Comment of the week

It’s been long time since I featured one of these, but this one from James Delingpole’s blog really hit home for me. This comment from Amanda was about my exposing the video produced by Al Gore.

In my dad’s words: ‘GORE AND THE GANG’….
—————————————————————
I forwarded the link to WUWT and Watts’s ‘re-enactment’ to my father.  Dad, bless him, saw An Inconvenient Truth and has been firmly in the combat-global-warming camp for ages.

He told me that he was very impressed with the detail and painstaking correctness of Watt’s reconstruction.  What he was not impressed by was the original experiment and Al Gore.  In addition, he mentioned to me ‘that bunch in Norfolk’, even though I didn’t bring them up myself.

When someone like my dad (a mechanical engineer, now retired, and a man that does not like to be manipulated or hoodwinked) finally calls these scientists ‘bums’, then you know there’s trouble afoot.*

His last comment to me was ‘Presumably, Gore and the gang will respond in depth to this.  If they remain silent, that of itself, will tell us enough’.

*His actual words, which are beautiful to me: ‘Golly, that man went to a lot of trouble to investigate those video clips. As you say, very smart set of deductions. Something like that, when exposed, then makes one wonder about some of the other basic assumptions. It is too bad, in a way, and reminds me of that bunch in Norfolk who were supposedly the custodians of climatic data, and the bums fudged /suppressed data – not good for so-called scientists. That act alone, undermines what folks were trying to achieve in terms of mitigating global warming’.

Of course, I myself am not convinced about the ‘global warming’, and specifically that it is man-made, much less that we should hobble our political freedoms and economic powers in a likely fruitless attempt to remedy it. But for someone like my dad, this is a major statement of newfound skepticism. And I am certain, in his case and for many millions of other people, it is only the beginning.

That my friends, is enlightenment, and is the best tribute I could ever have.

About these ads

37 thoughts on “Comment of the week

  1. I’m waiting for some of my friends to see the light too. I have given up preaching it doesn’t work :-). I just live in hope that enough of this “light” will filter through their information sources (like the Australian ABC – not holding breath) and shine on their consciousness. I do send them links to WUWT from time to time but I think some have decided that “Watts is a crank” – much to my disappointment.

    Please stay on message and considerate as always, Anthony and helpers… eventually the Postmodern Enlightenment will occur!

  2. Kudos Amanda! The battle will be won, one person at a time.

    Anthony: if not done already, some “viral” exposure via Dr. Spencer, Fox News, and the EIB Network (yes, HIM!!!!) might have some significant impact on the already-crumbling tower of Sauron … … er, … … … … , ahhh, I mean, GORE-ON. Wouldn’t hurt to see if Jo Nova wouldn’t provide a link to your presentation on her website, ditto ICECAP etc etc etc.

    The work you did put a great big smile, on what had been a long, hard day at the office … … …

    Best regards,

    Mark H.

  3. Most followers became 100% saturated with enlightenment when the science was settled. How could they possibly be further enlightened?

  4. Anthony’s work on that video was outstanding. I had my own fun since I looked at the picture where he showed the identical spots by looking at the rest of the picture and finding the differences, or rather lack of differences. Then I got a big smile when I noticed Anthony had done the same thing in the next few pictures.

    I hope people have downloaded that video so Gore can’t go back and “fix” it. I also wonder who cooked up that “high school experiment” for him as well, seeing as it doesn’t prove anything about global warming, even if he hadn’t cheated on it.

    Glenn Reynolds of instapundit.com always says he’ll believe the warmists when they start acting like there is an emergency. So far, Gore flunks that test magnificently.

  5. Every solid wall is made one block at a time. The AGW scam was thrown over the world like an Iron Curtain. The surrealist fabric of AGW is fraying badly at the edges, isn’t it??

  6. Thanks for reproducing that comment. Of late, I’ve been unable even to read the comments on Delingpole’s Telegraph Web log.

    Has anybody else been having that problem?

  7. You can’t change the mind of other people. They have to do it themselves.

    For those “stuck” in a frame of mind, one avenue to get them to re-think is to ask them to show you “where you’ve gone wrong”. It might seem like a political tactic, but it’s just peer-review.

    In this case, Anthony’s attempt to replicate the experiment failed. It failed to replicate the reults shown. Oh deary me…. what’s Anthony done wrong?? :-)

    If Amanda’s dad was working as a Professional Engineer, then he’d have spent a large part of his time documenting what he had done and why he’d done it that way, or was planning to do it that way, so that others had the opportunity to identify errors. Engineers can only build on success if they’re not condemned to repeating mistakes.

