“50,000 attend rally with speech against climate agenda in Poland“ (2013-11-12). Hey Anthony Watts, lately you’ve been frothing over “Warmist” exaggeration of Super Typhoon Haiyan fatalities. (Except it doesn’t look like there was any exaggeration, does it?) How does if feel being caught doing what you tried to accuse others of, in literally the same breath?
Thanks to HotWhopper for unravelling this one: How’s That Polish Exaggeration Going, Anthony Watts?
Anthony, your original title was “50000 at Rally Against Climate Agenda in Poland” and your copy-and-pasted post led with “UN climate summit in Poland greeted by 50,000 angry Poles rallying against UN”. You had to walk it back a bit, huh?
In fact (as opposed to CFACT) CFACT president David Rothbard spoke at an “Independence March” organized by nationalists and right-wing groups as a counter to official celebrations of Poland’s Independence Day (commemorating Poland’s 1918 release from Prussian, Austrian and Russian control). They didn’t give a shit about climate change. Far-right rioters leave trail of destruction in Polish capital: “The main target of the rioters appeared to have been any symbol of left-wing, liberal views” - Reuters
A good match, ideologically, I guess. But if Anthony thinks he can pass off CFACT egging on far-right rioters as Poles throwing the oppressive yoke of UN climate scientists… I’ve got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
“NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 320“ (2013-11-08). Can a “Dr.” get high school level science wrong? Anthony Watts helpfully offers the newsletter of New Zealand’s denialist retired coal researcher Dr. Vincent Gray for our consideration.
Somehow this educational so-called newsletter manages to forget the recent news that Gray’s denialist New Zealand Climate Science Coalition was ordered to pay costs of $90,000 by the NZ High Court in the wake of their abandoned lawsuit against the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. Their lawsuit was declared not in the public interest and they “cannot claim to have acted reasonably.” Seems they wanted to force the NIWA to change New Zealand’s official temperature record to match their biases because of… reasons.
But Gray’s still the guy to impartially explain climate science to us and he wants us to know that carbon dioxide and ‘greenhouse gases’ “have no place in a scientific study of the climate.”
Dr. Gray also shares his nuanced understanding of the flaws of modern climate modelling:
- The earth can be considered flat
- The sun has a constant intensity, both day and night.
- All energy exchanges are by radiation
- Energy entering the earth equals that leaving
- All change is caused by changes in:greenhouse gases
- Natural influences are merely :”variable”
I’ll just point you to Nick Stoke’s comment to save myself some typing:
[...] This is just completely untrue and no evidence is given:
“completely different computer models”
They are not. GCMs are adaptions of numerical weather forecasting models which do take into account longer term forcings such as GHGs (which make insignificant change on a 10 day period). Some, like GFDL, can be and are used for numerical weather forecasting too.
· The earth can be considered flat
Certainly not. They use a spherical grid with topographic coordinates. Here is GFDL doing SST. Flat Earth?
“The sun has a constant intensity, both day and night.”
No. Diurnal and seasonal solar are calculated for each location
“All energy exchanges are by radiation”
No, heat is convected, with turbulent transfer and of course, latent heat is computed.
“Energy entering the earth equals that leaving”
Well, it does, to a very good approximation. Only recently has a discrepancy been measurable, and I’m sure that will be included.
“All change is caused by changes in: greenhouse gases”
Where on earth do you get that from? They are solving time varying PDEs.
Natural influences are merely: ”variable”
I don’t even know what that means.
“The AGU climate policy statement as redrafted by Monckton“ (2013-08-07). Anthony Watts posts a “guest essay” from the denialism’s leading intellectual, the publicity-seeking self-promoting fringe politician Lord Christopher Monckton.
Monckton gives us the denialist fantasy version of the American Geophysical Union’s periodically restated policy on climate change. No link to the true document provided by Watts or Monckton. In Monckton’s fevered imagination, “Our influence on the climate is minor but beneficial.” So, sorry everyone! False alarm.
