Aussie Chief Scientist: Renewable Energy Push Hurts the Poor

Aussie Chief Scientist: Renewable Energy Push Hurts the Poor (2017-01-02). In which a mendacious idiot, Anthony Watts’ fellow-traveller Eric Worrall, falsely claims that Australia’s Chief Scientist is against renewable energy because it, somehow, hurts the poor. Rugged denialist free-marketers like Anthony and Eric spend their nights worrying about the poors, don’t you know?

Sez Eric the half-brain (that’s a Monty Python reference):

“Australia’s Chief Scientist Alan Finkel has strongly criticised the impact of renewable energy policies on the poor, working class people and migrants.”

etc.

Shorter Eric: The poors want coal, haven’t you read Dickens? Also, a water desalination plant somewhere didn’t work very well, so neither will renewables. I read it in a newspaper!

Sez Dr. Alan Finkel:

“It will be important to address the barriers to active engagement in the [renewable energy] transition underway, as experienced by vulnerable groups.”

I’ll summarize Dr. Finkel’s real position as this: renewables are the immediate future and Australia must ensure that renewables are integrated into the national grid so that everyone benefits, not just the wealthy who can, and are, taking care of themselves.

If you buy Eric’s crocodile sympathy, clean out your ears. Hotwhopper is the expert at unpacking Anthony Watts’ whoppers, you can read her more detailed response at her excellent website.

Aside: Sorry for the long absence here, I still roll my eyes at Anthony’s rabid stupidity but rarely have time to post about it.

50,000 attend rally with speech against climate agenda in Poland

50,000 attend rally with speech against climate agenda in Poland (2013-11-12). Hey Anthony Watts, lately you’ve been frothing over “Warmist” exaggeration of Super Typhoon Haiyan fatalities. (Except it doesn’t look like there was any exaggeration, does it?) How does if feel being caught doing what you tried to accuse others of, in literally the same breath?

Thanks to HotWhopper for unravelling this one: How’s That Polish Exaggeration Going, Anthony Watts?

Anthony, your original title was “50000 at Rally Against Climate Agenda in Poland” and your copy-and-pasted post led with UN climate summit in Poland greeted by 50,000 angry Poles rallying against UN”. You had to walk it back a bit, huh?

In fact (as opposed to CFACT) CFACT president David Rothbard spoke at an “Independence March” organized by nationalists and right-wing groups as a counter to official celebrations of Poland’s Independence Day (commemorating Poland’s 1918 release from Prussian, Austrian and Russian control). They didn’t give a shit about climate change. Far-right rioters leave trail of destruction in Polish capital: “The main target of the rioters appeared to have been any symbol of left-wing, liberal views” – Reuters

A good match, ideologically, I guess. But if Anthony thinks he can pass off CFACT egging on far-right rioters as Poles throwing the oppressive yoke of UN climate scientists… I’ve got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

Detecting regime shifts in climate data – the modern warming regime ended in 1997

Detecting regime shifts in climate data – the modern warming regime ended in 1997 (2012-07-03). Anthony Watts blindly publishes another piece of scientific nonsense. Sam Outcalt, Emeritus (naturally) Professor of Physical Geography (naturally) has screwed around with Excel and discovered you can turn pretty much any data trend into a parabola that suits your goals if you just rescale things and only plot cumulative sums of deviations from average.

“This short analysis indicates that an alternate model of climate change based on serial regime transitions rather than anthropogenic global warming is consistent with the results of the Hurst Re Scaling analysis.”

It’s so simple! Um, too simple:

“Cumulative sums can show very interesting behavior. They can also be extremelytricky to deal with statistically. That’s not a problem for Outcalt, his post doesn’t seem to have any statistics.” – Open Mind

This is what fake linear temperature trends look like when plotted along side real temperature the the way Outcalt did:

Looks like Dr. Outcalt’s dunce-cap methodology turns any linear trend into a parabola that can be presented as proof that the trend has reversed…

955 words and four references (do “personal communications” really count?) are all Outcalt needs to underpin his argument. I think Anthony’s denialist blog is the pinnacle of this “paper’s” trajectory. Outcalt is a retired permafrost guy, his last paper seems to have been in 1994.

‘Ads by Google’ helpfully suggests that “If you use a spreadsheet to manage work, you should watch this helpful 1 minute video.” Maybe the good Perfessor should take Google’s inscrutable advice?

Update: Here’s a real temperature trend, from 1800 to 2010. Notice the lack of “regime change” in 1997? This data is from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, in which Anthony placed great faith until it didn’t give the result he wanted.

“So what?” you say, another emeritus academic outside of his area of expertise who thinks he’s “proved” everyone else is wrong. Dime a dozen at Watts Up With That. Well… true. But every now and then (meaning several times a week) a classic example of Anthony’s tactics comes along and gives us a useful way to deconstruct Anthony’s method:

  1. He will publish literally anything with a “conclusion” that suits his agenda, even if he has no ability whatsoever to understand it. Perhaps especially if he doesn’t understand it.
  2. He will imply that any forthcoming criticism will be malicious so that his readers will think that Anthony has the intelligence to anticipate and dismiss factual scientific criticism:

    “Great paper. Thanks for re-posting this Anthony. Hurst makes perfect sense and it is well defended in the paper. I think Tamino is over his head with a paper like this.
    REPLY: Oh, he’ll try to shoot it down anyway. – Anthony”

  3. He posts new stuff so fast that by the time anyone intelligent can respond his mesmerized audience has forgotten about it other than a few unshakable rearguard commenters. Although they will all keep a vague memory of another perfect proof, probably contradicting earlier perfect proofs, that there is no global warming, which stopped in 1997 anyway.
  4. He counts on his denialist ditto heads to repost WUWT posts so that if any intelligent analysis infects the comments of his own posts and disrupts the head-nodding the copies will remain uncorrected and continue to deceive. (Of course he’ll never correct his own post either, so that readers that don’t mine the comments will remain unaware.)
  5. His censors “moderators” will always invoke (im)plausible deniability when Anthony’s caught and will pretend his readers are up-to-date in all the physical sciences anyway:

[REPLY: Anthony publishes lots of stuff, not all of which he agrees with. It is simply “interesting”. WUWT commenters are fully capable of critiqueing the work and have done so. Anthony is not a co-author on this article and is not required to justify or explain anything, especially to anonymous individuals using anonymous proxy servers. Check site policy regarding that. -REP]

Not particularly clever, but effective if you lack peripheral vision.

