North and Booker on Amazongate: A billion dollar cash cow

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.

Methane, The Panic Du Jour

Methane, The Panic Du Jour“. Steven Goddard prefaces his misrepresentation of reactions to a report about Arctic Ocean methane emissions with a dumb denialist cartoon. Nice to have the quality of thought displayed right off the bat. He finishes with a repeat of his foolish obsession with Arctic sea ice extent by showing a chart of this year’s sea ice extent against the long-term pattern. (It still shows that recent years are visibly lower in comparison to the long-term trend. Shouldn’t you keep quiet about that Steven?)

What is Steven’s main point? Recent research in Science about the amount of methane being released by permafrost underlying the East Siberian Arctic Shelf indicates that the quantities are significantly higher than previously known. Actual scientists at RealClimate think it’s not likely to be a particularly serious matter, but there has been some tempered concern in the first newspaper reports (see this NYT article).

Steven takes this as a cue to pretend that this is invoking a new climate disaster. Somehow in his mind the battle over CO² has been won, and the “warmists” are regrouping to claim that methane is the real terror.

He accuses the newspapers of exaggerating for effect but the NYT article places the estimated Arctic methane emissions of  7 million tonnes in the context of annual emissions of 500 tonnes and describes the resulting local methane concentrations as being elevated by only 2 ppm. It’s funny when Steven ponders the evil cherry-picking motivation of the scientists reporting on the years 2003-2008. In fact, that’s the years that the scientists were actually working in the study area. His understanding of chemistry is no better, as his naïve analogy for “parts per million” shows. Molecules aren’t people Steven, although Soylent Green apparently is.

Climatologists aren’t particularly concerned, newspapers are speculating but staying in context. So much for that accusation.

Video: Dr. Phil Jones Climategate testimony at the British House of Commons

Video: Dr. Phil Jones Climategate testimony at the British House of Commons“. Unsurprisingly, Anthony Watts feels the questioning is insufficiently tough. He consoles himself by gathering some critical quotes from various denialist-friendly UK media outlets.

Flashback: U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend

Flashback: U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend“. Anthony Watts posts this report from the New York Times on Global Warming back in 1989. It’s an inadvertent admission that the “MSM” were once “skeptical” about climate change. Hmm, wonder what happened?

Anthony intent is to show that Climatologist Dr. James Hansen has changed his scientific opinion and is thus a slippery fellow. But isn’t that actually a sign of scientific integrity? When the data evolves so should your understanding. Anthony also can’t resist a bit of Gore-bashing and some dark hints about “world policy” (code for the unseen commie world gubmint). Anthony also fails to note that the article in question refers to the US temperature record, not the global one. This is a long-standing denialist “trick”.

Here’s an entertaining quote from the article: “One aspect of the study that Dr. Hanson said was interesting was the finding that the urbanization of the United States has apparently not had a statistically significant effect on average temperature readings.” Even twenty years ago Anthony’s big idea had been disproven!

BWI snow record rescinded: Another reason why airports aren’t the best place to measure climate data

BWI snow record rescinded: Another reason why airports aren’t the best place to measure climate data“. Chicago’s O’Hare airport is bigger than it used to be, although its weather records aren’t used for climate analysis. A weather observer in Baltimore followed the wrong guidelines for recording snowfall.

These two irrelevant factoids apparently confirm Anthony Watts’ distrust of all gubmint weather records.

Un-bearable news

Un-bearable news“. Anthony wants us to know that the inestimable Jonathan Leake of The Times says that polar bears are just funny brown bears. So if they get wiped out by global warming it’s no biggie.

Alaska Zoo kissin' cousins!

The Times: “University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’”

The Times: “University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’”. Anthony Watts draws attention to a useful headline from the chronically denial-biased Times and equates the remarks of a right-wing politician with a factual statement. So let’s see; the University of East Anglia CRU’s opponents don’t like their choice of words, but can’t actually contradict them. Snap?

The “savage” article is by Ben Webster, perhaps The Times has realised that Jonathan Leake’s byline is a little compromised…

Anthony gives us another laugh by continuing to obsess over the word “trick”.

There’s no business like snow business

There’s no business like snow business“. Anthony Watts returns to the old standby of talking about how much snow there is this winter, thus ending global warming.

To make his argument he gathers selected newspaper articles from recent years predicting both less snow and more snow. Some how this tells us that climate scientists don’t know what they’re talking about. His argument would hold more weight if he actually quoted climate scientists, but that might not paint to picture he wants to present.

I see a common theme to Anthony’s cherry-picked newspaper reports; the “less snowfall” predictions refer to five to ten years out, all the “more snowfall” reports are interpreting the current winter. Not actually contradictory.

Pachauri’s TERI institute golf course – water hog in a city desperate for fresh water

Pachauri’s TERI institute golf course – water hog in a city desperate for fresh water“. Anthony Watts reports that there’s a golf course on the grounds of the TERI Institute in India. Clearly IPCC Chairman Rajenda Pachauri is personally corrupt and must be fired or resign in humiliation. Thus ending global warming for ever.

Lindzen on climate science advocacy and modeling – “at this point, the models seem to be failing”

Lindzen on climate science advocacy and modeling – “at this point, the models seem to be failing”. Ah, science by letter-to-the-editor. Climate change is “natural”, who knows if this latest bit means anything? The head of the Climatic Research Unit is “deservedly maligned”. Climate scientists lack “courage” because they’re brainwashed by “a generation of environmental propaganda” and are simply chasing grant money. Just the facts, eh Dr. Lindzen?

The best bit of his letter is this classic tidbit of double-standard denialist-speak: Lindzen says that not being able to offer something better than current models is OK because the models aren’t perfect anyway. He brazenly calls this “the normal scientific approach.” Um, Dr. L; the “normal scientific approach” is to formulate a theory that better describes the evidence. Until then you’ve got bupkis. In twenty years of blather no denialist has met this basic and obvious threshold.

Dr. Richard Lindzen was actually lead author of Chapter 7, ‘Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,’ of the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report. This chapter was the bit that doesn’t say anything about whether climate change is happening or what is causing it… He’s also a regular on the right-wing foundation grouch-for-hire lecture circuit.