[It's not for lack of comic material! - Ben]

In another post, he claims his sole ‘HBGary Spambot’ supposedly skewed the results twice, of an Australian Government TV Station recent program ” “I Can Change Your Mind about Climate”, which was broadcast at 8.30 pm on April 26th, 2012. Sadly, the sneaky Oz, TV station applied the magic of ip address and email country of origin filtering, to eliminate 99.99985% of his sole HBGary multiple 500K trash voting entries. Link.

Link to the ABC TV Show “I Can Change Your Mind About Climate”

Sadly, this show was not up to the usual Oz ABC TV high standards and was more closely aligned with the inferior Murdoch Faux Noose standards of unfair and unbalanced. The only saving grace in the entire show, was where the interview with Richard Muller, whose BEST results, totally ended up debunking the complete horse hockey nonsense of Heartland Institute’s paid informant in Oz, Joanne Nova and her husband. There was an interview with Marc Morano, who gish galloped his entire interview time.

Skeptical science : ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial, included the critical missing interview with Naomi Oreskes, which would have been the turning point, there is no argument on the science of global warming: Link.

The Conversation, was also highly critical twice of the show’s inability to get the science right and ended up losing the plot, as number of the panel members excluding Anna Rose, kept throwing up complete red herrings along with several questions from the floor.
link 1:-http://theconversation.edu.au/no-one-likes-to-change-their-mind-not-even-on-climate-6674
link 2:- http://theconversation.edu.au/i-can-change-your-mind-if-its-experts-youre-after-look-elsewhere-6558

John Cook, from ‘Skeptical Science’ wrote an article in the ABC TV Environment, and a fair number of comments appear to have the mark of the usual denialati HBGary spambot. Link.

{The Conversation is a great website. Plenty of thoughtful ideas, well presented. Any TV “debate” is going to favor bluster, and that’s what happened on the ABC show. Anthony, unsurprisingly, continues to be a duplicitous loudmouth. – Ben}

Warmists and their convenient memories/stats and manipulation of information to make it conform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tri-State_Tornado

Somehow, you forget the Great Tri State tornado in 1925. I’m a retired tv meteorologist from Indiana that did several stories with interviews of some that lived through it (this was done 20 years ago, the survivors were in their 70′s/80′s and most just children at the time).

How the heck did that one happen 87 years ago before CO2 and global temps went way up? Answer. It was weather dude. Anybody that understands tornadoes would also know they are more likely with extreme temp disparities that become LESS with global warming.

[Did you read what you quoted? The rest of your comment is simply a demonstration of the expression "when all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." - Ben]

[What a rigidly ignorant fool you are. Dumping your intellectually dishonest quote into a search engine effortlessly answers your fabrication. So we're back to "tiresome". - Ben]

Come on Ben, you can’t seriously still maintain your position. Is that why you have not posted for ages? Where is the global warming? How much will it cost to mitigate 1 degree of warming over the next 50 years? What is the likely-hood that the warming would occur anyway? How much damage would that warming do?

[More tiresome wordplay from a self-justifying denialist. Why is it always about the argument with you and never about the science? Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues - Ben]

[Gosh, could this be a denialist holding an opinion that has no evidence to support it? - Ben]

[If anything Anthony has sunk even lower, so there's much that could be examined. But finding the same malicious lies day after day gets both boring and tiring. I hope I can find the amusement in it again! - Ben]

[Why on Earth would science be needed to reveal the dishonesty of Anthony's denialist bellowings? He has never risen above the level of a junior debate club. Perhaps your English is poor, but is your other argument really that if the "skepticals" are funded by political factions then real climate scientists must be too? Eek. - Ben]

Now Ben, you will be pleased to note another Anthony Watts debunking site has turned up down under in Oz, under the title “What’s Up With That Watts?”. link :- http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com.au/

It just struck me how “Disneyesque” catastrophic anthropogenic global warming actually is when you described ice as “not liking” warmer temperatures.

Making climate anthropogenic is just as fallacious and pernicious as Walt’s anthropomorphizing of animals and inanimate objects. Humans pursue all manner of folly because Fifi has feelings.

And as you know Ben, “Going to Disneyland” is probably more of a Canadian colloquialism than an American one. I sure hope we get out of the CAGW theme park soon. The kids are tired; the wife is grumpy, and our credit cards are maxed.

[Sorry to hear your brain is being so overtaxed.. - Ben]

Added this to Shollenberg’s ‘book review’. We’ll see if it gets posted:

Too many unsupported assertions and half truths to list in detail. Here’s just one example of rather selective quotation, from the NAS report:-

“As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions. ”

The next section being carefully ommitted:

“In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al.”

So despite all the noise expended on it, the whole PCA question is moot, as indeed Wahl and Amman and and von Storch et al (2005) demonstrated.

Clearly, Mr Schollenberg is not being entirely candid with his readers.

[That describes about 31% of Anthony's output... - Ben]

Just added this:

Just reading to the end of the piece makes it crystal that the reporter was talking in Farenheit. So Hansen’s prediction, if this secondary source is accurate, was out by about 0.5C over the period. But the post and graph exaggerate that by 80%. What are the chances of a correction, I wonder?

