Anthony Watts' Phony, Selective Outrage
Anthony Watts, the proprietor of the well known climate skeptic blog, WUWT, seems to have a double standard on what constitutes an insult to ethnic groups.
Watts is making a big deal out of some recent comments by Timothy Wirth, a former U.S. senator and now the president of the UN Foundation, who reportedly said this during a recent conference call:
“[W]e have to–I think, again as I’ve suggested before–undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it. They’ve had pretty much of a free ride so far, and that time has got to stop.”
Watts and the right wing news outlet that is making hay out of Wirth’s comments, are disingenuously twisting the meaning of his words. Wirth is merely suggesting that climate skeptics should be more aggressively challenged on their claims, that’s all.
But Watts, a combat leader in the climate wars, puts his own spin on this for obvious partisan purposes:
Well yesterday, the former senator insulted the Jewish race with the tired old “denier” label, then set his foot on fire, then stuck it in his mouth trying to tell about half of the US population (according to recent polls) that he’s “coming after them” because they don’t share his opinion.
Please. People should be able to see through this for what it is.
Also, funny how Watts is offended on behalf of the “Jewish race” (interesting phrasing). Several days ago, Watts mentioned that he was “dismayed” by Lord Monckton’s recent use of Nazi imagery, in a post titled
Note to Lord Monckton: this isn’t helping
In that post, Watts wrote that
putting swastikas in planned public powerpoint presentations, and linking that by name to a person, is in my opinion, way over the top and in very bad form and totally hijacks and negates the important messages elsewhere in the presentation.
Evidently, such behavior doesn’t rise to the level of insult to Jewish people. It’s just “way over the top and in very bad form,” because it undermines the climate skeptic argument.
What’s very bad form is when partisan climate bloggers express phony, selective outrage.
Keith
The word “and” is not synonymous with the word “because”. Yes he should have been more forceful in criticizing Monckton and his weak apology.
Speaking of selective outrage…
Keith, if you’re going to go after folks like Anthony, you might help readers by noting that he is an example of a common phenomenon, that of noting the mote in the others’ eyes while ignoring the beam in his own.
Anthony is wrong on this–he was improperly selective and didn’t scale his criticism properly. But I’ve done the same thing on occasion, back when I was writing for the Examiner and perhaps even in the comments section of this weblog once or twice. You might pop on over to Eli Rabett’s hutch and check out his typical smears against skeptic scientists getting paid, undoubtedly to deflect criticism of a certain Mr. Hansen who is apparently cashing in on his climate cred…
I’ve also noticed that others are guilty of this heinous crime. Let me ask you honestly, Keith–do you think you’re clean enough to cast the first stone?
Lastly, although I disagree with Anthony on this (as I often have on other issues), I disagree more with your characterization of his two posts as phony. He is not.
The same wacky Watts who last year was claiming that skeptics would soon have to wear yellow badges (a la nazi yellow star of davids)
A distraction from the main point of that article which was Wirth’s statement that:
“we have to, I think, again as I’ve suggested before, undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it. They’ve had pretty much of a free ride so far, and that time has got to stop.”
Keith
May I ask you, which one has more power? which one has more influence…?
I find rhetoric like ‘agressive oprograms’ from powerful people, against people they disagree with quite (very) worrying, no pretense, no artificial concern, personally very worrying
For the record I think Moncton is primarily a (failed) politician, and I have no time for him, or his shownmanship. The Nazi thing was stupid,and offensive.. The sad thing is he may even have done it on purpose to get punbicity, then make a big apology, to get others to do the same.. Whatever he did/say or the reasons I have just contempt for his ‘tribalism’
I have attempted and continue to do so to engage in a civil manner with those with different opinions, even those that have hurled abise, if only so that they realise that their lazy (perhaps) pre-concepions of those they call deniers is inappropriate. I will continue to do so.
I was concerned, whan my Prime Minster started throwing around rhetoric like – Climate change denier, ‘flat-earther’ anti-science’ and double denier’ – along with rhetoric for ’50 days to save the planet’.
Anothe Minister of state made frequent use of the word deniers and ‘climate sabatouers’ quite worring considering the UK’s anti- terrorism laws. (he is now leader of the Labour Party)
So somewhat asyemtrical is it not…. !
vs bloggers with no funding and no poltical influence.
Would anybody here, consider me an ‘anti-science flate earther climate denier’… I hope not. neither should those in power.
powerful men calling for ‘agressive programs’ have a RESPONSIBILITY for that language… lest the least stable in society decide in their own what agressive means.. at the frustration for their political policies falling by the wayside.
Instead of custard pies, something more serious.
As background, Watts’s article also explained Wirth’s involvement – in Wirth’s own words – in the set up for Hansen’s famous circus act when they deliberately made the room as hot as possible for his presentation on AGW.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/25/bring-it-mr-wirth-a-challenge/#more-42203
Seems to be some very selective outrage all round. All a total distraction, and deliberately so. Once again, more confirmation that this issue has NOTHING to do with science.
I don’t see many agw supporters denouncing the term “denier” which is direct link to “holocaust deniers” which is certainly a lowering of the bar.
How’s that for selective hypocrisy on a far more vast scale??
Tom Fuller #2:
I don’t think Keith is calling Watts phony.
The way I read it, the title of his post is calling Watts “selective outrage” phony and not Watts himself.
I am reminded of Greenpeace ‘spinning away’ – their
communications directors words – We are many, and we know where you live’
Of course they removed the actual article and all the comments and tried to explain it away.. if you know gene, he is very nice , wouldn’t hurt a fly, etc,etc
However Gene’s twitterings about carrying a knife, didn’t really help convince many people. (reported in the Guardian)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/apr/06/greenpeace-gene-hashmi-climate-sceptics
May I ask what actions he is suggesting in his ‘agressive program’ ?
“Wirth is merely suggesting that climate skeptics should be more aggressively challenged on their claims, that’s all.”
Hi Keith, my first post here, hope you don’t mind me stopping by. Thanks for singling out the substantive part of the issue so concisely.
As far as I can see, the principle ‘claim’ sceptics make is that the IPCC is incorrect in making strong claims about the attribution of the increase in surface T from ~1900 to now whilst relying on interpretations of scientific claims which take insufficient account of the uncertainties involved.
If Tim Wirth wants to have sceptics challenged about that, bring it on, it’s not hard to demonstrate.
Or do you think that Wirth thinks sceptics are claiming something else?
Tom Fuller,
I’m sure Anthony appreciates you sticking up for his honor.
I’m still interested in what actions this ‘agressive program’ may take…
Stronly worded blog comments, letters to the editor, friendly chats ove tea and biscuitsetc,etc
or just empty rhetoric?
Cwon1 Says:
June 25th, 2011 at 3:42 pm I don’t see many agw supporters denouncing the term “denier” which is direct link to “holocaust deniers”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/denial.htm
Fake outrage is just so passé.
Interesting what happens here when we change one word:
“we have to, I think, again as I’ve suggested before, undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the Team, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it. They’ve had pretty much of a free ride so far, and that time has got to stop.”
“Interesting what happens here when we change one word
You believe plant stomata are a more accuarte indicator of CO2 levels than ice cores?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/
Or does disinformation by deniers not bother you
15. If we start listing cases of actual disinformation you wouldn’t be happy.
As to your specific point, we now know that there are problems with the apparent CO2 readings from ice cores so there is merit in looking at/for other proxies.
That isn’t ‘disinformation,’ that is scientific exploration.
So, I have no idea which might be more accurate. Nobody does yet.
And, since the current ice core data shows that CO2 lags temperature rises, I’m rather surprised you brought that inconvenient point up.
P.S. Another example of disinformation – your comment #3.
Dorlomin@15
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/tom-van-hoof-historical-co2-records/
#16
Ho-hum, that’s:http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm
That’s currently #12 on the list of long-debunked arguments:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
CO2 lags temperatures on ice-age exit, predicted ~1990 before they had the long ice-core records.
Nothing to see here. Move along
#18 – Sorry but I just don’t take the ramblings of cartoonists seriously.
http://wiki.sev.com.au/About-Us
“A cartoonist working from home in Brisbane, Australia…”
#17 – Very interesting site you have there, with some very interesting comments on that particular topic.
It is almost as if the debate is not over…
Watching Wirth and Gore come out this way, guns blazing, advocating heavier attacks on skeptics and on media that doesn’t toe the line to their satisfaction, I get a feeling of desperation on their part. America and much of the world is loosing interest in the alarmism. Wirth and Gore can see their leverage slipping away. The “thousands of peer reviewed papers” never really had anything to begin with and nothing is showing up to make the AGW case any stronger. The earth’s climate system is yearly making their case weaker. Poor Gore’s idea for making billions in the carbon trading business is falling on its face. The loud bark of the dog is a defensive measure.
John Mashey: “That’s currently #12 on the list of long-debunked arguments:”
Yes, long debunked by the desperate standards of the warmers. The claim being that the Milankovich cycles start the process, but they are weak, so CO2 kicks in after this start, and the effects of CO2 are strong. The whole problem with the argument is that temperature turns right around and starts back down while CO2 is still rising. If CO2 is so strong, then how can the temperature ignore the effect of CO2 that is still rising and turn right around and go down.
The debunk is debunked. Next.
Is this selective outrage or Keith’s attempt to get back into the same cocktail parties as Revkin.
Part of the program Wirth proposes is to have IPCC heavyweights like RayPierre Humbert Humbert threaten and reward members of the media into team compliance.
Mission Accomplished. 😉
Above is sarcasm mixed with cynicism. Watts and his site are a target rich environment for scorn as is the phony Revkin RealClimate sycophant.
KK @11, Well, I’ve defended you, Bart, Judith and others. Even Joe Romm. So why not Anthony?
Barry Woods Says:
June 25th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Mr. Woods. Your post was honest. The language beautiful. Congrats from Northern California, US.
EdG Says:
June 25th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
#18 ““ Sorry but I just don’t take the ramblings of cartoonists seriously.
= = = = =
“Watts also operates several companies that make weather graphics systems for use on television broadcasts”
First that is argumentum ad hominem. Secondly old bean, thats your own petard exploding under you.
As to your specific point, we now know that there are problems with the apparent CO2 readings from ice cores
No, you just imagine there are and all deluded into thinking a rambling blog on the topic is science.
That is why you are a denier, not one of the luke warmers who at least we can have a conversation about the real science with.
So Dorlomin##Am I a denier? just so we can get things straight?
I do seem to be unbanned form the Guardain – So presumably Leo Hickman would consider me to be a lukewarmer/sceptic..
There are reasonable questions about the Ice core record – not least that CO2 emission lag temperature by 800 years, even the BBC’s Roger Harrabin knows that, he got shouted at by Al Gore personally for asking that questions, and felt like a ‘climate sceptic traitor’
There are also reasonable questions about CO2 diffusion out of the ice (ie underestimating) plus the hostroic wet chemsirty methods by hundreds of scientists that put pre industrial CO2 levels much higher (ie 150-300 years ago) ie 330+ ppm CO2. Yet the IPCC chooese ice cores (over 17th18th, 19th century easurements)
I think they are reasonable ‘scientific’ questions…
So am I a denier?
Or if think the UK’s Energy policy is mad, does that make me a denier?
So am I a denier?
Yes, Your point caller?
Howard (24)
There’s no cocktail parties to “get back into,” since I’ve never been on anyone’s invite list to start with.
Tom (25)
I’d rather you be a straight shooter and call out BS, hypocritical rhetoric from both sides.
Barry Woods,
This post is about what Anthony Watts wrote, not you.
Anyone else care to address the substance of my post, or should I assume that Tom Gray (19) is speaking for skeptics when he says, “nothing to see here, move along”?
plus the hostroic wet chemsirty methods by hundreds of scientists that put pre industrial CO2 levels much higher (ie 150-300 years ago) ie 330+ ppm CO2.
For those interested here is the story of the Keeling Curve
Once meteorologists understood that ocean uptake was slow, they found it possible that CO2 levels had been rising, just as Callendar insisted.(35) Yet it was only a possibility, for the measurements were all dubious. By the mid 1950s, researchers were saying that it was important to measure, much more accurately, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.(36) A Scandinavian group accordingly set up a network of 15 measuring stations in their countries. Their only finding, however, was a high noise level. Their measurements apparently fluctuated from day to day as different air masses passed through, with differences between stations as high as a factor of two. Only much later was it recognized that their methods of analyzing the air had been inadequate, and responsible for much of the noise.(37) A leading authority summarized the scientific opinion of the late 1950s: “it seems almost hopeless to arrive at reliable estimates [of CO2]… by such measurements in limited areas.” To find if the gas level was changing, measurements would have to “be made concurrently and during a great number of years” at many locations
Link
You see simply being able to demand a question be answered does not one a skeptic make. Just someone to lazy to google the answers of their questions. It is not my mission to education the truculant, Sisyphus I am not. I can however expose there great questions as normally being non points, that is all that is required.
When they do not understand something they fill it with conspiracies rather than actually doing the leg work to earn an opinion worth listening too.
re 32
What my “Nothing to see here, move along” quote was about was the point that politicians act like politicians. The post seems surprised that politicians act like politicians. Mylarge point being that that the AGW issue is rife with politics. To call out Anthony Watts about being political when the entire IPCC process is an exercise in politics does seem to be rather pointless.
