Category Archives: Anti-Science

McKitrick: Toronto smog models exaggerate health issues – where are the bodies?

Posted on by
Reply

“McKitrick: Toronto smog models exaggerate health issues – where are the bodies?” Anthony Watts reports that discredited researcher Ross McKitrick has found an off-beat journal, Environmental Modelling & Software, to publish his paper about the health impacts of smog based on 16 year-old air pollution data. He’s also cemented his research with a newspaper editorial in the National Post newspaper.

His conclusion? Hardly any impact on health, even though all the earlier studies find impacts. Could it be because McKitrick only looked at hospital admissions and not at, you know, deaths? He’s proven very good at intentionally looking past evidence.

Oh yeah, Anthony’s contribution has been the usual vigorous application of the “copy” and “paste” commands.

North and Booker on Amazongate: A billion dollar cash cow

Posted on by
Reply

“North and Booker on Amazongate: A billion dollar cash cow“. Anthony Watts’ helpfully copy-and-pastes his friends explanation of a “new revelation” about how the IPCC is helping the World Wildlife Federation keep themselves well-supplied with new Ferraris by buying tropical forests and not chopping them down. Cunning, but they’re on to you, WWF! Leave the exploitation to the oil companies.

The denialist conspiracy theory about the purpose of the IPCC’s “Amazongate” lies (also known as substantiated scientific analyses: see here and here), which popped up recently but have already been shown to be groundless denialist misrepresentations, is that the WWF plans to pocket $60 billion from rain forest carbon credits. After all, it’s in Heartland Institute associate Christopher Booker’s Telegraph column (evidence of expertise here and here) and another denialist crank’s blog! I guess they’re hoping to get some traction amongst people who haven’t been paying attention.

’science’s dirtiest secret: The “scientific method” of testing hypotheses by statistical analysis stands on a flimsy foundation.’

Posted on by
1

’science’s dirtiest secret: The “scientific method” of testing hypotheses by statistical analysis stands on a flimsy foundation.’ Anthony Watts starts learning about statistics! Will he be shocked to learn that failing the 95% confidence interval doesn’t mean that something is false? (See the whole “no warming since 1995” tomfoolery.)

[Note that an excellent analysis of this can also be found at Open Mind. Tamino makes the point that the author’s main concern is with medical studies and with understanding the implications of the null hypothesis.]

P value = probability of an observed result arising only from chance.

Anthony has copy-and-pasted science journalist Tom Siegfried’s ScienceNews article “Odds Are, It’s Wrong“. This rather loose discussion of the flaws of statistical analysis serves as a jumping-off point for more of Anthony’s misplaced accusations. Short version: poor statistical analysis can obscure correct scientific interpretations. Here’s the “dirty secret” part:

Even when performed correctly, statistical tests are widely misunderstood and frequently misinterpreted.

Ouch! I think he’s talking to you Anthony! Here’s another good quote from the article (italics mine), especially in light of Anthony endless insinuations about the “Mann’s tree ring proxy hockey stick” (he can’t even get six words in a row right):

Replicating a result helps establish its validity more securely, but the common tactic of combining numerous studies into one analysis, while sound in principle, is seldom conducted properly in practice.

Guess what Mann’s climate analysis was? A combination of numerous studies. Not just tree ring proxies. This is why is stands up so well, and why the denialists are so desperate to tear it down.

Weather balloon data backs up missing decline found in old magazine

Posted on by
1

“Weather balloon data backs up missing decline found in old magazine“. Anthony Watts really latched onto that 1976 National Geographic illustration! Here are some fresh accusations of “funny business” based on weather balloon data.

Weather balloon data is something that, shockingly, climate scientists evidently never considered. Not. We’ll let this meme run for a bit and try to remember to come back with an update on the conclusion.

Dr. Nicola Scafetta summarizes “why the anthropogenic theory proposed by the IPCC should be questioned”

Posted on by
1

More "truth" from the Science and Public Policy Institute.

Dr. Nicola Scafetta summarizes “why the anthropogenic theory proposed by the IPCC should be questioned”. Dr. Nicola Scafetta has a “booklet” available from the same unbiased source as Anthony’s own disproved publications, the Science and Public Policy Institute.

Once again, it’s all because of the sun (well, at least 60%). Scafetta even tries to recruit the fraudulent “Oregon Petition”. Oh, Climategate is also proof. Anthony usually give the worst of the solar stuff a wide berth as he’s been caught out too many times.

Anthony’s readers seem to lean towards respect for the booklet’s ‘profundity’, but knowledgeable commenters (such as Dr. Leif Svalgaard) dismiss the paper as worthless.

Quote of the week #30

Posted on by
1

“Quote of the week #30“. These posts are where Anthony Watts practices his quote-mining. This bit is interesting:

But here’s the quote that had me ROTFL

“I don’t view our role as trying to convince people of something,” she said. “Our role is to inform people.”

Naturally Anthony finds “informing people” to be a process that greatly amuses him…

The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide

Posted on by
Reply

“The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide“. Geologist (and amateur climate and cancer researcher) David Archibald tries to show that CO2‘s greenhouse effect impact is negligible at current levels and that rising levels will have even less impact. The only supporting references he mentions are an old blog post on the paragon of atmospheric physics, Climate Audit.

In fact, David’s ill-conceived idea was shot down all the way back in 2007. His conclusion is a product of deliberately selecting a very low climate sensitivity value for CO2. Low sensitivity means low amplification. Kind of obvious if you think about it for a minute, but David clearly prefers to pick his question based on the answer he wants.

I have to mention his strange claim that ‘conventional climatology’ denies a logarithmic relationship to CO2 forcing. This is contradicted by Arrhenius’ work in 1896 and the climate physics actually described in every IPCC Report to date. Even some of the denialist regulars are distancing themselves in the post comments, saying that while they resist the IPCC’s estimate of CO2 forcing as too aggressive they accept that there is some degree of forcing.

Judith, I love ya, but you’re way wrong …

Posted on by
1

“Judith, I love ya, but you’re way wrong …” Anthony Watt’s friend Willis Eschenbach, the self-appointed “citizen scientist”, rants about Dr. Judith Curry’s ill-conceived denialist-sympathetic comments about “credibility” in climate science.

His point? We can never trust scientists again. No matter what. They are stupid liars. Willis actually says with a straight face that scientists should emulate Steve McIntyre’s “transparency and openness and freewheeling scientific discussion and honest reporting“. My god, McIntyre is the most dishonest, manipulative, resentful, nit-picking denialist out there. He is the model for scientific behavior?

Epic fail.

Caveats Regarding Dr. Phil Jones’ Phenological Arguments for Global Warming

Posted on by
Reply

“Caveats Regarding Dr. Phil Jones’ Phenological Arguments for Global Warming“. Right-wing economist Indur M. Goklany tries to show that he knows more about climatology than an actual climatologist does. By saying “maybe this, maybe that“, “I wonder if this could be it?” and “did anyone think it could be this other thing instead?” Thus ending global warming forever.

Northern Hemisphere Snow Extent Second Highest on Record

Posted on by
Reply

Northern Hemisphere Snow Extent Second Highest on Record. Steven Goddard’s guest post gives us another lesson on how to misrepresent trends, fail statistics and how to look stupid shouting about weather as proof that there is no global warming. I’m tired, so I’ll just point you to Open Mind for Tamino’s utter demolition of Steve’s latest garbage.