ABC interview wrongly torches skeptic position

ABC interview wrongly torches skeptic position. Does Anthony Watts really think that denialists fighting in “the cause of climate skepticism” accept that “both CO2 and CH4 are “greenhouse gases”, and yes they do have a warming effect by backscattered long wave infra red“? Guess he doesn’t read his blog’s comments. Wait he does, compulsively and passive-aggressively. Anthony’s only other contribution here is to helpfully provide e-mail addresses that can be bombarded.

The reposted ‘concern troll’ complaint by Canadian denialist Tom Harris maintains that Australia’s ABC Radio Science Show interview with Bob Ward from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment was too soft by half. (Funny how these guys manage to be on top of such distant matters and have their posts pop up in so many places at once.)

Harris thinks the interviewer should have asked a juicy leading question like “which is more important – the health and welfare of people suffering today, or those not yet born who might suffer someday due to climate change that even you admit is highly uncertain?” I think what he really wants to say is “why should I have to do anything I don’t want to when the effects will only be felt after I’m dead”. I’d be surprised to see a libertarian or Republican tenaciously fighting to improve the lives of anyone other than themselves.

The rest of the post is mere high-school rhetoric and deliberate misrepresentation (try to find the “vilification [of] Professors Carter, Lindzen and Plimer” that Harris claims). There’s something about denialists that compels them to recreate public debates in their minds and explain to themselves how they were really won them.

I love Harris’ embrace of eyeballed temperature trends “showing” negative temperature trends since 2002 though. What happened to “1998 was the hottest year”? Keep the cups moving Tom, keep ’em moving.

Quote of the Week – David Suzuki, a farce of nature

Quote of the Week – David Suzuki, a farce of nature. Anthony Watts is irritated that renowned Canadian biologist David Suzuki has the nerve to say that “we have joined God, powerful enough to influence these [hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, drought, forest fires, earthquakes, volcanic explosions] events.” Maybe he’s just alarmed that someone is stating the obvious: humanity’s actions can and do affect our weather and our climate. Never! It’s all natural!

Come on Anthony, you might well argue about the intensity of our influence, but you’re just being sullen if you try to deny it altogether with nothing but links to your own lame blog as evidence.

The season of disinvitation continues

The season of disinvitation continues. Oh the high school cruelty that Anthony Watts and his friends endure! The esteemed Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. has had his Letter to Nature rejected! They asked him to write it!!

Why there’s only one possible response to this; Anthony must post an unflattering photo of Nature’s nasty Chief Commissioning Editor, Sara Abdulla. Done and done.

Skeptical Science? John Cook – embarrassing himself

Skeptical Science? John Cook – embarrassing himself. Somehow John Cook calling Anthony Watts a “denier” is an embarrassment. Anthony’s in full thin-skinned rant mode here, and it seems that poor John is now dead to Anthony. It’s Anthony’s tantrum that seems embarrassing.

Anthony’s so incoherent about this that he seems to have manufactured a quote from Cook’s Skeptical Science website claiming that “the usual suspects in natural climate change – solar variations, volcanoes, Milankovitch cycles – are all conspicuous in their absence over the past three decades of warming.” He then thinks he has refuted them with a series “oh yeahs?”. I’m sure that John would actually say that the natural variations simply don’t correlate to the warming we’ve experienced.

John’s also apparently “smug” for restricting himself to peer-reviewed scientific literature and using “the ugly word denier”, and his associate Dr. John Bruno gets taken to task for being nice to Anthony once but only once. This is just a train wreck of a post.

Enviro and Media Agenda on Extreme Weather – State Climatologist Invited, then Uninvited to Rally

Enviro and Media Agenda on Extreme Weather – State Climatologist Invited, then Uninvited to Rally. Anthony Watts wants us to know that the State Climatologist for Delaware, “David R. Legates, Ph.D., C.C.M” was invited by Environment America to speak at a press conference about “Extreme Weather in Delaware.” He was cruelly uninvited when they learned that he was loose cannon looking for opportunities to misrepresent climate science in support of the posturing of the politicians who appointed him.

How dare Environment America state that “we do not suggest that these [particular] extreme weather events were caused by global warming” and then say that “the point of examining the recent extreme weather events – and the economic losses and other negative impacts they caused – is to document why we need to take action to protect against them, including by reducing emissions of pollutants that are changing our climate.” That’s a total contradiction, unless you can comprehend the English language!

It’s ironic to see Anthony decrying censorship when his blog comment policy personifies it (and the mob justice he encourages).

