The Anatomy of a Global Warming Smear

The Anatomy of a Global Warming Smear” (2012-02-18). ¡Aycaramba! Anthony Watts desperately posts fellow Heartland Institute funding recipient Alan Caruba’s full-on rant about climate science, apparently triggered by the Heartland Institute document leak. Also, he hates the New York Times.

Here’s some nuance for ya:

Suffice to say, the “climate science” served up by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been a pack of lies from the day it first convened.

Sing it brother! What next?

Next to oxygen, CO2 is vital to all life on Earth as it sustains all vegetation which in turn sustains every creature that depends on it as a source of food.

I guess as a good environmentalist I should rush outside and pant on some shrubs.

Thousands of scientists have signed petitions denouncing global warming as a hoax.

If you’re gonna stay stupid things like that someone should tell you about the internet. Your wannabe petitions were all fake petitions packed with unqualified names.

There’s a reason the theme of Heartland’s sixth conference in 2011 was “Restoring the Scientific Method.”

Cute misspelling of “undermining”.

2012-05-22 update: After much caterwauling by the Heartland Institute about forgeries and the shameful behavior of nasty warmists, the true conclusion can be drawn: “Peter Gleick cleared of forging documents in Heartland expose

10 thoughts on “The Anatomy of a Global Warming Smear

  1. 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.

  2. The entire article is a comical rant of belligerent frustration, culminating in, “Meanwhile, the planet continues to cool.” Naturally, unsupported by any references to peer-reviewed literature or even a convenient sixth-order polynomial! By the way, it’s a tragedy that Excel – the analysis tool of choice for Real Scientists™ – can only go up to sixth order. Imagine the curves that could be fit if it went up to tenth! Did you hear that Phil Jones doesn’t know how to use Excel, lololol? I think Josh might have drawn a cartoon about it!

  3. This is one I’ve been using to describe WTFUWW, but it applies to Heartland too.

    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]

  4. I am still amazed and saddened when I read a rant like this one and find nearly all of the comments supporting it. Really, how can Wuwt be called “a science blog?” Perhaps these guys know about a “law of science” saying that a greenhouse gas has to be at least “x%” of the atmosphere before it can be effective.

  5. “New paper: A high-resolution surface mass balance map of Antarctica shows “no significant trend in the 1979–2010 ice sheet”

    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 ( ) 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.

  6. Just in case… my comment at WUWT

    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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s