“The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: My Initial Comments on the New Dessler 2011 Study” (2011-09-07). Anthony Watts says that Dr. Spencer’s continued whining about the treatment of his ill-conceived paper is “important”. So important that it must be accompanied by a pirated YouTube video of the theme music from a Clint Eastwood western.
Science! The Watts and Spencer way.
Does anything else really need to be said about ?
“BREAKING: Editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing resigns over Spencer & Braswell paper“ (2011-09-02). Anthony Watts reposts Roy Spencer’s sputtering self-defense over the humiliating fall-out from his spectacularly stupid Remote Sensing paper, which we covered back in July. Seems the knock-out punch to the “IPCC climate conspiracy” was actually a denialist own-goal even after a co-ordinated media campaign. Perhaps Anthony is trying to “get out in front” of the embarrassing details to ensure his readers stay locked in the feedback loop.
What provoked Roy’s passionate self-defense? The Remote Sensing editor-in-chief, Wolfgang Wagner, has resigned in disgust (PDF here) over the deception by denialist scientists he believed were impartial reviewers and over the campaign that Spencer organized to promote the overstatement of his paper’s unsupported conclusions and play up its publication as proof of a credibility. Remote Sensing got played.
Spencer’s paper concocted a deliberately over-simplified climate model for the sole purpose of creating the appearance of a scientific refutation of the prevailing climate models and was gamed into Remote Sensing by “sympathetic reviewers”. The well-primed denialist community, including Forbes, Fox News and of course dear Anthony, immediately trumpeted its alleged conclusions.
Roy’s deeply nuanced summary of the response to his paper is “IPCC :1 Scientific Progress: 0″. Or perhaps I’m right and they’re wrong. Of course invoking “the IPCC” is equal parts conspiracy theory and wounded ego. Funny how denialists can spent years muttering about imagined conspiracies but determinedly look the other way when their own actually, if amateurishly, collude to form one. On second though, not so much funny as inevitable.
To restate Roy’s over-simplified assessment of his over-simplified paper, this is “Scientific Progress: 0, Roy Spencer -1”. Roy and company colluded to insert a worthless paper into the scientific record through an off-topic journal and both time and effort have been wasted in dealing with an obvious scientific dead-end. Thanks for nothing.
Read more about at:
2011-09-07 Update
Well this hasn’t taken long. Spencer’s ‘final nail in the coffin of AGW’ has completely unravelled. Turns out his crayon version of atmospheric physics has in fact proven the validity of current “alarmist” climate theories and models! Thanks Roy. That’s what happens when you work backwards from a baseless conclusion and ignore logic. Thanks for wading through the stupid, Dr. Dessler (preprint here, watch a video summary here).
Real Climate has posted intelligently about the dynamics of scientific publishing, but if you want to read mutterings about conspiracies and “repression” of determined stupidity, well, you know where to go…
It was S&B’s desire to avoid dealing with [people disagreeing with and criticising his conclusions ], that likely led them to a non-standard journal, whose editor very likely followed the authors suggestions for (friendly) reviewers, whose resulting reviews didn’t do very much (if anything) to strengthen the paper.
“Bill Nye is the anti-science guy when it comes to global warming and hurricanes” (2011-08-30). Dr. Ryan Maue seems annoyed with how little traction with his denial science is getting, so he’s going to give political whining a try at his Policlimate blog. Why? Because as he says “Anthony typically avoids political issues” (I still rubbing my eyes over that). Luckily Anthony Watts seems willing, this one time, to dabble in politics by cross-posting Ryan’s rant about Bill Nye’s recent appearance on Fox News.
You know the denialists have had their asses publicly handed to them when they try to re-write an event after the fact by nit-picking someone’s live TV responses intended for a general audience (and when we talk about Fox audiences we’re talking really general) and then declare post facto victory because of imperfect grammar or getting a measurement wrong. They can also be reliably expected to complain about “tone”.
The title of this YouTube copy is “Bill Nye insists the earth is warming though data shows it is not.” and has comments disabled. Denialism writ tiny.
Seems Bill Nye didn’t play along with Fox News “Freedom Watch” guest host Charles Payne’s attempt to describe concern about our changing climate as “apocalyptic”, “irresponsible”, or to assert that there’s a bit of warming “but that’s not from man”. When Payne realized that Bill Nye wasn’t serving as a fig-leaf for Fox News’ preferred scientific assertions he pulled out the patented Fox News escape hatch of but… Al Gore! ending thus:
“We brought you on because we knew you could connect the dots,” Payne interrupted. “Although the route you’ve taken is still confusing some of the viewers.” – Fox Business Host Accuses Bill Nye of ‘Confusing Viewers’ with Science
So six minutes of interrupted reality-based answers to leading questions balances endless hours of Glenn Beck conspiracy theories? That’s “Fair and Balanced” for you.