A cool 50 million

A cool 50 million. Anthony Watts is very pleased with his web statistics. He wants you to think that “hits” mean something. In fact “hits” are a widely discredited, much like everything else Anthony shouts as proof against Global Warming. Hint: each time a web page loads every image, as well as many other items, counts as a hit. Anthony’s pages typically have at least 30 graphics each.

Wikipedia says that hits are “an inaccurate measure of a website’s popularity or web traffic.” says “Don’t use the term hits unless you want people to know you don’t know much about Web analytics or Web measurement.”

We touched on this a few days ago when denialist/internet genius Mike Lorrey tried to explain that feverish clicking meant the world was beating a path to Anthony’s door. Physicist Joe Romm, whom Anthony considers a deadly rival with his Climate Progress website, schools Anthony on the subject (again) better than I can, so just drop over for an enlightening chuckle. Anthony claims he’s “beating” Joe, but somehow Joe has 50 million hits in 2010 alone.

As usual when Anthony is trying to boast he likes to interrupt his character assassination and general polemics to make grand statements like “I’m really growing tired of the vociferous and voluminous name calling and people bashing, on both sides. It’s palpable.” Oh. My. God. You know what’s “palpable” Anthony? Your hypocrisy. You both encourage and participate in the ugliness.

Heidi Cullen doomcasts in new stemwinding sci-fi thriller

Heidi Cullen doomcasts in new stemwinding sci-fi thriller. How dare a weather girl write a speculative book about Global Warming? How dare ABC News or the New York Times review it? Only Anthony Watts knows the truth about the lies!

Dr. Heidi Cullen, previously at the Weather Channel and now CEO of Climate Central has a book out called The Weather of the Future: Heat Waves, Extreme Storms, and Other Scenes from a Climate-Changed Planet.

Oh, wait. Dr. Cullen has a doctorate in climatology and ocean-atmosphere dynamics. Anthony… doesn’t.

I’m honored…I think

I’m honored…I think“. Here’s another funny one from Anthony Watts. Virginia Heffernan has naïvely written in the New York Times about a controversy over disguised advertising on ScienceBlogs, which she claims “has become Fox News for the religion-baiting, peak-oil crowd”. Sounds like a someone’s got a nice fact-free agenda… She also makes a rather loose suggestion about some ‘sensible’ science websites:

For science that’s accessible but credible, steer clear of polarizing hatefests like atheist or eco-apocalypse blogs. Instead, check out and Anthony Watts’s blog, Watts Up With That?

Anthony loves the credibility bump, even though Scientific America is ‘dead to him’ for it’s awful, corrupt, lying support of the Global Warming orthodoxy (so are most natural history museums). Too bad Heffernan makes a very explicit retraction of her endorsement of Watts Up With That?:

One regret: the Watts blog. Virtually everyone who emailed me pointed out that it’s as axe-grinding as anything out there. I linked to it because has a lively voice; it’s detail-oriented and seemingly not snide; and, above all, it has some beautiful images I’d never seen before. I’m a stranger to the debates on science blogs, so I frankly didn’t recognize the weatherspeak on the blog as “denialist”; I didn’t even know about denialism. I’m don’t endorse the views on the Watts blog, and I’m extremely sorry the recommendation seemed ideological.

Anthony of course considers this proof that Heffernan succumbed to intellectual bullying from those nasty, hateful, lying scientists. Or is he just disappointed that a gullible newcomer with the correct political perspective has slipped through his fingers?

Tim Lambert over at Deltoid has a good overview: Post-modernism rides again at the New York Times.

McIntyre on Stephen Schneider

McIntyre on Stephen Schneider“. Anthony Watts copies-and-pastes a post by the thin-skinned curmudgeon Stephen McIntyre, who complains that Climatologist Stephen Schneider, the editor of the journal Climatic Change who recently passed away, didn’t regard his extended pestering as “genial”. Well, that’s an illuminating complaint, isn’t it? Too bad McIntyre didn’t raise the issue a year ago when Schneider was alive and able to respond.

Here’s a quote from Schneider last year that McIntyre objects to:

A serial abuser of legalistic attacks was Stephen McIntyre a statistician who had worked in Canada for a mining company.

McIntyre’s post starts as a half-hearted remembrance before devolving into another in an endless series of complaint about perceived ill-treatment. C for effort but E for execution, Stephen.

Comment of the week

Comment of the week: Anthony Watts thinks a goofy comment about the vileness of “academia” is worth making special note of. Note the incorrect punctuation and embrace of stereotype when Alexander Feht says:

I completely understand, why Christopher Monckton felt a need to make an example of a typical reprehensible representative of modern Academia.

So Watts Up With That is now officially anti-academic? An odd perspective for a “science” website.

Funny though, it’s Monckton’s response to Prof. Abraham’s analysis that is full of arm-waving bluster.