goes dark – is it permanent? goes dark – is it permanent? (2015/11/21). It’s nice to see that Anthony Watts’ jumping-to-conclusions/wish-fulfilment muscles are still in top shape! had some momentary domain registration problems last week (I love the denier comments there – a momentary website technical problem is proof that PhD climate scientists are incompetent in climate research!).

While few have noticed, since hardly anyone but the handful of extreme faithful visit there anymore [this reminds me of the old restaurant joke: no-one goes there any more, it’s too busy! – Ben], it seems that the website run by the climate alarmist cabal of Dr. Gavin Schmidt, Dr. Michael Mann, Dr. Stephan Rahmstorf, and others has gone dark this week.

In exactly the same way that snow fall, anywhere for any reason, is proof that global warming is a hoax (or is over, or has reversed, or has paused) so too does Anthony trumpet that RealClimate must be shutting down in despair:

‘Tis a puzzle, did Gavin or EMS forget to pay the hosting bill, have they given up, or is something else going on?

I’ll just take a moment to remind Anthony that RealClimate is a website run by highly qualified climate scientists for the purpose of rational communication on their subject of expertise, not an angry firehose blast of ill-informed accusations, paranoia and flat-out lies like Watts Up With That.

Anthony finishes up with a bit of stalker truculence; boasting that he can read Dr. Gavin Schmidt’s Twitter feed even though Dr. Schmidt has blocked him (“Help! Help! I’m being repressed!”). Here’s a hint, Anthony: Twitter blocking means you can’t pester him, can’t piggyback on his tweets to spread your bullshit. It’s about dealing with trolls.

The Copernicus-PRP fiasco: predictable and preventable

“The Copernicus-PRP fiasco: predictable and preventable” (2014-01-19). Anthony Watts concludes that playing the “censorship!” card in defence of the terminated climate denialist journal Pattern Recognition in Physics is too much of a stretch even for him and that amputation is required.

[Update: I just saw the uncorrected RSS summary for Anthony’s post, a desperate a plea for guidance – what should he believe? “Post on the Copernicus – Tallbloke fiasco please advise” The rats are truly running in all directions.]

Otherwise the dishonest scamming hypocritical denialists who tried to start a fake science journal (see yesterday’s post about the inglorious life and death of Pattern Recognition in Physics) will make dishonest scamming hypocritical denialists like Anthony look like the same kind of dishonest scamming hypocritical denialists as the first group of dishonest scamming hypocritical denialists!

“[Pattern Recognition in Physics’ implosion] has painted all climate skeptics with a broad brush.”

Yes, Anthony, you’ve been tarred by the same brush even though you’re flinching away as fast as you can. Because you’re exactly the same kind of intransigent, politically motivated science denier trying to lie your way to “credibility.” Scrutiny – it’s a bitch.

No doubt their shared conviction that communist conspiracies underlie all climate science will reunite the climate denialists, but for now the denial-sphere is dissolving into factional conflict. Dip into the comments at Anthony’s initial coverage of the journal’s cancelation. When even stalwart followers are complaining about “fighting like ferrets in a sack” you know it’s worth the time.

What hasn’t changed? Non-denialists are still thugs;

the “panic” [Copernicus Publications] were under after getting hit with an [imagined] email campaign from James Annan’s “various people”.

and lust to censor is still the unslaked desire of the ‘mainstream’ scientific community;

 “this looked like another case of suppression due to the anti-IPCC message conveyed in the PRP Special Edition”.

Towards a theory of climate

Towards a theory of climate (2013-11-10). Why on earth does Anthony Watts cling to that fog horn Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley? It’s like watching a drowning man clutch an anchor.

Monckton is an utter loon who clearly takes absolute delight in his own rabid, meandering self-reverential declarations. Would any intelligent person read past this tripe?

I have just had the honor of listening to Professor Murry Salby giving a lecture on climate. He had addressed the Numptorium in Holyrood earlier in the day, to the bafflement of the fourteenth-raters who populate Edinburgh’s daft wee parliament. In the evening, among friends, he gave one of the most outstanding talks I have heard.

Professor Salby has also addressed the Parliament of Eunuchs in Westminster. Unfortunately he did not get the opportunity to talk to our real masters, the unelected Kommissars of the European tyranny-by-clerk.