  8. I’ve done my good deed for the day … I’ve tipped Drudge to the Telegraph article as well as the WUWT analysis that revealed Gore’s problem with accuracy.

    But, with the election cycle heating up, Gore might be last year’s news.

  9. Great comment Amanda and kudos.

    Just wanted to add,

    Lots of my relatives (4) have been “warmists” or “CAGW believers” if you will for a long time. They no longer want to talk about it. I think if they did they would be more sceptical then they were say 2 years ago. Just the fact that they no longer are concerned about my rather harsh statements says a ton. I think Amanda puts it the best, when people start to see the truth, the movement is done.

    We have a long way to go, but celebrate the small victories on the road. I have not confronted the relatives as I refuse to be that guy to rub it in their face of being right, but I think the truth slowly dawns on people over time. Admitting you are wrong is the hardest thing to do. As I told them all along, if I had been proven wrong, I would have admitted it myself, but I think it might be important to leave that there as something to remember.

    Some people were hood-winked and it is very difficult to admit to people you were duped. It makes you feel stupid and rather worthless, so whatever you do, do not force people to admit they were wrong, give them the opportunity to see the truth and let them come to their own conclusions over time.

    Just like in the case with Amanda, with relatives it is sometimes hard to deal with it, but the truth is that we will all be forced to come together again after this is all said and done. There is no reason to antagonize people for no reason. Let them admit it as they want. The truth is the goal, but some people were like I said just hood-winked and I do not think that should be held against them in the slightest. Believing that scientists were telling the truth should never be something people should feel ashamed about.

    Now the scientists…they are a completely different story.

  10. Anthony, you deserve that praise and much more! Your detailed analysis of Gore’s fraud could only be done with a newsman’s nose for the truth, a newscaster’s knowledge of video technology, and a scientist’s drive to replicate an experiment and resolve problems.

    This is why WUWT is an award-winning blog and attracts attention from many top-shelf scientists and other contributors. Well done, sir.

  11. To paraphrase Gail, “Wow”! This is heartening news.

    Over at Bishop Hill someone worries that WUWT bloggers are becoming triumphalist (see Mike Jackson’s rather uncomplimentary comment Sep 28, 2011 at 6:18 PM i the discussion of James Delingpole’s ‘Watermelons’ video http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/9/28/dellers-on-reason.html?currentPage=2#comments ), but this is real evidence that the tide is turning, even if ever so slowly. One can sense the changing currents – students nowadays don’t look at me as if I were ‘swivel-eyed’ when a sceptical commentary is presented. Unlike formerly, there is at least some openness (not by all of them) to discussing other views.

  12. Leon, the issue of climate change may spring up out of the blue in the final run in to the election, esp. as the “mainstream” media will persist in asking the GOP nominee why they “deny science”. That may in turn bring Al Gore out of the woodwork.

    Obama ignorantly said earlier this week:
    “You’ve got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change. It’s true.”

    Whoever the GOP candidate is, they need an expert such as Anthony to brief them on the basics (pretty straightforward, shouldn’t take much time). Perry has already been put on the spot wrt. “climate science” in a previous GOP primary debate, being asked as to which scientists he relied on to form his opinions. Although Perry didn’t fully stumble (he said climate change always occurs, the debate is whether it is largely natural or anthropogenic), he could have been better prepared. Obviously the problem is that if Perry had named actual scientists, we all know what would have ensued….

    (btw, a nugget from Amanda; and great sleuthing by Anthony his team).

  13. I been trying to convince a commentor/alarmist over at accuweather GW blog that there’s not enough evidence of CO2 being the cause. and every time i use a WUWT source he says oh those guys are unworthy to be taken seriously. there is no hope for him. i just somebody would put him in his place. I don’t know enough yet to really make my case really stick. Maybe somebody who is bored give him a run for his money? lol can find him on most any recent blog posts there. http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/climatechange/story/55404/global-co2-emissions-continue.asp for one example. there’s other ones too. but he just gets on my nerves >.<

  14. Daniel Vogler,

    When someone tries to denigrate WUWT, I refer them to the Weblog Awards, in which Anthony has won the category of the internet’s “Best Science” site twice running.

    WUWT is also #3 [and rising] in the WIKIO ranking out of hundreds, including all of the bigggest mainstream science magazine blogs like Science, Nature, etc. In only 5 years WUWT has shot up from zero to 89 million unique hits, and an amazing 675,000 reader comments. No other alarmist blog comes close.

