Category Archives: "Political" Science

Quote of the Week – what Durban is really about

Posted on by
4

“Quote of the Week – what Durban is really about” (2011-12-11). Anthony Watts thinks that esteemed climate scientist “Cal65” (aka random anonymous commenter) has managed to get to the core truth about the purpose of the Durban climate conference which has, infuriatingly, achieved positive results:

The UN plan will shift wealth from the first world’s poor to the third world’s rich without making any difference in climate control.

That was a real stretch, huh? The invisible hand of the secret commie world government revealed again!

Those “whiny grifters known as the Maldives” are building airports, which clearly means they know that the sea-level won’t actually change for at least eleventy hundred years. Therefore:

“Anything coming out of the mouths of Maldives officials related to climate, CO2, or sea level is pure bullshit.”

I love the nuance of Anthony’s usual noisy arguments:

  1. “Tuvalu and many other South Pacific Islands are not sinking, claims they are due to global warming driven sea level rise are opportunistic.” Good lead! This is as close as Anthony can get to a verifiable claim. Too bad the authors of the paper he’s trying to misconstrue have been summarized thus: “Webb and Kench warn that while the islands are coping for now, any acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise could overtake the sediment build up. Calculating how fast sea levels will rise over the coming decades is uncertain science, and no one knows how fast the islands can grow.“
  2.  “The Maldives can’t take a joke.” Yeah, that’s it! Anthony’s spittle is a joke! Roll with it, dudes.
  3. Willis Eschenbach are smart and he says islands FLOAT! Really Anthony? You’re trying to show that the reaction of the Maldives government to rising sea-levels is “FAIL” and you cite Willis? You should have saved him for last and hoped that your readers wandered away before reading this bit.
  4. “The sea level is actually dropping.” It’s called statistics, Anthony. You’re not using them right. (But you know that.)
  5. Lorne Gunther (a virulent right-wing columnist) says that kooky Nils-Axel Mörner can prove that sea-level ”hasn’t risen in 50 years.” Yes, ignore the sea-level charts you shoved in our faces in point 4, Anthony.
  6. The Maldives government is building things! So is Iceland, and they gots volcanoes. Not everything is intended to last eleventy hundred years.
  7. Airports too! So is the US military in Afghanistan.
  8. The Maldives tricked the USA into giving them $30 billion! Maybe you should change the battery in your Casio.

Anthony, you’re experiencing a panic attack. Frankly we were all a bit surprised that the Durban conference managed to achieve something. Please breathe into a paper bag for the rest of the day, OK?

Hiding the decline down under – inconvenient papers censored

Posted on by
2

“Hiding the decline down under – inconvenient papers censored” (2011-12-01). Yawn. Anthony Watts complains again about outrageous scientific censorship. Scientific papers disproving global warming were blocked! Except they weren’t.

A right-wing Australian newspaper has declared that former senior public servant Doug Lord’s “six scientific papers” about sea-level changes at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour were blocked by “post-normal” partisan (i.e. socialist) bureaucrats. Thus disproving Global Warming once and for all.

Except… even the supporting 1990 paper by E. A. Bryant later brought to Anthony’s incurious attention shows that rates of sea-level change across Australia are not uniform, with Sydney appearing particularly divergent. Funny that that’s the only one Anthony’s interested in talking about.

So… these six papers were the only ones ever prepared by a government employee that weren’t published? Seems a bit of a stretch. Oh wait, only five weren’t published. One of them was published. Which one, Anthony? Your skeptical intellect didn’t bother to investigate, did it.

Australian crank David Archibald (an Energy & Environment author and “endorsed by one head of state and four professors“) rushes in to ‘confirm’ that “there does not appear to be any evidence of acceleration” with his usual straight line slapped on top of a squiggle. While the commenters rail about progressive Australian politics. Same old same old.

Newsbytes: New Research Reveals IPCC In Bed With Green Lobbies

Posted on by
4

“Newsbytes: New Research Reveals IPCC In Bed With Green Lobbies“ (2011-11-03). Oh my gosh, a carefully fact-checked newswire story proves that the IPCC are incompetent commie eco-facists! It’s a “scathing new expose“!

Oh, wait. It’s just another wild one-sided press release rehash from the denialist Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Benny Peiser. He’s uncovered a Fox News screed that trumpets how young some of the IPCC report authors are, and has found a few other semi-random news links. Also Donna Laframboise is a feminist, so we should have complete faith in her 43 recruits and their “audit” of the IPCC 2007 report. Go buy her book The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert! It’s sciencey.

The “green lobbies” accusation is somehow implicit, but of course everything is a “green lobby” to paranoid libertarians because it’s all part of the secret communist world government.

Thanks madcap paranoid libertarians, I knew you’d clear everything up!

It does seem a bit odd though that there’s no mention of atmospheric physics.