Take the example of Germany and nuclear power. What power source gives us the only reasonable prospect of de-carbonizing the economy? The answer is of course nuclear. However nuclear power is politically unacceptable since it is also the only way that present consumerist society that emphasizes individual consumption can survive. So remove the nukes and society will have to come to terms with less energy and the current consumerist society will wither away to be replaced, they hope, by what they see as a socially richer society.
AGW is the surface issue. A political desire for a different form of society is the basis. The AGW response is political and to accuse Watts or anyone else of being political in respect to AGW is to accuse a blade of grass of being green.
We have seen papers published in and excluded from prestigious journals because of the political implications of their findings. So science, as it is practiced by scientists, is political throughout. So, in respect to Anthony Watts, or anyone else in this issue, being political:
” Nothing to see here. Move along.”
Yes it is about Anthony…
Keith do YOU really think Anthony has phony outrage about this..
I think not, he is mereley reacting to a powerful man with considerable political influenxe – stating:
“undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers”
If I was a private Us citizen , running the indentified number one sceptical blog, which is charcatterised by the likes of Jo Romm, etc, as ‘denier centra’ –
my reaction would not be ‘phony’. I would be very concerned.. I would also like to know exactly what ‘agressive actions’ and what sort of ‘going after’ Wirth is talking about..
So is the only phony thing here, is people pretending that Anthony’s reaction is anything but his genuine feelings about this issue?
(sorry for typo’s – smartphone keyboard – bright sun and very small type – half time at my 7 year olds cricket match)
Re 32
kk writes
===================
I assume that Tom Gray (19) is speaking for skeptics when he says, “nothing to see here, move along”?
==================
There seems to be an impression that my opinion is that of a skeptic of climate science. I am not a skeptic of climate science. As I have written previously in contributions to this blog, I do not think that climat science is wrong. I think that it is useless in respect to the issue of AGW
About thirty years ago, climate science came up with a plausible hypothesis about AGW. At that time, climate science was not able to specify climate sensitivity with any accuracy. The range of sensitivities was compatible with futures that ranged from the benign to the disastrous. With thirty year of research to resolve the issue the state of the science is this: ” Climate science is not able to specify climate sensitivity with any accuracy. The range of sensitivities is compatible with futures that range from the benign to the disastrous.” In other words, climate science, in its current state, is useless as a guide to policy makers.
However that is not important since AGW is not a science issue. It is a political issue between parties who have different views on how society should be structured. Should it be based on the individual rights and consumption or should it be based on a compassionate social structure? Each side tries to show that its political preferences are not political preferences but the absolute truth revealed by the unblinking eye of science.
Climate science is not wrong. It is just useless.
I used to respect Keith Kloor’s blog because it seemed to be even-handed.
No more.
Trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill impacts Kloor’s credibility. Anthony Watts is an honorable man, and the constant attacks against his character are simply psychological projection ““ imputing one’s own faults onto another.
Keith Kloor has fallen in my estimation, and it will take a long time for him to regain any credibility after this ad hominem attack.
I really don’t see the difference in the paraphrasing. If I told someone that …”True Believers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it. They’ve had pretty much of a free ride so far, and that time has got to stop.”
I would pretty much be saying that I’m “coming after” True Believers.
I love the word “denier” that is pushed from the alarmist side as it shows how low they will go 🙂
-A proud denier.
Tom Gray,
You seem to be a regular reader, so like Tom Fuller should know, it should be evident that I’ve called BS on the rhetorical excesses and hypocrisy of the extreme wings of this debate. I’ve also done numerous posts on the Germany/Nuke situation.
Bottom line: not every post need meet some sort of equivalency criteria, in which the bad behavior of all sides is duly acknowledged. Remember this is a blog, so these posts are stand-alone snap shots, not a wide lens view. (Sometimes, I strive for that.)
So the substance of my post–whether it’s about something Anthony Watts, Joe Romm, Grist, Bishop Hill, the Guardian, or who ever wrote–should be enough for you to comment on.
The other-side-is-bad too, or everybody-is-guilty argument doesn’t wash. It just reveals your own tribalism when you won’t come out and criticize someone on your own side.
Barry (35),
Yes, I think Anthony is totally being phony and disingenuous with his post on Wirth. It is well documented that Monckton has a penchant for using Nazi/Fascist allusions in his diatribes. Can someone point me to a previous post when Anthony expressed his disapproval of such behavior?
And when he finally did voice his “dismay” at this a few days ago, I didn’t see anything about this being an insult to the “Jewish race.”
But Wirth’s use of the “denier” term rises to the level of insult to Jews. Please.
I call BS. And hypocrisy.
And Barry (36),
Put away the phone and watch your son’s cricket game.
Hmm, if there is a Jewish race, Eli will place his money on Marty Glickman (go look it up and while you are at it try the Conversation)
http://theconversation.edu.au/the-false-the-confused-and-the-mendacious-how-the-media-gets-it-wrong-on-climate-change-1558
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/2/greens-scientists-and-bad-people.html
They see the NSDAP everywhere they look.
Projecting a little too much, eh boys.
re 40
kk writes
================
Bottom line: not every post need meet some sort of equivalency criteria, in which the bad behavior of all sides is duly acknowledged. Remember this is a blog, so these posts are stand-alone snap shots, not a wide lens view. (Sometimes, I strive for that.)
=================
What I am really trying to get at is the need to accept that the AGW is political on all sides. There is nothing wrong with that except that people will not admit it. The other side are cheap politicians while my side is tied to the inerrant truth of science. Isn’t that obvious to everyone.
I don’t know about the US but here in Canada we were plagued fror a while with “evidence-based” policies. One could not argue with these political positions since they were backed by “peer reviewed research” and therefore indisputable.
Why is politics regarded as some sort of shameful secret? The AGW issue is political and populated by politicians. That would be a good thing if people just admitted it.
re 41 42 and teh rest
Numerologists in the ancient world used to be able to find that anyone they didn’t like had a name equal to 666 – the number of the beast. Of course, we moderns are beyond all such superstition.
40#
I disagree with monckton, in fact I dislike him, I would also agree with you. Anthony might have expressed his distaste with Monckton in a more stronger vein (as I have)
Yet…
Which has more, prestige, influence, power, money, etc… Monckton or Wirth?
Monctkon is a failed politician, a bit of a joke in the UK, with no money and very little political influence….
Wirth and Gore,have considerably more political power, influence and money behind them
Anthony may be wrong about Monckton, this does not mean he is being ‘phony’ about his opinions about Wirth..
as presumably Anthony feels that very influential politicians in the USA where he lives, with substantial influence, are calling for ‘an aggressive program to go after deniers’
If I was him I would consider this means they are going after Anthony and perhaps in a small way ME! (occasional guest author at WUWT,)
Keith: “The other-side-is-bad too, or everybody-is-guilty argument doesn’t wash. It just reveals your own tribalism when you won’t come out and criticize someone on your own side.”
So where are all the warmers critisizing Michael Mann for clearly using proxy data upside down – now for a third time. I don’t hear a peep. Did you post on this Keith? That would seem to me to be an order of magnitude more important than Anthony expressing his frustration at Wirth. Talk about tribalism.
“What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” ““ Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)
Does anyone believe that the term “denier”, that was picked out to be used by the warmers against the skeptics, was an accident? Of course it was deliberately selected in order to smear the skeptics, by verbal association, with the infamy of the holocaust deniers. It’s just one more cheap political ploy of the warmers, much like Wirth making sure that he had a steaming hot room set up for the Hansen testimony. If “the science” is so conclusive, why the need for all the cheap tricks.
dolormin: “The same wacky Watts who last year was claiming that skeptics would soon have to wear yellow badges (a la nazi yellow star of davids)”
The same wacky dolormin who takes things out of context and then acts as if he has something when he has nothing?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/22/the-blacklist-of-climate-science/
Hiya Keith,
Look. This is one of my favorite blogs period, let alone climate blogs. I’m not trying to pick a fight. As for suggesting a false equivalency, let’s see where that goes.
Watts was wrong on the issue, as I mentioned above. Monckton is a farce and skeptics should figure out a way to walk away from him.
Wirth isn’t much better, so maybe Watts should have just suggested a climate buffoon cage match, or at least round one of several hundred such he could write about.
But to impute ‘phoniness’ to Watts on this implies a better understanding of the man than I think you have. He rather ostentatiously moved your bloglink from Lukewarmer to AGW hell, if I recall, after getting angry with you. He was wrong there too, as I told him.
He gets attacked a lot. He reacts. I got about one tenth the vitriol he receives in my days as an Examiner, and I understand if he occasionally gets pissed off. I did, too. I also understand if he blows a call once in a while. I did, too.
By using good management and good judgement you have successfully avoided being tarred by either side with the brush of non-belief in core tenets of either the consensus or skeptic brigades. That takes a lot–I don’t know anyone else who has escaped that fate.
I think Anthony Watts is wrong on many key areas of climate science. I think he doesn’t have the chops to say many of the things he does. I think he loses his temper in print. I think he is political in the sense that he knows which side he is on and published material that supports it and slams material which opposes it.
I also think he’s an honest guy doing the best he can to advocate his position in a media that didn’t exist when he was 50. I think he performed an extremely valuable service in organising the volunteers to photomap the weather stations–exactly the right level of response for someone without scientific training but adequate technical knowledge of a specific field. And he’s never received the appropriate level of thanks and congratulations for that.
And I do not believe his responses are phony or manufactured. I think they rush to print unfiltered. And singling him out for that seems strange, as we both see so many others guilty of the same offence. Because I’m one of them, perhaps it’s easier for me to see.
@Tilo Reber
From you link
“What next? Will we have to wear yellow badges to climate science conferences?”
Clicking the link on yellow badges leads too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge
Your point?
dorlomin: “Fake outrage is just so passé.”
And using the word passe is both passe and pretentious.
Tom Fuller:
What makes Watts a buffoon and a phony is his affinity and promotion for any and all half-assed anti-AGW “theories”, his allowance of nutjob comments on his moderated blog and his promotion of Monckton and Beck. In this way, he has managed to erase all the good from the surface station project. WUWT has evolved into a denier-conspiracy circle-jerk. Being the McDonalds of (junk) science blogs, it is probably a decent money-maker for him and others (like yourself) who promote their books that are gobbled up by his moronic fans.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why you back up Watts’ smelly dumps.
dorlomin: “You see simply being able to demand a question be answered does not one a skeptic make. Just someone to lazy to google the answers of their questions.”
I find it funny that you would consider a discussion about daily measurements of CO2 being relevant to somatal data. Somatal data is not formed on a daily basis, so this thing that you found has no relevance. What is important is that the level of mixing of CO2 that happens in ice cores serves the effect of smoothing the data on a multi century level. This means that if a CO2 spike of the kind that we see today did happen, an ice core would never be able to record it because of the smoothing that it does by mixing gases from a wide range of time. Beyond that the problems that are suffered by ice cores as a result of massive decompression, ice cracking, exposure to atmosphere and to drilling fluids is well know – apparently to everyone but you. Here is one to get you started.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2005.00154.x/abstract
Howard: “In this way, he has managed to erase all the good from the surface station project. WUWT has evolved into a denier-conspiracy circle-jerk. ”
Funny, I never see you at WUWT showing how the many articles that are about the science are wrong. Maybe you could give me a link to some of your comments there. Or is venom and hot air all you’ve got?
Tilo Reber Says:
June 26th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
I find it funny that you would consider a discussion about daily measurements of CO2 being relevant to somatal data.
But here is the quote from Barry Woods I was responding too
plus the hostroic wet chemsirty methods by hundreds of scientists that put pre industrial CO2 levels much higher (ie 150-300 years ago) ie 330+ ppm CO2.
So you find it funny that I would respond to a discussion on somata
with coments about daily measurements? Is it still funny when I show my comment was directly addressing the difficulties in daily measurements in response to a point about individual measurements back in the 19th century? Care to explain the humour there….
dorlomin: Your point?
Same as it was before. In what kind of excruciating detail do I have to explain it to you before you understand? The context of the article is critical. The article is all about the black listing of skeptics. In that context the yellow badge reference is hyperbolic, as it was meant to be and as everyone but you understands it to be, but it is nevertheless relevant because of the direction that is pointed to by the act of blacklisting skeptics.
Do you understand or do you need it in baby talk?
Keith, this post baffles me. I get saying Watts is hypocritical, wrong, or anything like that, but that isn’t what happened here. Instead of simply addressing what Watts said, you then went on to make claims about his motivation. You claim his outrage is “phony.” You basically are saying he didn’t feel the way he says he feels. That’s ridiculous. You’re accusing Watts of dishonesty without the slightest shred of evidence.
If you’re a mind-reader, and you know Watts didn’t feel outraged, you ought to tell us. Otherwise, you’re going overboard with your criticism.
dorlomin: “Is it still funny when I show my comment was directly addressing the difficulties in daily measurements in response to a point about individual measurements back in the 19th century?”