    The reason is that WUWT does not censor comments like alarmist blogs do. It allows true freedom of speech, thus the grain of truth is winnowed from the chaff of propaganda; readers can make up their own minds, and arrive at reasonable conclusions based on the facts presented.

    The climate alarmists you debate with are just arm-waving. They have no substantial facts or evidence to support their belief system. If they did, the blogs they get their talking points from would be #1, instead of following up the rear.

  15. Jeff Mitchell says:
    September 28, 2011 at 7:24 pm
    ……..Glenn Reynolds of instapundit.com always says he’ll believe the warmists when they start acting like there is an emergency. So far, Gore flunks that test magnificently.

    This is a point that I have tried to make.

    Imagine a group were using devices that was creating emissions that once above a certain ‘tipping point’ level would cause the destruction of the world and that the emissions are getting ever closer to that tipping point level. One would expect the rulers of the world to immediately outlaw that type of device. But our politicians are taxing the use of the device but not preventing its use. I see no signs of panic from anyone that despite the Kyoto protocol the CO2 emissions continue to rise. This makes it obvious that the politicians a lot of them ‘greens’ regardless of their rhetoric, do not really believe that there is any end-of-the-world tipping point a few parts per billion ahead.

  16. A few hundred years ago the West went through a phase called The Reformation. It was about curruption and greed and building great, expensive whatyamacallits that still stand today. I think we’re in the midst of another. Not in the field of midevil religion, but in the field of modern religion – science. People will believe what they believe, and they will believe it until they see the lie of it with their own eyes. Nothing’s changed. We’re no more ‘advanced’ than we were 500 years ago. People are people!

    Fortunately, there are some still willing to brave the threats and rants of the infallible “High Clergy” and post their arguments for all to see.

  17. Tucci78 says:
    September 28, 2011 at 7:45 pm
    Thanks for reproducing that comment. Of late, I’ve been unable even to read the comments on Delingpole’s Telegraph Web log.
    Has anybody else been having that problem?
    =============================================
    You might have disqus (disqus.com) access disabled in your browser. It also needs a cookie.

  18. Several years ago (2009) I watched an administrator (Dr. Lubchenco, the Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and the administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) give a demonstration of the effects of CO2-induced ocean acidification before a hearing chaired by Congressman Markey. She put a chunk of dry ice in water and showed how it caused a dye to change color, indicating CO2 forms an acid in solution. Duh! Nothing like putting a piece of 100% CO2 in your solution to make a convincing argument about a trace gas. /sarc off

    Then she put a piece of chalk into a half water half vinegar solution and they all watched it bubble. This was supposed to represent how CO2 produced carbonic acid would dissolve away the shells of these cute little creatures called, wait for it, sea butterflies. She admitted that the vinegar was a stronger acid than CO2, but it was “simply a visual demonstration of what happens when you increase the level of acidity in a solution.” It was also a fraud of a demonstration because it had nothing to do with the real world.

    What the transcript does not communicate was the extreme awkwardness Dr. Lubchenco had with handling the demonstration apparatus, which were some containers of water, vinegar and a dye dropper bottle, with some other vessels. It was obvious to me she was uncomfortable with real lab ware, even though she was cited as being “a distinguished scholar on these issues” and “one of the most highly cited ecologists in the world.” Imagine that.

    So, faudulent demonstrations by AGW proponents are not that unusual, it has happened before.

    Here is a link to the transcript of the hearing:

    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/pdfs/cqtranscript_dec2houseclimatehearing.pdf

  19. Kudos Anthony, Amanda and all the supporters of the truth.
    I have already daid it before, more than once, that it was Al Gore’s extremism that woke me up from blindfoldedly accepting AGW The tell the whole truth, When many years ago I started reading, hearing and seeing stories telling us that CO2 is causing global warming, my scientific knowledge could not let me accept this easily, knowing full well that a few hundred ppm of a life-giving gas cannot be harmful. Chemistry, physics and paleo-geological reconstructions precluded all this. But the propoganda kept on, telling us about the scientific consensus etc. So, how could I, a simple man with a basic scientific degree not accept the consensus? Until that time, we were not being told about catastrophic future climate due to CO2 increase.