Incidentally, Dr Hansen went on to add that he “would like to understand the problem better before I order any dramatic actions” (source) which is not exacly the language of a shrill alarmist. We do now understand the problem better and Hansen’s view on what are the current appropriate actions are plain.

[But... Communists! :-) Ben]

[You mean like this? - Ben]

[Yawn. See my response to your other comment here. - Ben]

Your arguments become pathetic when current observed data is used.

[Hoping to slip a bold-faced lie through, eh? I've added the HADCRUT3 chart to illustrate your assertion. - Ben]

John McManus

Remember, it really is a merry-go-round. Good designers make sure that you can never be certain which gaudily decked out fantasy item will show up next. A prancing zebra, a flowery hippopotamus and a smiling kangaroo may be followed by an elaborate sled or …. another zebra but facing backwards this time!

But it goes round and round. And the money rolls in.

[Yes, yes, Anthony's "anti". Good observation. - Ben]

And still the point at which Watts, McIntyre or Jo Nova come up with the killer case that wins the scientific debate remains in the future. There’s an asymmetry here – if these ‘skeptic’ blogs had to operate under the contraints of making a rigorous scientific case that stands up to scrutiny – would they be quite so popular? You know, correcting your mistakes, that kind of thing.

Couple examples of blog science: Go here: Policy Driven Deception

It is a ‘paper’ entitled ‘Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?’ coauthored by Watts. The first point in the exec summary is

“Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.”

Now Watts knows that this is not the case, in fact the Berkeley (BEST) project in which he is also a coauthor proved that this is false. A scientist corrects or retracts his conclusions once they have been falsified. Blog scientist Mr Watts, even though he has self-falsified, leaves his online to mislead. This is propaganda, not science. Imagine if RealClimate or the IPCC could do this?

Examples of anti-science pop up constantly at WUWT. Just last week:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/20/new-paper-a-high-resolution-surface-mass-balance-map-of-antarctica-shows-no-significant-trend-in-the-1979-2010-ice-sheet/

Watts wants us to believe that this paper which found no trend in the Antarctic surface mass balance means the Antarctic is not losing ice…

“While Gore, Hansen, Branson, and a gaggle of hangers on just finished a publicity stunt tour of Antarctica to tell us all how terrible the ice loss is there, the data says otherwise. No trend!”

… not understanding that SMB already has a time element – so there was no trend in the trend. He also gloats:-

“Here’s the money quote:

[15] We found no significant trend in the 1979–2010 ice
sheet integrated SMB components, which confirms the
results from Monaghan et al. [2006]. The estimated SMB
trend, integrated over the ice sheet, equals 3+/-2 Gt/y^-2″

You’d think a ‘scientist’ would notice the units? He also mangles his ‘money quote’ – the sign of the trend in the paper is actually negative. Numerous people point out the howlers in the comments and that this paper is in line (actually slightly ‘worse’) with IPCC projections, but once again the headline is more important than the facts and the post goes uncorrected.

WUWT is lively, entertaining and appeals to a large number of people, and I congratulate Mr Watts in garnering votes. Just do not confuse him with a man of integrity, or his site with a reliable source of information.

[Amen. - Ben]

http://nailsandcoffins.blogspot.com/2012/02/wuwts-solar-omission-fraud.html

[It's so hard to keep up with Anthony's bluster! Nice to have another voice. - Ben]

This would go beyond simply clearing Peter Gleick of the hard-to-understand and therefore always unlikely accusation of forgery.

And even beyond Heartland’s lost innocence, lost respectability, and diminished victimhood vis a vis an evil warmist.

Without any diminishing of the impersonation offense, Peter Gleick retrieves some of his lost dependability. Heartland is no longer, to the uninitiated, just another think tank. And Peter Gleick’s malfeasance acquires a little bit of justification, against a deceitful opponent.

One scribe, by the name of Shawn Lawrence, at the “Huffington Post”, did as Anthony requested, used JGAAP, with caveats applied. The results are rather interesting, as they exonerate Peter Gleick as the author of the alleged fake document, and implicate Joe Bast, instead. ; )

Got love that one, Anthony Watts ends up debunking himself with his own words.

Oops “Watta a mistake to maka”!

It probably explains, why the astroturfing by Heartlands assorted friends and questionable associates about “FakeGate’s Leaky ethics pot boiler” is now rapidly running out of steam, as the cynics start asking Joe “No proof equals no truth” !

“Killing the dog, does not cure the bite.” ………………..Abraham Lincoln

[Classic Anthony. - Ben]

And, The Economist still doesn’t get it. The issue of “the world is warming” is not one that climate skeptics question, it is the magnitude and causes.

Ha I was looking for that quote last time some skeptic told me off for daring to say what skeptics believed. I was told in no uncertain words that skeptics were all different and didn’t share a central set of beliefs.

Thank goodness Anthony Watts can still talk for all of them then.