Yes, it’s still funny. You brought up stomata in #15 and you told EdG with regard to ice core problems: “No, you just imagine there are and all deluded into thinking a rambling blog on the topic is science.” So I just regard your post at #33 as being a part of the total discussion. In any case, the chemical measurements of the 19th century that showed higher levels of CO2 than the ice core record were not individual measurements. They were series of measurements, taken over long periods of time. The Mauna Loa data is also just single samples taken at points in time and averaged over a month. So your example is still irrelevant.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v4655l63w6342p84/
And with regard to the ice core data, its gas mixing problems still means that it gives you a multi-century smoothed result that would not be able to show the kind of rise we see in the current record.
52# – I do think your comments rather say more about yourself than sceptics
“WUWT has evolved into a denier-conspiracy circle-jerk.” , etc
Here is an example of a civilsed debate/chat, between a IPCC climate scientist (Met Office Richard Betts) Mark Lynas (who custard pied Bjorn Lombord and wrote 6 Degrees, and who is also the Maldives Climate Change Advisor, shall we say pro AGW 😉 )
and Andrew Montford -Bishop Hill – author ‘The Hockey Stick illusion’
All at Twitter:
http://twitter.com/#!/richardabetts
One or 2 other climate scientists contribute, and Ben Pile – Climate Resistance, is making jokes with Mark about vested solar interests, all very good natured
http://twitter.com/#!/mark_lynas
Have a read and see how civilised adults behave even those that disagree with each other.
Richard Betts: (Climate scientist, Met Office Hadley Centre. One of many lead authors on IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (WG2 – Terrestrial Systems chapter).
Richard: “BTW anyone know what “IPCC consensus” actually is? I’m a lead author on AR4 & AR5 and nobody ever asked whether I agree with the whole thing”
“I agree RT @flimsin I think @Adissentient discusses climate with me & @richardabetts without hysteria and want to encourage discussions.”
Can we have that type of discussion here, Dorlomin, Howard?
I’m not being phony when I say being called a denier, hardly helps goodwill and the debate.
Howard @52, really happy to see that the level of discourse has maintained its lofty level. Carry on!
Tilo Reber
In that context the yellow badge reference is hyperbolic,
Thank you very much. Thats the ticket. Admit your polluting the debate with hyperbole about the holocaust. You think the holocaust is a subject to be made light off. To be used as and when it is politically convinient.
I just regard your post at #33 as being a part of the total discussion
No you just did not read the post you were responding to and found it funny because you did not understand what was being said. This explains the level of analysis your kind are prepared to apply, you shoot off on assumptions when all you have to do is read a few dozen words. Now you wonder why you are given so little respect.
Thank you for posting. Its been a great help in showing your side up.
Brandon,
As usual, your comments baffle me. You failed to follow the logic of my post, or you just don’t understand it. Either way, based on the history of our past exchanges, it’s not worth wasting my time trying to make it clearer for you.
Tom (49):
I stand by what I said in my post. Watt’s outrage on Wirth is phony. Unless you’re telling me he’s not smart enough to understand what Wirth was saying–and I don’t think you would say that–I can only conclude that he’s deliberately twisted–for partisan purposes– what Wirth meant.
And then, after merely being “dismayed” by Monckton’s atrocious behavior, Watts has the nerve to say he found Wirth’s use of the “denier” term an insult to the “Jewish race.”
Hyp-o-crisy.
And the faithful choir at WUWT laps it up. There’s over 300 comments on that thread and not a single one of them can take their blinders off and see through his cynical post.
Sorry, but your entreaties on Watts’ behalf fall flat with me. He’s got one of the most widely read climate blogs. Why wouldn’t I single out such rank hypocrisy when I see it?
I don’t pull punches on this blog–not with anybody.
That’s why why the rabbets, romms, deltoids, watts, Id’s, et al love me so much. 🙂
I might have a comment stuck in a spam filter, more than 2 links..
If you follow them some very civilised debate (twittering, between an IPCC Lead Author Ar4 & AR5, Met Office Richard Betts, Andrew Montford Bishop Hill, @Adissentient) and Mark Lynas (who custard pied Bjorn Lomborg, author 6 Degrees and the Maldives Climate Change Advisor)
Quite a broad cross-section… hope that level of civilised debate could continue here.
Keith Kloor, you say I “failed to follow the logic of [your] post, or [I] just don’t understand it.” I disagree. I think I understood you perfectly, and I think you were wrong to use the word “phony.” You can think discussing this would be a waste of time and not respond if you’d like, but your impression of me is quite incorrect, and choosing not to speak to me can only reinforce your misjudgment.
Incidentally, your response is peculiar. The point I raised is the exact same point Tom Fuller raised, yet you responded to him far differently. Both of us have said you are wrong to attribute malign motives to what is simply a case of being wrong. The only defense you’ve offered for your attribution is:
Unless you’re telling me he’s not smart enough to understand what Wirth was saying…
It doesn’t matter how smart Watts is. People, smart or not, can make mistakes, especially when they feel attacked. I can’t speak for Tom Fuller, but I personally think Watts is smart enough to understand what Wirth meant. I also think he is human enough to make a mistake and read too much into Wirth’s remarks.
I say he’s human and makes mistakes. You say he’s dishonest.
Brandon,
You’re just being argumentative for argument sake. (That is your MO based on history of comments on this site). That’s why it’s so tedious engaging with you.
Let me repeat: Watts’ outrage regarding what Wirth said is a phony as a three dollar bill. I don’t have to be a mind reader to see that.
He also has a case of selective (phony) outrage on behalf of the “Jewish race.”
If he would like to defend himself against this charge, he’s more than welcome to come on this blog. I also left a comment with a link to this post over at his place. He didn’t respond.
dorlomin: “You think the holocaust is a subject to be made light off.”
Apparently you and your “kind” do when you use the word “denier”.
dorlomin: “No you just did not read the post you were responding to and found it funny because you did not understand what was being said.”
As usual, you are deeply confused. I read all your posts before I posted to you. Had you though about it for 2 seconds this might have occured to you since I talked about stomatal data and since you were the one that brought it up first in your earlier post.
dorlomin: “Its been a great help in showing your side up.”
ROFL. You look as absurd as the laterne rouge climbing to the top step of the podium. You folded like a house of cards on every scientific issue and now you’re trying to rescue your damaged ego based on a discussion proceedure that you have twisted to suit your need.
Eli Rabett Says:
June 26th, 2011 at 9:38 am
Hmm, if there is a Jewish race, Eli will place his money on Marty Glickman (go look it up and while you are at it try the Conversation)
http://theconversation.edu.au/the-false-the-confused-and-the-mendacious-how-the-media-gets-it-wrong-on-climate-change-1558
Rabett – while normally, I tend to ignore people who refer to themselves in 3rd person, Marty Glickman made the 1936 US Olympic team as a sprinter but the anti-Semitic chairman of the US Olympic Committee, Avery Brundage made the U.S. replace Glickman in the 4 x 100 relay to appease Hitler.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marty_Glickman
P.S. You made a funny!
Tilo:
I don’t comment at FreeRepublic either. Debate with nutters is the definition of insanity. WUWT is a good source of comedy, however.
You must be the posterboy for lofty discourse Tom Fuller speaks of. As idiotic as your posts are, you are at the apex in reasonableness of WQUWT commentators.
As far as denier goes, you should own it like Richard Lindzen does. The phony, self-serving, cynical victimology based on every other word in the English language being linked to Nazi’s is beyond pathetic.
Keith Kloor, I am not arguing just for argument’s sake, and I am offended you accuse me of such (and say it is my MO). Rather than address what I said, you accuse me of dishonesty. There is no basis for this accusation, and you couldn’t possibly know it to be true.
The only redeeming part of this is your baseless accusation of me being dishonest was made while you avoided addressing your baseless accusation of dishonesty leveled against Watts. You are humorously consistent.
For the record, I don’t like posting on blogs. I don’t want to argue here, and I certainly don’t want to argue just for argument’s sake. I saw a mistake you made which impugned a person’s integrity, and I sought to have it corrected. I wouldn’t have posted again except I felt misrepresented by your response to me. This means, not only did you make something up about me, what you made up was the exact opposite of the truth.
As a final note, there is a striking parallel between what you are doing and what Watts did. You should take to heart this fact: I’m saying you’re wrong; I’m not saying you’re dishonest.
Tilo Reber
I read all your posts before I posted to you
No you did not read the post you were responding too. You have all but admitted that. You read earlier posts and jumped to conclusions. Its embarrassing.
Apparently you and your “kind” do when you use the word “denier”.
So you are happy to make light of the holocaust. This is alright, we understand you have no grasp of its seriousness. But you still try to trade on the holocaust to make a non point about being a denier.
Re 32. Keith Kloor Says:
“Anyone else care to address the substance of my post, or should I assume that Tom Gray (19) is speaking for skeptics when he says, “nothing to see here, move along”?”
Well I don’t see much of substance here. Much ado about nothing.
But in the department of irony, I do wonder if you thought much about this when you wrote it:
“What’s very bad form is when partisan climate bloggers express phony, selective outrage.”
The only thing that does deserve any genuine outrage was Wirth’s comment but that didn’t seem to get selected here.
To clarify my #69, this is the comment from Wirth which I find more than slightly outrageous:
“we have to, I think, again as I’ve suggested before, undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it. They’ve had pretty much of a free ride so far, and that time has got to stop.”
I also find the use of the term ‘denier’ in this context offensive but mostly because it is the wrong word. Nobody denies an unproven and shaky theory/hypothesis/conjecture… whatever you want to call AGW. They question them. Questioning and denying are two different things. If this was about real science, nobody would be using the word denier at all… but they are.
> For the record, I don’t like posting on blogs.
It shows.
Keith, I think you would profit by remembering the different approaches people take when they get in the blogging business.
At the end of the day, they will be judged on accuracy and integrity. But not everyone that blogs has a journalistic background, and they may not feel the need to maintain a level of consistency in approach to what they post about.
Obviously that’s what I think happened with Watts between his posts on Wirth and Monckton. Obviously the disparity in intensity is more important to you than to me. I would venture to guess his reaction to Monckton is more embarrassment at the harm he does to his cause than anything else. I think he was truly (and too) angry at Wirth to sit back and take a more measured approach.
But it’s a big blogosphere, and I think there’s room for more than one approach to it. Not that it matters, but I rarely comment at WUWT, and I like to comment here. And I get all nostalgic for the frenzied folk like Howard, as I don’t have time to do it as often as I used to.
Tom:
You do indeed have a financial relationship with Watts, right? Your denier bible is still advertized on the #1 denier site. It’s hard not to make the connection to your reliable support .
In any event, WUWT is a denier enabler site which feeds the most ridiculous pseudo-science to cheering crowds. These folks are your readers, no?
I agree completely with Wirth’s political tactic. It is textbook politics 1A. He wants to paint all skeptics of CAGW with the ignorant stink of the Watts morons to discredit rational opposition to IPCC consensus.
Watts is defending the paper thin self esteem of his client base, which is obviously so deeply hypocritical which even Keith 😉 can spot. Your defense of Watts is either due to your own stupidity and ignorance or a business decision.
The funny thing is that I disagree with Michael Tobis way (way!) more than you on CAGW. However, I have mountains of more respect for MT as a man because with him, what you see is what you get.
Howard (74):
…And “even Keith” can spot flaming for the sake of flaming. Turn it down a few notches, please.
dorlomin: “No you did not read the post you were responding too.”
You are as absurd as it’s possible to get. Babble on.
Umm, Howard, hate to disabuse you, but no, I have no financial relationship with Anthony Watts. He has never charged me for advertising our book and he has never paid me for guest posting on his site. Given the level of disagreement between his and my view of the science, I doubt if he would have ever been in the mood to pay very much, but I don’t think either guest posters or even moderators get paid. (Of course, maybe I’m the only one who never got paid! I never thought of that! Was the denier bible really the denier bubble and I’m the one who got shorted…?)
I hope the rest of your reasoning is a cut above that, as otherwise you might fall into error, and that just wouldn’t do for such an ardent bearer of the torch.
And why are your possible characterizations of me presented as mutually exclusive? Isn’t possible that I could be stupid, ignorant and greedy? I’m insulted that you should think me so limited in scope…
We had a board of supervisors meeting here in N. California a few days ago. Developing a “Climate Action Plan” was on the agenda. When the discussion started, people in the audience i.e. taxpayers openly laughed at the supervisors who were pushing for immediate action.
Laughter has replaced doubt here in the land of the silicon chip and microprocessor as more and more highly educated people are reading and talking to friends and realizing what a bunch of rubbish the likes of Al Gore and James Hansen have been peddling all these years.
It’s clear to me that absolute belief in “global warming” is a form of religious expression and has nothing to do with science. Believing in the religion of global warming is a lazy way for people to fool themselves into thinking that they are doing something wonderful for the planet. I don’t care if people fool themselves all day long but if a fascist like Mr. Wirth thinks he will get away with “going after” people who disagree with his religious dogma then he is sadly mistaken.
Of course it’s a religion. Environmentalism in general is about Man’s sins, middle class white guilt, and the end of the world. Just the latest secular cult. A perfect vehicle for social snobbery as well – just look at Gore and Planet Hollywood.
But I doubt Wirth meant “going after” people in a violent way, or even trying to have them lockep up or suppressed.
Tom: “Of course, maybe I’m the only one who never got paid!”