Michael Mann wades into the UVA thicket as intervenor

Posted on by
9

“Michael Mann wades into the UVA thicket as intervenor” (2011-11-02). I’ve sat back a bit lately, enjoying the sight of Anthony and his Team imploding over the results of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study, but this post cries out for a “WTF?”

Anthony Watts sympathetically re-posts Chris Horner’s whining about how Dr. Michael Mann has been allowed to intervene in the American Tradition Institute’s lawsuit over… Dr. Michael Mann’s correspondence during his time at the University of Virginia.

Why on god’s green earth should Dr. Mann be permitted to intervene in a lawsuit over his own correspondence? What could he possibly know? What insight could he possibly offer? What interest is it of his?

Whereas the ATI’s lawyers, who are also the ATI petitioners, assert that they are pure as driven snow (ideologically at least). They’re highly qualified, as attorneys, to confidentially assess the documents in question without revealing then to the petitioners (that would be themselves). Too bad they were widely broadcasting their intention to widely distribute the material they had tentatively been given permission to inspect under a protective order.

Smooth move, Chris.

Chris does however quite rightly assert that there is no “vast right-wing conspiracy”. It’s actually quite tiny and close-knit.

Government Funding of the National Weather Service: A Response to Our Critics

Posted on by
2

“Government Funding of the National Weather Service: A Response to Our Critics” (2011-08-30). Anthony Watts accidentally admits that he’s part of the Competitive Enterprise Institute team. Or he’s such a sloppy blogger that he can’t even title his posts intelligibly.

Seems the CEI is sticking to their guns about the idealogical necessity of dissolving the National Weather Service if we are to trust Anthony’s copy-and-paste. Here’s the short version of the sputtering defense of their Pavlovian recent attack: All government services are bad because any collective effort makes individuals dependent! Except, not. Collective effort, whether it is weather services or armies, magnifies the contributions of individuals. Also, selling the NWS would give the government a one-time cash bump!

Such doctrinaire thinking, such short-sighted avarice.

I know, I know. Every libertarian is Chuck Norris and Charlton Heston rolled in to one. They fashion roads with their bare hands as they walk through virgin forest and can remove their own appendix without anesthetic. And, by God, no one will tell them what the weather’s going to be!

Hmmm. I wonder why the Competitive Enterprise Institute isn’t all over privatizing the US Military? No there’s an area with real impact on government costs. Maybe it doesn’t suit their prejudices though.

CEI misses the boat on the need for the National Weather Service

Posted on by
Reply

“CEI misses the boat on the need for the National Weather Service” (2011-08-28). This doesn’t happen too often! Anthony’s pal Ryan Maue has to inch away from the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s lobbyists who choose to declare (during Hurricane Irene!) that the National Weather Service is merely a political tool and just another example of government waste.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) picks an odd time and a curious target for their latest missive pondering whether We Really Need a National Weather Service? Most of their arguments are not particularly persuasive and are easily dismissed by bringing a few background facts to the discussion.  While it’s undeniable that the Obama administration has used the National Weather Service and “satellite funding” for political purposes, questioning the continued need for the NWS stretches the imagination.

Fear not though, Ryan quickly adds that “The National Weather Service like ALL government agencies have bloated pensions and health benefits that require an ever increasing budget.” He’s a good gubmint-hater.

The comments seem to fall into three categories: all government spending is bad no matter what, maybe the NWS is barely acceptable, and Piers Corbyn can do it better.

ATI press release on the Mann UVA emails

Posted on by
7

“ATI press release on the Mann UVA emails” (2011-08-27). Funny. You’d think that Anthony Watts would report the conclusions of the National Science Foundation Inspector General’s investigation into the accusation that climatologist, and denialist flash-point, Dr. Michael Mann falsified his data when he “created” the famous “hockey stick” historical temperature chart.

Instead Anthony offers the American Tradition Institute’s op-ed whining (italics mine).

The University of Virginia has joined a list of institutions claiming that there has been an actual inquiry into, and even ‘exoneration’ of, scientists exposed by the November 2009 “ClimateGate” leak, while simultaneously through its actions making a mockery of the idea.

Spoiler for you impatient types who can’t be bothered reading (or are trying to ignore) the National Tradition Science Foundation’s PDF:

We found no basis to conclude that the [Climategate] emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence.

Also,

There is no specific evidence that [Mann] falsified or fabricated any data and no evidence that his actions amounted to research misconduct.

Funny as in slapstick. Funny as in a bungled magician’s trick.

Gore FAIL – Gore starts cussing in climate talk

Posted on by
9

“Gore FAIL – Gore starts cussing in climate talk” (2011-08-06). Anthony Watts thinks that Al Gore “cussing” indicates that he knows that he’s losing a desperate PR battle. Did Gore say “tarnation”? Or maybe “jehoshaphat”? Oh. My. God. Gore went all the way! He said “goddamn”!

