“Open Letter to Jon Stewart – The Daily Show” (2014-01-17). I LOVE these denialist “open letters”! Anthony Watts seems to love ’em too, but for different reasons. Anthony loves the chance to act as if he’s initiating a great public debate. When The Letter lands like a tiny pebble in a reeeeeally deep well he can pretend it was so beautifully argued that the (oblivious) target was shamed into silence. Me? I love the hubris.
Here we have Bob Tisdale lecturing Jon Stewart about his coverage of right-wing “weather!” whoppers on January 6th. Anthony Watts has had a pickle up his ass on the same topic; the recent deep cold snap should have been the final nail in the Global Warming hoax, right? But at least weatherman Anthony learned what the Polar Vortex is.
Bob lists his credentials up front so that Jon will sit up and take notice. He’s an “independent climate researcher” (code for “not a climate researcher”) and author of three ebooks!
Like most denialists, Bob seems to consider himself a blend of Galileo and Martin Luther. Fierce intellect, incredible moral integrity, and probably the strength of ten men. Yeah, right. Bob’s just rattling through the usual tired and debunked denialist claims, misrepresenting evidence, demonstrating his ignorance of real scientific process or squawking “the models are wrong!”
I note that Anthony seems A-OK with the anti-Semitic undercurrent in his carefully moderated comments sandbox. Did you know Jon Stewart’s real surname is Leibowitz? This is apparently important to know.
“Michael Mann forced into a “do-over” in Mann -vs- CEI & Steyn” (2013-12-23). This is why prejudiced idiots like Anthony Watts should avoid legal interpretation as well as stay out of science. Did Dr. Mann’s libel case against Mark Steyn, Rand Simberg CEI, and the National Review suffer a serious blow, or has irrelevant legal posturing by the defence been swept aside? Anthony doesn’t seem to actually know.
Sez “citizen scientist”/playground lawyer Anthony about Dr. Michael Mann’s libel lawsuit against denialist hacks (he seems to have forgotten about a couple of the defendants);
What a great Christmas present for Mike. It is back to square one for him with his lawsuit over what he views as libel by Mark Steyn and CEI.
What really happened was that defendant Steyn and his lobbyist pals were told that their appeal was about something that was no longer part of the libel suit. What was that something, you ask? Dr. Mann’s lawsuit initially described him as an Nobel Laureate when in fact he merely received a certificate of thanks from the IPCC for his lead role in their climate change report. It was the IPCC as an organization that actually received the Nobel Prize and they in turn thanked Dr. Mann, therefore everything Dr. Mann has ever said is a lie and so is Global Warming! Or some such Hail-Mary argument.
Lacking from the defence appeal was anything relevant to Steyn’s assertion that Dr. Mann’s research was “fraudulent”.
Here’s another more thoughtful comment on the antics of the defendants from the ;
If I was a judge, and someone filed an appeal with me that lacked jurisdiction due to mootness, and counsel admitted they knew it was moot when they filed it, I would sanction counsel for abuse of process.
My take on this is Anthony Watts and the defendants are simply expressing a variation of Goreaphobia. Their actions are governed by personality and resentment and all they can do here is squawk about scientific awards.
Funny how Anthony’s silent about denialists trying to use the meaningless “IPCC Reviewer” tag for their own vanity. Or Lord Monckton actually making a fake “Nobel Prize pin.”
To hear Heartland tell it, they’re in the final stages of a major scientific collaboration with their new Best Friends Forever, the Chinese Communist Party. A collaboration that proves the denialist “scientific” position has momentum. The Chinese Academy of Science is totally on their side and Craig Idso (Ph.D.), Bob Carter (Ph.D.) and Fred Singer (Ph.D.) are going to Beijing to get their medals!
Perhaps Rabett Run has it right though, the CAS’s comedy translation division has finished puzzling out the Heartland Institute’s Climate Change Reconsidered and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, authored by the NIPCC, a denialist sound-alike to the United Nation’s IPCC (their “report” is a look-alike too). You gotta read the hilarious things these round eyes say!
