Is It Time To Stop The Insanity Of Wasting Time and Money On More Climate Models?

“Is It Time To Stop The Insanity Of Wasting Time and Money On More Climate Models?” (2015-09-14). Wait a second. Hasn’t the only faintly credible denialist argument been that all the climate modelling and climate projections are too preliminary? We should keep waiting, twiddling our thumbs, until perfect data and projections are in hand? Then, presumably, the denialists will swing into righteous eco-warrior action. No, for Dr. Tim Ball it’s now about wasteful funding. Apparently ignorance is again bliss.

I still flick a bored eye over to Anthony Watts’ clown convention every now and then, and this post made me laugh enough to spend a moment scrolling through the “science.”

Today Anthony has loaned his dunce’s pulpit to Sky Dragon kook Dr. Tim Ball so he can mutter that climate projections aren’t as precise as he requires, that there aren’t enough “stations”, and that if you copy and paste carefully enough even the IPCC can be made to admit that the data is awful. Shut the whole thing down!

Hard to put much credence in Dr. Ball’s “career as a climatologist” (actually he’s a retired geographer and semi-pro Letter to the Editor writer) when he’s still trying to sell the out-of-context “hide the decline” source code quote from 2009. That dog won’t hunt. Also, does he really think that climatologists are trying to forecast climate? Ball seems to have a very rudimentary notion of how his alleged profession gathers climate data, or how it is used. Most of his gotcha quotes stop just before the actual meaning is explained, but this can possibly be put down to a short attention span.

Hell, Dr. Ball seems to have even forgotten that “stations” aren’t the only way we gather climate data. Maybe he should dust off those National Geographic magazines and look for articles about “satellites.” They’re brill. They go everywhere!

Actually, Dr. Ball seems to hold Australian garden-variety denialist and conspiracy enthusiast (ask her about the Rothschilds) Joanne Nova in high esteem, so perhaps he’s hidden an admission of poor judgement amongst his contemptuous bluster.

A Cool White Christmas – almost two thirds of the continental USA has snow cover

A Cool White Christmas – almost two thirds of the continental USA has snow cover” (2012-12-26). Snow! In Winter! Global Warming is over, Anthony Watts assures us. Wait, didn’t it never start? Or was it that Global Warming ended 16 years ago?

Still, snow this Christmas in North America puts the lie to British climate scientist Dr David Viner’s speculation that snowfall in Britain will be rare at some unspecified time in the future, doesn’t it?

It does if you’re Anthony Watts battling a straw man. Once again anything that supports Anthony’s assertions is climate while anything that contradicts him is weather.

Wait, it’s January 6th and the snow is already receding. Winter must be over, Global Warming’s back! (You can play too at National Snow Analyses.)

Al Gore’s ‘drowning polar bear’ source reprimanded

Al Gore’s ‘drowning polar bear’ source reprimanded (2012-09-29). A lying scientist has been caught red-handed! We’ll get those guys, one at a time. That’s a check mark on the good guy’s side! No need to read further.

You can always count on Anthony Watts to baldly misrepresent the facts. To put this plainly, Dr. Charles Monnett was accused of corruption (helping a scientist apply for a grant) and scientific malpractice (reporting his observation of drowned polar bears). This appears driven largely by political irritation over how other information he disclosed “helped reveal that Bush administration Arctic offshore drilling reviews illegally suppressed adverse environmental consequences.” Also, his observations were mentioned in that Communist Al Gore’s filthy propaganda, An Inconvenient Truth.

After an incompetent investigation that focused obsessively on the irrelevant dead polar bears, Dr. Monnett was only “reprimanded” because he had “improperly disclosed internal government documents”. Isn’t that the kind of thing that Anthony has been demanding more of? Transparency, letting in the light, resisting persecution, citizen-science, etc.

As usual Anthony falsely holds his target to a higher standard than he could ever live up to. Dr. Monnett is just collateral damage in Anthony’s Gore-ophobia.

REPLY: The issue is mostly with Gore’s ridiculous claims, AGW had noting to do with the dead polar bear and a dead polar bear does not a trend make. Monnet didn’t speak out when Gore took his observation and turned into into a bogus sympathy pitch -Anthony

Here’s an enlightening quote from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management press office that Anthony didn’t manage in include in his conveniently partial copy-and-paste of the Seattle Times article (this is called burying the lede):

A BOEM spokeswoman, Theresa Eisenman, said the findings in the report do not support a conclusion that the scientists involved engaged in “scientific misconduct.”