LOL. You’re not the Lone Ranger, I never got paid either.
Ahh, Tilo, the things we do for glory and fame…
Anthony has a merit pay policy, apparently.
So, Keith, since you’ve started this thread Anthony has posted a statement by the UK Geological Society, apparently at their request. It gave rise to an interesting discussion about how Milankovitch cycles are suppose to be the catalist for CO2 rise which in turn takes over and pushes the temperature higher. But none of the defenders of the faith, who Anthony has given an open floor, seem to be able to explain why temperature then reverses itself and goes down while CO2 is still rising steeply. It seems to contradict the warmer notion of a weak Milankovitch forcing and a strong CO2 forcing.
Then Watts presented the findings of a new paper that shows that global tropical cyclone activity is at its lowest since 1977. So while you are here discussing Watts bad intentions, Watts is having multiple discussions on “the science”. Do you ever discuss “the science” here Keith or do you just look into the evil souls of the deniers and expose their malevolence.
keith:
“Let me repeat: Watts’ outrage regarding what Wirth said is a phony as a three dollar bill. I don’t have to be a mind reader to see that.”
Keith, I would hazard that I know Anthony better than anyone here. Even Tom. Since Dec 2007 I’ve met him in person several times, talked with him at length, argued with him many times, and I think his outrage is genuine and misplaced. There are other similar incidents that all share a common emotion. I’ll leave it at that.
Keith: “Hyp-o-crisy. And the faithful choir at WUWT laps it up. There’s over 300 comments on that thread and not a single one of them can take their blinders off and see through his cynical post.”
I’m sure that Watts was genuinely annoyed at Wirth’s comments, but also that he cynically preferred to misunderstand that Wirth was talking about challenging climate sceptics on their claims.
Watts has very finely tuned populist instincts, and he knows the sort of thing that will rouse the troops to their usual heights of invective.
The tactic is to raise an issue, give the troops a nod and a wink, and off they go. Watts can then claim clean personal hands and boast of his virtue in not censoring posters’ opinions, when those opinions just happen to demonise his enemies as ecofascists, greenshirts etc.
So yes, hypocrisy. None of this would matter so much if Watts had not attempted to take the high moral ground in the climate debate, with his (and his troops) boasts about civility, openness etc. If he’s going to claim a virtue, he needs to display it consistently, and not just when it’s convenient.
# Bill Says:
June 27th, 2011 at 12:20 am
Of course it’s a religion.
Just the latest secular cult.
Now who taught them that little line?
http://www.creationists.org/evolutionism-is-a-religion.html
64 Keith Kloor Says:
June 26th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
If he would like to defend himself against this charge, he’s more than welcome to come on this blog. I also left a comment with a link to this post over at his place. He didn’t respond.
Keith, he’s busy gearing up to travel to the ICCC conference. And anyway, “defend himself against this charge”? What ‘charge’?
Nobody has to defend themselves against the mind-reading of others, and I hardly think he’ll feel the need to visit a kangeroo court to do that.
In my opinion, you’d be better off addressing the substantive issue you concisely singled out, and to which I responded at #10
But none of the defenders of the faith, who Anthony has given an open floor, seem to be able to explain why temperature then reverses itself and goes down while CO2 is still rising steeply.
Do we really have to go through the “blanket” analogy again?
Hold a little electric heater. Wrap yourself in a blanket.
You’ll be much warmer than if you didn’t have the blanket, even if the heater is very weak.
Now switch off the heater.
You’ll get cooler more slowly than if you didn’t have the blanket, but you will still cool down. The blanket doesn’t magically produce heat, it simply retains existing heat.
Similarly, CO2 doesn’t produce any energy byf itself. It simply slows the rate at which energy flies off to space. Just like a blanket.
To make the analogy more precise, you would need a special blanket that grows thicker and stronger with higher temperatures. The reasoning remains the same: if the actual source of heat is switched off, you will eventually cool down, no matter what.
87 Toto
Thanks for explaining how the heater, (the sun), controls the blanket thickness and temperature. Just try to to remember that most of the greenhouse effect is created by water vapour, and solar activity controls the levels of that in the atmosphere too. Also that water vapour latitudinal distribution affects the rate of energy transfer between the ocean and atmosphere. The magnitude of that effect as the jets streams shift latitude in response to variation in global temperature reduces the effect of co2 increase to noise in the data.
Rog (88),
You drinking the same kool aid as everyone else on that WUWT thread or just wearing the same blinders?
Keith 91
Take a read through my responses on that thread, and consider my response #10 on yours.
Whatever the merit or otherwise of my own working hypothesis concerning climate, the basic point about uncertainty stands.
And I’m not asking anyone to fund my work or expecting drastic changes to anyones economies or lifestyles on the strength (or lack of it) of my assertions. Unlike Mr Wirth, who says:
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. “
Ends justify means arguments don’t wash, especially when they condone and advance attacks on science.
KK #91,
What was the purpose of that comment to Rog at #88?
From what I see, Tallbloke had at that point addressed you twice in this thread. Both times in a reasonable manner. Are you really so incapable of engaging him on his remarks that you have to reply by attacking him with an innuendo laden query? Is that the way journalists are taught to influence people?
Here is a book you might consider reading to aid in your ongoing struggle to develop interpersonal skills. From what I see it certainly couldn’t hurt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People
Rog (and Bob Koss),
Your #10 comment here had nothing to do with my post. It did not address my criticism of Watts, his willful distortion of Wirth’s words, nor his phony bit about it being an insult to Jews.
So, like almost everyone else on this thread who defends Watts, your tribal allegiance causes you to conveniently overlook the obvious.
Why would would I engage with you if you’re not going to bother engaging with my post?
@74
I’d be curious to hear what your disagreements are with MT on climate change…
toto: “The reasoning remains the same: if the actual source of heat is switched off, you will eventually cool down, no matter what.”
The source of the heat is the sun. So now you are switching off the sun?
Mr. B (86):
Well said, and I will grant this much (my emphasis):
“I’m sure that Watts was genuinely annoyed at Wirth’s comments, but also that he cynically preferred to misunderstand that Wirth was talking about challenging climate sceptics on their claims.”
And you make an excellent observation here:
“None of this would matter so much if Watts had not attempted to take the high moral ground in the climate debate, with his (and his troops) boasts about civility, openness etc. If he’s going to claim a virtue, he needs to display it consistently, and not just when it’s convenient.”
From the New York Times at
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/opinion/sunday/26ideas.html?_r=1
This story is relevant to the issue of political advocacy in scientific research and on methods that can be used to deal with research that has been tainted by it.
The story is about the difficulty in finding scientists to do replication studies and eh difficulty in even getting important replication studies published if they are done.
From the story
==============
<blockquote>But perhaps not forever. Ian Lipkin, a virologist at Columbia University who is renowned in scientific circles for discovering new viruses behind mysterious outbreaks, is also known for doing what he calls “de-discovery”: intensely scrutinizing controversial claims about diseases.
Last September, Mr. Lipkin laid out several tips for effective de-discovery in the journal Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. He recommended engaging other scientists “” including those who published the original findings “” as well as any relevant advocacy groups (like those for people suffering from the disease in question). Together, everyone must agree on a rigorous series of steps for the experiment. Each laboratory then carries out the same test, and then all the results are gathered together.
At the request of the National Institutes of Health, Mr. Lipkin is running just such a project with Ms. Mikovits and other researchers to test the link between viruses and chronic fatigue, based on a large-scale study of 300 subjects. He expects results by the end of this year.
==========</blockquote>
So scientific audits are being performed and being called “de-discovery” in these fields. There is even a published protocol for doing this sort of work. Perhaps this is something that a re-configured IPCC could be doing. They could commission audit or de-discovery studies of controversial claims in climate science. Do bristle cones matter? The study could be commissioned and the results published for use by policymakers. Perhaps this would help remove the political advocacy from climate science
Keith Kloor Says:
June 27th, 2011 at 9:28 am
Rog (and Bob Koss),
Your #10 comment here had nothing to do with my post. It did not address my criticism of Watts, his willful distortion of Wirth’s words,
Wirth himself doesn’t make clear what he means by:
“[W]e have to”“I think, again as I’ve suggested before”“undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it. They’ve had pretty much of a free ride so far, and that time has got to stop.”
On the face of it, it looks like more than your:
“Wirth is merely suggesting that climate skeptics should be more aggressively challenged on their claims, that’s all.”
In order to reconcile the discrepancy I perceive, my comment at #10 was asking you what you think Wirth thinks sceptics are claiming, which led you to put his words in this charitable light. You have avoided that question by complaining that I don’t address *your characterisation* of Watts’ complaint about the (holocaust)’denier’ tag. I will address it now, in the hope that you will in turn address my question about *your characterisation* of what Wirth meant by what he said that Anthony objected to.
I observe that if those of the proponents of the AGW hypothesis who employ ad hominem didn’t use this slur, and the associated imagery of ‘death trains’ etc (which makes the reference unmistakeable), then Anthony Watts wouldn’t find himself in the unfortunate position of getting himself entangled while explaining why he finds it so distasteful.
There, I have engaged with both aspects of your post, i.e. your criticicm of Watts and your defence of Wirth. Please now engage with my question about your defence of Wirth.
Thanks
re 97
kk quote somebody as writing
===============
“None of this would matter so much if Watts had not attempted to take the high moral ground in the climate debate, with his (and his troops) boasts about civility, openness etc. If he’s going to claim a virtue, he needs to display it consistently, and not just when it’s convenient.”
==============
Why single out Anthony Watts for this? How many times have we read climate scientists claiming the high moral ground of science. They are not engaging in political advocacy they are just doing science and the next flight of pigs to Heathrowe will leave at 10am.
Why is” politicians being political” a bad thing? I suppose that it is bad when they claim to not be politicians. The AGW issue is political and will be decided politically. The major philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend noted that this is true for all scientific issues. They are decided not by political means using political techniques. My opinion is we should just accept that and get on with dealing with the issue using feasible techniques and not fool ourselves with unworkable ideals.
Science is political which leads to the syllogism
Scientists act like politicians
Anthony Watts acts like a politician
Anthony Watts acts like a scientist
QED
Rog (99):
First off, I’m not defending Wirth’s statement or his use of the “denier” term. Perhaps you’re new to my blog, so you might want to get up to speed on where I stand on that.
What I said is that Watts willfully misrepresented the meaning of Wirth’s statement. I believe Wirth was inarticulately saying that climate skeptics need to be challenged more aggressively, along the lines of what some websites like Skeptical Science do.
To impute otherwise is a big stretch. I suppose it’s not a stretch to those who like to play the victim card, and to those who want to stoke the partisan fires of the climate debate.
BTW, you have avoided the issue of Watts hypocrisy–him claiming that Wirth’s use of the term “denier” is an insult to the “Jewish race.”
I didn’t see Watts say any such thing in his disapproving post of Monckton (for his use of Nazi imagery), did you?
I guess we can take heart that Watts was at least “dismayed” by it.
Keith Kloor Says:
June 27th, 2011 at 10:29 am
I believe Wirth was inarticulately saying that climate skeptics need to be challenged more aggressively, along the lines of what some websites like Skeptical Science do.
Thanks for your response. Wirth clearly doesn’t believe the AGW hypothesis proven, or even proveable:
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. “
Therefore I doubt your charitable interpretation of his words is correct. For With it is a matter of a political battle, not a scientific debate. I suspect that for him “go after” means discredit, by whatever means available. You are supporting him in that.
Keith says:
you have avoided the issue of Watts hypocrisy”“him claiming that Wirth’s use of the term “denier” is an insult to the “Jewish race.”
I didn’t see Watts say any such thing in his disapproving post of Monckton (for his use of Nazi imagery), did you?
I guess we can take heart that Watts was at least “dismayed” by it.
Yes. Anthony Watts usually avoids and discourages religious and racial references on his site. The Wirth statement obviously rattled him more than usual. I understood Monckton’s pre-conceived ploy of going over the top with the Nazi imagery followed by an apology as his political device to engender disapproval of those on the other side who also use Nazi imagery (deniers, death trains) and who <b>never</b> apologise for it.
Rog, you claim Wirth’s larger aims are political (I would say they are both scientific and political), then you add this (my emphasis):
“I suspect that for him ‘go after’ means discredit, by whatever means available. You are supporting him in that.
You reveal yourself there, in that you are no better than Watts. You also clearly are not familiar with my blog, for I have strongly criticized such tactics–many, many times–be they from the climate skeptic side or the AGW side.
The dissembling and annoyance you and your fellow climate skeptics have displayed here is the mirror treatment of what I receive from ardent defenders of Joe Romm, who get equally pissed off when I call attention to his ugly tactics.
That’s why I find WUWT and CP (and the loyalists who view their respective combat leaders with rose colored glasses) to be two sides of the same coin.
Keith I’m at a loss..
What do you think Wirth meant, by ‘an agressive program to go after’
I do not mean to sound flippant, I just would like to know your interpretation of it. As mine is obviously different,
then can we have the nice Keith Kloor please that isn’t normally so snappy 😉
I also understand where you are coming from now, environmentally, thanks to the Archealogy piece. No one like to se natural beauty besmirched, but not all ‘ sceptics’ are with big oil..