 Monckton’s head is so far up his own ass that he’s actually seeing daylight again.

The message from on high that Monckton is attempting to deliver is that Dr. Murry Salby, the fired Professor, has reached the “explosive conclusion that temperature change drives CO2 concentration change and not the other way about”.

Therefore Global Warming is a communist lie.

So Monckton and Salby have discovered that real, long-term, natural, climate changes will affect our atmosphere’s chemical composition. Wow. Only one of them can be hailed as the new Galileo, which one will it be? Surely we can split all the Nobel Prizes between them though.

So where’s the huge, near-instantaneous, temperature spike 800 years ago that naturally produced the skyrocketing CO2 concentrations we’ve seen in the last century? Oops.

But we’re still being repressed by the “climate communists”, right?

Heartland’s NIPCC report to be accepted by Chinese Academy of Sciences in special ceremony

Heartland’s NIPCC report to be accepted by Chinese Academy of Sciences in special ceremony (2013-06-12). Too funny to resist this one. Anthony Watts informs us that he’s ‘been aware of this effort being underway for sometime” as he copy-and-pastes a Heartland Institute press release. But it’s just another example of Anthony over-selling himself while pimping for his political allies. I think Anthony tried to jump on a passing bandwagon but still doesn’t realise that he’s grasped a honeywagon.

To hear Heartland tell it, they’re in the final stages of a major scientific collaboration with their new Best Friends Forever, the Chinese Communist Party. A collaboration that proves the denialist “scientific” position has momentum. The Chinese Academy of Science is totally on their side and Craig Idso (Ph.D.), Bob Carter (Ph.D.) and Fred Singer (Ph.D.) are going to Beijing to get their medals!

Perhaps Rabett Run has it right though, the CAS’s comedy translation division has finished puzzling out the Heartland Institute’s Climate Change Reconsidered and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, authored by the NIPCC, a denialist sound-alike to the United Nation’s IPCC (their “report” is a look-alike too). You gotta read the hilarious things these round eyes say!

Too bad this is the reality:

 “this is only a book cooperation between the Lanzhou Branch of the National Science Library and Heartland Institute, and is limited only to copy right trading, with no academic research work involved.”

I guess this is a close to a win as denialist “science” gets. Anthony’s followers are giddy with delight in comments even as “Plain Richard” tries to peel the wool back.

A few other links on this:

2013-06-14 Update: I couldn’t resist poking the ant nest and commented on Anthony’s post failing to reflect the instant collapse of the Heartland Institute and his claims. The result was exactly what you would expect from inquiring website devoted to informing the public about controversial subjects. Not.

Anthony Watts NEVER avoids criticism.

Anthony Watts NEVER avoids criticism.

Pielke Jr. appears to get booted from a journal for giving an unfavorable peer review to some shoddy science

Pielke Jr. appears to get booted from a journal for giving an unfavorable peer review to some shoddy science (2013-02-21). So much truculent stupidity at Watts Up With That recently! All just background noise here in the world of reality. This one’s entertaining though, especially as once again it illuminates Anthony Watts’ habit of blindly piling on any complaint of persecution of fellow denialists.

What happened? Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. wrote another of his “everyone’s mean to me” blog posts because he was dropped from the editorial board of Global Environmental Change. Why? Because they hate him and only ever pretended to like him. The reality however is hilariously different.

First though, Anthony’s contribution. He insta-pasted a snide accusation from Mark Steyn, a notoriously inflammatory right-wing flunky, who after the obligatory self-referential muttering about the evil Dr. Michael Mann declared that “…Professor Pielke, expelled by the palace guard of climate conformism, appears to have been felled by the very pathology he identified.”

Our un-inquisitive and hasty Anthony was forced to walk it back a bit though as you will notice when carefully examining his post’s slug; “pielke-jr-gets-booted-from-journal-for-giving-an-unfavorable-peer-review-to-some-shoddy-science”. It’s missing the ass-covering “appears to get” which was added to the post title later. The post now starts with a non-correction by Roger. It seems he still considers himself rudely dumped, but not for the reason he howled about. I can still hear the wahhhh-mbulance though.

So what really happened? The thin-skinned drama queen thought he was kicked to the curb as payback for his blog criticism (Science is the Shortcut) of a paper, Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?, published in Global Environmental Change. Sadly, it turns out that none of the journal’s other board members were even aware of Roger’s devastating blast, making it hard to sustain the accusation.

