The 10:10 Splattergate goes “sploot” – a roundup. We get it Anthony, the 10:10 video was a bad idea and various environmental groups are dissociating themselves from it.
But can you explain why failing to cling tenaciously to a dumb idea is a bad thing? I know that truculence is an admired quality in the denialist community, but those of us with more limber brains are actually quite likely to respond rationally to events like this.
By the way, I know you embrace the dumbed-down use of “-gate” on every accusation you can make up, but the stupid is starting to get a bit obvious. Leave it for political or business conspiracies or allegations of the same.
“White House science advisor Holdren’s climate slide show at Kavli“. Oh noes! A White House science advisor gives a speech on the topic of climate change intended for the public and doesn’t use 3,000 footnotes! I guess he didn’t learn anything from the example of the Wegman Report. Anthony Watts has him dead to rights, John Holdren’s generalized statements will never survive Anthony’s micro-nit-picking.
- John Holdren’s Keynote Address to the 2010 Kavli Prize Science Forum.
Remember when the White House could be counted on to do The Right Thing? You know, muzzling NASA climate scientists, editing EPA reports to conform with political agendas, etc. The good old days, right Anthony?
“Steve McIntyre – one of the top 50 people who matter“. Surprise, surprise. The Daily Telegraph’s resident denialist James Delingpole notes that although the New Statesman says that Steven McIntyre’s “influence might not be positive” he’s still had an ‘impact’.
Delingpole, and of course Anthony Watts, thinks that McIntyre’s one hell of a dude. Delingpole is sure the entire world agrees because the online comments at the New Statesman article almost universally declare McIntyre to be saintly. Apparently Delingpole has never seen a forum swarmed by denialists…
McIntyre’s real contribution seems to be showing how harassing scientists whose evidence you wish you could discard, trying mightily to magnify inconsequential errors, fixating on perceived slights and generally complaining can be turned into a decade of attention.
I spotted an amusing comment on Anthony’s blog: “What’s great about Steve is that he has absolutely no stake in the matter, save the desire to see something done correctly.” If Steven has “no stake in the matter” why has he never, ever, criticized any of the swarm of poorly argued and statistically flawed papers that the denialists keep hoping will suddenly defeat the AGW evidence?
“Rebuild California! Vote for your favorite Jerry Brown commercial idea“. Anthony Watts seems to think that California candidate for Governor Jerry Brown is an evil librul who probably doesn’t care about Central Valley farmers. And those kooky Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill 23) defenders fussin’ about greenhouse gases are just going to end up with dusty solar panels! Get with the Texan industrial program and vote for Proposition 23!
Is he making fun of the submissions to Brown’s promotion of voter-submitted advertising ideas, or does he think his readers are perfect candidates to submit them?
“Quote of the Week“. Anthony Watts brings to our attention a quote from Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. about the hated Joe Romm that is “long overdue”, prompted by Joe’s coverage of Clive Crook at the Atlantic repeatedly smearing climatologist Dr. Michael Mann:
“More than any individual — James Inhofe and Marc Morano included — Joe Romm is responsible for creating a poisonous, negative atmosphere in the climate debate. Responsible voices should say so, this nonsense has gone on long enough.”
This is code for “Joe Romm is kicking my ass all over town.” You see, Joe Romm has a Physics Ph.D. but Roger Pielke Jr.’s Ph.D is in… political science. They’ve crossed paths many times, but it’s like bringing a knife to a gun fight, and Romm doesn’t sugar-coat it.
Interesting to see the implication that denialists Senator James Inhofe and political operative Marc Morano are also “poisonous.” I’m not sure how Anthony avoided that short-list, but perhaps it’s because he’s one of Roger’s buddies. Roger Pielke Jr.’s claim of being (the only?) “honest broker” in the climate change debate is currently being laughed out-of-town. Here are two links (Roger at Face Value and The Honestly Broken) about Roger’s self-serving concept.
We enter the age of “…or else”. Nothing makes a libertarian madder than governments acting on something. Anthony Watts copies-and-pastes excerpts from a Washington Post report that the death of a Senate Climate bill means that the White House will use its power to act on Global Warming via the EPA’s clean-air regulations.
Obama is such a bully! And a Nigerian communist.
“Morphed Climate/Energy Bill is DOA in the Senate“. Yeah! Republican politics has defeated Global Warming! At least that’s what Anthony Watts thinks.
“Gore cleared in masseuse case“. Is Anthony Watts clearing the air on yet another attempt to besmirch politician and environmentalist Al Gore, or is he taking the opportunity to remind his readers that ‘the alGore’ is evil, evil, EVIL?
This kind of post is just another sign that Anthony Watts’ blog is propelled by partisan right-wing anger and not by objective scientific interest.
“Climatic collision on the National/Financial Post website“. Anthony Watts is busy deleting contacts from his Rolodex and trying to frame the sudden and unwelcome media scrutiny of global warming denialism as part of the Climategate “whitewash” and the alleged “blacklist” of denialists.
Canada’s National Post newspaper, a long-time source and also re-distributor of climate science misinformation, has for the first time printed an intelligent and skeptical assessment of the global warming denial position. Jonathan Kay’s article Bad Science: Global Warming Deniers are a Liability to the Conservative Cause is an entertaining exposé of many of the smug deceptions that the Post’s own doctrinaire columnists, such as Terrence Corcoran, have been regurgitating for years. Quite a startling development. Kay’s telling quote is this:
How has this tiny 2-3% sliver of fringe opinion been reinvented as a perpetually “growing” share of the scientific community?
Columnist Terrence Corcoran naturally has taken exception to having the plug pulled on his cozy bubble-bath. Bad politics The politicization of climate science reaches new low with the development of a deniers blacklist is his response. Strangely, he starts with a reference to the “first principles of good science” before blustering at length about a “scientific mop-and-pail crew”, talking about the astrological signs of the paper’s authors and trying to imply that compiling the alleged “denialist blacklist” was a stealthy librul operation. Actually, the list of denialist scientists was collected from documents published and distributed by denialist lobbyists. But bluster on, Terrence.
Anthony declares that of the two columns “One in my opinion, [is] ugly, the other matter of fact.” No prize for guessing which one Anthony likes.
“BP says Gulf oil spill has been stopped in test“: Anthony Watts posts a link to a Reuters report about an apparently successful capping of the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.
Well, every-thing’s OK now I guess. Drill, baby, drill!
Commenters are talking darkly about how a successful cap of the wellhead “will remove a useful ‘crisis’ from the progressive agenda” and that the “catastrophe has largely been one of the Federal Gov’t screwing over us much worse than what BP did.” Of course the claim that “Obama wanted a monumental disaster with maximum damage, in order to advance his agenda” is in the mix too. Mustn’t forget the sullen claim that oil spills are natural and harmless…