Author Archives: Ben

Unknown's avatar

About Ben

I trained as a sedimentary geologist at a Canadian University, but have worked in the I.T. field as a programmer and manager for many years.

Dana Nuccitelli’s holiday trick for sobering up quick: put a little less rum in your egg nog

Posted on by
6

“Dana Nuccitelli’s holiday trick for sobering up quick: put a little less rum in your egg nog” (2012-12-28). Funny how a post on Anthony Watts’ “uncensored” website attacking Dana Nuccitelli doesn’t have any responses from Dana Nuccitelli. Just sayin’.

So Anthony’s denialist buddy Alec Rawls, a self-appointed whistle-blowing IPCC expert, posted this bunk to lash out at Dana Nuccitelli. Dana had the temerity to ridicule Alec’s idea that there is a lag of secret duration and unknown cause in our climate’s response to “solar variation” (which… doesn’t). Thus proving that it really is all because of the sun and we can go back to our coal-powered land yachts free from communist oppression.

After-all, your level of inebriation can rise even after you stop drinking! And a wacky biological analogy is even better than a physical science proof. To be blunt, you’d know more about solar physics and climate from staring straight into the sun for a minute than Alec could figure out in a lifetime.

If you have the patience the 400+ comments are a comedy goldmine, especially when actual solar scientist Leif Svalgaard pops in for a serious round of whack-a-mole. Paul Vaughan’s wounded howl “Do not ever address me again” seems to capture the flavor of the reactions. Poor Alec must have anticipated an unopposed playing field, because he swaggers and sneers hilariously:

I have to feel bad for Dana on this point. It isn’t his fault. He has been systematically duped by this parade of so-called scientists all telling him that a persistent high level of forcing can’t cause continued warming. Makes me want to put him on a milk carton. The poor guy isn’t just lost, he was kidnapped. Want a piece of candy little boy? Credulous Science indeed.

Leif Svalgaard finally calls a spade a spade:

lsvalgaard says:December 29, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Alec Rawls says:
December 29, 2012 at 2:39 pm
UV-shift effects is one obvious candidate, so the NewScientist actually belittles TWO of the main candidates for this unidentified solar amplification mechanism
The Steinhilber et al. paper you cite, ends with “The UV irradiance may not be the viable solution because its observational data do not show a similar distinct decreasing trend as TSI [Frohlich ¨ , 2009], implying that its level during the MM was similar as in present solar cycle minima.
So you will quote selectively and omit what you don’t like.

University of Graz Responds to Parncutt’s calls for death penalty for “deniers”

Posted on by
2

University of Graz Responds to Parncutt’s calls for death penalty for “deniers” ()2012-12-27). Yeah! Denialist outrage has led the University of Graz to censor their music professor’s ill-advised ramblings about climate change! Freedom from speech is victorious! Nothing more satisfying than a bit of successful bullying, is there Anthony? Monckton, of course, also got his stick in there.

Also, Skeptical Science and DeSmogBlog haven’t explicitly disavowed Professor Parncutt’s essay suggesting the execution of denialists, so that clearly means they support it.

UPDATE2: 2:55:PM PST In an email received today from Skeptical Science contributor Dana Nuccitelli, he has flat out refused to distance himself or the SkS website publicly from the Parncutt essay. Readers may recall that Parncutt used SkS as a reference in his essay calling for the death penalty. No word yet on whether John Cook (owner of the website) agrees and no word yet from DeSmog blog. – Anthony

Funny, I happen to have Mr. Nuccitelli’s actual response here, which was also posted as a comment that was blocked by Anthony’s censors, which seems a bit more nuanced than Anthony’s “reporting”:

From: Dana Nuccitelli
To: Anthony <xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: still waiting…
We of course don’t agree with giving denialists the death penalty, but we’re also not going to waste our time commenting on what some German musicologist said just because he happens to (correctly) cite SkS as a factually accurate source on climate science.

Given than you frequently allow WUWT guest posts from people like Christopher Monckton, who aside from being a total nutjob (to put it as kindly as I can), says some pretty horrible things on a regular basis, I really don’t think you’re in a position to expect more than that.

-Dana

Beyond bizarre: University of Graz music professor calls for skeptic death sentences

Posted on by
2

Beyond bizarre: University of Graz music professor calls for skeptic death sentences (2012-12-23). Did you hear the one about the German music professor who thinks denialists should be executed? Anthony Watts heard it from Australian denialist Jo Nova (the “German” professor is actually Australian) and it’s hilarious!

