Category Archives: Sweeping Statements

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.

CTM is Contacted by the Norfolk Constabulary and Responds

Posted on by
Reply

“CTM is Contacted by the Norfolk Constabulary and Responds“. Charles Rotter, aka “Charles the Moderator”, was the anonymous behind-the-scenes guy on Anthony Watts’ blog until his involvement in disseminating the stolen Climate Research Unit e-mails. His most important responsibility was to harass Anthony’s critics by blocking or maliciously altering their comments, but he probably spent most of his time thinning out the worst comments of the denialist loony fringe so the cause didn’t look too bad.

Charles reports that he was contacted by the Norfolk Constabulary as part of their criminal investigation into the theft of CRU e-mails. Charles answers are to claim he’s just a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time, but he unwisely casts aspersions on the victims of the crime and offers up a self-serving theory of the crime as a noble act by unnamed persons. Good luck with that.

Bill O’Reilly hosts Bill Nye The Science Guy and AccuWeather’s Joe Bastardi in Fox News Debate

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday Anthony Watts announced that denialist meteorologist Joe Bastardi ‘runs circles‘ around Bill Nye (“The Science Guy”) on The O’Reilly Factor’s No Spin Zone. Anthony’s link wasn’t viewable outside of the USA so I chose not to comment on it, but I’ve found a link on The Huffington Post that works.

The clip, helpfully subtitled “Bill Nye the Science Guy on debunked global warming study” begins with Bill O’Reilly repeating the dishonest representation of a retracted sea-level prediction paper. Bastardi’s charts were given full screen display, but Nye was left holding small paper versions.

One of Bastardi’s ‘killer arguments’, between winks, cheshire cat grins and bar stool bellowing, was built around calling CO2 a trace gas needed for life. He even tried on both the cherry-picking “since 1998” bunk and the solar cycle claim (which actually undercut the denialist argument). Clearly Anthony thinks louder is better.

Jerry Ravetz part 2 – Answer and explanation to my critics

Posted on by
Reply

Jerome Ravetz

“Jerry Ravetz part 2 – Answer and explanation to my critics“. Dr. Jerry Ravetz backtracks like mad after opening a hornet’s nest of comment just over a week ago when he naïvely wandering into the Climate Change debate. Ravetz found his admission of early Communist leanings and non-violent beliefs harshly received by denialists.

After showing a rather fuzzy understanding of science (“Indeed, once Einstein had (in the general interpretation) shown that Newton was wrong about space, no scientific statement could be assumed to be free of error“) and referring to his spun-out-of-sugar political theory of science, Post Normal Science, he meanders on at great length. However I grew tired of trying to draw any meaning out of it.

I think what Anthony Watts wants his readers to take away from it is that it’s A-OK for bloggers to cast wild assertions around, because somehow it keeps the scientists on their toes.

Bringing Skillful Observation Back To Science

Posted on by
Reply

Steve Goddard, or Issac Newton?

“Bringing Skillful Observation Back To Science“. The always entertaining Steven Goddard tries once more to defend his chronically biased data manipulation with more ill-advised analogies and further demonstrations of statistical ignorance. I also love the chosen post title! If only Steven brought some skill to the table…

I suppose Anthony Watts counts on his readers to glance at some charts, read Steven say “I’m right” and subside back into their gullible state of agreement.

Spencer: developing a new satellite based surface temperature set

Posted on by
Reply

“Spencer: developing a new satellite based surface temperature set“. A denialist scientist links to “scientific criticism” on Anthony Watts’ blog and charts from right-wing political activists. I guess it’s easier than formulating a factual criticism.

Dr. Spencer thinks that fewer surface station temperatures are used for climate analysis now, and that they’ve been chosen to magnify global warming (which isn’t happening anyway). Dr. Spencer assures us that his satellite corrections (which, annoyingly, almost perfectly match the positive trend of the nasty surface stations) will be better, even though he’s still developing his “product.” He also mutters about that classic denialist misdirection, Urban Heat Islands.

"Bad" surface stations and "good" satellites: annoyingly identical trends.

Spencer says that although he’s still refining his product, “December 2009 was, indeed, a cool month in my analysis.” Nothing like stating your conclusions before doing the work!

Dr. Spencer is the guy who regularly fails basic mathematical and statistical standards in his published papers. Here are a couple links for those interested: Hide the Increase and Spencer’s Folly. He’s also the author of the book Climate Confusion, which perfectly describes his activities…

Lindzen on climate science advocacy and modeling – “at this point, the models seem to be failing”

Posted on by
Reply

Lindzen on climate science advocacy and modeling – “at this point, the models seem to be failing”. Ah, science by letter-to-the-editor. Climate change is “natural”, who knows if this latest bit means anything? The head of the Climatic Research Unit is “deservedly maligned”. Climate scientists lack “courage” because they’re brainwashed by “a generation of environmental propaganda” and are simply chasing grant money. Just the facts, eh Dr. Lindzen?

The best bit of his letter is this classic tidbit of double-standard denialist-speak: Lindzen says that not being able to offer something better than current models is OK because the models aren’t perfect anyway. He brazenly calls this “the normal scientific approach.” Um, Dr. L; the “normal scientific approach” is to formulate a theory that better describes the evidence. Until then you’ve got bupkis. In twenty years of blather no denialist has met this basic and obvious threshold.

Dr. Richard Lindzen was actually lead author of Chapter 7, ‘Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,’ of the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report. This chapter was the bit that doesn’t say anything about whether climate change is happening or what is causing it… He’s also a regular on the right-wing foundation grouch-for-hire lecture circuit.

Caveats Regarding Dr. Phil Jones’ Phenological Arguments for Global Warming

Posted on by
Reply

“Caveats Regarding Dr. Phil Jones’ Phenological Arguments for Global Warming“. Right-wing economist Indur M. Goklany tries to show that he knows more about climatology than an actual climatologist does. By saying “maybe this, maybe that“, “I wonder if this could be it?” and “did anyone think it could be this other thing instead?” Thus ending global warming forever.

Well, at least they didn’t use a lizard

Posted on by
Reply

Yawn. Watts Up With That? has been busy trying to build the case that an unsubstantiated prediction about Himalayan glaciers in the IPCC’s 2007 Report means that everything the IPCC has published is wrong.  Of course out here in the real world glaciers almost everywhere are losing mass. Even in the Himalayas! Anthony knows this, but that’s not a fact that suits his purpose. He also thinks it’s clever to suggest that IPCC Chairman Dr. Pachauri looks like a caveman.

Meanwhile, a proper scientific analysis by Menne, et al, 2010 of the data collected and released by the surfacestations.org troopers has shown that contrary to Anthony’s sweeping “conclusions” there is nothing wrong with the USHCN’s weather data, or the regional climate trends derived from it. Read the story here on Skeptical Science. [Update: Poorly sited U.S. temperature instruments not responsible for artificial warming from Dr. Jeff Master’s website is another good analysis of Anthony’s anecdotal data.] Anthony’s response, other than expressions of outrage at the discourtesy towards himself, has been: crickets… He did post a photo of his favorite “bad” weather station site. Supporter and confirmation bias victim Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. has also sniffed about “professional discourtesy” because Menne published before Anthony did. I’m guessing that Pielke doesn’t consider Anthony’s Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?, “interpreting” the same data and printed in 2009 by the Heartland Institute an actual publication. We can agree on that apparently.