NASA notes sea level is falling in press release – but calls it a “Pothole on Road to Higher Seas” (2011-08-24). Anthony Watts reminds his readers that if an increase doesn’t happen every single year then it’s not happening. And a NASA press release admits that sea-level didn’t rise in 2010! You’d think after all the denialist accusations them gubmint scientists would be better at falsifying observations to prove whatever they wanted.
So the slight reversal of sea-level increase (which was not happening anyway) means that sea-level rise has stopped (even though it wasn’t happening anyway). Therefore humanity’s CO2 emissions, which don’t cause warming, are not causing climate change (which isn’t happening anyway). Got it?
So we have years of Anthony and his pals claiming that rising temperatures and sea-level are all down to various vague and supposedly cyclic natural causes and definitely not man-made causes. Of course actual scientists have always factored in natural influences and have studied them in great depth to determine their contributions. But here the natural causes are suddenly discounted by the denialist arm-chair critics.
Willis Eschenbach adds a deep scientific insight by noting that Greenland received more precipitation than usual in 2010, so it’s glaciers are apparently not in danger after-all, thus disproving global warming once and for all. Willis somehow didn’t notice that the satellite precipitation data is considered incorrect for that region… And his analysis of NASA’s discussion of the causes of the dip in sea-level dispenses with even a cocktail napkin this time around. Sounds like he’s talking about himself when he pontificates:
When people make claims like that, with no numbers attached, my Urban Legend Detector™ goes off like crazy … and in this case, it was right.
“Bastardi: Science and reality point away, not toward, CO2 as climate driver” (2011-08-12). You know when Joe Bastardi guest-posts on Anthony Watts’ blog you’re in for a chuckle. Here he’s trying to expand on (spin?) his whopper-fest on Fox News a few nights ago.
With the coming Gorathon to save the planet around the corner (Sept 14) , my stance on the AGW issue has been drawing more ire from those seeking to silence people like me that question their issue and plans. In response, I want the objective reader to hear more about my arguments made in a a brief interview on FOX News as to why I conclude CO2 is not causing changes of climate and the recent flurry of extremes of our planet. I brought up the First Law of Thermodynamics and LeChateliers principle.
“Brought up” in the sense of vomited, I guess. Joe has no clue what the First Law of Thermodynamics is (hey, Joe, the greenhouse effect doesn’t create heat) or LeChatelier’s principle (how a chemical equilibrium responds to changing conditions). In the first paragraph alone of his Fox News commentary everything he says is provably false. Five sentences, five boners. (Thanks tamino for holding your nose long enough to spell it out so clearly.)
After years of smack-downs he’s still pushing the “since 1997” lie, still trying to fake it. Here’s an example of Joe Science.
The Bastardi supercomputer works overtime providing detailed statistics.
There’s an outraged analysis at Scientific American titled Fox Commentator Distorts Physics, and Climate Progress gives us Joe Bastardi Pulls a Charlie Sheen on Fox News, Pushing “Utter Nonsense” on Climate Science.
Anthony assures us that “a follow up post – more technically oriented will follow sometime next week.” So don’t pick on poor Joe! Presumably his “follow-up” walk back most of his wild errors…
2011-08-16 Update.
Still waiting for Joe’s re-explanation, although he does add his own meandering comment that suggests we wait 30 years to see that he was right all along. Bad Astronomy’s Phil Plait scrutinizes Joe’s so-called arguments at Big Picture Science: climate change denial on Fox News.
There are some real whoppers in the Watts Up With That comments, but this early one really caught my attention for self-serving justification (stunned italics mine):
@Chris_Colose: you have to pick your battles a little better. Joe Bastardi is not an academic researcher but a private sector meteorologist. He is an advocate for his point of view based upon the knowledge he accumulates. He is putting out his opinions for public consumption but there is no accountability implied…
REPLY: Yes, this is the same silly claim that comes up again and again, one one hand when a they lose a point in an argument they’ll claim “but he’s not a climate scientist, so his opinions don’t matter” then when they feel they have the upper hand we’ll hear, “he’s not scientifically rigorous enough, his arguments pale in comparison to our best climate scientists”. – Anthony
So… ignorant or deceitful “advocates” should get a free pass? Also, please show me a climate science argument “won” by someone like Joe, Anthony. Shorter version of Ryan and Anthony’s argument: “We don’t know anything, but every time we flap our gums we win. Unless the other guys cheat.”
2011-08-18 Update.
Climate Progress piles on: Joe Bastardi is ‘Completely Wrong’ and ‘Does Not Understand the Very Basics of the Science’, Climatologists Explain
New term from the Chronicle: “Climate Thuggery” (2011-08-01). Funny how the National Association of Scholars sounds a lot like the National Academy of Sciences. I guess Anthony Watts didn’t spot the difference. The “Scholars” have been subverted by conservative interests and are now merely a right-wing front, the Academy is actual distinguished scientists (I mean, communists). Also the “Chronicle” isn’t the respected Houston Chronicle, it’s just the mouthpiece of the National Association of Scholars.