Too bad this is the reality:
“this is only a book cooperation between the Lanzhou Branch of the National Science Library and Heartland Institute, and is limited only to copy right trading, with no academic research work involved.”
I guess this is a close to a win as denialist “science” gets. Anthony’s followers are giddy with delight in comments even as “Plain Richard” tries to peel the wool back.
2013-06-14 Update: I couldn’t resist poking the ant nest and commented on Anthony’s post failing to reflect the instant collapse of the Heartland Institute and his claims. The result was exactly what you would expect from inquiring website devoted to informing the public about controversial subjects. Not.
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.
After an incompetent investigation that focused obsessively on the irrelevant dead polar bears, Dr. Monnett was only “reprimanded” because he had “improperly disclosed internal government documents”. Isn’t that the kind of thing that Anthony has been demanding more of? Transparency, letting in the light, resisting persecution, citizen-science, etc.
As usual Anthony falsely holds his target to a higher standard than he could ever live up to. Dr. Monnett is just collateral damage in Anthony’s Gore-ophobia.
REPLY: The issue is mostly with Gore’s ridiculous claims, AGW had noting to do with the dead polar bear and a dead polar bear does not a trend make. Monnet didn’t speak out when Gore took his observation and turned into into a bogus sympathy pitch -Anthony
Here’s an enlightening quote from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management press office that Anthony didn’t manage in include in his conveniently partial copy-and-paste of the Seattle Times article (this is called burying the lede):
A BOEM spokeswoman, Theresa Eisenman, said the findings in the report do not support a conclusion that the scientists involved engaged in “scientific misconduct.”
I note that Google Ads still sees Anthony’s readership as prime targets for Brain Training Games. Indeed, indeed.
So three denialists almost managed to stage an unchallenged “presentation” via the American Meteorological Society’s Oregon Chapter at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry that would have let them make arch self-references for years to come. Wouldn’t Anthony have loved to lead people astray with “A Oregon Museum of Science presentation showed that…”?
Sounds so much better than “my partisan think-tank article says…” or “a paranoid, narcissistic British peer trained as a journalist claims…”.
Didn’t they know that Climate Research is the journal for assuaging an ambitious denialist’s sense of inadequacy? Oh that’s right. Chris de Freitas is no longer there to receive the secret handshake. Sorry, I guess that was your best chance.
The AMS’s Oregon Chapter seems to think that a one-sided presentation on a controversial scientific topic meets their self-proclaimed mission to “advance professional ideals in the science of meteorology and to promote the development, exchange, and application of meteorological knowledge.”
In this outrageous case the OMSI begged to differ and brutally censored them. In the sense of telling them to hold that particular event somewhere else. And then saying that they’d support a balanced presentation because “[Their] job is to make sure it’s not just one voice that’s heard”.
Anthony casts about seeking a damning analogy but can’t do better that suggest that because the OMSI has an attack submarine on display they are equally hypocritical if they don’t also have some kind of hippy love-in exhibit for “balance”. So why hold denialists to a higher standard? Or any standard I guess. But you know what? You can buy a tie-die kit in the gift-shop. The circle of life is complete.
Leading with “Stupid” in the title seems odd though, it just leads to readers puzzling over the message and that leads in a direction that Anthony would prefer to steer away from. One side of a debate isn’t a debate at all, is it, even if you agree with that side. Anthony and his friends have scuttled their own intellectual submarine again.
What does this have to do with climate change, or even just science? Nuthin’. It’s just reflexive regulation bashing and tax whining. Funny how there’s nary a peep on Anthony’s blog about the billions in tax cuts that oil companies receive…
So what’s really going on? Reading the Guardian article might help.
The move is intended as a sweetener to fishermen who have bitterly opposed the European commission’s plans to ban the wasteful practice of discarding edible fish at sea. Fleets fear they will lose money by not being able to throw away lower-value catch.