    Then came Al Gore who told me that my grand children would not have a planet where to live if we keep on pumping CO2 into the atmos. That was the straw that broke my scientific camel’s back. I could not take it blindfldedly anymore and I went back to the science. And I discovered that Al Gore is a fraud and all he had been telling us was all scientific c**p.

    And then I dicovered WUWT and from there all the other blogs. Then we had climategate followed by all the other gates, the billion-euro green frauds inside the EU, the corruption in the EPA, etc etc. Meanwhile we are seeing the collapse of the carbon trading schemes, countries backing out of carbon reduction schemes, the airlines telling Europe to scrap the carbon taxes on flights etc etc.
    The AGW edifice is crumbling fast and Al Gore has been a catalyst to this collapse.

    But then

  20. “Triumphalism of the skeptics” is acutally JOY that truth sets us free. Yes, joy, in real science. Congratulations, Anthony, for original research, investigative journalism, and a good ear (and eye) for the lies. The unique success of WUWT arises from your passion for science and unusual ability to communicate it to even the most dedicated Warmists. Delingpole wrote: “What’s so thoroughly cherishable about this story is the forensic attention to detail which Anthony Watts has brought to bear on it….You might call this obsessive. I call it our salvation….Look at almost any tussle between, say, WUWT on the one side, RealClimate on the other, and you’ll notice that when it finally boils down to the irreducible truth, the side that emerges triumphant is the sceptical one, not the alarmist one.”

    Amanda’s compliment to you and your work (from Delingpole’s citing and discussion of it) must be among the most heart-warming you have had: “I forwarded the link to WUWT and Watts’s ‘re-enactment’ to my father….When someone like my dad (a mechanical engineer, now retired, and a man that does not like to be manipulated or hoodwinked) finally calls these scientists ‘bums’, then you know there’s trouble afoot.*”

    Smokey (September 29, 2011 at 1:53 am) reminds all your readers: Aw, shucks, folks, that’s just what Anthony does. I remain forever grateful.

  21. This is what i post on Delingpole article (uk centric stuff but thought id share).

    Very well said. However, lets not kid ourselves the ‘beleivers’ will see reason in the face of counterwailing empirical evidence anytime soon. In the UK we have signed up to spend £18 Billion per year, for forty years on tackling ‘climate change’. Thats 60% of our spend on the Military for heavens sake, and in total enough to wipe the national debt. That is a lot of incentive to beleive in/ find evidence for the end of the world. Someone somewhere has a very healthy bank balance . Thats also a lot of careers and livelihoods dependent upon this premise, which will be defended to the last. This is at a time when we have a world debt crisis 10% joblessness and cuts everywhere! Perhaps ive misjudged it all and its really a massive keynsian job creation scheme for middle class graduates in combined globalization and geography who are otherwise unemployable on account of ther ‘dubstep’ hair.
    Am i the only one that finds that it borders on parody that we have a ‘ministry for climate change’, the met office is now the ‘met office for weather and climate change’ and the Conservative party logo has become a green tree?! Im not a Conservative, so i suppose at least I can let the last bit raise a smile

  22. gnomish says:
    September 28, 2011 at 8:01 pm

    a jewel every second is one Watt.

    As my old mentor used to say: “That was 2/3 of a pun. P U”
    Please throw a nerf ball at yourself. (My teleporting super long range nerf thrower is in the shop.)

  23. commonsensemajority says:
    September 28, 2011 at 10:00 pm

    . . . Whoever the GOP candidate is, they need an expert such as Anthony to brief them on the basics (pretty straightforward, shouldn’t take much time). Perry has already been put on the spot wrt. “climate science” in a previous GOP primary debate, being asked as to which scientists he relied on to form his opinions. Although Perry didn’t fully stumble (he said climate change always occurs, the debate is whether it is largely natural or anthropogenic), he could have been better prepared. Obviously the problem is that if Perry had named actual scientists, we all know what would have ensued….

    Over on the EPA thread, I suggested:

    How about inviting all the candidates (declared and not) to a Climate Realist Advance (not a ‘retreat’!): a weekend of seminars and discussions with luminaries like Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, Lord Monckton, Willis Eschenbach, etc., etc.? I’d be willing to help out.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/28/epa-rules-and-how-they-dont-follow-their-own/#comment-754985

    /Mr Lynn

  24. Smokey says: (in response to Daniel Vogler)
    September 29, 2011 at 1:53 am

    “No other alarmist blog comes close.”
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    My bold. While I realize your intent, the word ‘other’ causes a mind-blink. The result is that you imply WUWT is an alarmist blog.