Now then given Anthony’s approval, sparked by roving bridge-builder Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., of “NAS” President Peter Wood’s position on the climate change debate, what are his credentials? Well, like most denialists, Wood’s education is entirely outside of the field of climate science. He’s an anthropologist. He’s an enthusiastic conservative though, so of course he thinks properly. That’s pretty much it.
So let’s turn to Climate Thuggery, Wood’s final nail in the coffin of (arguing about) AGW. The first three sentences are a pretty good warning:
Is anthropogenic global warming (AGW) a valid scientific theory? Is it well supported by the empirical data or is it mostly an artifact of computer modeling? I don’t have answers to these questions.
From there it’s just resentful assertions such as “Far from welcoming discussion, [the proponents of AGW] seek to suppress it.” and false claims of using lawsuits to silence denialist critics. (The lawsuit accusations are hilarious as the lawsuit Wood mentions was aimed at correcting denialist Tim Ball’s actual libel; Ball is remembered for explicitly trying to use a lawsuit to silence a critic, a tactic which blew up in his face when the criticisms were confirmed.) And, of course, that denialists are being bullied. Dr. Wood’s whole piece is classic example of combining baseless accusations with claims of victimization.
All this because apparently Wood found himself squirming under the microscope of John Mashey after accusing Mashey of defending the “tattered reputation of “hide the decline” Michael Mann, the climate scientist whose famous “hockey stick” chart shows exponentially increasing global temperatures in the near term”. Tellingly, Dr. Mann remains highly respected in the climate science field, and the out-of-context “hide the decline” quote was not by Mann. But that just gets lost in the confusion with Wood’s other nonsense. Read the whole idiotic original complaint at Bottling Up Global Warming Skepticism, which by word count is actually about P.T. Barnum, and don’t miss out on the pleasure of Peter’s pompous squirming in the comments.
Desmogblog.com covers Dr. Wood’s ignorant partisanship at NAS President Peter Wood: wrong, dishonest or hopelessly compromised?
2011-07-04 Update: Someone’s embarrassed at “The Chronicle of Higher Education”. John Mashey and Robert Coleman were given space to respond to Wood’s political attack. Read Bottling Nonsense, Misusing a Civil Platform and see Wood neatly packaged.
“The End is Near for Faith in AGW“ (June 25th, 2011). Anthony Watts posts a prediction by ordinary citizen Russell Cook (“semi-retired graphic artist” and right-wing blogger for the climaterealist denialists). It’s over! The warmists have lost! Or are just about to lose. I love these over-the-shoulder declarations of victory from people as they flee the debate.
Apparently his “seventeen+ months of research” allows him to declare that Al Gore’s 2007 documentary film, the last word in climate science, is based on a lie. Perhaps even more than one! Also “the media” are all mean to denialists because they don’t give equal time (except Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, The Times, The Telegraph, National Post, The Australian, etc.).
Here’s the vile canard that started off all the skeptic-bullying:
Skeptic scientists are accused of being in a fossil fuel-funded conspiracy to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact“…
Here’s the big problem I found: That accusation is based on a 1991 memo no one was allowed to see, using an out-of-context sentence, promoted by a person who was not a Pulitzer winner despite accolades to the contrary, who was credited with finding the memo by Al Gore, but Gore had the memo collection in his own possession four years earlier.
Actually, I thought that “skeptic scientists” were being accused of misrepresenting physical science and climate evidence. My bad I guess. So an unseen 1991 memo, declared to be taken out-of-context, is the real smoking gun behind all this cruelty and dispute? Oh, the irony! Oh, the blinding faith!
I will agree that it would be great to see (the eternally constipated?) Richard Lindzen, a Republican “science” witness on any number of topics since 1991, scowling in front of a House Committee again. He didn’t do too well last time, except in the imagination of self-convinced denialists.
Anthony optimistically declares victory too while strangely turning away from the science:
“When the public learns about huge faults in the skeptic scientist accusation, combined with the faults in the IPCC, the result may send AGW into total collapse.”
You’re dancing on the head of a pin, Anthony.
“NASA’s Hansen asked to account for outside activities“ (June 21st, 2011). Here’s another whopper from Christopher Horner of that home of scientific inquiry, the American Tradition Institute (an arm of the Competitive Enterprise Institute). Anthony Watts naturally jumps to endorse the accusation that “taxpayer-funded global warming activist” James Hansen receiving a “prize” is an ethical violation and that government scientists are clock-punching shift-workers…
Sez Anthony, “Gavin Schmidt’s time spent on editing realclimate.org during working hours apparently was the trigger for a broader investigation.”