In fact, Roger had reached the end of his term and had clearly been coasting. Expected to review up to five papers a year, as many as 30 in his six years, he had been requested to review 18 papers. He’d only actually reviewed six and hadn’t submitted a review since August 2010. His replacement coincided with that of five others, who presumably all simultaneously pissed off the secret editorial board leaders…

2013-02-23 Update: “Rabett” calls it: victim bullying.

An open letter challenging the EPA on CO2 regulation

An open letter challenging the EPA on CO2 regulation (2012-12-28). A line has been drawn in the sand! The environmental gauntlet has been thrown! A fist has been clenched! A steely gaze has been directed! The GIANTS of climatology have been aroused! (Maybe we could have phrased that last one better.) Anthony Watts has added his name to a newspaper opinion piece!!!

So, preeminent 21st century climatologist (Not really. In fact, not even a bit), Joe D’Aleo has written a damning critique (not) of the EPA’s conclusion three years ago that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations will have harmful environmental consequences. And an important newspaper, the Washington Post has printed it! (Err.. the “Examiner”.) The usual denialist travelers like Fred Singer, Tim Ball, Don Easterbrook and Anthony Watts have signed on along with others we will leave unmentioned out of pity.

Here’s the laser-sharp money quote fired, like a diamond bullet, at the very core of the EPA, that Anthony urges his readers to “consider widely republishing”:

“In summary, it is not incorrect to argue that further study of the role GHGs play in climate is in order.”

My mind is spinning! From trying to decipher the meaning. I guess they want the EPA to stop trying to “P” our “E”?

What are Joe & Co. steamed about? Well mainly they hate government regulation on principle. Also they think that the EPA should have spent ten years replicating all the findings of modern climatology instead of just pulling out the relevant peer-reviewed journals. By the way, did you know that some of those journals aren’t American?

In what alternate reality is this proud “Open Letter” anything other than a kick me sign? Have D’Aleo, Watts and pals forgotten that their grade-school assertions were all shot down three years ago? Maybe they’re hoping that we’ve forgotten.

Rabett Run has an amusing sampling of the EPA’s responses to various inept denialist complaints. I wish there was an index to them, but here’s a useful Google search string. Plenty of chuckles in there.

New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homogenization

“New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homogenization” (2012-07-17). Anthony Watts eagerly embraces a “peer-reviewed paper” conference abstract that uses some garden-variety data diddling. Sez Anthony:

Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors into account find global warming over the past century was only about one-half [0.42°C] of that claimed by the IPCC [0.7-0.8°C].

Them climate scientists are manipulat’n data for their Commie bosses! Not Steirou and Koutsoyiannis…

Strange how Anthony forgets that even denialist Roy Spencer’s satellite temperature records show a 0.46°C rise in 33 years. One might think a bit of caution is in order when someone claims that only there’s been 0.42°C of warming over the last century.

Anthony Watts just types “told ya so” as fast as he can work his trembling fingers. Where’s the skepticism? Up his ass of course. He, like the paper’s authors, doesn’t seem to understand data homogenization. Here’s Dutch scientist Victor Venema on Anthony’s intentional ignorance:

A student can make an error and conferences are there to talk about preliminary results, much more worrying is that Anthony Watts keeps on getting his facts wrong. An EGU abstract is simply not a peer reviewed paper. Of the three sentences Watts cited from the “peer reviewed paper”, two can only be found in the slides of the talk, which are not reviewed. Every post on Watts up with that?that is on a topic I am knowledgeable about, contains serious factual errors and clear misrepresentations. I am not talking about having another opinion, but facts. If clear facts are already wrong, I start doubting the rest. One wonders why the readers of Watts up with that? keep on reading that stuff. There seems to be little interest in the truth among these self-proclaimed skeptics.

We’ll leave the final insight to one of Anthony’s squad of censors “moderators” who is proud of how enthusiastically and regularly wrong WUWT is:

[REPLY – What it means is that WUWT, unlike nearly all alarmist blogs, does not censor contrary points of view. Science is a very back-and-forth kind of thing. Anyone can be wrong. Anything can be wrong. Consider that. ~ Evan]