Update: Anthony re-applied his denialist french kiss to Outcalt’s fake technique one day later when Outcalt sends him some rigged solar data: Another regime change indication – this time in solar data. One day the climate switch flipped in 1997, the next day the switch flipped in 2005. Just pick one and stick with! This time Anthony gets called on it too fast to slip away and pulls an “as I expected”:

UPDATE: As I expected he would, Dr. Leif Svalgaard takes exception to this characterization of the identification of October 2005 being a regime changepoint, saying:

While I agree that the sun is going quiet, the ‘step change’ is spurious. It is mainly due to a sporadic, single magnetic storm in September 2005: http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2005%2c09%2c04 and here is the next rotation: http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2005%2c10%2c01 You can find many such steps.

Such step changes happens all the time: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png They are just weather, not climate.

Of course Anthony takes as “skeptical” view of the opinions of actual solar experts as he thinks can get away with:

While I defer to Dr. Svalgaard’s overall superior knowledge on the dynamics of sun, and agree there are many sharp transitions in the Ap record, this looks to me to be a step change event of merit based on the factors listed above. I’ve yet to see a fully convincing explanation that this was a spurious event rather than a regime changepoint. But, I remain open to seeing such an explanation.

The “well funded” climate business – follow the money

The “well funded” climate business – follow the money” (2012-05-19). Anthony Watts tries to re-stir a cold pot: See how climate scientists are eagerly shoveling mistresses into the Ferrari’s they bought with their free gubmint money?

Joanne Nova (Australian holder of a Graduate Certificate in Science Communications and Rothschild obsessive) pulled out her sharpest crayons three years ago and laid it all out for the boffins at the Science and Public Policy Institute. Anthony remembered just now.

According to Jo-No the US government is giving seven billion dollars a year to those smug climate scientists! No wonder they’re all so happy to lie about global warming.

Wait, you mean they don’t get to stuff the cash into their pockets? It all goes to actual research costs? Surely all that gear just pops up from the ground. The scientists keep none of it? Oh.

What’s that you say? Most of the money on that chart is really for biofuel subsidies, solar power costs and the like? Actual energy? Oh.

Still, I bet plenty goes to campaigning against the rich. (Eat them, they’re delicious.) If the Heartland Institute and the Heritage Foundation spend all their money on partisan warfare then surely scientists do too. Oh.

Also, leading Senate intellectual Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe is fightin’ back against President Obama’s “war on affordable energy”. What’s putting our troops at risk? Not having big enough gas tanks.

The banner ads suggest that Google’s figured out what Anthony and his readers need. It’s hard to argue with ’em.
More

Polar bears no longer on ‘thin ice’: researchers say polar bears could face brighter future

Polar bears no longer on ‘thin ice’: researchers say polar bears could face brighter future. Hah, says Anthony Watts, Polar Bears are happy! The US Forest Service says so in a paper in Nature! (pay-walled) This means that there’s no Global Warming!

This is classic Anthony Watts misrepresentation. It’s funny how so much of what Anthony touts as evidence that refutes the predicted impacts of Global Warming is in fact the opposite. Here’s the first “key finding” of the paper (italics mine):

The results of modeling regional polar bear populations indicate a potentially brighter future for the species if global greenhouse gas concentrations can be kept under control at levels less than those expected under current conditions.

Sea Ice News #32 – Southern Comfort

Sea Ice News #32 – Southern Comfort. Anthony Watts tries to explain why he’s been avoiding the topic of Arctic Sea Ice. Apparently because the precipitous drop in Arctic Sea Ice, which Anthony is careful not to display until the end of his post, isn’t nearly as interesting as the statistically insignificant rise in Antarctic Sea Ice. Even though Arctic conditions are primarily affected temperature and Antarctic conditions are primarily affected by ocean currents.

Cue bold-faced muttering about “healthy skepticism”, hidden data (oops! it was there all along) and wounded references to nasty scientists making accusations of breathtaking denialist ignorance. Oh, and apparently Tamino’s takedown amuses Anthony.

Monckton’s Mexican Missive #2

Monckton’s Mexican Missive #2“. Denialist blowhard Lord Monckton, rattling around the UN climate conference in Cancun waiting for supplicants to seek out his guidance, provides another rambling “report” about how everyone at the Conference is stupid. And evil. And mean. And blindly “religious.” And demoralized. And conspiring. The list seems endless. Anthony Watts gives it all his seal of approval.

And yet this unsupported repetition of a wide list of debunked denialist claims and allegations of conspiracy, along with a random political broadsides and references to his dinner menu, are all we get from the leading “intellectual” of the denialist movement… What a train-wreck.

Monckton reaches his pinnacle of cleverness when he encourages people to call the “wicked” IPCC the “ipecac”. Oh, if we use the name of syrup of ipecac instead of their real name no one will take them seriously! They’ll just think of throwing up! Oh you are by far the cleverest guy in Grade Three and your readers are, tellingly, quivering with delight.