My 6 year old daughter has made another appearance today in my local newspaper, as part of the schools eco team, all about reducing energy and conservation in the school. She wears a little badge with Eco-Team on it proudly at school. I’m very proud of her, the even gave a whole school assembly…
Yet, she came home once wqhen she was 5, from school ‘crying’ about the Polar bears are dying, because of humans’, (WWF related) all I just said was some scientists think that, others think the are going to be OK.. Sad thing to me is she said to me, don’t say that to anyone else’
I don’t want her to grew up in the worls, where Daddy is labelled a’ climate change denier’ by lobby groups with political agendas.
I’m with Lomborg, maybe we should save a few bulltes, and stop shooting hundreds a year to cull them, then I’ll wory about CO2…
And there was nothing phony about my anger, with my schools involvement with the 10:10 campaign, go home fro school (infants – 4 – 7) innocently google 10:10 come across that video with some celebs in, must be safe to watch think the parents.
Maybe it is time to move on, and get back to normal sevice around here..
Keith 103
I realised pretty much as soon as I submitted the comment that you wouldn’t like that, and that it wasn’t capturing what I meant because it was too elliptical. I should have said
” You are supporting him in that, however unwittingly”.
It’s all grist to Wirth’s mill. There’s nothing scientific about his approach.
Anyway, I apologise to you Keith, for unintentionally implying that apart from your own stance which ‘positions’ you in the climate debate in general, you were actively taking sides in this case in particular. You are perfectly entitled to your viewpoint.
I will add though, that I think your general stance in the climate debate, and mine, leads me to perceive you are being overly charitable to Wirth in your interpretation of his intention in making the statement he did, and overly critical of Watts, who is genuinely aggrieved that Wirth should use terms uncomfortably close to hate speech in a statement saying “We” should “go after” people who disagree with him about how the Earth’s climate system works. Especially considering he obviously doesn’t believe the science is settled anyway.
[…] discussion of the most recent Monckton-swastika incident Similar discussions are taking place at collide-a-scape and Watts up With That. Clearly, it is time for me to elevate my view on this to a top level […]
Steven Mosher @ 85:
That’s sad, and I’ll leave it at that.
Tom Fuller @ 77:
In light of Steven’s point, I apologize. Anthony is lucky to have friends like you and Steven.
Marlowe @95:
My main difference with MT is his opinion that AGW is catastrophic and we are beyond the tipping point. I am also of the opinion (a hunch, really) that the lower range end of the IPCC climate sensitivity is closer to actual conditions. Finally, I don’t agree that warming is all bad. It will be regionally inconvenient (Quoting Buck Turgidson: “I’m not sayin we wouldn’t get our hair mussed”) but nothing we can’t handle. Of course, some Malibu beach houses might get wet, but Uncle Sugar will bail them out like they always do after a “Big Wednesday” swell.
My biggest concern with CAGW is that it is a giant black hole sucking the life and money out of very real environmental concerns with no uncertainty of harm to human health and the environment. These issues include: human waste sanitation, drinking water sanitation, groundwater mining, nitrification of fresh water creating ocean dead zones, airborne particulates and the widespread use of wood burning for heat and cooking. This is an enormous environmental justice issue that is glossed over and ignored by the promoters of CAGW fulled by the generous political donations from Malibu.
Howard..Iwould totally agree with your second paragraph
Howard, thank you for your apology.
Tom: Thanks. I feel bad and very stupid going after you in such a vile way. I truly appreciate your forgiveness.
@108
I’m even more curious now. What background do you possess that leaves you feeling comfortable disagreeing with MT’s view (which I would characterize as being within the mainstream)?
It would seem to me that you’re letting your concerns about other environmental issues taint your views on climate change. One might call it the Lomborg two-step. While I’m sympathetic to the concern that NGOs are spending too much time on AGW at the expense of raising awareness of other pressing issues, I don’t think it follows that impacts from climate change will be less severe if we invest in sanitation in Mali instead of alternatives to coal in China.
Rog
I understood Monckton’s pre-conceived ploy of going over the top with the Nazi imagery followed by an apology as his political device to engender disapproval of those on the other side who also use Nazi imagery (deniers, death trains) and who <b>never</b> apologise for it.
As far as I’m concerned, Monckton did not apologize. Any “apology” immediately followed by an accusation of bad behavior pm the part of his critics and a demand for a counter apology is, in my book, a “not-pology”. Including words like “mea culpa” and “humbly” conveys sarcasm.
If his use of the Nazi image was a pre-conceived ploy to garner criticism and then provide a public not-pology, Monckton is even more of a worm than I previously thought.
Monckton is unequivocally a worm. He hurts skeptics and their cause.
But skeptics don’t have another ‘voice’ that can reliably get public attention. They need to work on that.
Lucia 113
My comment in response to Monckton’s apology on WUWT was to observe that his Lordship had his tongue planted so far in his cheek that it looked like he was sucking the biggest humbug in the sweetshop.
You think him a worm, I think him a troubador. He thinks of himself as politically effective. Anthony sees him as a loose cannon. I don’t pass judgment, and would not try to martial Monckton into some kind of skeptics ‘party line’. The world would be a less colorful place if everyone were forced to stay ‘on message’, and it’s not how the individualists who are in the majority on the skeptical side operate anyway. We are able to disagree agreeably, and allow people to do their own thing. Anthony Watts expression of exasperation on his ‘this isn’t helping’ thread was his view, and roughly equal numbers of skeptics contributing there agreed/disagreed.
Tom Gray: “Why single out Anthony Watts for this? How many times have we read climate scientists claiming the high moral ground of science.”
As my comment makes clear, the “high moral ground” refers to claimed civility and openness. WUWT posters regularly boast that these attributes characterise the site, yet posts are littered with terms such as ecofascists, references to Nazi, accusations of lying, fraud etc.
Personal attacks against climate scientists and other AGW people are common. In other words, on the civility issue, WUWT is pretty much par for the course.
So why the boasts about civility? Clearly, Watts is attempting to take the high ground on the scientific debate by using the civility issue: take the high moral ground, and you can persuade people that you also occupy the high scientific ground.
The problem is that his populist instincts tempt him to direct the troops towards the moral low ground, where they are happy to do the dirty work while allowing the leader to plead plausible deniability: what, me uncivil? But that’s just the posters having fun.
Rog–
I’m not trying to marshal Christopher M the VC into anything. I don’t think I would succeed if I tried. I’m just saying if your theory is correct, he is more of a worm that I previously thought. That he might be a singing worm– I have to admit I never considered that possibility. Maybe he’s the big green one here:
http://youtu.be/hYkD21Jo5ro
KK 103,
Your faux outrage about ugly tactics rings hollow when you aren’t above using them yourself.
Implying the bigotry of people without providing evidence. When called on it you mumble a weak response claiming they are irrational, again providing no evidence. When the irrationality of you claiming people totally unknown to you are irrational is brought up, you fail to respond.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2010/10/07/when-bigotry-is-cloaked/
Looks like it might be a good case study for your J-school students on how to slant an article.
Lucia 117 – Lolz
Monckton is a product of his birth as a high tory. Sarcasm and hyperbole is the milk pudding of his class. But he has fun, and he scores a good few direct hits on those who need an occasional custard pie to teke them down a notch, so I live and let live. Not that I could influence his actions anyway.
Bad mouthing is a feature of any politicized debate. I avoid it so far as I can on my blog, though I indulge in leg pulling and mickey taking from time to time. I think humour is a more potent weapon than invective myself.
Here’s what I really like about WUWT – posts like this:
“During the past 6-years since Hurricane Katrina, global tropical cyclone frequency and energy have decreased dramatically, and are currently at near-historical record lows. According to a new peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published, only 69 tropical storms were observed globally during 2010, the fewest in almost 40-years of reliable records.
Furthermore, when each storm’s intensity and duration were taken into account, the total global tropical cyclone accumulated energy (ACE) was found to have fallen by half to the lowest level since 1977.
In his new paper “Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity”, Dr. Ryan Maue, a meteorologist from Florida State University, examined…”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/26/global-hurricane-activity-at-historical-record-lows-new-paper/
Remember when Katrina hit and the AGW doomsdayers were screaming that it was just the beginning of a wave of Global Warming-driven storms to come?
Where’s the outrage about that wolf crying? After all, the ‘science was settled’ and the ‘debate was over’ back then, supposedly.
Rog
Monckton is a product of his birth as a high tory.
No doubt. Worms are also products of their birth.
so I live and let live.
Agreed. Worms are delightfully useful in the compost heap. It would be a shame to kill them all. Still, when I see a worm, I call it a worm.
FWIW: I disagree that he ever manages to take anyone down a notch. I think the man sounds like he learned to rhetoric reading Barbara Cartland romance novels. It seems some people enjoy that sort of thing. Out of curiosity, was she also a high tory? That might explain the style.
121 Lucia
Barbera Cartland was the daughter of a senior army officer and a lady with more ‘double barrels’ in her name than I have in my gun cupboard. She was also Princess Diana’s step-grandmother. We shouldn’t speak ill of the dead so I’ll stop there.
Rog-
I’m afraid ‘double barrels’ falls outside my lexicon. I googled “double barrels” slang and now I am almost afraid to ask what it means to have ‘double barrels’ in ones name.
123 Lucia
Posh people maintain their family surnames, so you find hyphenated ‘double barreled’ names in the upper classes. Barbera Hamilton-Cartland’s mother was a Hamilton-Scobell. Far enough O/T now?. 🙂
A double barreled name is just a composite of two surnames a in
John Smith-Jones
Very upper class in the UK, hence the implication
re 116
============
Tom Gray: “Why single out Anthony Watts for this? How many times have we read climate scientists claiming the high moral ground of science.”
As my comment makes clear, the “high moral ground” refers to claimed civility and openness. WUWT posters regularly boast that these attributes characterise the site, yet posts are littered with terms such as ecofascists, references to Nazi, accusations of lying, fraud etc.
================
Denier,
shill,
flat earther,
fossil fuel funded …
All political rhetoric used by certain groups of climate scientists to support their political position in the AGW debate. Why single out Watts for participating in a political debate using political rhetoric?
Howard #107.
“sad” is a judgement that I would not make. I read Mann. I see him over react ( on my view) to McIntyre. I see him cast McIntyre as a “oil shill” as part of a corporate conspiracy. Mann get’s to think that. he get’s to have that reaction. I don’t judge him for it. I think I would react differently. Wirth says something which Anthony construes as a threat. He get’s to have that reaction. He gets to own those feelings. I would react differently. Some people on MTs site called me a sociopath. They get to think that and over react to things I write. They get to have those feelings. I don’t judge them, I simply would react differently. I watch Romm also have reactions that differ from the ones I would have. he too, gets to have those emotions. shrugs. It’s not “sad”. It just is what it is.
There is no climate debate. Just a load of name calling on the internet and wanna be Galileo’s thinking everything they dont understand is proof they are right.
Watts Eric Cartman-esque swings between being offended by everything and hurling mud himself just keep the bloggers fed with things to be outraged about or spin another story out of.
Everyone has pretty muched staked out their positions and fills every other thread on the internet with explanations about why they are the morally good ones in this little tete-a-tete.
Meanwhile we all sit around waiting for this non existant evidence that a great fraud has been perperated.
The debate sinks into things like “they are calling me names” because the deniers have so little to work with.
Well, dorlomin, the bitter truth is we’re all sitting here marking time waiting for hard evidence of the atmospheric sensitivity to a doubling of concentrations of CO2. The models are running hot, but observations are showing a warming trend–just lower than predicted. But it apparently gets old repeating that for all of us, so we get to play our own little version of New Jersey Housewives…
re 128
dorlomin writes
================
There is no climate debate. Just a load of name calling on the internet and wanna be Galileo’s thinking everything they dont understand is proof they are right.
==============
So the debate is political.
From Wikipedia on the philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend
==============
According to Feyerabend, new theories came to be accepted not because of their accord with scientific method, but because their supporters made use of any trick ““ rational, rhetorical or ribald ““ in order to advance their cause. Without a fixed ideology, or the introduction of religious tendencies, the only approach which does not inhibit progress (using whichever definition one sees fit) is “anything goes”: “‘anything goes’ is not a ‘principle’ I hold… but the terrified exclamation of a rationalist who takes a closer look at history.” (Feyerabend, 1975).
================
The reason that Feyerbend points out for this is that it is difficult to derive enough data to support a new theory. The requirement of falsification provides a large advantage to the older established theory. So to make progress, adherents to the new theory must overstate their case and use any trick they have to overcome the older theories advantages. Recent events in climate science tend to bear out Feyerabend’s theories in this regard.
dorlomin: Meanwhile we all sit around waiting for this non existant evidence that a great fraud has been perperated.
Meanwhile we all sit around waiting for this non existant evidence that climate sensitivity is able to support the extravagent alarmism. And we wait and wait and wait while global temperature has not changed for more than 13 years. The longer we wait the less credible the alarmism becomes because absolutely nothing alarming is happening.
re 132
And the longer we wait for absolute proof, the more time we waste that cannot be retrieved.
And the more we tolerate poorly executed science or waste resources on poorly thought out responses, the less capacity we have to respond and less willingness on the part of the public to support any action.