I note that Google Ads still sees Anthony’s readership as prime targets for Brain Training Games. Indeed, indeed.

IBD picks up my article on the US cooling trend

IBD picks up my article on the US cooling trend” (2011-11-11). Wow, the mainstream media gets it! Anthony Watts has made it to the big time!

Oh, the “IBD” is the Investors Business Daily. Seems they love them some stupid, which makes their Watts-miration quite understandable.

Here’s some tidbits from their deeply scientific editorial Don’t Stop Doubting, mixing Muller-spin with garden-variety denialist chart pumping (an old standby in investor circles too).

The alarmists, of course, leveraged Muller’s statements to suit their agenda.

But Muller’s [conclusion] is not the “consensus” position of the team.

Now comes meteorologist Anthony Watts armed with data showing the continental U.S. has not warmed in the last 10 years

Granted, the Lower 48 aren’t the entire world, [but] “heat islands” — big cities — [] should be skewing temperature data upward.

we remain skeptics and would be even if [Muller] were right.

Seems oddly emphatic for a subject so far out of their area of expertise. I guess it’s unsurprising that it’s so short on substance too. Still “don’t stop doubting” is good advice even if the IBD editors swallow Anthony’s line in a single gulp (they even think he’s a meteorologist). I know I won’t be taking scientific advice from a stock-picking website.

Anthony Watts Defeats Himself

Hump day hilarity: Chris Mooney’s abby-normal post modern science” (2011-11-09) and “Mooney pulls a Muller” (2011-11-10). After years of announcing how he was going to prove Global Warming was a lie (but utterly failing to do so), Anthony decides to castigate anyone else who talks about their conclusions before formal publication. Only the targets of his hypocrisy have simply released drafts of submitted papers (the previously beloved Dr. Muller) or described a book they are still writing (Chris Mooney’s The Republican Brain). Anthony, you may recall, loudly and repeatedly announced that he was going to prove that the temperature record was both inaccurate and tampered with, and that climate scientists were corrupt socialists. You may also recall that he was 99 44/100%  wrong.

So what has twisted Anthony’s shorts this time? You’re going to love this: He’s attacking a book that hasn’t been finished yet, claiming that it portrays conservatives as idiots who jump to conclusions! Nice stick-work there, Anthony.

Seems like finishing your book is kind of redundant now, Chris! You can read his take on the response is here: Conservatives Attack and Misunderstand A Book They Haven’t Read… A Book About Flawed Conservative Reasoning.

ATI press release on the Mann UVA emails

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.


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.

Bastardi: Science and reality point away, not toward, CO2 as climate driver

Bastardi: Science and reality point away, not toward, CO2 as climate driver” (2011-08-12). You know when Joe Bastardi guest-posts on Anthony Watts’ blog you’re in for a chuckle. Here he’s trying to expand on (spin?) his whopper-fest on Fox News a few nights ago.

With the coming Gorathon to save the planet around the corner (Sept 14) , my  stance on the AGW issue has been drawing more ire from those seeking to silence people like me that question their issue and plans. In response, I want the objective reader to hear more about my arguments made in a a brief interview on FOX News as to why I conclude CO2 is not causing changes of climate and the recent flurry of extremes of our planet. I brought up the First Law of Thermodynamics and LeChateliers principle.

“Brought up” in the sense of vomited, I guess. Joe has no clue what the First Law of Thermodynamics is (hey, Joe, the greenhouse effect doesn’t create heat) or LeChatelier’s principle (how a chemical equilibrium responds to changing conditions). In the first paragraph alone of his Fox News commentary everything he says is provably false. Five sentences, five boners. (Thanks tamino for holding your nose long enough to spell it out so clearly.)

After years of smack-downs he’s still pushing the “since 1997” lie, still trying to fake it. Here’s an example of Joe Science.

The Bastardi supercomputer works overtime providing detailed statistics.

There’s an outraged analysis at Scientific American titled Fox Commentator Distorts Physics, and Climate Progress gives us Joe Bastardi Pulls a Charlie Sheen on Fox News, Pushing “Utter Nonsense” on Climate Science.

Anthony assures us that “a follow up post – more technically oriented will follow sometime next week.” So don’t pick on poor Joe! Presumably his “follow-up” walk back most of his wild errors…

2011-08-16 Update.

