Category Archives: "Political" Science

Sea change in climate journalism: The Guardian and the D-word

Posted on by
Reply

“Sea change in climate journalism: The Guardian and the D-word“. It’s always interesting when Anthony tries to take the “high road.” Lately he’s been trying to get The Guardian to stop describing climate change denialists as “sceptics.”

They’re thinking about it. The money quote from The Guardian’s correspondence with him is this (emphasis mine):

The ’sceptics’ label is almost too generous a badge as very few are genuinely sceptical about the science but I think we have to accept the name is now common parlance.

Anthony ‘reciprocates’ by making a hollow call to “dial back and treat others with the same respect in conversation as you might treat dinner guests having a discussion at home.”

As he does on occasion, Anthony takes a moment to try to distance himself from his own posts:

My position has been that there is no debate that the earth has warmed over the past 100+ years, but that the magnitude of the measured warming and the cause(s) remain in debate. The question of whether such warming is beneficial or detrimental depends on who you ask. I’ll also point out that it took our modern society about 150 years of science and technology advances to get where we are now. Doing it cleaner and better won’t be an overnight solution either.

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

Posted on by
Reply

“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.

The Final Straw

Posted on by
Reply

Steven Mosher, amateur quote miner

“The Final Straw“. “Charles the moderator” posts his roommate Steven Mosher’s article further quote-mining Dr. Phil Jones’ stolen e-mail and speculating about Dr. Jones’ motives.

Shockingly, after repeatedly telling various unqualified denialist pests where to get the temperature record data he uses, Dr. Jones eventually stops responding when they use it to launch irrelevant criticisms and starts treating them as… unqualified denialist pests. This is, apparently, “the final straw.”

Steven Mosher also self-published an amateur analysis of the stolen CRU e-mails, Climategate: The Crutape letters, shortly after their appearance.

Phil Jones on the hot seat – not sharing data is “standard practice”

Posted on by
Reply

Phil Jones on the hot seat – not sharing data is “standard practice”. Actually Anthony, the Daily Mail reports that Dr. Jones “admitted withholding data about global temperatures but said the information was publicly available from American websites.”

Anthony also lets Steven Mosher weigh in with more ‘he said, she said’ quote mining.

Still no suggestion that his scientific conclusions are in any way incorrect, even after months of stunningly intense denialist assaults.

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

Posted on by
Reply

“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!

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

Posted on by
Reply

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”.

Institute of Physics on Climategate

Posted on by
Reply

“Institute of Physics on Climategate“. Anthony Watts finds it “rather astonishing” that the UK’s Institute of Physics thinks the inquiry into the accusations, based on quote-mined correspondence, against the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit should continue. The probable conclusion after filtering out the mom-and-apple-pie language: remember to use polite language when talking about assholes that are harassing you, even in private correspondence.

Anthony also sagely notes that his BFF, blowhard Australian journo Andrew Bolt, continues to repeat the comic claim that “Climategate reveals the greatest scientific scandal of our lifetime.”

Not much mention of the fundamental fact that even excluding the CRU’s impugned data, which has always been over 95% publicly available, other historical and modern climate records show a clear AGW signal. Why is that, I wonder?

2010-03-05 Update: Looks like the IOP statement was partially based on the views of an energy industry consultant who argues that global warming is a religion.

Breaking News: IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri to face independent inquiry

Posted on by
Reply

“Breaking News: IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri to face independent inquiry“. Anthony Watts reports a rumor from The Daily Telegraph, a chronically dishonest source on climate change. There’s no question that the denialist onslaught on Dr. Pachauri has created political pressure. Just not scientific pressure… Dr. Pachauri is approaching Al Gore in Anthony’s symbol-fixated mind.

It’s always entertaining to consider that Dr. Pachauri was installed as IPCC Chairman as a result of lobbying by the Republican administration of George W. Bush because they felt he was a tacit supporter of the denialist movement. Unfortunately he developed an “inconvenient” perspective when he started reading the incoming reports.

Judith, I love ya, but you’re way wrong …

Posted on by
1

“Judith, I love ya, but you’re way wrong …” Anthony Watt’s friend Willis Eschenbach, the self-appointed “citizen scientist”, rants about Dr. Judith Curry’s ill-conceived denialist-sympathetic comments about “credibility” in climate science.

His point? We can never trust scientists again. No matter what. They are stupid liars. Willis actually says with a straight face that scientists should emulate Steve McIntyre’s “transparency and openness and freewheeling scientific discussion and honest reporting“. My god, McIntyre is the most dishonest, manipulative, resentful, nit-picking denialist out there. He is the model for scientific behavior?

Epic fail.

The Goracle Forecast: AGW=More snow

Posted on by
Reply

“The Goracle Forecast: AGW=More snow“. Anthony Watts calls “the Goracle” (also known as Al Gore to non-rabid partisans) a liar for his discussion yesterday of the prediction that AGW will produce more snow during the winter.

The controversial claims?

  • Fact: Climate change causes more frequent and severe snowstorms
  • Fact: We can expect more extreme weather
  • Fact: The world is warming at a quickening pace

Anthony says that he “could spend lots of time pointing out why each one of these claims is false, and that Mr. Gore is atcually [sic] the one who is the liar“. But… he doesn’t.

Anthony does mention that it’s cold at the moment and invokes El Niño. Isn’t saying that El Niño is the cause of this year’s abnormal snow kind of admitting that the storms aren’t a disproof of global warming?