I’m reminded of the statement of Nobel Prize winner (Physics) Stephen Chu:
If you look at the climate sceptics, I would have to say honestly, what standard are they being held to? It’s very asymmetric. They get to say anything they want.
Like any preachers, deniers hate to be challenged. They should be exposed for who they are, with persistent fact-checking and critical review of their arguments. They are not genuine skeptics by any stretch. Recently, one among their former ranks noted this:
A skeptic isn’t someone who merely holds doubts. A skeptic, as my daughter points out, is the one with the truly open mind. A skeptic will believe anything as long as it is supported by data, sound science and a logically consistent argument.
http://skeptoid.com/blog/2011/06/15/i-global-warming-skeptic/
Deniers, in contrast, believe anything that supports their political/ideological beliefs, and place their heads in the sand when presented with a preponderance of evidence. They are hardly the least bit discerning about what nonsense they peddle – promoting whatever they think will move public opinion in their favor.
And I hope Keith doesn’t continue to confine critical examination to the Watts/Morano crew. Certainly, they are the more shrill side of things, but others engage in similar behavior.
http://deepclimate.org/2011/05/20/open-thread-10/#comment-9340
dorlomin: The debate sinks into things like “they are calling me names” because the deniers have so little to work with.
Right now I’m working with this NCEP model.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
I don’t have much faith in their model; but should it turn out to be correct they predict that we return to La Nina conditions by the end of 2011. And if we enter 2012 from a La Nina, then we will end 2012 with 15 years of no warming. Gee this must be painful for you warmers. Praying for more heat and getting nothing.
Well, that link didn’t get it done. It just brought up the document. Try page 29 for the model.
I’m also looking at the sun today dorlomin. I think that it was about 5 years ago when the real scientists from NOAA predicted that solar cycle 24 would be the stongest in 500 years. Now, here we are about a year from solar max and today I noticed this beautiful pic of the sun.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/hmi_igr/1024/latest.html
NOAA has changed its solar prediction at least half a dozen times and SS 24 looks to be a real dud.
Then there are all the climate models predicting future warming that are barely hanging on by their error bands. Seems to me that we have almost too much to work with.
steven mosher says @85:
Keith, I would hazard that I know Anthony better than anyone here. Even Tom. Since Dec 2007 I’ve met him in person several times, talked with him at length, argued with him many times, and I think his outrage is genuine and misplaced. There are other similar incidents that all share a common emotion. I’ll leave it at that.
Rog Tallbloke says @88:
Nobody has to defend themselves against the mind-reading of others, and I hardly think he’ll feel the need to visit a kangeroo court to do that.
I just wanted to thank you two for these comments (Tom Fuller too). It’s nice to see I wasn’t the only one who felt Watts was being inappropriately criticized. And as mosher said, I’ll leave it at that.
#136.
Not content to leave it at that I will add this. Anthony clearly sees wirth as a threat ( maybe motivating more anna hayes types to show up at his place of business). Some people see global warming as a threat. Craven, for example, takes the threat so seriously that he is a survivalist. Germany sees nuclear as a threat now. Some people feel so threatened that they use monikers as opposed to their real names. Bush felt threatened by Iraq., the list goes on. Rather than question the sincerity of those feelings, I’d rather focus on the facts. the fact is I think those feelings of being threatened are not very useful or constructive.
133:
“Like any preachers, deniers hate to be challenged. ”
my experience, posing questions (challenges) to both sides is that nobody likes being challenged. The only people who like being challenged are people like Ryan Odonnell. When he challenged Steig on the internet (steig hated that) , Steig challenged Ryan to do his own damn science. And you know how that turned out.
steven mosher, in what may just be an attempt at having the last word, I have to agree with you about that. Generally speaking, I take people at their word about what they feel or think and just try to discuss what they say or do. I don’t see how anything meaningful can come from attacking a person. It can be fun, and it can get cheap laughs, but that’s about it.
It can be useful to discuss motivations if you’re seeking to better understand someone, but otherwise, it really doesn’t matter why they think what they think.
steven mosher Says:
June 27th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
#136.Not content to leave it at that I will add this. Anthony clearly sees Wirth as a threat ( maybe motivating more Anna Hayes types to show up at his place of business). Some people feel so threatened that they use monikers as opposed to their real names.
Mosh, after my name got picked up by the alarmist crowd letters started arriving at the Pro Vice Chancellors office demanding I be sacked from my place of work. The threat is real, and the tactics are mean spirited and dirty. My contract has since been renewed so all is well, but that doesn’t make the MaCarthy-esque behaviour any less troubling. Anthony Watts is self employed, so the kind of attacks he suffers are different, but none the less real, and a genuine cause for concern.
So when Tim Wirth makes vague, undefined statements about “going after” “deniers”, it is understandable that Anthony Watts is concerned. It is not just ideas that get attacked. The ‘ends justify means’ people, and Wirth is one of them, are a real threat. People from all sides of the climate issue who believe in an open society and freely expressed scientific debate need to stand up and be counted here.
“I’m Spartacus!”
Tom Gray Says:
June 27th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
re 128
dorlomin writes
================
There is no climate debate. Just a load of name calling on the internet and wanna be Galileo’s thinking everything they dont understand is proof they are right.
==============
According to Feyerabend, new theories came to be accepted not because of their accord with scientific method, but because their supporters made use of any trick ““ rational, rhetorical or ribald ““ in order to advance their cause… So to make progress, adherents to the new theory must overstate their case and use any trick they have to overcome the older theories advantages. Recent events in climate science tend to bear out Feyerabend’s theories in this regard.
Feyerabend’s book ‘Against Method’ is a philosophy of science classic which states how things are, rather than how they should be. I also recommend his less well read book Science in a Free Society’.
Dorlomin is so convinced of his own righteousness that he believes anyone who disagrees with his beliefs is misguided, stupid or disingenuous. This is not a scientific approach to evaluating a hypothesis with much denied uncertainty and assumption built into it.
Brandon Shollenberger
It’s nice to see I wasn’t the only one who felt Watts was being inappropriately criticized. And as mosher said, I’ll leave it at that.
Watt is a Jew is he? Or is he once again elbowing his way to the front of the crowd to be offended on behalf of other people? Always offended never embarrassed.
Rog Tallbloke
It is not just ideas that get attacked. The “˜ends justify means’ people,
Demands for sacking, you are thinking this is now a bad thing.
Or just a bad thing when aimed at relativity deniers?
Tom Gray
The reason that Feyerbend points out for this is that it is difficult to derive enough data to support a new theory. The requirement of falsification provides a large advantage to the older established theory. So to make progress, adherents to the new theory must overstate their case and use any trick they have to overcome the older theories advantages. Recent events in climate science tend to bear out Feyerabend’s theories in this regard.
So you are now admitting the internet Galileos just make stuff up to try overturn established science?
And hiding behind the skirts of philosophy…. away from actual science 😉
Re: 127: “Why single out Watts for participating in a political debate using political rhetoric?”
Because he (and his troops) claim to be civil (and non-political) when the reality is that they are neither. So the issue is hypocrisy. Watts gains illicit mileage from the claim of civility, because the claimed civility of WUWT is used to support claims that the blog is also a host for good science.
Similarly with the claim of openness, where warmers are supposedly “welcome” to debate, when the reality is that for many denizens of WUWT the presence of warmers is an opportunity to vent.
Again, none of this would much matter without the overblown claims to virtue. That said, maybe these claims are regarded as a type of compensation for the felt beleaguered position of climate scepticism, so you could argue some justification for the incivility, although I personally wouldn’t.
re 145
dorlomin writes
===============
So you are now admitting the internet Galileos just make stuff up to try overturn established science? And hiding behind the skirts of philosophy”¦. away from actual science
================
Of course “Internet Galileos” overstate their cases. And, just as muc, climate scientists overstate their cases and rely on uncertain proxies and untested methods to make scientific claims in prestigious journals. These scientists work together to exclude findings that disagree with their preferences.
My point is that the AGW is political and that this is typical of scientific issues. What I wish would happen is that people would accept that it is political and not act like shocked virgins when scientists act politically.
Perhaps if we accept that the IPCC is a political body and that it makes decisions politically then we will be able to use it to create an effecive response to this issue. Perhaps we will all stop trying to prove that our own preferred theories are the absolute scientific truth and that people with different theories are duplicitous deniers or frauds so that we can come to terms with the issue.
The problem is not that climate scientists are politicians. It is that they are inexperienced and naive politicians. They are just not very good politicians and we let them act in a field in which they have very little aptitude. Perhaps if we assigned the issue to professional politicians with experience and skill, we could craft an effective response.
re 145
dolormoin writes in rference to Feyerabend
=================
And hiding behind the skirts of philosophy”¦. away from actual science
=============
Actually this this the history of science. It came as a result of an historical analysis of how society reacted to major scientific challenges. So we can all learn from an analysis of how society responds to challenges so that perhaps our responses could be more effective in the cases of new challenges like AGW, AIDS etc
Tom Gray
These scientists work together to exclude findings that disagree with their preferences.
Its a conspiracy. You know you are right and the only reason you are not seeing more science that agrees with you is the conspiracy.
Perhaps if we accept that the IPCC is a political body
Not getting the results you want, smear the messenger.
Perhaps if we assigned the issue to professional politicians with experience and skill,
Now you have truly gone for a wander all on your own. Politicians are involved up to their eyeballs.
The particular usage of denier, in the climate change debate is perhaps mainly a UK/European thing, but it seems to have travelled somewhat.
The 2 examples I would give were from the Independant – Johann Hari, and George Monbiot – Guardian… in 2005 and 2006 linking Holocaust denial and climate change denial.
They used it reflecting on a very high profile court case about British historian David Irving, that brought the term into common usage in the UK, that makes its use in the UK deliberate and provocative and offensive to ‘climate sceptic’ lukewarmers’ alike in the UK.
As they are both using it at the same time as the trial and conviction of David Irving (2005 -2006), thus a conscious act to link Holocaust Denial in the MSM media by environmental writers and activists, which was all over the media as current news at the time of their writing it, as the same as climate change denial..
An authoritative source for this opinion below?
The Oxford Online dictionary:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/denial
“Word Trend
In 1991 the British historian David Irving was convicted in Germany of Holocaust Denial – claiming that the mass murder of the Jews and other groups bythe Naziz in the second World War never happened. In 2006 he was imprisoned on a similar charge in Austria. Holocaust denial is not a crime under UK law, but the 21st century it is often considered taboo to deny the truth of certain concepts. After Holocaust, the commonest modifiers of denier in the Oxford English Corpus reflect some highly contentious issues: climate change, evolution and global warming. Refusal to acknowledge the existance of these things is now seen as so dangerous that some green activists have called for climate change denial to be made illegal”
Pretty definite link I think for the UK, considering Monbiot/Hari MSM articles at the time, ie activists wanting the same law for climate change denial, as for the existing law for holocaust denial. I don’t find anybody calling for laws for evolution denial, or aids denial, etc, do you… The guardian commentors certainly get the connection, even when implicitly not said.
I do accept that this may not have the same useage elsewhere in the world though…
Additionally, the oxford dictionary definition of climate change is also enlightening:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/climate+change
(as it minimises, excludes natural climate change) – surely newspeak )
ie it’s definition, begs the question, do we need a new word for climate change (natural) prior to the mid 20th century! as ‘climate change’ is taken to mean something else!!
“And hiding behind the skirts of philosophy”¦. away from actual science”
It’s a step up from hiding behind the slacks of sophistry…
@143, dorlomin, I can’t see how your comment is relevant to anything I said. In case you didn’t notice the distinction I made in this topic, I’ve only been talking about the “phony” criticism. There are plenty of other reasons to criticize Watts, and I’m not arguing against any of them.
Disagreeing with one criticism doesn’t mean I disagree with all criticisms.
The great irony, which I find eternally amusing, is the CAGW crowd has a “You are either with us or against us” attitude.
Keith said,
“Sorry, but your entreaties on Watts’ behalf fall flat with me. He’s got one of the most widely read climate blogs. Why wouldn’t I single out such rank hypocrisy when I see it?”
Ah the truth is heard. The real reason Keith is attacking Watts, Watts runs “one of the most widely read climate blogs…”. Keith is just trying to increase traffic on his own blog and it seems to have worked. Smart business decision Keith.
Jon P
I’m pretty sure Keith doesn’t make money off this blog. Watts on the other hand…
#154
Ah so the only type of business decisions are ones that make you money or not. And if you are making money. that is bad/corrupt etc.
I see and understand what you are inferring.
More Us vs Them from Marlowe. Welcome to the machine.
re 149
dlormin writes
==============
These scientists work together to exclude findings that disagree with their preferences.Its a conspiracy. You know you are right and the only reason you are not seeing more science that agrees with you is the conspiracy.Perhaps if we accept that the IPCC is a political body Not getting the results you want, smear the messenger.Perhaps if we assigned the issue to professional politicians with experience and skill, Now you have truly gone for a wander all on your own. Politicians are involved up to their eyeballs.