Seems that Professor Richard Parncutt suggested in a rambling web essay that “the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers” for “causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people” through their delaying tactics! Except he’s “not directly suggesting that the threat of execution be carried out.”

Of course this means that Anthony’s foes at Skeptical Science and DeSmogBlog are “motiviating [sp] this man’s hate”! Except of course that they haven’t. Professor Parncutt simply lists Skeptical Science and DeSmogBlog in passing as accurate resources for climate science information.

So it’s down to complaining about random members of the public now, is it Anthony?

IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing – as well as a lack of warming to match model projections, and reversal on ‘extreme weather’

Posted on by
3

“IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing – as well as a lack of warming to match model projections, and reversal on ‘extreme weather’“ (2012-12-13). What’s this? A GAME-CHANGING revelation about global warming? That’s, like, the tenth time! This one’s gotta stick, right Anthony?

Let’s see… this is a leak by an actual insider IPCC expert! Now that ought to get everyone’s attention! Oh, our expert is just Anthony Watts’ blogging buddy Alex Rawls and his “expertise” consists of being able to promise that he wouldn’t release any of the IPCC AR5 draft text. (Looks like he dropped that ball pretty quick via a bit of self-sainting: “As for my personal confidentiality agreement with the IPCC, I regard that as vitiated by the systematic dishonesty of the report“.) Actual science credentials? Zip. He’s just another denialist nutter who thinks he’s the next Galileo.

But still, he must have found something juicy to break his earnest confidentiality pledge! Wazzit? Here’s the game-changing sentence Alec decided to hang his hat on:

The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.

Here’s what NewScientist said in covering the tomfoolery:

if Rawls had read a bit further, he would have realised that the report goes on to largely dismiss the evidence that cosmic rays have a significant effect. “They conclude there’s very little evidence that it has any effect”

So the juicy sentence was just a minor aspect of a solar influence discussion (spoiler: the influence is big, obviously, but so invariant as to be irrelevant to modern climate trends). Really, how could there be anything “game-changing” in an IPCC report? It’s freakin’ based on the existing published science!

Is Alec stupid enough to think that a bit of draft text from a scientific summary would be how we suddenly recognise a paradigm shift in climate science? Apparently, yes. Alec also consider’s himself a national hero for bravely blowing his whistle. Both of these beliefs merit a solid whack on the side of the head.

A few other worthwhile comments on the matter:

  • RealClimate – “A review of cosmic rays and climate: a cluttered story of little success”
  • Skeptical Science – “IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun”
  • Scientific American – “Climate deniers used the leak to press their case but the new IPCC report closes the case on a human cause for global warming”
  • NewScientist – “Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate change”
  • The Guardian – “Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked IPCC report”

An open letter to the U.N from climate skeptics

Posted on by
48

“An open letter to the U.N from climate skeptics” (2012-11-29). Take that, U.N.! You’ve been sent a letter from Anthony Watts and other scientists! It’s in a newspaper! No talking about weather and climate in the same sentence!

The Financial Post is a reliably partisan Canadian right-wing newspaper and a tightly connected part of the climate denial circle-jerk. They’ve published an opinion piece/”letter” from 125 (or is it 129?) scientists informing the U.N. that they know all about climate and Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon doesn’t.

We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions. – OPEN CLIMATE LETTER TO UN SECRETARY-GENERAL: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125 scientists.

“no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years”! “variations in solar output”! “Climate changes naturally all the time”! Now that is one rigorous evidence-based smack-down. Well, more like a rehash of various vague, debunked, denialist talking points.

Who are these 125 129 scientists? Well Anthony’s one (except not). So is Lord Monckton (except not). Plenty of engineers, geologists and physicists too, as well as the usual think tank flunkies. Do I have to go any further?

Didn’t think so. This is just axe-grinders engaged in empty political posturing because the UN Climate Change Conference is underway in Doha this week. Distract, delay, assert, confuse.

Thanks for Phil Clarke’s comment drawing my attention to this amusing bunk.

Updates:

I notice that the Financial Post has adjusted their article title to correct their inability to count to 129. It’s now amended to “125+”.

Astronomer Phil Plait has also covered the dumbnitude in Doubling Down on Climate Change Denial:

The letter itself is based on a single claim. So let’s be clear: If that claim is wrong, so is the rest of the letter.