Still waiting for Joe’s re-explanation, although he does add his own meandering comment that suggests we wait 30 years to see that he was right all along. Bad Astronomy’s Phil Plait scrutinizes Joe’s so-called arguments at Big Picture Science: climate change denial on Fox News.

There are some real whoppers in the Watts Up With That comments, but this early one really caught my attention for self-serving justification (stunned italics mine):

Ryan Maue says:

@Chris_Colose: you have to pick your battles a little better. Joe Bastardi is not an academic researcher but a private sector meteorologist. He is an advocate for his point of view based upon the knowledge he accumulates. He is putting out his opinions for public consumption but there is no accountability implied…

REPLY: Yes, this is the same silly claim that comes up again and again, one one hand when a they lose a point in an argument they’ll claim “but he’s not a climate scientist, so his opinions don’t matter” then when they feel they have the upper hand we’ll hear, “he’s not scientifically rigorous enough, his arguments pale in comparison to our best climate scientists”. – Anthony

So… ignorant or deceitful “advocates” should get a free pass? Also, please show me a climate science argument “won” by someone like Joe, Anthony. Shorter version of Ryan and Anthony’s argument: “We don’t know anything, but every time we flap our gums we win. Unless the other guys cheat.”

2011-08-18 Update.

Climate Progress piles on: Joe Bastardi is ‘Completely Wrong’ and ‘Does Not Understand the Very Basics of the Science’, Climatologists Explain

Rasmussen poll: 69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research

Rasmussen poll: 69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research” (2011-08-03). Anthony Watts breathlessly reports that 69% of Americans think that climate scientists are liars. Anthony loves science by opinion poll, especially when the pollsters have a reliable Republican inclination. Actually, the trumpeted answer is to this question: “…how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?” Of course, even Rasmussen Reports described their own results falsely so how would an inquiring mind like Anthony do any better than what he was spoon-fed?

Surprisingly, we know this opinion poll result reflects reality! We don’t have to look any further than denialist favorites Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen and Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. for the proof that some scientists have selected their data and built their arguments with a particular result in mind…

Here are the oh-so-innocent questions Rasmussen Reports asked, giving us a nice example of “structured” polling:

  1. How closely have you followed recent news stories about global warming?
  2. Which of the following is most likely to occur to the planet Earth … a period of dangerous global warming, a dangerous ice age or something in between? [Falsely suggests that climate change implies immediate harm to the respondent which, surprise, hasn’t happened yet.]
  3. Some people say we must take immediate action to stop global warming. Others say we should wait a few years to see if global warming is real before making major changes. What do you think? [Biased presentation of denialist delaying tactics as a reasonable position, encourages “wait and see” response.]
  4. Do scientists agree on global warming or is there significant disagreement within the scientific community? [Suggests to respondents that there is wide scientific conflict when there isn’t.]
  5. In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data? [Weasel word: “some“. This question suggests that everyone tells little white lies now and then, don’t they? So answer yes.]
  6. Does the media make global warming appear to be worse than it really is, better than it really is or do they present an accurate picture?

Nice try, Anthony. A quick inspection of the morass that passes for insightful comments on Anthony’s blog shows that no-one noticed the “simplification” of the results, so I guess he’s not quite as dumb as his readers.

Alarmists refuse to take on skeptical geologists

Alarmists refuse to take on skeptical geologists” (June 8th, 2011). Anthony Watts agrees with the assertions of Canadian right-wing lobbyist Tom Harris in the reliably denialist Financial Post newspaper (No Climate Debate). Funny how fast Anthony was to copy-and-paste this one. Harris says that if “alarmists” won’t be caught dead presenting at the same symposium last month in Ottawa, “Earth climate: past, present, future“, as debunked denialists (make that “leading geoscientists”) like Bob CarterIan PlimerHenrik Svensmark and “Friends of Science” director Norm Kalmanovitch, they’re chicken. (They couldn’t squeeze Lord Monckton in there?) Friends of Gin and Tonic ask some interesting questions about this.

Unlike medical researchers, who are rushing to embrace discredited and debunked anti-vax fraud Andrew Wakefield in debate.

According to Harris, “climate skepticism was widespread” at the recent industrial GAC-MAC conference (Joint Annual Meeting of the Geological Association of Canada, the Mineralogical Association of Canada, the Society of Economic Geologists and the Society for Geology Applied to Mineral Deposits), but we’ll have to take his word on that. It doesn’t seem to show up in any of the 26 other Symposia or Special Sessions though.

