Dr. Nicola Scafetta summarizes “why the anthropogenic theory proposed by the IPCC should be questioned”

Posted on by
1

More "truth" from the Science and Public Policy Institute.

Dr. Nicola Scafetta summarizes “why the anthropogenic theory proposed by the IPCC should be questioned”. Dr. Nicola Scafetta has a “booklet” available from the same unbiased source as Anthony’s own disproved publications, the Science and Public Policy Institute.

Once again, it’s all because of the sun (well, at least 60%). Scafetta even tries to recruit the fraudulent “Oregon Petition”. Oh, Climategate is also proof. Anthony usually give the worst of the solar stuff a wide berth as he’s been caught out too many times.

Anthony’s readers seem to lean towards respect for the booklet’s ‘profundity’, but knowledgeable commenters (such as Dr. Leif Svalgaard) dismiss the paper as worthless.

Hockey Stick Illusion: “Shut-eyed Denial”

Posted on by
Reply

Hockey Stick Illusion: “Shut-eyed Denial”. Anthony Watts enjoys a supportive “review” in Prospect Magazine of Andrew Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion – Climategate and the Corruption of Science”. Surprise, it’s another vanity publication from an obsessed denialist!

This quote that Anthony highlights gave me a snort (italics mine):

an even more worrying thought: how much dodgy science is being published without the benefit of an audit by Mcintyre’s ilk?

Indeed, indeed…

UK ads banned for overstating climate change

Posted on by
1

“UK ads banned for overstating climate change“. Anthony Watts quotes discredited journalist Jonathan Leake of The Times: “Ed Miliband’s adverts banned for overstating climate change.” Could it be that the ads “were not supported by science”? Does this mean there is no global warming???

I’m not going to get into the details of these ads, but I will note this post on the subject:

There were four ads complained about and all the complaints came to a total of 10 points of issue. Of those 10 points, one of the points was upheld and was a rebuke in that the ad made claims that should have been ‘phrased more tentatively’. So 9 out of 10 were dismissed.

Anthony must hate it when people look beyond his posts for confirmation.

IOP fires back over criticism of their submission to Parliament

Posted on by
4

“IOP fires back over criticism of their submission to Parliament“. Anthony Watts copies and pastes an entire article from Physics World entitled Concerns raised over Institute of Physics climate submission that he thinks shows the Institute of Physics defending their widely criticized assessment of the “Climategate” issue. (Their submission was authored by their “Energy Sub-group”, which has clear links to denialist interests.) Read that article title again, Anthony!

Let’s have a look at some of the quotes from the article…

…“there is no doubt that climate change is happening, that it is linked to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, and that we should be taking action to address it now”.

…”we are already reviewing our consultation process for preparing policy submissions”

…the IOP’s submission appears to prejudge the outcome of the inquiry

…The Institute also says it “strongly rebuts” accusations of “being overly influenced by one ‘climate-change sceptic’ on the energy sub-group

That’s rock-solid, Anthony. No wonder you’re encouraging your followers to flood the article comments section…

Quote of the week #30

Posted on by
1

“Quote of the week #30“. These posts are where Anthony Watts practices his quote-mining. This bit is interesting:

But here’s the quote that had me ROTFL

“I don’t view our role as trying to convince people of something,” she said. “Our role is to inform people.”

Naturally Anthony finds “informing people” to be a process that greatly amuses him…

Hathaway on the solar conveyor belt and deep solar minimum

Posted on by
Reply

“Hathaway on the solar conveyor belt and deep solar minimum“. This is as close as Anthony Watts comes to credible scientific information: a copy and paste job from an real science source, in this case NASA – Solar ‘Current of Fire’ Speeds Up. It’s interesting stuff, with some apparent contradictions in measurements. How he misreads it is up to him though, as Anthony hasn’t met a loony solar theory yet that he doesn’t like.

Aquatic ‘dead zones’ contributing to climate change

Posted on by
12

“Aquatic ‘dead zones’ contributing to climate change“. Anthony Watts passes on an “alarming missive.” To Anthony, this is a chance to divert attention to other natural sources of greenhouse gases. Stop picking on poor little CO2!

Dead zones. Maybe the greenhouse gas thing is all because of N2O! 2010-03-13 update: This image, used by Anthony in his post, is for a river not the ocean (credit: Hank Roberts).

Climategate.com shuts down

Posted on by
2

“Climategate.com shuts down“. Anthony Watts reports that a denialist has given up trying to keep juggling the lies, but boasts of his own web stats. “Heh. He doesn’t know the meaning of hard work.”

Hard work. Good work. Discuss.

Gallup: Americans’ Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop

Posted on by
1

“Gallup: Americans’ Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop“. Anthony says that a Gallup News poll shows that the denialists are “winning”.

Exaggerated? Only when the Republicans are shouting the loudest.

But Anthony conceals the fact that all the “gains” have been within Republican voters. Read Gallup News’s follow-up analysis, “Conservatives’ Doubts About Global Warming Grow“.

Who's getting their science from Sarah Palin?

Climate Progress discusses this in this post:  The disinformers are winning, but mostly with the GOP – New Gallup poll shows sharp partisan divide in understanding of climate change.

Another WWF assisted IPCC claim debunked: Amazon more drought resistant than claimed

Posted on by
2

“Another WWF assisted IPCC claim debunked: Amazon more drought resistant than claimed“. Anthony Watts brings a NASA-funded study to our attention. This is a pretty lousy conspiracy if we can’t even count on NASA to play along! I’m getting nervous; it’s four down, 4,996 to go. [2010-03-14 update: see the bottom for how Anthony actually gets this 100% wrong]

The Amazon! Still green.

“Our results certainly do not indicate such extreme sensitivity to reductions in rainfall,” said Sangram Ganguly, an author on the new study, from the Bay Area Environmental Research Institute affiliated with NASA Ames Research Center in California.

“The way that the WWF report calculated this 40% was totally wrong, while [the new] calculations are by far more reliable and correct,” said Dr. Jose Marengo, a Brazilian National Institute for Space Research climate scientist and member of the IPCC.

What? Even a “member of the IPCC” can’t stay on message? This sucks! This is turning into objective science, with new analyses not guaranteed to support the secret government’s agenda! What if my paychecks start bouncing?

2010-03-14 Update: Tim Lambert at Deltoid shows that Anthony’s take is completely wrong. Maybe the actual report title, “Amazon forests did not green‐up during the 2005 drought” is a bit of a give-away! My bad, I didn’t have time to follow through. Another quote from the actual paper:

We find no evidence of large-scale greening of intact Amazon forests during the 2005 drought.

2010-03-16 Update: RealClimate has also discussed this in detail now, Anthony is even more wrong than I first thought!

2010-03-19 Update: Rabett Run reports that nineteen experienced Amazon scientists are also calling out the false representation of the study results.