Guess what? That claim is wrong. So blatantly wrong, in fact, it’s hard to imagine anyone could write it with a straight face. It says:

“The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years.”

This is simply, completely, and utterly false. The Met Office is the national weather service for the United Kingdom. In October 2012, they updated their database of global surface temperature measurements, a compendium of temperatures taken over time by weather stations around the planet. David Rose, a climate change denier who can charitably be said to have trouble with facts, cherry-picked this dataset and published a horrendously misleading graph in that bastion of scientific thought, the Daily Mail, saying the measurements show there’s been no global warming for the past 16 years.

But he did this by choosing a starting point on his graph that gave the result he wanted, a graph that looks like there’s been no warming since 1997. But if you show the data properly, you see there has been warming:

https://i0.wp.com/www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/02/globalwarming_16yeargraph.jpg

Frontline responds to complaints about Oct 23 “Climate of Doubt”: Here, the Rebuttal to Frontline that PBS Ombudsman Won’t Put Online

Posted on by
27

“Frontline responds to complaints about Oct 23 “Climate of Doubt”: Here, the Rebuttal to Frontline that PBS Ombudsman Won’t Put Online” (2012-11-17). Anthony Watts want the world to know that Russell Cook (Dr.? Nope.) is pissed that the PBS Ombudsman won’t let him spiral off into vortex of yes but’s, replete with home-grown acronyms, over every dismissal of his complaints about PBS Frontline’s excoriating look at the politics of climate denialism, “Climate of Doubt”.

We were careful to base our reporting on the most credible and transparent sources we could find and verify. – sez the PBS Ombudsman

Monckton! Blogs! Fake think-tanks! Sez Russell Cook, in a tour de force demonstration of denialist Tourette syndrome.

I suppose I can understand Russell’s confusion. No doubt his experience at WUWT has taught him that internet forums are the natural home of delusional assertions and attention-seeking behavior.

Someone remind me: what’s the sound of one hand clapping?

Thank you for watching WUWT-TV

Posted on by
Reply

“Thank you for watching WUWT-TV” (2012-11-16). Anthony Watts pats himself on the back for his anti-Gore Skype-athon.

He “won on science”! As opposed to logic or coherence. Which is why Senator Inhofe and Lord Monckton were booked on Anthony’s gong show.

Everyone who watched the Climate Reality broadcast was a computer “bot” set to reload every ten seconds! Denial science proves it.

His amateur 24 hours were “illustrative of the disparity between the well funded “haves” [communist environmentalists] and “have nots” [noble denialists]”! Which of course brings up the question that Anthony’s leaving pretty vague: what did his little show cost and who paid for it?

That Reality Drop video that says Not a Single Legitimate Scientific Body Disputes [AGW] is hilarious!

Hilarious! Because it’s true, right Anthony?

Whatever. Go to Reality Drop and see how quickly Anthony’s defiant house of cards collapses.

WUWT-TV’s answer to Al Gore’s ‘Dirty Weather Report’ is ON THE AIR

Posted on by
4

“WUWT-TV’s answer to Al Gore’s ‘Dirty Weather Report’ is ON THE AIR” (2012-11-14). One word: painfully amateur. OK, that’s two words. It’s going to be a useful resource though, a concise compendium of dumb-ass blow-hards that won’t be able to squirm away from their claims.

The constant technical stumbles actually make Anthony Watts’ F*CKUP-TV look better than it is though. Surely they meant to say something else? Something intelligent? They just lost their notes, right?

Production values, denialist-style.

Gore’s Climate Reality show pales in comparison!

So who paid the $10,000+ for Anthony’s web setup? Not to mention the bandwidth costs.  He’s being coy about that…

Fare thee well, friend

Posted on by
3

“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?

Solar Activity – Past, Present, Future

Posted on by
4

“Solar Activity – Past, Present, Future” (2012-11-11). Holy carp! An objective, factual science abstract on Anthony Watts’ blog! Has hell frozen over? Dr. Leif Svalgaard, a real solar scientist, has posted a discussion of how solar activity is measured and what the historical patterns have been.

Dr. Svalgaard has been a tireless respondent to a cacophony of denialist solar ignorance at Watts Up With That. Maybe they’ll finally take this onboard: nothing in the pattern of sunspots, solar radiation. solar wind, or cosmic rays has any correlation to the dramatic climate changes the Earth has experienced in modern times.

My bet though is that the cranks will simply take the data he has referenced and start a new round of fevered cherry-picking.