Category Archives: Self-Pity

Climate Craziness of the Week – New Scientist: The Denial Depot Edition

Posted on by
2

“Climate Craziness of the Week – New Scientist: The Denial Depot Edition“. New Scientist has printed a number of articles about “denialism”. Anthony Watts thinks it’s a “sanctioned hatefest” and that New Scientist is now “nothing more that a political science mouthpiece.” Anthony makes sure his readers can get to the articles and bombard the comments.

Why are any articles critical of climate change denial proof that the publication is corrupt, while supportive articles are always evidence of courageous reporting. Confirmation bias is a funny thing.

So why do so many people refuse to accept the evidence? What are the clear lines between scepticism and denial? How does denialism satisfy deep emotional needs? Do smokescreens really work wonders for big business? Is it easy to send a lie flying around the world, and almost impossible to shoot it down? Must we let denialists be heard, and respond with patience, vigilance and tireless rebuttal? Is calling an opponent a denier is illiberal, intolerant and ineffective?

That’s some uncomfortable reading there Anthony. Unless you can convince yourself to dismiss it as a “hatefest”.

Where the !@#$% is Svalbard?

Posted on by
1

“Where the !@#$% is Svalbard?” Willis Eschenbach posts his 2006 “paper” printed in the discredited journal Energy & Environment. Willis was trying to nit-pick the weather-station records for Svalbard Norway, and didn’t like the way he was treated (to my eye he was a simply making a pest of himself). The best he could do was gnaw a tiny bit on the probability that the post by Michael Mann & Phil Jones assigned to the Svalbard 2006 spring temperatures.

His “paper” really boils down to a rant against the climatologists at Real Climate. It’s full of unsupported speculation, irrelevant “he said, she said” passages and claims of blog comment censorship and unfair treatment. Now it’s updated with praise of Anthony Watts’ website as a shining(!) example of good scientific blogging.

Thanks for the chuckle, but what a sad example of the crap that Energy & Environment was publishing then.

HuffPo: “Deniers” clogging up the blogosphere

Posted on by
1

HuffPo: “Deniers” clogging up the blogosphere. Now the Huffington Post isn’t exactly science central, but watching Anthony Watts try to mock them is like watching a cretin laugh at an idiot.

The article is here; Climate Deniers are Polluting the Blogosphere, but Anthony’s summary is “Gosh, excercising [sp] free speech and questioning assumptions, why, why, they’re TERRIBLE!” He also repeats the unsupported hope that “the bulk of opinion has shifted.”

Actually among other things the article identifies these familiar denialist tactics:

Deniers often pile up comments on climate change-related articles, most of which may be grouped into the following categories:

  1. Humor (i.e. “What’s next, cow farts?” or “Since carbonated beverages release CO2 into the atmosphere, will CalEPA be outlawing beer and sodas in California?”)
  2. Political (making fun of Al Gore, partisan name calling)
  3. Bullying, name calling, threats
  4. Despair (i.e. “we’re all doomed, humans will go extinct anyway”)
  5. Junk science — quoting disreputed sources that reinforce denier preconceptions, or using simple but wrong aphorisms (confusing weather and climate, or saying the climate is always changing)
  6. Obfuscation – burying your opposition under a mountain of obscure but usually irrelevant statistics
  7. Economic fear — (i.e. “if we take action on climate, all businesses will leave CA, and we’ll lose jobs”)

Looks to me like someone’s noticed Anthony’s army of ditto-heads.

Oxburgh’s 5 page Climategate book report gets a failing grade

Posted on by
4

“Oxburgh’s 5 page Climategate book report gets a failing grade“. Oh, here’s a shocker. Anthony Watts tells us that the latest report on Climategate, by the Oxburgh Panel, is worthless. A whitewash!!!!

The Global Warming Policy Foundation, the denialist operation that is home to such notables as Ian Pilmer and Nigel Lawson, call it “Another Unsatisfactory Rushed Job“.

Steven McIntyre is still fixated on a certain word, he declares “Oxburgh’s Trick to Hide the Trick”.

Could it be because the report exonerates the Climate Research Unit and Dr. Phil Jones (emphasis mine)?

We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it.  Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.

Or because of how they describe the assaults of denialists like Steven McIntyre (emphasis mine)?

We have not exhaustively reviewed the external criticism of the dendroclimatological work, but it seems that some of these criticisms show a rather selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by CRU.  They seem also to reflect a lack of awareness of the ongoing and dynamic nature of chronologies, and of the difficult circumstances under which university research is sometimes conducted.

