Category Archives: "Political" Science

Spiegel does 8 part series on current state of climate research

Posted on by
3

“Spiegel does 8 part series on current state of climate research“. Anthony Watts tells us about this Spiegel Online article series that ” features Steve McIntyre prominently, and [is] well worth the read.”

The series starts with an already out-dated credulous rehash of the Climategate “scandal”. I guess it is a “worth the read” if you want to return to the time when wishful thinking could allow denialists to think that Climategate was merely a baseless political attack and not a completely rejected baseless political attack.

The remaining articles are a weakly argued denialist gruel of innuendo and mischaracterization (“alarmists” and the “levelheaded”) that heavily and uncritically quotes denialist pundits and “researchers”. Entertaining perhaps, but neither accurate nor insightful. Too bad.

Congressional Tipping Point: Not an April Fools Joke

Posted on by
Reply

“Congressional Tipping Point: Not an April Fools Joke“. Anthony Watts pokes fun at a Democratic Congressman who has cognitive damage from hepatitis and then initially deletes comments that point this out.

It’s way more fun to indulge in some partisan mockery of poorly expressed environmental questions about Guam. Now that’s science!

New paper – AGW sooners, stake your “drill baby drill” ice free claims now!

Posted on by
Reply

“New paper – AGW sooners, stake your “drill baby drill” ice free claims now!” Anthony Watts pastes the abstract of a presumptuous paper that shows policy analysts are thinking about the territorial implications of climate change in the Arctic: After the Ice Melts: Conflict Resolution and the International Scramble for Natural Resources in the Arctic Circle.

They aren’t as scientifically careful as climatologists because they aren’t climatologists. I bet statements like this get under Anthony’s skin: “It is a well-known fact that global warming is melting the Arctic ice cap.” I urge Anthony to send a strongly worded letter to the author.

NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, GISS Admits

Posted on by
2

“NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, GISS Admits“. The latest scientific analysis Anthony Watts has copied-and-pasted is… a Fox News article! This is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Blake Snow of FOXNews.com reports as an admission of inferiority a NASA scientist’s assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the different global surface temperature analyses. He also presents as definitive the opinion of Christopher Horner, a ‘senior fellow’ from the right-wing Competitive Enterprise Institute, that “three out of the four temperature data sets stink”. When another ‘senior fellow’ this time at the right-wing Heartland Institute, James M. Taylor, is quoted next and the article ends with our own Anthony’s unchallenged arm-waving about the “quality” of surface stations, you know the fix is in. “Fair & Balanced”, eh?

The only hint of reality comes from Dr. Jeff Masters at Weather Underground: “It would be nice if we had more global stations to enable the groups to do independent estimates using completely different raw data, but we don’t have that luxury”.

The real story? Climatologists have a limited number of long-duration surface temperature stations available to them. They use as many of those stations as possible. It’s a fundamental logical fact that they will all start with the same raw data. The differences will be in how they select representative stations from the entire data set and how they extrapolate from those stations.

As a final thought, I have to draw attention to the use of “accuracy” as the sole valid assessment of a temperature data set. Data can be accurate (very close to a true reading) but not as useful (doesn’t reflect the actual conditions over a wider area). The fundamental difference between the interpreted surface temperature data sets is that some are optimized for accuracy, some for global representativeness. There are good reasons for each approach. There are also good reasons why denialists try to define the argument on such narrow and misleading points.

Results of the Climategate Paliamentary Inquiry in the UK

Posted on by
12

“Results of the Climategate Paliamentary Inquiry in the UK“. (Yes, Anthony Watts can’t spell “Parliamentary”) Looks like Climategate isn’t the “final nail in the coffin of Global Warming” after all. Sorry Anthony, you’re going to have to keep bellowing. But perhaps the next few days are good ones for keeping a low profile.

The House of Commons press release is here. Click here to read the full report, The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. [Update: Volume II, the oral and written evidence is also available. There is some entertaining denialist posturing contained within!]

About “sharing data.” (all italics mine)

On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.

About the “trick”:

On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails-”trick” and “hiding the decline”-the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.

About accusations of “dishonesty” against Dr. Phil Jones (this was particularly nasty and unfounded):

Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.

About the  FOI requests:

On the mishandling of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests, the Committee considers that much of the responsibility should lie with the University, not CRU.

No doubt Anthony or Steve McIntyre will find something to get outraged about, but this looks like a clean sweep for Dr. Phil Jones and the Climate Research Unit. This is a good day for science.

