“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.
“Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup“. Anthony Watts posts an communiqué from the Science and Environmental Policy Project lobbyists. Strangely, the only scientists they mention are Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, both deeply compromised denialists. The rest of the post is a careful selection of “news” that blindly promotes denialist interests. Oh, and the Cancun climate conference is going to be such a failure.
I guess this is the price of getting your high school projects so neatly bound Anthony.
“Wikileaks cables: on climate, IPCC, Copenhagen“. Oooh, a Wikileak document reveals that a European politician is pessimistic about climate negotiations in Copenhagen and now in Cancun. Global Warming is so over.
Herman van Rompuy dismisses Copenhagen climate summit as ‘incredible disaster’ and expects Cancún to be no better
Gosh, that’s almost as scientifically relevant as a public opinion poll.
“Telegraph blunders, assumes Wikileaks was responsible for Climategate emails being made available to the public“. Funny, Anthony Watts loved the Telegraph until they were forced to retract denialist climate change statements.
Of course the question that begs asking is why Anthony so concerned about the “damaging impacts” of WikiLeaks but so quick to embrace the Climategate leaks. The answer, surprisingly, is that Anthony is a partisan hypocrite.
“New Scientist’s Fred Pearce calls for Pachauri to resign“. More trenchant scientific insight from Anthony Watts. Fred Pearce has written in the enthusiastically right-wing Mail that “amiable, bearded, vegetarian railway engineer and cricket fanatic” Dr. Pachauri should resign from his position as Chairman of the IPCC.
Anthony wants us to infer that Pachauri is a corrupt, dishonest and unqualified politician, but the source article seems more focussed on the toll that fabricated denialist assaults have had on the IPCC’s reputation and that Pachauri’s departure might take some of that baggage with him.
Funny how when Fred Pearce says something that suits Anthony’s agenda he’s happy to take it at face value instead of railing against it like his has done in past coverage. Not the mark of an objective mind…
This all proves, of course, that there is no Global Warming.
“Now it’s 2°C climate change target ‘not safe’“. Sorry, Anthony, who said that a 2°C rise in mean global temperature was “safe”? Not the climatologists. This is a political target reflecting the industrial inertia that must be overcome. Any artificial increase will have an impact. So a press release from the University of Exeter, based on a paper in the Journal of Quarternary Science saying as much, is hardly a shock.
But I guess it lets Anthony imply that the environmentalists are trying to shift the target so they can be even meaner.
The real message is not that “greenies” want to lower the target and make us live in caves, it’s that the targeted limit will have consequences more severe than has been anticipated:
Professor Turney said: “The results here are quite startling and, importantly, they suggest sea levels will rise significantly higher than anticipated and that stabilizing global average temperatures at 2˚C above pre-industrial levels may not be considered a ‘safe’ target as envisaged by the European Union and others. The inevitable conclusion is emission targets will have to be lowered further still.”
“The Royal Society: Still Embarrassing Science“. Indur Goklany tries to gets some digs in at the Royal Society’s new publication about Climate Change. It’s an embarrassment to science! Anthony Watts, of course, agrees. His argument seems to devolve into a series of nit-picking over particular word choices and hostile semantic interpretations. That’s it?
He gets his big whopper in right off the top, for attention-challenged readers. Is it true that, as he tries to suggest, the Royal Society “now acknowledges that climate science may not be as settled as it previously implied”? Nope, that’s just a standard denialist straw-man. Like most science-based organizations the Royal Society has always made reference to statistical and historical uncertainties in the evidence of AGW.