His version would be correct if the AGU’s scientific go-to guy was a demented fringe politician with a journalism diploma who publishes Sudoku books instead of fifteen real and highly qualified scientists.
Journalist, AIDS curer, Nobel Prize Winner!
Monckton’s verbal acrobatics can be entertaining as he tries to simultaneously obscure his flimsy arguments and showcase his ‘towering intellect’ through wacky insults, but I won’t bothered wasting my time on the underlying debunked garden-variety nonsense. Try wottsupwiththatblog or HotWhopper if you want to figure out what he’s squawking about.
“An Open Letter to Dr. Marcia McNutt, new Editor-In-Chief, Science Magazine“ (2013-08-04). This is awesome for Anthony Watts. One his best buddies, Willis Eschenbach, has just been published in Science!
Oh wait, it’s just an astoundingly condescending and sexist, as well as painfully long,”Open Letter” containing the usual Gish Gallop of denialist rants written for Willis’ private wish-fulfillment. Probably a frustrated response to the Science special issue, A Once and Future Climate two days earlier (hint: no one thinks the planet is turning into a tropical paradise). Also, Al Gore.
Is Willis the only man with the intellectual strength to tell Dr. McNutt the TRUTH instead of stutter sycophantically?
Summary: Yer good lookin’, so pandering limp-wristed climatologist men have fed yer hippie inclinations. Listen to someone rugged like me copying and pasting denialist crap, not your own 30 years of real active scientific work!
So Willis Eschenbach, a trained masseuse, blowhard blogger and unpublished 1975 psych major, tells Dr. McNutt, a PhD geophysicist with direct research credentials in environmental topics, that “people laugh at the bumf that passes for climate science in your pages”? There’s laughter take place Willis, you got that right.
Anthony’s readers naturally salute Willis’ courage in speaking truth to power, albeit with about 30 grammatical suggestions and a certain amount of wincing.
“Fare thee well, friend” (2012-11-13). What bad manners! Just as Anthony Watts’ anti-Gore skype-in is about to start Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. says he’s giving up (“retiring“) his blog. Now, more than ever, denialists must shout!
Was he “the best climate scientist in the world”? So sayeth Anthony’s commenters. Well he is the one of the few “skeptics” with legit scientific (meteorology) credentials, and he does admit that “humans are significantly altering the global climate”. Anthony loves to get as close as possible to Dr. Pielke to try to transfer the scent of semi-credibility to himself.
Dr. Pielke has certainly produced legitimate scientific work, but in the field of climate science he’s mainly been a disgruntled complainer. He seems focused on how all the other climate scientists have formed a secret club and arguing that we must be 200% sure before doing anything. Also, scientists who recognize global warming are advocates (while those who grudgingly accept it but seek to minimize its significance and prevent action aren’t). He has also cleverly noticed that the phrase “climate change” could refer to cooling as well as warming. If that were happening.
Maybe Dr. Pielke just got tired of trying to sell the same old half-truths week after week?
“Fly your flag – Veteran’s Day” (2012-11-11). Anthony Watts implies that if you didn’t fly the Stars and Stripes today you’re a traitor. Of course two days ago he was pleased to regard flying the American flag upside down or at half-mast as legitimate political protest over majority vote against Republicans in the Senate, the House of Representatives and for President.
I repeat Samuel Johnson’s observation from a few days ago – “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.“
For myself, I respect the risks and sacrifices of, in my case, Canadian soldiers year ’round and treat with deep skepticism any efforts to consume them, or our enemies or civilian bystanders, in pursuit of political goals.
California Academy of Sciences pulls the plug on their climate change exhibit (2012-02-19). Anthony Watts provides the following deep analysis: if a science museum (“the über green California Academy of Sciences”) replaces a climate change exhibit in a space used for rotating exhibits, this proves that there is no Global Warming.
Also, if a climate change exhibit isn’t eye-catching it proves that the public doesn’t trust commie climatologizers.
This counts as victory in denial-land?