Then Anthony copies and pastes the so-called Science and Public Policy Institute’s most recent obsessive collection of things that prove liberal politicians are losers.

New term from the Chronicle: “Climate Thuggery”

Posted on by
2

New term from the Chronicle: “Climate Thuggery” (2011-08-01). Funny how the National Association of Scholars sounds a lot like the National Academy of Sciences. I guess Anthony Watts didn’t spot the difference. The “Scholars” have been subverted by conservative interests and are now merely a right-wing front, the Academy is actual distinguished scientists (I mean, communists). Also the “Chronicle” isn’t the respected Houston Chronicle, it’s just the mouthpiece of the National Association of Scholars.

Now then given Anthony’s approval, sparked by roving bridge-builder Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., of “NAS” President Peter Wood’s position on the climate change debate, what are his credentials? Well, like most denialists, Wood’s education is entirely outside of the field of climate science. He’s an anthropologist. He’s an enthusiastic conservative though, so of course he thinks properly. That’s pretty much it.

So let’s turn to Climate Thuggery, Wood’s final nail in the coffin of (arguing about) AGW. The first three sentences are a pretty good warning:

Is anthropogenic global warming (AGW) a valid scientific theory?  Is it well supported by the empirical data or is it mostly an artifact of computer modeling?  I don’t have answers to these questions.

From there it’s just resentful assertions such as “Far from welcoming discussion, [the proponents of AGW] seek to suppress it.” and false claims of using lawsuits to silence denialist critics. (The lawsuit accusations are hilarious as the lawsuit Wood mentions was aimed at correcting denialist Tim Ball’s actual libel; Ball is remembered for explicitly trying to use a lawsuit to silence a critic, a tactic which blew up in his face when the criticisms were confirmed.) And, of course, that denialists are being bullied. Dr. Wood’s whole piece is classic example of combining baseless accusations with claims of victimization.

All this because apparently Wood found himself squirming under the microscope of John Mashey after accusing Mashey of defending the “tattered reputation of “hide the decline” Michael Mann, the climate scientist whose famous “hockey stick” chart shows exponentially increasing global temperatures in the near term”. Tellingly, Dr. Mann remains highly respected in the climate science field, and the out-of-context “hide the decline” quote was not by Mann. But that just gets lost in the confusion with Wood’s other nonsense. Read the whole idiotic original complaint at Bottling Up Global Warming Skepticism, which by word count is actually about P.T. Barnum, and don’t miss out on the pleasure of Peter’s pompous squirming in the comments.

Desmogblog.com covers Dr. Wood’s ignorant partisanship at NAS President Peter Wood: wrong, dishonest or hopelessly compromised?

2011-07-04 Update: Someone’s embarrassed at “The Chronicle of Higher Education”. John Mashey and Robert Coleman were given space to respond to Wood’s political attack. Read Bottling Nonsense, Misusing a Civil Platform and see Wood neatly packaged.

The End is Near for Faith in AGW

Posted on by
25

“The End is Near for Faith in AGW“ (June 25th, 2011). Anthony Watts posts a prediction by ordinary citizen Russell Cook (“semi-retired graphic artist” and right-wing blogger for the climaterealist denialists). It’s over! The warmists have lost! Or are just about to lose. I love these over-the-shoulder declarations of victory from people as they flee the debate.

Apparently his “seventeen+ months of research” allows him to declare that Al Gore’s 2007 documentary film, the last word in climate science, is based on a lie. Perhaps even more than one! Also “the media” are all mean to denialists because they don’t give equal time (except Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, The Times, The Telegraph, National Post, The Australian, etc.).

Here’s the vile canard that started off all the skeptic-bullying:

Skeptic scientists are accused of being in a fossil fuel-funded conspiracy to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact“…

Here’s the big problem I found:  That accusation is based on a 1991 memo no one was allowed to see, using an out-of-context sentence, promoted by a person who was not a Pulitzer winner despite accolades to the contrary, who was credited with finding the memo by Al Gore, but Gore had the memo collection in his own possession four years earlier.

Actually, I thought that “skeptic scientists” were being accused of misrepresenting physical science and climate evidence. My bad I guess. So an unseen 1991 memo, declared to be taken out-of-context, is the real smoking gun behind all this cruelty and dispute? Oh, the irony! Oh, the blinding faith!

I will agree that it would be great to see (the eternally constipated?) Richard Lindzen, a Republican “science” witness on any number of topics since 1991, scowling in front of a House Committee again. He didn’t do too well last time, except in the imagination of self-convinced denialists.

Anthony optimistically declares victory too while strangely turning away from the science:

“When the public learns about huge faults in the skeptic scientist accusation, combined with the faults in the IPCC, the result may send AGW into total collapse.”

You’re dancing on the head of a pin, Anthony.