“Bigger problems than global warming – NASA discovers 8 new dangerous near Earth asteroids“ (2015-01-19i). Red Alert! Anthony Watts wants us to know about Eric Worrall’s shocking discovery that there’s something we should all really be worried about! Meteors! Meteorites? NEOs? Stop worrying about so-called climate change (which is already affecting everyone on Earth and will steadily increase in impact) and start worrying about meteors, which may or may not strike the Earth and would have effectively no prolonged climate influence.
“[T]he risk of a damaging meteor impact is not a possibility which should be neglected” says Eric. Somehow Eric’s caution doesn’t extend to the undeniable (except by, you know, denialists) fact that man’s industrial activity is already measurably altering Earth’s climate in a negative way. That should be neglected as well as vigorously denied.
Riiiiight.
Eric also manages to throw in a heaping plate of sneering at NASA for the work they’ve done to study the risks posed by Near Earth Objects while being careful not to explain that low funding for the work is because of cost-cutting anti-science Republicans.
Eric’s apparent belief that satellites should be able to refuel as easily and often as the average family sedan is just cute.
I’m mildly horrified that a project this important appears to be so far down the list of priorities, that the project was mothballed for a year while the survey satellite stood waiting for a refuel.
Buy why are political cranks like Eric and Anthony bothered with public safety? Surely all handsome, virile, brilliant, libertarians will have made their own personal arrangements to either leave the planet for an extended vacation or activated their bunker networks. Anyone unable to do the same surely deserves what they get!
P.S. Does Eric Worrall actually rely on The Register for breaking scientific news?
Wott's Up With That? 
Just a small point, Ben. Could you avoid linking to A Watts page if there is another link that supplies essentially the same information. The reason I ask is that I expect AW receives a few cents from advertisers for every hit on his blog. I don’t want that on my conscience :(
I link to an archived version of his site. Is there something I’ve missed in doing that?
You could use rbutr to link as well. If you install rbutr, add your rebuttal article and Anthony’s BS, then you can link to the rbutr framed page. That way people see the original page via rbutr without giving ad revenue to Watts, and can click the arrow to go back here (or other rebuttals).
[rbutr link here. Looks very interesting! – Ben]
Avoid? Are you kidding? That is his only source!!! I’ve been looking here for some rest science to substantiate the climate change case and the Only articles on this blog are snippets out of Anthony’s blog.
Anthony’s blog posts are articles, complete with supporting documents. Kind of makes this place look like a spoiled child whining and crying.
Where’s the science?????
[I got disgusted by the malicious and dishonest statements Anthony spreads about climate science, my website is a channel for that. But I don’t have the patience to scientifically disprove every stupid remark to come out of Anthony’s mouth. Your job as a thinking human being is to find informed voices and listen to them. My website can perhaps inform you about Anthony’s intransigent political motivation and his deliberate misrepresentation of science, others (check the links I post of the right side of this web page) can more fully unravel the faulty basis of Anthony’s claims. Thinking requires work. – Ben]
Don’t suppose I’m not a thinker or intelligent person. I look for facts and actual science. The fact that your blog just ridicridicules someone is a big scar on your credibility. You should man up and act like a mature adult with an actual purpose. It will do the cause much more than what you are presenting here. Be true. Be real.
Ok, I’ll bite. In the WUWT post I was responding to how would you, a true and real person, characterize Worrall’s attitude towards NASA’s research? What would you say was the context Worrall gave to the relative risks of asteroid impacts vs. man-made global warming? List one strength and one failing in Worrall’s little rant. Don’t demand I “man up” when all you do is sneer about credibility.
Those of you who down voted me please explain yourselves. As a real person I speak the truth.
I’ve “down voted” you because you are a troll. Your comment was purely provocative and substance-free. You have absolutely no desire to “substantiate the climate change case” and we all know it. If you did, you’d be going to the sources like peer reviewed journals, not blogs, and certainly not science-free zones like WUWT. By the way, I will not be explaining myself any further to you or responding in any fashion. As a troll your aim is to provoke needless discussions and spread garbage as far as you can and I will not be a party to that.
“Does Eric Worrall actually rely on The Register for breaking scientific news?”
Not exclusively. He also relies on The Guardian – Australian. But Eric’s real problem is that he isn’t functionally literate. He can’t even navigate his way around the Australian capital, Canberra (population 400K-ish) going on this comment of his in The Guardian.
[Eric’s comment: “Last time I visited Canberra I got lost – acre after acre of new housing estates for public parasites.” – Ben]
Ahhhh Eric, my once favourite denier. https://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/?s=Eric+Worrall
Just another case of Anthony Watts yelling “Squirrel!”
You need to get a life. This is a terrible blog and you’re, well, a dimwit. And yes, I accept that there is AGW occurring.
[Peter Dojlida, if you’re going to troll a random climate website I suggest you reflect on what will come up in a Google search of your name before declaring anyone a dimwit. – Ben]
Funny you recommend reflecting on what will come up. You clearly don’t.
[Do you mean “didn’t”? On page 1 of q=Peter+Dojlida+climate I found you linking to a denialist-friendly Daily Mail article falsely suggesting only 38% reliability in the temperature record. On page 2 I found a facebook comment by you declaring that Arctic Sea Ice is not shrinking even though the article reported that the last ten years have been the ten lowest ice area extents on record. Or were you just being ironic? – Ben]
That was information from NASA. How can you say I am falsely claiming something if I am quoting NASA directly. [False. You merely linked to a dishonest Daily Mail article that pretended outrage that the NASA’s conclusion that 2014 was the hottest year ever had a “margin of error”!!!! Just like every measurement ever. To actually quote the NASA scientists, “it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year”. Not exactly an admission that their science is bad. – Ben] You’re a grand troll: you set up a website mocking another website whose views you disagree with because nobody would listen to you if you set up under your own name.
You clearly are only able to see things in black and white and are unable to take information and consider it on its merits.
Hence. my suggestion you get a life, or at least get a mind of your own. You’re fighting a propaganda war with straw dogs and you look completely ridiculous doing it – for the record I have NEVER “denied” climate change or global warming per se, however, I am quite sick and tired of spinners like you (as well as on the ‘other side’ of the camp) making a mess of dialogue and proper debate. [See my response to your next comment. – Ben]
So go on, give me your best and futile response. You’ve got NOTHING.
You deleted my response? That’s just weak. I said something like “Its funny that you should give that advice, because you don’t”.
[Did you miss the bit that said all comments will be moderated before appearing? That’s what happened. – Ben]
You’re a psycho stalker.
[You’re a juvenile gum-flapper? – Ben]
You googled me? That is creepy.
[Creepy? So I should just take your dodgy assertions at face value? What you are actually protesting is real skepticism in action. You made claims, I investigated them and came to a conclusion. Perhaps you just like stirring the waters of contentious issues to feel important by drawing a response. That’s creepier. – Ben]