Sea change in American media preferences

Posted on by
Reply

“Sea change in American media preferences“. Anthony Watts is delighted that right-wing media is getting higher viewer numbers while “mainstream” media viewer numbers are declining.

If we all switch over to the Fox News channel then Global Warming will stop!

The well funded, well organized, global skeptic network laid bare /sarc

Posted on by
1

“The well funded, well organized, global skeptic network laid bare /sarc“. Anthony Watts thinks an analysis of the connections between denialist web sites done for Leftfootforward, proves that they’re just independently minded people that share an objective scientific view. His chart tells a different story though:

Click to enbiggen. (Original image, not the one Anthony pinched.)

I see Anthony’s rabid copy-and-paste sources all nicely gathered together on the left side cuddled up with various political operators and favored UK media sources The Telegraph, Times and Daily Mail. Not a single legitimate scientific credential is present. Roger Pielke, Jr. probably belongs in the mix, but he’s been amusingly placed right on the dividing line.

On the right side I see scientific and international organizations, the balanced media, and scientific journalists. You know, the types that are professional and accountable.

This story tells itself…

Gore: Making it personal

Posted on by
Reply

“Gore: Making it personal“. Anthony Watts is on Al Gore’s mailing list and he doesn’t like it one bit (although he may consider himself a cunning spy). Repower America is encouraging Americans to write to their Senator in support of a clean energy bill. And by write, they mean handwritten. With a pen! How can they harness the idle rage of the blogosphere that way?

If you want to look ‘big’ you’ve got to use Anthony’s method of encouraging readers to flood electronic in-boxes with easy copy-and-pasted spin, probably under as many names as possible. Kind of like the swarms of incoherent comments on media climate news web pages, or fake Freedom of Information requests Steven McIntyre orchestrated.

Although in this particular case, Anthony says “I’m only pointing out an opportunity, don’t feel obligated.“

Spencer: Direct Evidence that Most U.S. Warming Since 1973 Could Be Spurious

Posted on by
4

“Spencer: Direct Evidence that Most U.S. Warming Since 1973 Could Be Spurious“. Dr. Roy Spencer is like the Energizer Bunny on his sudden area of expertise, Urban Heat Islands. He just keeps going and going and going, and Anthony Watts just keeps printing it and printing it and printing it. A perfect symbiosis.

Dr. Spencer does finally admit that his analysis “is meant more for stimulating thought and discussion, and does not equal a peer-reviewed paper.” Let’s just say that the “could” in his report title leaves a lot of wiggle room, especially in light of his final words: “Caveat emptor.”

I particularly enjoyed this bit of ‘hard science’:

There is a clear need for new, independent analyses of the global temperature data…the raw data, that is. As I have mentioned before, we need independent groups doing new and independent global temperature analyses — not international committees of Nobel laureates passing down opinions on tablets of stone.

He manages to call for delaying action, imply that the data has been tampered with, and cast wild accusations against science in just two sentences! Someone’s wound a bit tight.

Response to Ravetz and post-normal science

Posted on by
2

“Response to Ravetz and post-normal science“. Professor Jerome Ravetz’s ‘post-normal science’ posts on Anthony Watts’ blog have elicited another obtuse response, this time from professor Jaap Hanekamp (advisor to several denialist/libertarian entities such as Heidelberg Appeal Nederland and the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow).

His conclusions (I think)? Politics restrict the areas of study, CO2‘s role as the primary cause of climate change is a political simplification, the push for regulation of CO2 is “undemocratic” repression, deception is practiced and justified by climatologists because of the perceived environmental risks, the scientific “majority” are hindering relevant theories, the worldview of climatologists is distorting their science, climatologists are arrogant.

Dr. Hanekamp flash of insight is this:

theories should be accepted only in the light of considerations that involve transparent and reproducible empirical data, other (accepted) theories, and cognitive epistemic values such as consistency, simplicity, transparency, and descriptive, explicatory and predictive power. Worldview (political and ideological) considerations, but also appeals to authority, consequences, force, and popularity – to name some of the argumentation fallacies – are illegitimate ways of deciding between theories.

Welcome to “Science” Jaap! This is how it is already done. The problem we face is denialist resistance to climatology because they find the implications politically unacceptable. Your 5,200 word departure from reality is a collection of accusations and mischaracterizations that end in a demand for current scientific practices to continue!

Dr. Hanekamp does have some useful admissions to make though (Anthony Watts take note):

Bloggers have a similar obligation as scientific experts, at least if they want to enter or be part of the debate with the focus on scientific content instead of rhetorical contentment.