“Most idiotic global warming headline ever“. Anthony Watts should look in a mirror I think. He’s found a “what-if” newspaper article in a new-to-me paper called The Canadian about methane hydrates from 2007 to get steamed over. He recommends not reading. Instead, send an angry letter to the editors.
“Now it’s caterpillar outbreaks caused by global warming“. Anthony Watts is annoyed by an article in The Independent titled “Caterpillar plague on Isle of Wight was caused by climate change, says expert“. Here’s the offensive passage:
In general, these insects are getting worse in this country because the climate is changing and the summers are getting warmer.
Outrageous! Hopefully Anthony’s readers will flood the article comments with truth.
“Climate Craziness of the Week – New Scientist: The Denial Depot Edition“. New Scientist has printed a number of articles about “denialism”. Anthony Watts thinks it’s a “sanctioned hatefest” and that New Scientist is now “nothing more that a political science mouthpiece.” Anthony makes sure his readers can get to the articles and bombard the comments.
Why are any articles critical of climate change denial proof that the publication is corrupt, while supportive articles are always evidence of courageous reporting. Confirmation bias is a funny thing.
So why do so many people refuse to accept the evidence? What are the clear lines between scepticism and denial? How does denialism satisfy deep emotional needs? Do smokescreens really work wonders for big business? Is it easy to send a lie flying around the world, and almost impossible to shoot it down? Must we let denialists be heard, and respond with patience, vigilance and tireless rebuttal? Is calling an opponent a denier is illiberal, intolerant and ineffective?
That’s some uncomfortable reading there Anthony. Unless you can convince yourself to dismiss it as a “hatefest”.
“Taiwan sinking: Subsidence or Global Warming Induced Sea Level Rise?“. Anthony Watts wants you to think that rising sea-levels anywhere on Earth are due to subsidence and subsidence alone. Especially in Taiwan. And if anyone, such as in this AFP news report Rising sea levels threaten Taiwan, suggests that it could be sea-level rise due to Global Warming, they should be flooded with hostile correspondence.
It’s certainly true that uncontrolled groundwater (or oil) extraction can produce significant local subsidence. The problem with Anthony’s attempt at misdirection is that this kind of subsidence is highly variable, even within the affected locality. So it’s kind of hard to use as an excuse to wave away regional sea-level changes.
Come to think of it, this is exactly like Anthony’s discredited obsession with surface station temperature records. Cherry-picked instances invoked in the hope of discrediting the wider trend. We’ll be hearing more mutterings on this topic, I think.
“Gavin’s sensitive side“. Anthony Watts does a copy and paste of a NASA press release about research into climate sensitivity (Daniel J. Lunt et al., 2010. “Earth System Sensitivity Inferred from Pliocene Modelling and Data,” in Nature Geoscience, Vol. 3, No. 1), but turns the post title into a childish personal dig at leading NASA climatologist Dr. Gavin Schmidt…
The research attempts to infer ancient climate sensitivity to CO2. Current models don’t work well on geological timescales:
Earth’s climate is also influenced by other, much slower processes. These include changes in ice sheets, vegetation and aerosols, for example, that take place over hundreds and thousands of years. Because of their complexity and long timescales, these processes are almost impossible to integrate into today’s climate computer models.
This sounds like grist for the denialist mill. “We can’t trust no dang ‘puter models! Garbage in, garbage out!” Why would Lunt break the conspirator’s agreement to hide problems? Maybe, shockingly, they’re trying to learn and improve?
The team found that it took much lower concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide to recreate the Pliocene’s warm climate than current models — which consider only the relatively fast-adjusting components of the climate — predict. Pliocene carbon dioxide levels are estimated to have been around 400 parts per million by volume (ppmv), while according to current simulations it would take 500 to 600 ppmv of carbon dioxide to bring about the warm temperatures of the Pliocene. As a result, the researchers estimate that Earth’s response to elevated concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 30 to 50 percent greater than previously calculated. In other words, the climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than we thought.
Ooh, those sneaks! They learned something!
Recommended steps include stabilizing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and fashioning warming-neutral pollution laws that will balance the removal of aerosols that have an atmospheric cooling effect with the removal of warming agents such as soot and ozone. Finally, the authors advocate achieving reductions in methane, hydrofluorocarbons and other greenhouse gases that remain in the atmosphere for short periods of time. The authors write that aggressive simultaneous pursuit of these strategies could reduce the probability of reaching the temperature threshold to less than 10 percent before the year 2050. [Quote from original press release, italics mine.]
These proposals outrage Anthony’s readers, who pick through it for sentences they can pour scorn on. The best solution is, of course, to do nothing.
“Climate idiocy at the Monterey Bay Aquarium – cow with a gas mask“. The Monterey Bay Aquarium had a goofy image in a display about threats facing ocean wildlife (including climate change) and now Anthony Watts can’t “marvel at the sea otters, jellyfish, and the Mola” because “it’s just another political hack.”
Get over yourself, Anthony.
“Well, at least they didn’t launch it at Roswell“. Anthony Watts’ snarky reference to a NASA balloon experiment in Australia that failed to launch serves as an enjoyable opportunity for his readers to snipe at gubmint scientists and Al Gore.
Not a joke: Gore’s “Inconvenient Youth” Anthony Watts ‘subtly’ alludes to the Hitler Youth when talking about a training program called “Inconvenient Youth” that Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection has initiated.
Just a copy and paste of the press release with a few poorly thought-out comments appended, like this sneer about a vegetable oil-powered VW seen in a video clip. It “still produces CO2 when the oil is burned.” The difference, of course, is that vegetable oil is carbon neutral because it is derived from a component (plants!)of the active carbon cycle. CO2 released by coal or petroleum has been sequestered from the carbon cycle for millions of years.
Oh and don’t buy Apple products, because Al Gore is on their Board of Directors!
“Quote of the week #32 – hockeying up a zinger“. Anthony Watts offers up a cherry-picked interview excerpt from climatologist Dr. Michael Mann (the full interview on The Morning Call is good reading):
[Anthony dropped this part: I would say that all good scientists are skeptics. Many who deny the existence of climate change I would not call skeptics, because their skepticism is one-sided.] “I would call them contrarians or, frankly in some cases, climate change deniers,” he said. “I’m a skeptic. When I see a scientific claim being made, I want to see it subject to scrutiny and validation.”
Scientists aren’t allowed to describe themselves as “skeptical!” That’s reserved for Anthony!
Instead of telling others to look in the mirror perhaps he should crack open a book (or a web page). Dictionary.com defines skeptic and offers this illuminating quote (italics mine):
Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found. [Miguel de Unamuno, “Essays and Soliloquies,” 1924]
Sounds like the normal approach of scientists to me. And their “skepticism” has led to some entertaining debunking of statements made by Anthony and his associates.
What “skeptical” post by Anthony would be complete without a bit of Climategate innuendo and a suggestion to readers that they pester a journalist? Check.