Bizzarothink in Goreville

Bizzarothink in Goreville“. Anthony Watts tries to accuse Al Gore of hypocrisy. Gore writes “Stop Censoring News From The Gulf” but won’t let the press attend a conference keynote speech! Oh, snap!

Is there a difference between a public national crisis and a private speech? Well, maybe.

New Dogs; IPCC tricks

New Dogs; IPCC tricks“. Steven Mosher tries to tie the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to a Fox News report, titled “Experts Say White House ‘Misrepresented’ Views to Justify Drilling Moratorium“. On what basis? Well none really, other than the fact that Steven doesn’t like either of ’em.

Thanks for the science.

Was Margaret Thatcher the first climate sceptic?

Was Margaret Thatcher the first climate sceptic?” When a newspaper article title ends with a question mark, it means that they want you to believe their headline but can’t get away with stating it directly. Steven Mosher links to a right-wing Telegraph article by Christopher Booker that tries to juggle his love of the union-bashing, argy-crushing “Iron Lady” with their need to fight blindly against the government intervention that they associate with Global Warming. She was tricked into voicing alarm over global warming!

Fortunately for denialists, as she has aged and her intellectual powers have diminished she’s subsided back into reflexive right-wing mutterings on environmental issues.”natural factors such as solar activity”, “beneficial effects”, “anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda”. Yay?

Of course the alternate explanation is that her global warming concern was merely a political weapon to be used against the then-powerful coal miner’s unions. Similarly the current opposition to global warming is a political weapon to try to inhibit government regulation.

Quote of the Week: Sen. Lindsey Graham’s 180° view of climate science

Quote of the Week: Sen. Lindsey Graham’s 180° view of climate science“. Senator Graham’s political flipping on environmental issues is suddenly A-OK with Anthony Watts because, a few days after the recent primary elections, Graham’s jumped on the denialist bandwagon to shore up his right-wing/denialist voting base.

In fact, Anthony even tries to convince us that “This one is really something.” Sell it Anthony, sell it.

Legal beagle says: Manmade global warming science doesn’t withstand scrutiny

Legal beagle says: Manmade global warming science doesn’t withstand scrutiny“. Anthony Watts points out an article by enthusiastic denialist and Financial Post journalist Lawrence Solomon about a publication called Global Warming Advocacy Science: A Cross Examination. Apparently a partisan “Research Paper” by a law professor with a history of climate change denial is a “Legal verdict” that “eviscerates the case for man-made global warming.” University of Pennsylvania Law School Professor Jason Scott Johnston even “expressed surprise that the case for global warming was so weak”.

Wasn’t this was all wrapped up by that Grade Four student in Beeville, Texas?

Sorry Professor Johnston although you’ve apparently been trying to concoct this attack since September 2008 your Justice is clearly not blind. This is a kangaroo court with the judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one ignorant pedant, even with the “helpful comments from David Henderson, Julia Mahoney, Ross McKitrick, Richard Lindzen, and Roger Pielke, Sr.”.

Perhaps Anthony’s “beagle” description is more accurate than he thinks.

Off to the conference

Off to the conference“. Anthony Watts’ is off to the right-wing Heartland Institute’s 4th International Conference on Climate Change. All the regular lunatics will be there, all the legitimate scientists will be as far away as possible. The right-wing activists are trying to build the event up in their usual way.

I wonder what new scientific insights will astound us all?

NIWA’s Kiwi Kaper

NIWA’s Kiwi Kaper“. Anthony Watts gravely informs us of an uncovered climate conspiracy in New Zealand. But fear not, a “skeptical” (right-wing) New Zealand politician is calling for the replacement the existing New Zealand NIWA (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research) climate record of a 0.92°C twentieth-century warming trend with something more ‘suitable’. Namely that it should be depicted as “remarkably steady at 12.6°C“.

A former politician named Barry Brill tries to fake it up with a “substantial essay” on a right-wing Australian website called Quadrant Online. Barry is also Chairman of the fraudulent denialist “New Zealand Climate Science Coalition”, caught in 2009 telling flat-out lies about NZ weather records.

The claims are all about “smuggled data” from Dr. Jim Salinger that doesn’t gibe with denialist’s anecdotal recollections, cherry-picked counter-examples and imputed political motivation. Somehow a conspiracy to manipulate climate data was initiated in 1994 in order to support a left-wing political agenda created in 2007.

Here’s the response from the NIWA to the denialist games. The above chart illustrates the dishonesty of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition’s claim that temperatures have been “remarkably steady“. There’s a “kaper” alright, Anthony. You’re part of it.

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

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”.

Now it’s more CO2 that will threaten crops

Now it’s more CO2 that will threaten crops“. But plants love CO2! Anthony Watts is confused by this UC Davis press release. Apparently “Rising CO2 levels threaten crops and food quality”. What’s confusing about this, Anthony:

…findings from previous research by Bloom and colleagues suggested that elevated levels of carbon dioxide decreased photorespiration and inhibited nitrate assimilation in plant shoots.

Oh, maybe that ‘whole CO2 is good thing’ isn’t going to stick, even though the partisans at CO2Science.org have an “amazing video”.

Preview of Kerry-Lieberman climate bill

Preview of Kerry-Lieberman climate bill“. Anthony Watts says that “Steve Milloy’s Green Hell blog has the scoop.” He leaves the ranting to his commenters.

That would be the Steven Milloy, the guy who works for the denialist Competitive Enterprise Institute? The guy who has lied about the risks of DDT, global warming, Alar, breast implants, secondhand smoke, ozone depletion, and mad cow disease? The guy who criticizes ‘corporate social responsibility’ efforts? Who used the World Trade Center attacks to advocate the benefits of asbestos? Who denies evolution? Who celebrates the death of environmental opponents?

Oh yeah, that’s the guy to turn to for objective insight. Steve Milloy is a one-note libertarian flunky.