2012-07-19 Update: Norfolk police have called off their investigation for procedural reasons, but state:

“However, as a result of our inquiries, we can say that the data breach was the result of a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet. The offenders used methods common in unlawful internet activity to obstruct inquiries. There is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime.”

Damage control: Greenpeace removes threats

Posted on by
Reply

“Damage control: Greenpeace removes threats“. I’m not a particular fan of Greenpeace, but I have to laugh at Anthony Watts’ trembling indignation over a climate post on their website that was replaced with an honest and detailed explanation. The original post had a disclaimer of sorts at the start and didn’t go off the deep end until the last paragraph or two of a fairly conventional commentary, but that didn’t stop Watts and Co. from goin’ to town.

“Bullshit” declares Anthony. He knows that they’re still out to get him.

Play on.

Heads up

Posted on by
Reply

“Heads up“. Anthony Watts has an embargoed advance copy of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s Inquiry into ‘Climategate’. He can’t resist leaking a bit though; from his point of view “there are some disappointments“.

Vote for the best ‘political climate’ website

Posted on by
1

“Vote for the best ‘political climate’ website“. I guess Anthony Watts’ endorsement of Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog in a Treehugger “Best of Green 2010” poll is proof that Revkin’s reputation has been destroyed. Andy’s been chasing hits by presenting groundless denialist arguments alongside scientific studies to encourage comment wars and Anthony loves getting equal, if undeserved, face time.

The scientific criticism of Revkin has flowed steadily and picked up pace when Revkin “left” the New York Times to run their Dot Earth website on a freelance basis. Here are some examples. Deep Climate. Real Climate. Climate Progress. Rabett Run. You get the picture.

WUWT Status report – 40 million

Posted on by
Reply

“WUWT Status report – 40 million” Anthony Watts blows his own horn over his web stats, claiming the status of “the most visited climate science blog in the world” and in the process admits that he’s “resorted to posting a lot of press releases rather than analysis and commentary” owing to “a period of exhaustion and illness”.

Yet somehow in spite of this elevated status traffic has slowed to about half since December, his revenues are down, and he’s going to have to start posting more ads.

Joe Romm over at Climate Progress handily dissects Anthony’s statistical “trick”. “Memo to Watts: “Hits” are what people use when they want to hype or inflate their webstats.” The only stat Anthony provides in support of his claim is a dubious Alexa statistic for “Daily Reach”. 40 million total hits also doesn’t seem to hold up so well to Climate Progress’ own stat of 20 million in the first three months of 2010, but as Joe says “hits” are a deceptive benchmark.

This stat doesn't look as good as the one Anthony touts...

Complaint issued on Amazongate reporting

Posted on by
Reply

“Complaint issued on Amazongate reporting“. Anthony Watts calls the troops to attention. Simon Lewis, a tropical forest expert, has filed a complaint about the false reporting by Jonathon Leake in The Times. The article, entitled “UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim“, completely misrepresented his statement that the claim was in fact valid. The article even acknowledged contributions from denialist blogger Richard North!

Of course Anthony takes a moment to complain about his own treatment in the mainstream press. For some reason his unsubstantiated accusations and half-truths are not always being printed verbatim! That’s what your blogging buddies are for Anthony…

He finishes with another promise that his definitive analysis of surface station temperature records is “looking better and better.” Oh, I’m going to get a kick out of that fairy tale!

Rather than read Anthony’s complaints about his own perceived mistreatment, go over to Climate Progress for a full account of a real one.

2010-06-21 Update: As reported on Deltoid, the Sunday Times has now been forced to issue a retraction.

Brains… BRAINS!!!

Posted on by
2

“Brains… BRAINS!!!” Anthony Watts agrees with Pat Michaels that the “explanations are getting desperate” because ‘liberal’ cognitive scientist George Lakoff says:

“It relates directly (to global warming) because conservatives tend to feel that the free market should be unregulated and (that) environmental regulations are immoral and wrong,” Lakoff said.

“And what they try to do is show that the science is wrong and that the argument is wrong, based on the science.  So when it comes back to science, they try to debunk the science,” Lakoff said.

Christopher Joyce says “This puzzles many climate scientists, but not social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one’s beliefs“. Yup.

Social scientist Don Braman says “People tend to conform their factual beliefs to ones that are consistent with their cultural outlook, their world view“. Yup again.

Pat Michaels “asserts that science doesn’t confirm, and in some cases even rejects, the existence of human-caused global warming”. He also says “this line of authority is a policy response where the minority would tell the majority how to live,” Oh, here’s the desperate explanation part.