“Ending this practice of throwing away edible fish is in the interest of fishermen, and consumers,” Damanaki told the Guardian in an interview. “It has to happen – we cannot have consumers afraid to eat fish because they hate this problem of discards.”
Fishermen who clear plastic will be subsidised initially by EU member states, but in future the scheme could turn into a self-sustaining profitable enterprise, as fleets cash in on the increasing value of recycled plastics. Cleaning up the rubbish will also improve the prospects for fish, seabirds and other marine species, which frequently choke or suffer internal damage from ingesting small pieces of non-biodegradable packaging.
Did they deliberately release their review when they thought they would be safe from Spencer’s devastating intellectual rebuttal? Those cunning, corrupt, dishonest communist climate scientists! But the always high-minded Anthony Watts sorted it out with an e-mail offering ethics advice. Anthony’s readers start the libeling by themselves.
So what of Spencer’s book? Could he be right? Would it really take “only one research study to cause the global warming house of cards to collapse”?
Well unless you embrace Spencer’s astonishing belief that decades of work by thousands of scientists around the world could actually flip into untold thousands of admissions of “my bad”, no.
Instead Spencer accuses “the IPCC researchers” of “fundamental mistakes” that only he has discovered, but never identifies the dumb scientists or references their alleged mistakes. He waves away detailed paleo data with “we don’t have a clue”. (I suppose as a creationist he is uncomfortable with any date before 4004 BC.) He’s so intellectually flexible that he’s already contradicted his own book in later papers. Is it true that “short-term fluctuations in the energy balance and surface temperature are consistent with a low climate sensitivity” (the whatever-he-can-get-away-with book, April 2010), or that “the climate system is never in equilibrium” ( the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research, August 2010)? I guess the ice ages are impossible.
Perhaps next Spencer will be confidently asserting that toothpicks are made when beavers sneeze? He should stick to remote sensing, where he actually has some expertise.
I always think it’s a bit dodgy when a scientific paper title is in the form of a question. Maybe because the author is ever so slightly overreaching? “Could” is about as close as Indur gets to any kind of supporting evidence. He calls his research an “exploratory analysis”. With, apparently, exploratory conclusions.
Who reviewed and published it? Oops, The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is a “politically conservative non-profit organization“. They are anti-vaccination, anti-universal healthcare, pro-gun, don’t think HIV causes AIDS, try to link abortion to breast cancer and claim that illegal immigrants are bringing leprosy to America. Nice.
But is Indur Goklany right? Are biofuel production consequences the result of AGW policies? As I recall American ethanol production began as a response to the “energy crisis” in the Seventies. Nothing whatsoever to do with climate. Some current forms of biofuel production can reduce global food availability and increase global food prices. This says more about the enthusiasm of agribusiness for government subsidies than it does about attempts to reverse AGW. Biofuels are primarily an economic issue.
Indur Goklany illustrates a linear process as a circle, but leaves something out.
This is just another one of Indur’s right-wing think-tank revisionist efforts. Based on a fast-and-loose numbers, with an exaggerated connection to climate policy and used to infer imaginary negative future consequences. This time, instead of understating the consequences of AGW we get an overstatement of AGW’s alleged political power.
Funny, Roger sang a different tune back in 2006 when he said “Clearly, since 1970, climate change has shaped the disaster loss record.”
Anthony’s typically trivial contribution is to mutter about photoshopping in magazine articles and on book covers, and link to his own “definitive” past coverage of the subject. If you want to step back from the hurricane strawman, Skeptical Science says:
“It is unclear whether global warming is increasing hurricane frequency out there but there is increasing evidence that warming increases hurricane intensity”.
Anthony and Roger’s scientific nemesis Joe Romm (in the sense that Joe is a scientist) at Climate Progress says,
So one thing you can safely say about a hurricane damage analysis study: Its conclusions should not be generalized into broader conclusions about the impact of climate change on extreme weather.