===============
I do not see it as a conspiracy or am I attempting to smear climate scientists or anybody else. I am trying to point out that the political aspects of the AGW issue are inherent and expected part of it. We should deal with it as a political issue and expect political behavior. We certainly get political behavior even if we do not expect or encourage it
@155
Watts has an incentive to increase traffic at his blog. Keith does not. One would think that this is obvious…
Out of curiosity, aren’t business decisions by definition about money?
Mosher: I’d rather focus on the facts. the fact is I think those feelings of being threatened are not very useful or constructive.
Agreed. Some people feel threatened by climate scientists, which one reason why they might write books libeling them. Some of those feelings are perhaps rooted in feelings of being threatened by government initiatives, such as carbon taxes or…
Mosher: Let us euthanize Obamacare before it euthanizes us
Mosher: In other words, ObamaCare will only pile more debt on the mountain of debt that Obama’s other forays into socialism have caused.
Mosher: Obamacare will then be used as Obama, Reid and Pelosi intended, as a vehicle to promote and perform abortions.
I think those feelings are not very useful or constructive.
Isn’t the whole point of a blog to attract visitors and engage in conversation? If no one commneted here I very much doubt Keith would keep posting.
To your question, sometimes is a good answer.
Umm, NewYorkJ, you know that there are actually two Steve Moshers, one of whom regularly blogs on climate issues and is my co-author on a book about the Climategate scandal, and is not the one you quote in post 158?
I sorta think you do know. And are just sliming for the fun of it.
@160
really? why don’t they use different handles then? when i look at the bio for your climategate book at amazon it says:
“Steven M Mosher, born in Grand Rapids Michigan, graduated Northwestern University and attended UCLA for graduate studies in literature. He later joined Northrop Aircraft where he worked as an threat analyst and director of analysis until transitioning to the commercial world in 1995 when he joined Creative Labs as a director of marketing and product development. Since 1995 he has specialized in the development of new consumer technologies such as 3D graphics, web cameras, Mp3 players and a variety of wireless devices. Since 2007 he has worked in the open source community and has been active leader in the effort to get open access to the data and code underlying climate science. Thomas Fuller was born in Denver Colorado and currently lives in San Francisco. Trained by the U.S. Navy in electronics and cryptography, he has been writing about technology ever since, usually market research reports with exciting titles like ‘Project Global Market for Infusion Pumps 2009-2014.’ This is a lot of fun by comparison.”
when i look at the bio on the site that links to the text NewYorkJ quotes here, I see the EXACT same bio information. Lo and behold one can also see articles on climategate…
Liar liar pants on fire?
It’s hard to imagine that Tom Fuller would have deliberately lied about that, since it’s easy to disprove (sort of like McIntyre confusing U. of Penn with Penn State last week in a continued effort to smear Dr. Mann). Generally their crew focuses on making spurious allegations that are not as easily falsifiable. But why he might have made an assumption that the quotes could not have come from his colleague and therefore there must be two different people is an interesting question. Maybe he just meant there are two people in the metaphorical sense, as in “two-faced”, but that wouldn’t be very nice.
@ 157 Marlowe,
“Out of curiosity, aren’t business decisions by definition about money?”
You know, you would think so, but at most places I see it’s about ego or mindlessly following along with the status quo (I scratch your back you scratch mine), especially the higher you rise in business.
If you start making decisions based purely on making money, you can quickly run into some powerful enemies…..
re 161 and 162 NewYorkJ and Marlowe Johnson
As a real question, what point are you trying to make?
@164
I thought i was pretty clear with the ‘liar liar pants on fire’ part but I won’t presume to speak for NYJ…
re 165
I read the words that you wrote. I am just trying to understand the point that you were attempting to make with them
@166
one wonders if you’re being deliberately obtuse or unable to click on a link…
And your point is?
Is it something about the political views that you think someone holds?
I’m just having a difficult time relating this to a discussion of the AGW issue. Are you saying that views on AGW are politically determined? If so then there may be a good deal of truth in truth point
So someone with strict anti-capitalist views may favor strict energy limitations as a way of reducing superfical consumption. And someone with a strong individualist view may view the same proposal very cynically as an attempt to increase the privilege of a political elite.
However if you are saying that only some political views inhibit the holder from rationally assessing AGW evidence and proposals then I think that you must provide some convincing evidence. Which political views will allow fro a rational assessment and which politicla views will not allow for that? How can we differentiate between such views?
Can the first Tom step in here and help Tom G. with his reading skills? This is painful to watch.
what part of ‘liar liar pants on fire’ don’t you understand?
re my own 168
My questions there are real questions and not just rhetoric. AGW is a political issue and will require a political solution. Political solutions are are about choice among competing options. Some of those options will be seen as “better” than others.
What political viewpoints will allow us to acheive the best response to the AGW challenge?
If that is the point that was being made above then, to me, it is a very valuable point to make
For too long the political ramifications of AGW measures have been hidden in a mask of “science”. People make political statements and pretend that they are statements of scientific truth.
re 170
I understand “liar liar pants on fire”. I just don;t see why you said it here. You must have been trying to make some serious point. What is it?
Keith I think an inaugural disemvowelling is in order…
JonP (153):
You write: “Keith is just trying to increase traffic on his own blog and it seems to have worked. Smart business decision Keith.”
I care much more about who reads this blog than how many.
Also, blogging is not the best use of my time (in terms of career) and it makes no business sense at all, since I refuse any type of advertising (and I get enough traffic to get offers…) Not to mention, I’ve annoyed/pissed off just about everybody at some time or another.
The way I’ve gone about it, I’m amazed I have regular readers at all.
am I the only one tha have read this blog:http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/27/the-failure-of-al-gore-part-deux/ ????
Walter Russell Mead writes about al gore and his article in the Rolling Stone
You have regular readers because you run a tight ship and have a good blog. Even if I have spent time in the penalty box…
Marlow and Rust Never Sleeps, that is my friend and co-author. Sorry for my quick reaction.
There is a fundamentalist out there with the same name as Steve who has published a lot of…. stuff, and on RealClimate my friend has been accused of writing it. I’m sorry for assuming that was the case here.
I disagree with him on what he wrote. But I’ll bet he didn’t write the headline. And he’s still a good guy. (Hey wait–I can disagree with someone and still assert he’s a good human? Is that legal?)
NewYorkJ Says:
” a continued effort to smear Dr. Mann”
Here’s even more. It is so easy when you are like Dr. Phil.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/warmist_cargo_cult_science_returns.html
Fuller: But I’ll bet he didn’t write the headline.
The headline appears to accurately echo the contents. One of the last lines:
Mosher: Either we euthanize ObamaCare before it is too late, or it winds up euthanizing us.
But I’m not interested in Fuller’s personal relationships. The point of 158 before Fuller’s knee-jerk drive-by in 160 was to agree with and provide additional examples of Mosher’s statement:
Mosher: I think those feelings of being threatened are not very useful or constructive.
although I’d preface “feelings” with irrational. For example, it’s rational, based on science, to conclude that smoking threatens one’s health, and that feeling can be a good motivator to quit. It’s also rational, based on science, to conclude that global warming is a threat to future (and to some extent current) generations.
Other more irrational beliefs are not constructive or useful at fostering a rational society and policy, but I would argue that such extreme political rhetoric and fear-mongering put forth by Mosher can be politically effective (often more so than a reasoned discussion), as can be seen from the 2010 election, and as is the case with those claiming the end of the world if governments implement initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or with various efforts to manufacture distrust of scientists through spurious allegations.
179 NYJ
” It’s also rational, based on science, to conclude that global warming is a threat to future (and to some extent current) generations. ”
A superficial reading of the IPCC reports might lead you to that view, but a closer study reveals otherwise.
example #1 Bias in selection of evidence for IPCC review:
Lead Author (W.G.1) Phil Jones said:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer–review literature is !”
example #2 Inclusion of claims from non-peer reviewed ‘grey’ literature produced by lobby groups who financially benefit from the climate scare:
“The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz1QdxIPDfh”
Plenty more examples to give you if you need them.
A superficial reading of the IPCC reports might lead you to that view,
Luckily we have those who can see beyond the mere science and see the truth.
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow ““ even if we have to redefine what the peer–review literature is !”
Which papers were left out now? When you dont like the science, smear the scientist.
Damn I have been trying to make a pun with “How Soon is Now!” and been failing since last night.
“How Much was Soon” is the best I could do.
==========
although I’d preface “feelings” with irrational. For example, it’s rational, based on science, to conclude that smoking threatens one’s health, and that feeling can be a good motivator to quit. It’s also rational, based on science, to conclude that global warming is a threat to future (and to some extent current) generations.
==============
Is it also rational to be concerned that AGW mitigation measures will produce unacceptable economic and political effects?
Someone might be concerned that the current technology of green energy will not be capable of supplying sufficient energy at reasonable cost to support an expected standard of living and that this is a threat to the well being of future generations This concern might arise from a basic political attitude that they hold.
Is it also rational to be concerned that the current state of climate science does not support the broad claims that its proponents are making. If major papers are shown to be based on incorrect mathematics, is this a cause for rational concern?
“When you dont like the science, smear the scientist.”
Yes, I’ve noticed that happening to Spencer, Lindzen, Soon and quite a few other scientists whose findings are not to the liking of the IPCC. I didn’t smear Jones though, I just quoted him. He does a pretty good job of undermining his own, and the IPCC’s credibility. Same goes for Lal with the non-peer reviewed Himalayan 2035 glacier meltdown:
“We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature”. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.”
“It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz1QfJ6N0Fx
Yes, I’ve noticed that happening to Spencer, Lindzen, Soon and quite a few other scientists whose findings are not to the liking of the IPCC
Lindzens last paper was a laughing stock that even Spencer tore into. Spencers main body of work is right in there front and center of the IPCC WG1. Soon has expanded into being a world leading expert on the health effects of mercury to tell us all that its not a problem after all. His efforts in climate science are rarely reference by any except the most fringe skeptics these days. That $1 million dollars did not go all that far after all.
And how is it the IPCC that is ‘smearing’ people? Or was that a failure of vocabulary by you?
Hey roger got any errors in WG1?
Just as you said:
“When you dont like the science, smear the scientist.”
Can’t help yourself I guess.
Tallbloke,
You might want to try a direct source, such as the scientist (Dr. Murari Lal) allegedly quoted in the David Rose tabloid piece .
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_grows.php
And Lal is not the only scientist Rose has attributed fabricated quotes to.
Regarding the Jones quote, neither paper was left out of the IPCC, as you should know. Some venting on a couple of poor-quality papers doesn’t change that. Neither paper has held up over the years. See Parker (2006) for example, regarding Kalnay and Cai (2003).
But thanks for providing evidence that most attacks against climate science, scientists, and scientific organizations are without merit.
Keith,
Sorry your prior words have already outed you, I know exactly how you felt and what you meant when you wrote them, you taught me how to do that! 😉
NewYorkJ,
So all those things Phil Jones said about wanting/trying to keep those papers out are OK, because he was not successful? Are you serious?
roger
Can’t help yourself I guess.
I can see you are having difficulties here. This is a criticism of a science paper.
Lindzens last paper was a laughing stock that even Spencer tore into.
This is pointing out his papers have had no impact.His efforts in climate science are rarely reference by any except the most fringe skeptics these days.
So I have directly addressed the point that the scientists you have listed have had not made worthwhile contributions. Well ok this is where we diverege, you have a more imagenative view of what constitutes science, what me accepting all those fuddy physics text books so perhaps you do view papers that have been laughed out of the science as valid and any criticisms of those papers as an attack on the author.
One cannot really see into a mind like yours.
But then perhaps you view pointing out that Soon is now considered by himself a world leading specialist on mercury poisoning an attack on him, strange as this is how he is described in the WSJ. Do you think pointing out his new role an attack?
So all those things Phil Jones said about wanting/trying to keep those papers out are OK, because he was not successful? Are you serious?
A person has an unpleasant petulant outburst in a private comunication. The systems in place ensure that petulance does not become policy and the papers are published. But the internet Galileo’s see this as yet more proof of a conspiracy. Not that the systems in place have worked.
Any mistakes in WG1?
Jon P,
You miss the point. Bloke is trying to use Jones’ quote as evidence of something being wrong with the IPCC. His quote actually shows the opposite, given that both papers were cited in the report. The process is resilient to even a lead author having such strong views on the quality of a paper or two, or desires on what to do about it, although one could argue that Jones wasn’t really serious to begin with (believe it or not, a bit of venting in emails, selectively highlighted, is occasionally faceitous). Peer review is also very much self-correcting. The papers in question haven’t held up well over time.
Any mistakes in WG1?
Sure.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/documentation-of-bias-in-the-2007-ipcc-wg1-report-part-i/
http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ipcc
Even the most infamous “You are either with us or against us”, lets control comments to support our narrative, Climate site, Realclimate admits to 2 errors.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/
Yeah Phil Jones is cool, the recent ICO ruling proves how cool he is, no pattern to see here, move along, be charitable.
So one scientist did not get the attention he felt he was entitled too. That is your big blow against the science.
Like every other synthises report in history someone felt disgruntled.
194
The emptiness of your last post says a lot.
188 NYJ
thanks for providing evidence that most attacks against climate science, scientists, and scientific organizations are without merit.
Wriggle wriggle.