Tip to Anthony: scientists are salaried employees, not hourly assembly line workers. The “broader investigation” Anthony tries to imply is simply think tank thug Christopher Horner speaking out of both sides of his mouth at once. Previously, Dr. Hansen’s involvement with the RealClimate website was decried as “advocacy” on government time, now it’s an “outside activity” that must be “accounted for”. Which is it? Do he really care?
ATI seeks to learn whether NASA approved Hansen’s outside employment, which public financial disclosures and other documents reveal to have brought him at least $1.2 million in the past four years. This money comes on top of and, more troubling from an ethics and legal perspective, is all “related to” and sometimes even expressly for his taxpayer-funded employment, all of which outside employment commenced when Hansen stepped up his “global warming” activism from his perch at NASA. – ATI press release.
I guess the attempts to undermine Hansen’s scientific claims are running out of steam; the harassment and personal attacks will continue though, they’re pretty much reflexive.
Joe Romm at Climate Progress has a more detailed look (who would have ever thought that Fox News would jump on a story like this?): Fox News Compares James Hansen’s Prizes for Truth Telling to Big Tobacco Paying a Doctor to Deny the Risks of Smoking.
“Earth itself is telling us there’s nothing to worry about in doubled, or even quadrupled, atmospheric CO2″ (June 2, 2011). According to Anthony Watts, Pat Frank writes excellent essays on climate science. The beaming Anthony helpfully offers a new example of his excellence, copy-and-pasted from his echo chamber partners at The Air Vent: “Future Perfect“, which asserts this comforting “fact”:
Spread the word: the Earth[‘s] climate sensitivity is 0.090 C/W-m^-2. [This of course begs the question: how did the Earth ever enter or leave an Ice Age in the geological past?]
Anthony Watts and his readers embrace Frank’s dim-witted numerology wish-fulfillment with surprisingly open arms. Frank’s conclusion (based on his intuitive grasp of climatology?) is that all this alleged warming is somehow merely the recovery from the Little Ice Age and that we can pump out as much CO2 as we like.
Once again Excel is put to good use, disproving those dang climatologists and their thinkin’. Nothing like invoking from thin air a “combined cosine function plus a linear trend” to explain everything, without the bother of actually explain anything. If Frank could actually explain why his magic squiggle occurred, he’d actually have something. Sadly, it’s clear that he simply pecked away at Excel until he stumbled across an equation that sort-of matched the historical record.
More of a citizen-scientist’s mind at work: “The rest of the analysis automatically follows.”
Pat Frank discovers that Excel can draw flat lines.
My “technical analysis”: Frank has discovered that if you subtract a bunch of numbers from themselves you get zeros! You’ll aways get a flat line when you plot a squiggle that’s a pretty close fit to the data and then remove the squiggle.
Tamino at Open Mind lays out how a sentient person might respond to such nonsense, first with the quick double-take post Circle Jerk and in more detail with Frankly, Not.
Some nuggets from the keenly skeptical comments at Anthony’s blog:
NCDC cites “controversy” with the UAH temperature record, and the search for a “true climate signal” (May 13, 2011). Anthony Watts still thinks the NCDC is after him because of their “ghost authored attack on me and the surfacestations project” back in 2009. I guess it’s easier for him than admitting that their scientific evaluation of his claims found no support whatsoever for his bellowed accusations.
Even the paper that poor Anthony was recently involved with came to the same conclusion, although much more quietly and with a healthy dose of self-congratulation. There was, and is, no warming bias in the US average temperature record. There is no warming bias associated with urbanization of temperature recording station locations. The warming trends are real and the product of human environmental impacts.
What reminded the thin-skinned Anthony of this past insult? A new article by NCDC scientists titled Tropospheric temperature trends: history of an ongoing controversy (full pdf here). They conclude:
The state of the observational and model science has progressed considerably since 1990. The uncertainty of both models and observations is currently wide enough, and the agreement in trends close enough, to support a finding of no fundamental discrepancy between the observations and model estimates throughout the tropospheric column.
Anthony tries to make hay of the bland ‘admission’ that researchers need to “calibrate the data and unambiguously extract the true climate signal from the inevitable nonclimatic influences inherent in the routine observations.” What? “Inevitable nonclimatic influences?” The use of these words mean that Anthony’s accusations were right all along!!!!
Not. It’s quite bold-faced of Anthony to claim that climate scientists have, until now, discounted “noise and uncertainty”. In fact this has been a core concern for decades. He also throws in a snide reference to “observational uncertainty” to insinuate yet again that climate scientists are manipulating the temperature record for their own purposes.
Noise. Something Anthony’s quite familiar with generating in order to obscure facts.
Wott's Up With That? 