    Prior to this in your comment you suggest that awards and unique hits imply credibility. While a common enough idea, this won’t win-over those trying “to denigrate WUWT.” There are uninformed comments made here and a person that finds just one can grasp it like a floundering swimmer would grasp a flotation vest.

    You might ask the someone you refer to in your comment to select his or her favorite blog-source of climate change information. Then go to that site, find statements not agreeing with solid science, and point these out to the person. They, then, will have to absorb the information and adjust (or not) their mind. Cognitive dissonance can be your friend in this, and their bane or mental burden.

  25. John F. Hultquist,

    You’re right, I should not have written “other.” My mistake.

    I’ve tried posting on alarmist blogs plenty, but I no longer bother because most of them heavily censor or deviously edit credible skeptical arguments.

    Also, to a large extent the awards and numerous hits and comments do enhance WUWT’s popularity. By allowing all points of view, traffic increases. There is a connection between uncensored scientific discourse and credibility.

    Finally, there will always be uninformed comments on any blog. But when there is no censorship, comments that are wrong are quickly corrected by others. When I comment, it isn’t only for the person I’m responding to, it is intended to allow WUWT’s wide readership to individually decide for themselves who is more credible, and what the truth of the matter is.

    That’s why blogs like realclimate are not popular. When people are censored, they tend to lose interest, and they migrate to sites where they are allowed to post comments unmolested by the moderators. And through the back and forth of those uncensored discussions, the truth is winnowed from bogus claims like wheat from chaff.

    That is why the alarmist crowd hates WUWT. By providing a forum for open discussion the truth is getting out, and they don’t like it. They’re losing control of their narrative, and they can no longer frame the arguments the way they want.

  26. Let’s see, over the past 10 to 20 years something near $70bn has been spent trying to demonstrate the evils of AGW. I imagine some of this $70bn (maybe spillage from big Al’s deep pockets) found its way into Al Gore’s “high school physics” experiment, which when documented in video format had to be rigged. I don’t have $70bn, but I’m happy to contribute what money I can to fund Anthony’s exposure of the “dog and pony show” that is AGW.

  27. Ian W says:
    September 29, 2011 at 2:55 am
    Jeff Mitchell says:
    September 28, 2011 at 7:24 pm
    ……..Glenn Reynolds of instapundit.com always says he’ll believe the warmists when they start acting like there is an emergency. So far, Gore flunks that test magnificently.
    ……This is a point that I have tried to make.
    …Imagine a group were using devices that was creating emissions that once above a certain ‘tipping point’ level would cause the destruction of the world and that the emissions .are getting ever closer to that tipping point level. ………

    Ian I would leave out about preventing the use and taxing, and say that you would expect the people who are point out how damaging the devices are, should stop using them.

  28. Clearly the whole “you can do this at home” thing is based on the knowledge that nobody will. Why should they? They just watched someone ELSE do it. And nobody on TV would ever lie, right? Well, except right-side politicians.

    We have raised a generation even more gullible than the last. They believe what is on the internet, what they see on TV, and what they read in magazines, even though all 3 things I just mentioned are breathtakingly easy to manipulate.

    The concept is simple… tell people something. Even if it’s a lie, they will remember what they were told over and above any correction or retraction. I used to have a friend that used that technique to pick up girls. I still remember the one that insisted on calling him “Doctor”.

  29. benfrommo says:
    September 28, 2011 at 9:43 pm

    The truth is the goal, but some people were like I said just hood-winked and I do not think that should be held against them in the slightest. Believing that scientists were telling the truth should never be something people should feel ashamed about.

    Given the gravity of the recommendations/demands/arbitrary government programs which spin off from accepting the AGW proposition, I’m not so sure about that. People have a duty to themselves and their families and their societies to take serious issues with huge consequences seriously. Deferring to anonymous scientists, particularly when said scientists are saying not to read or consider opposing views, is very blameworthy laziness and negligence, IMO.

  30. It’s true about the vinegar (acid) and chalk (calcium carbonate). But, once dissolved, it is more readily available to the Foraminifera and diatoms etc. who build shells in the first place. In other words, a little acidification speeds up the life cycling the mineral in the water column, far from “damaging” it.

  31. CodeTech says:
    September 30, 2011 at 12:29 am

    The concept is simple… tell people something. Even if it’s a lie, they will remember what they were told over and above any correction or retraction.

    Why should we believe that? Just because you said it? On the internet?
    ;p

Comments are closed.