None of what you said changes the fact that an egregious mistruth propogated by a lobby group with financial interest in perpetuating the climate scare manged to get its non-peer reviewed twaddle put into the IPCC report by Lead AUthor Lal who ignored the misgivings of reviewers in order to make more ‘impact’ on policy makers.
This amounts to IPCC advocacy, not credible assessment of science.
The emptiness of your last post says a lot.
Your going to have to flesh out your thinking here a little.
None of what you said changes the fact that an egregious mistruth
Mistruth eh? And you have never seen anything you consider a mistruth from the “skeptics”? This is only intended to farm a reaction from you.
I just want a clear quote from you on your comitment to accuracy and calling it as you see it from your Tribe.
198
Still trying to defend the indefensible and twist my example of the IPCC’s bad scientific practise and advocacy around onto the people who exposed it I see. You seem to be in denial of the facts.
I always call it as I see it, and criticise the scientific ideas I am sceptical about without regard to who or where they originate from. Where I am uncertain I suspend judgment and give those ideas an airing on my blog so others can comment on them and help inform me.
What I see from you is that you will not admit error, partisan behaviour, bias in assessment and presentation, falsehoods and wrongdoing “from your tribe” even when confronted with clear and well documented evidence, as provided in the examples I gave.
Where is your “comitment to accuracy and calling it as you see it from your Tribe”? I just want a clear quote from you on IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri’s defense of its ‘Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 claim’ and his dismissal of the Indian Government scientist’s own assessment of Himalayan glaciers as “Voodoo science”.
Er, Rog, Vijay Raina’s assessment was voodoo science. Are you defending it? Have you even read it?
200 Tim Lambert
Tim, no I haven’t. Are you saying Vijay Raina can get a more accurate assessment of the state of Himalayan glaciers with chicken bones than the IPCC can with the millions of dollars fed to it? Seems like a big saving for the public purse could be made here. 😉
Rog Tallbloke Says:
Still trying to defend the indefensible
Really, where?
You seem to be in denial of the facts.
Really.
I see you have no problem with the often contradictory psuedoscience from the fake skeptics.
So the IPCC made an error and yes they should be criticised, they are after all a genuine science orginisation.
And true the contradictory and theories of in violation of the very laws of physics manufactuered by the psuedoscientists on the skeptic side should not recieve the same scrutiny as they are in many cases on the same level as astrology, crystal healing and dowsing but surly someone who is overturning the theory of relativity can bring themself to criticise fellow psuedoscientists?
You are becoming incoherent. If you are referring to the article on my blog which looks at the results of the Miller and Michaelson-Morley experiments, successfully replicated by Galaev recently, I suggest you go and read it again more carefully before you cast slurs about ‘relativity denial’.
Ad hominem seems to be your forte though, so I doubt any light of understanding will dawn. Try anyway.
Dorlomin,
You are making progress. You have gone from WG1 has no eroors to one, even though Realclimate points to two and others suggest there are many more. Did it hurt when you had to change your view?
IMO why respond to Lambert where the same courtesy is not extended on his blog, let him contiune to only dwelll in the home he makes for himself.
No Rog. Raina was wrong about the Himalayan glacers — they are retreating just as the IPCC reported.
205 Tim Lambert.
Tim, None are retreating at a rate which suggests they might be gone by 2035, which is what the IPCC said. I suspect the retreating trend will have slowed a lot in the last two years. New data anyone?
More importantly Lambert, Pachauri was informed of the error in 2004 and sat on it because his consultancy was bidding on a study of Himalayan glacier melt. When the story broke, the client pulled the study.
Cheesier than Climategate and completely ignored.
but Tom I know Pachauri and he’s a good guy, even though I disagree with him in this case….
So Tom thinks that Pachari was aware in 2004 of an error in a report published in 2007. My question for Tom is: do you mean AD 2004, or 2004 BC?
“In fact Dr Hasnain had first made his own controversial claim two months earlier, in a much longer interview with an Indian environmental magazine, Down to Earth, in April 1999. It was the wording of this interview which the IPCC was to quote almost exactly in its 2007 report.
Clearly the IPCC was aware that to cite a little Indian magazine as the reference for such a startling prediction would hardly seem sound scientific practice. But it discovered that Dr Hasnain’s slightly later interview with New Scientist had been quoted in a 2005 report by the environmental campaigning group WWF. So it was this, rather oddly, which the IPCC cited as its authority ““ even though the words it quoted were taken directly from the earlier interview.”
http://tinyurl.com/yjuqapf
I was hopping to tempt Roger into a defence of this
often contradictory psuedoscience
then pop the old Claes Johnson on him.
However he asked me to look at his blog and Lo what did we find?
A post titled
Which Causes which out of Atmospheric Temperature and CO2 content?
That came to the conclusion
It seems that, contrary to popular wisdom, temperature changes are driving atmospheric CO2 content changes, with a lag time of 6 months.
Now remember I was saying
often contradictory psuedoscience
Well Roger did a fine job of demonstrating how little concern for not contradicting each other the fake skeptics have becuase earlier in the thread we find Barry Woods making the following claim
plus the hostroic wet chemsirty methods by hundreds of scientists that put pre industrial CO2 levels much higher (ie 150-300 years ago) ie 330+ ppm CO2.
So if both were correct then then temperatures in the 18th and 19th centuries would have to have been rather warm which contradicts just about everyone in the debate
But pointing this out is surely some dirty trick of the ‘warmists’
dorlomin Says:
July 1st, 2011 at 4:03 am
I was hopping
Try skipping, it’s more fun.
Rog, your link goes to Christopher Booker, rather than to a credible source. You only have to look at the changes to the passage in the various drafts to see that he got it wrong. And unlike the IPCC, Booker does not correct his mistakes.
Are the deniers denying the contradiction in those two made up bits of ‘science’?
Tim, are you denying that the wording of the IPCC text was taken from the 1999 Hasnain interview in Down to Earth no matter how it was diddled with in the various drafts? Or just sliming Booker?
Tim Lambert Says:
July 1st, 2011 at 7:51 am
And unlike the IPCC, Booker does not correct his mistakes.
It’s great to hear the IPCC corrects its mistakes Tim. What date are they predicting for the dribbling away of the last of the Himalayan glaciers down the Brahmaputra now?
Tim Lambert Says:
June 30th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
No Rog. Raina was wrong about the Himalayan glacers “” they are retreating just as the IPCC reported.
Tim, that’s strange, because according to this research, half the glaciers in the Karakorum range are extending rather than receding.
http://tinyurl.com/68jdmtj
So this Roger character is happy to use completely contradictory arguments without any shame.
But only wants us to look at one range of glaciers in the world. None from the Alps, Andies or Rockies.
Whats up with that then.
Rog,
You are mud wrestling, refuse to get in the pit with those that dwell there.
Rog, the IPCC reported this:
Whereas glaciers in the Asian high mountains have generally shrunk at varying rates (Su and Shi, 2002; Ren et al., 2004; Solomina et al., 2004; Dyurgerov and Meier, 2005), several high glaciers in the central Karakoram are reported to have advanced and/or thickened at their tongues (Hewitt, 2005), probably due to enhanced precipitation.
The Himalyan glaciers are generally retreating with the the exception of some of the Karakorm ones.
Ahh, Marlowe, busy proving that criticisms of the AGW fan club can never be too extreme for the truth (Ex. 2 is Tim Lambert).
Tom retaining friendship with someone he disagrees with on a political issue is of course exactly like the head of the IPCC burying the facts about Himalayan glacier melt to win a contract, to the extent of allowing a major error to be introduced into AR4 and being willing to slime IPCC scientists who brought it forward.
Yes, Marlow, those are exactly equal.
211#
A totally circular argument, depending on a current (rough) correlation for temperature..
Because CO2 correlates now with a warmer temperature (roughly)
Then the measurements of co2 in those earlier times, MUST be wrong, because we ‘think CO2 is the primary driver of temperature..
were all those measurements wrong?
The AGW believer says they must be because otherwise he has a problem with his theory to deal with..
Exactly the same occurs with the humna historicand archeological record and contempary accounts of climate, etc.. Becasue the ‘hockey stick’ proxy reconstructions say, it wasn’t warmer we must discount everything else that was know, even if it only depends on a few tree ring proxies in one part of the world to get the ‘stick’
Barry Woods you have failed totally to understand the post.
Read it again.
Here is Rog Tallblokes claim.
It seems that, contrary to popular wisdom, temperature changes are driving atmospheric CO2 content changes, with a lag time of 6 months.
Notice what he claims about CO2
He claims atmospheric concentration is driven by temperature.
You claim atmospheric concentrations were higher in the near past. Your not arguing with me but with your fellow denier.
Then the measurements of co2 in those earlier times, MUST be wrong,
Post 33 already addressed this. They are very likely to be lacking sufficient accuracy to be measures of the percentage in the atmosphere as local CO2 sources and wind direction can produce widly differing results. You clearly need to deny this fact to maintain your faith based position. Denial after all is just a religion.
223
co2 changes lack behind temperature at all timescales. The longer the timescale, the bigger the lag. This is not controversial. 6-9 months at interannual to decadal scale, 800-1800 years at interglacial timescales. So the gradual rise from the 1700’s lags by a timescale large enough to account for the background increase while decadal scale temperature wimbles up and down, followed nine months later by changes in the rate of co2 level change.
223# – do you ever consider about what you are actually achieving – with the language of ‘denial – it just comes across that you are the most unreasonable person in the room…
The Guardian’s environment editor has the social skills and awareness to understand this.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/02/sea-change-in-climate-journalism-the-guardian-and-the-d-word/
I belive I have valid questions about the ‘uncertainty in the sides, and a whole host of valid questions on a greenpart/greenpeace vision of energy policy. Perhaps you would still label me as a denier, that is your choice.
‘language like faith based religion’ abouyt someone you do not know, is just the tired old debating cliche of attacking, without listening, or even considering other possibilities. I am uncertain about the quality of the science, as was the IAC, stating that more confidence was given than that could be supported by the science.
If their is any ‘faith based religion and certainty’ it appears to me to be yours.
Oh deary me Barry. On a thread all about selective outrage were you intending to provide us all with an excellent example? Many thanks for showing yourself up.
“˜language like faith based religion’ abouyt someone you do not know, is just the tired old debating cliche of attacking, without listening, or even considering other possibilities.
But lo! What do we see at post 80 from the deniers?
It’s clear to me that absolute belief in “global warming” is a form of religious expression and has nothing to do with science. Believing in the religion of global warming is a lazy way for people to fool themselves into thinking that they are doing something wonderful for the planet.
No doubt Barrys selective outrage will be onshow about the word denier now.
dorlomin
It is the religious faith in global warming caused by C02 that needs to be challenged by free people through debate and good scientific practice. We need look no further that the quotes provided at the top of this posting for strong evidence that this CAGW faith is a religious phenomena:
“[W]e have to”“I think, again as I’ve suggested before”“undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it. They’ve had pretty much of a free ride so far, and that time has got to stop.”
This language would fit perfectly into many historical periods where people desiring freedom of religion were targeted by the official “church” in power. Mr. Wirth couldn’t be more wrong or misguided in thinking that an “aggressive program” is what’s needed to settle this debate. SCIENCE with all of the best intentions of openness and sharing of information is what’s needed yet we are forced to pursue legal remedies against the likes of Mr. Mann to force him into some semblance of scientific best practice i.e. SHARING of information.
co2 changes lack behind temperature at all timescales. The longer the timescale, the bigger the lag.
Lets have a little look.
This is not controversial. 6-9 months at interannual to decadal scale,
I would be hard to be more wrong, the warmer nothern hemisphere summer and more light promote the absorbtion of CO2 from the atmosphere! The cycle you see is the response to the seasons.
Now I have to apologise and post a link to corrupt scientists not the internet Galileos.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Mauna_Loa_curve#gen3
But hey once you have seen the conspiracy you will know even biologists are in on it. This rabbit hole goes down all the way
800-1800 years at interglacial timescales. So the gradual rise from the 1700″²s lags by a timescale large enough to account for the background increase
Handwaving at its worst! “Well there is this 800 year lag so lets all imagine its suddenly a 150 year lag. Close your eyes and just pray with me”
What a dogs breakfast you people will swallow.
Deniers eh.
228 Dorlomin says:
“the warmer nothern hemisphere summer and more light promote the absorbtion of CO2 from the atmosphere! The cycle you see is the response to the seasons.”
As a matter of fact, the Earth is closer to the Sun during Austral summer when the Earth receives some 7% more insolation at perihelion in January. In any case, the 6-9 month lag is seen not only in seasonally filtered data but more clearly in step with ENSO variation, which is at quasi inter-annual timescales.
“I would be hard to be more wrong”
Indeed.
Here is a clue. I never speak about abortion.
I am not catholic. Never have been, never will be.
Steven W Mosher is this guy. He only speaks about abortion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_W._Mosher
This is what he looks like:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/101006_6.htm
since I wrote one article for PJ media
http://pjmedia.com/blog/climategate-not-fraud-but-noble-cause-corruption/
I can well imagine the folks at that organization have messed up bios. Guess what, after I defended Jones against the charge of fraud, I’ve not been asked back to write anything.
Here is what I look like.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/02/the-final-straw/
You could of course check my linkedIn or facebook.
shit you can call me at home.