I love this – it’s such a useful shibboleth. Anyone who says anything like this immediately identifies themselves as weak minded and easily led. As everyone knows, or should know, the last decade was warmer than every decade preceding it, in every global temperature data set.

To start to get an idea of where he’s gone wrong, “Chris Smith” could have a look at this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/SkepticsvRealists_500.gif

[YAUA - Yet Another Unsubstantiated Assertion. - Ben]

[Hah! You didn't refute my statement that you're a clown! By your rules, you are thus forever labeled. - Ben]

Neener-neener-neener, you lost, hahaha.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/20/the-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature-project-puts-pr-before-peer-review/

This stance seems to change week-by-week, though. There seems to be a rotating cycle of arguments ranging from it isn’t warming, to warming wouldn’t be bad, warming is occurring but due solely to various natural causes, etc. Notice the consistently negative political attitude towards those that propose solutions and the policies themselves. Notice the consistently negative pattern against the well-established evidence for warming caused by CO2 emissions. Notice that many of the hypotheses advertised on WUWT are in contradiction with one another, though this does not seem to matter so long as the hypotheses obscure the evidence for CO2 caused warming.

Notice that your opinions are in direct conflict with the evidence analyzed by the National Academy of Science in the USA and much of the developed world.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Now, this may be a lot to process since your worldview likely doesn’t want to process it, but take a look at the NAS assessment. Have a good one.

You do not deny that there has been no global warming for the past decade or so. Thanks for that admission.

How many more decades of “no warming” with increasing CO2 emissions would it take before you reject the AGW hypothesis? 2? 3? 5? 10? 20? Seriously, at what stage would you consider rejected the hypothesis? if you are a scientist then you will not mind answering the question.

[Are you so stupid that you think the climate debate boils down to a version of "Simon says"? I have to refute every fool thing you say or it gets declared true? What a waste of breath engaging with you. - Ben]

I wouldn’t be surprised if Glieck was thinking this all along.

“When the über green California Academy of Sciences pulls the plug, you know “climate change” is a dead issue with the public.”

Get it? “climate change is a dead issue with the planet”. This is not the same as writing “this proves that there is no Global Warming.”

He is saying that it shows that Climate Change is a dead issue with the public, not that it shows that there is no Global Warming. Although there has not been any global warming, as you know, for the last decade or so.

[So you buy Anthony's attempt to equate a mundane exhibit change with political victory for denialism? That is such lame-ass cherry-picking. Is the 'no warming in a decade' thing some kind of Tourette's? Or just a back-handed admission that you're a clown. - Ben]

Phil Clarke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 20, 2012 at 2:59 pm

You might want to check the sign of your ‘money quote’ against the paper.

You might want also to refresh your memories of the definition of mass balance (hint – check the units).

You might want also to compare this result with the IPCC projection.

Yet another embarrassing own goal. Watts clearly doesn’t get that surface mass balance already has a time element, so no trend merely means no trend in the trend. Doh. A commenter helps him out:

Surface Mass Balance (SMB) is not the same thing as mass balance.

Mr. Watts, I believe that you are misinterpreting what this paper says.

For reference, the lead author is also a co-author on the 2011 GRL paper, “Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise”. Monaghan is also a c-author on this paper. If you read this paper ( http://ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/velicogna/files/rignot_etal_grl2011.pdf ) you may better understand the difference between mass balance and surface mass balance (SMB), which is clearly discussed on the first page.

Oh and these results, I think, are ‘worse’ than the IPCC projection which projected an accumulation that would mitigate sea level rise.

Oh, and Watts gets the sign on his money quote wrong.

Well up to the usual standard.

Going from the comments section at Real Climate or Sketical Science to what these guys say is like going from a university classroom to an elementary school, where little kids are giving their theories on how babies are made.

[Those comments will some day be recognized as a psychological treasure trove of bluster, paranoia and self-delusion. As John Cleese has remarked, the truly stupid are incapable of recognizing their condition. - Ben]

Our fellow Canadian Donna Laframboisse sums it up best. Either oil money is bad in funding the climate science debate or its not. And yeah, size matters.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/02/17/big-oil-money-for-me-but-not-for-thee/

Maybe a counter blog of nofrokkingconsensus is in order?

[I think she's off her meds is all. Way off. - Ben]

I’m going to steal that.

It represents a mere 0.033% of the Earth’s atmosphere and is referred to by warmists as a “greenhouse gas.”

So Tony is back to publishing greenhouse gas deniers. Colour me surprised.

Sorry Ben, your fantasies will not be taken into evidence.

[Awesome comeback! But wouldn't it have been better to provide a supporting example? - Ben]

Me, I wonder, he appears to be truly ignorant of the “Striesand Effect“!

John Mashey has found something is not quite right with Heartland’s senior consultant S Fred Singer too!

I find it a bit ironic that Microsoft now links itself to a denialati anti-science institute with questionable activity concerning it’s tax free status hell bent on dumbing down education in the US!

Climate Crocks ‘DeniaGate’ – Get it all here.

“Killing the dog does not cure the bite.” Abraham Lincoln