Here’s Professor Andrew Miall’s Symposium preface, with a few editorial remarks:

Earth climate: past, present, future
Andrew Miall
The scientific debate about climate change is far from over [not contested]. Some of the projections of climate change and its consequences contained in the 2007 Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been called into question [successfully?].. This symposium will address some of these issues and present a geological perspective on the scientific debate. For example, what is the relative importance of water vapour versus carbon dioxide as a medium of heat retention in the atmosphere? How important have variations in solar output and in sunspot levels been in determining energy input to the Earth’s atmosphere? Is the current global temperature regime now warmer than the Medieval Warm Period or the Holocene Hypsithermal? [Gosh, no-one’s ever thought of studying those things before! Someone should get on that.] This is a significant question, given that many damaging ecological, faunal and weather changes have been predicted based on such warming. Yet Earth and its assemblage of life forms clearly survived these and even earlier exceptionally warm periods [not so good for some species of course, but perhaps we should roll the dice anyway]. Is it possibile [sp] that other causes, such as the density and ubiquity of the human presence on Earth, rather than climate change, may be the cause of the observed deterioration in many environmental indicators? [Of course they are factors! This is not an either/or situation.]

“The scientific debate about climate change is far from over.” Ooh, that stings. Could this prove that the alleged alarmist chorus of “the science is settled” is a despicable alarmist tactic? No, that evergreen denialist straw-man argument that has never been true. Climate scientists don’t make that claim. Just like plate tectonics, we’re continually refining our understanding. This doesn’t mean the core principles are teetering on the brink of rejection. Funny how often questions like “is it possible that” show up in these ‘criticisms’. Plenty of things are possible, but showing them to be more likely is the tricky part.

To repeat the words of  George Bernard Shaw; “I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig, you get dirty; and besides, the pig likes it.” Credible scientists apparently understand this and stay out of the pig pen.

On a personal note, I once studied under Dr. Miall. It’s sad to see him in his late sixties endorsing such sloppy discredited arguments. While geologists know that huge environmental changes have affected the Earth in the past, some of them seem incapable of connecting the dots that the extinctions that resulted from those changes could have any bearing on this species, or that the evidence shows that these environmental changes are occurring at rates never recorded before.

Five years of “An Inconvenient Truth”

Five years of “An Inconvenient Truth” (May 24th, 2011). Anthony Watts wears his fingers down to tiny nubs hammering out Yet-Another-Criticism-of-An_Inconvenient_Truth, this time a true opus:

Executive Summary: Science Fiction

After-all Julia A. Seymour of the Business and Media Institute (staff of four) says so. And if you can’t trust an organization devoted solely to analyzing and exposing the anti-free enterprise culture of the media then who can you trust? No-one, that’s who.

Denialist fixation with Al Gore and his documentary film has been both obsessive and compulsive since the first screening of the Oscar-winning documentary, and five years on it’s still “inconvenient”. Denialists have leveled every insinuation and nit-pick they can, but it still stands unbowed. As a rational person though I have to say “so what?” Even if it was proven beyond a doubt that it was filmed on the same soundstage as the Apollo Moon Landings, the abundant evidence and knowledge that supports scientific concern over Global Warming will remain. An Inconvenient Truth is simply a popular presentation of that concern.

So what do we find in 5 Years After: Networks Celebrate Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth,’ Ignore Scientific Flaws, Criticism? A sullen regurgitation of denialist attempts to undermine a popular documentary and teach them scientists a thing or two. Empty-headed gum-flapping. Here’s a few highlights:

  • Personal attacks on Al “Apocalypse Al” Gore as a “movie star”, etc.
  • Allegations that Gore predicted 20 ft sea-level rise by 2010 (he didn’t).
  • Climate Depot’s “lengthy list of more than 1,000 scientists who dissent in some way from those claims” (classic fake survey).
  • The claim that Gore’s “mentor” oceanographer Roger Revelle had “second thoughts” about CO2 and climate change late in life (misrepresenting a dead man. Read his own words).
  • Accusations that the media buried a High Court of London ruling that there were “nine significant errors” in AIT (but primarily ruled that it was clear that the film was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact).
  • Climategate!
  • A pitch for next month’s Heartland Institute conference on “Restoring the Scientific Method.”