deniers in a pub asked me some questions about the impacts of CO2 reductions. I did not have any figures at hand. Who better to ask than yourself? Should I have asked Anthony instead?
So I asked you, on your website, which you created, in the comments section, which you enabled, presumably for people to leave comments, ask questions and make suggestions, by how much you think the planet will be cooler in 50 years time if we hypothetically cease all anthropogenic emissions globally today and forever more, compared to the case where we do not.
It is a very simple question.
Your response was
“[You They are trying to misrepresent our biosphere’s chemistry. CO2 impacts have long latency, while temperature variation responds to more than just CO2.]”
Where did I try to misrepresent the chemistry?
You wrote that CO2 impacts have a long latency.
Are you saying that we would not observe any effects after 50 years due to the long latency? If we would, then what is the temperature difference?
What about 100 years? 200 years? 1,000 years? 10,000 years? 100,000 years? What is the latency after which we would observe the effects of ceasing to output CO2 and what would those effects be on the global temperature?
It is a simple question. You claim that the planet would be cooler in the future were it not for our CO2 output. Is that true? Do you claim that? I am simply asking you by how much and by when. Is it unreasonable to expect you to have an answer to that question?
You directed me to Google, so I looked. The response did not appear to be anything to worry about. Are those numbers incorrect? What numbers are in your head when you think about CO2 reductions? That is the question. Do you have any numbers in your head concerning the impact of CO2 reductions? If so, what are they?
Rational readers can only conclude that you feel the deniers have a solid argument here and that perhaps the number is very low and the latency is very long and that is why you do not want to answer the simple question.
Perhaps the answer to that question does show, as they claim, that there is no need to panic, no need to reduce Carbon output and no need to transfer jobs to China via Carbon Taxation any time soon – if ever. Well, that is what they are saying, and you have not said anything different.
If the answer is different, and there is a need for such mitigations then perhaps you might have told us what the correct answer is.
Anyhow, no hard feelings. Good luck with everything.
[If you want to pretend that you’re an unbiased newcomer to the climate change debate you’ve really got to fight the urge to regurgitate “triumphant” denialist assertions. Say hi to the unicorns for me. – Ben]
[If you want to pretend that you’re an unbiased newcomer to the climate change debate you’ve really got to fight the urge to regurgitate “triumphant” denialist assertions. Say hi to the unicorns for me. – Ben]
Sigh. Still no answer to the simplest question. Just more abuse.
[Here’s a tip for you: take the “kick me” sign off your back. – Ben]
[Here’s a tip for you: take the “kick me” sign off your back. – Ben]
Even more abuse with no answer to the simplest question. Thanks Ben.
[Your “simple questions” are lame denialist setups. – Ben]
How would you be “setup” by answering the simple question?
You first evaded by claiming the chemistry was complex. Then you evaded by claiming that the latency had to be taken account of. Now you evade by claiming the question is a “setup”.
Looks like my friends in the pub were correct that this type of question would be avoided!
It is nice of you to state that you refuse to answer the question, on the grounds that you consider that very simple question a “lame denialist setup”. Very interesting response. Thanks Ben.
[I apologize for failing to understand that I have to plod along the path of your arguments, but you provide so little intellectual illumination that I didn’t realise there was a little one-way trail laid out for me. – Ben]
“you provide so little intellectual illumination”
I haven’t offered you any “intellectual illumination”. I just asked you a simple question. You are the one who offered no “intellectual illumination”, if you must express things that way, by hurling abuse at me and evading the question.
Thank you for providing a website which challenges WUWT. It is a good idea. I hope it takes off and you get more people to contribute critiques so that every posting there is challenged and a real debate is stimulated. But you ought to consider being prepared to answer simple questions and to enter into a discussion. Anyhow, it’s your website so its all up to you. Good Luck.