Quote of the week, the hilarious EPIC FAIL of Dana Nuccitelli

This has been a weird week with my appearance on PBS Newshour. As Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters documents, the alarmosphere has gone beserk over my appearance on PBS.

Watching it, it becomes clear they are in a panic. Even Ralph Nader says Washington is running away from the issue. So, like anyone who’s panicked, Nuccitelli makes an epic fail in his haste to discredit me. He’s upset that I was allowed to speak at PBS and I was just one of a balanced panel of people on that program. It must have been the horrible things I said like:

SPENCER MICHELS: His conclusion though is that basically global warming exists and that the scientists, no matter what the problems were, were pretty much right on.

ANTHONY WATTS: I agree with him that global warming exists. However, the ability to attribute the percentage of global warming to CO2 versus other man-made influences is still an open question.

or this:

ANTHONY WATTS: I’m saying that the data might be biased by these influences to a percentage. Yes, we have some global warming, it’s clear the temperature has gone up in the last 100 years. But what percentage of that is from carbon dioxide? And what percentage of that is from changes in the local and measurement environment?

So to counter those terrible opinions on percentages, Nuccitelli goes on the emotional offensive in a rant at Romm’s romper room, and in the process, makes an epic failure of the most basic rule of percentages:

A Deeper Look At False Balance On PBS News Hour | ThinkProgress

…the amount of warming caused by human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is known to a high degree of certainty, and these same studies have all found that GHGs are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming over this timeframe.

Gosh. GHG’s are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming? That’s an epic fail if I’ve ever seen one. Even Nuccitelli’s buddy, Stephan Lewadowsky’s statistical blundering on his “skeptics deny the moon landing” paper isn’t that bad. Tamino will not be impressed.

No wonder Noel Sheppard said “If you had any doubts about the level of zealotry involved in today’s global warming movement, they likely will be erased by the goings on at PBS the past few days.”

But when you see the sort of things the people at Skeptical Science write, you start to understand that this isn’t about science, but about pure unmitigated hate against people that have differing views about climate science. For example, this came from the SkS secret web forum where all of the moderators and authors (including Nuccitelli) get together to talk about what they are going to do about the climate skeptics.

Here is Glenn Tamblyn (Skeptical Science author/moderator) secretly conversing with his SkS pals on their off limits forum and saying “we need a conspiracy to save humanity”. The Viet Cong comparison is a nice touch too. There’s talk of convening a “war council” too.

And this isn’t about science or personal careers and reputations any more. This is a fight for survival. Our civilisations survival. .. We need our own anonymous (or not so anonymous) donors, our own think tanks…. Our Monckton’s … Our assassins.

Anyone got Bill Gates’ private number, Warren Buffett, Richard Branson? Our ‘side’ has got to get professional, ASAP. We don’t need to blog. We need to network. Every single blog, organisation, movement is like a platoon in an army. ..This has a lot of similarities to the Vietnam War….And the skeptics are the Viet Cong… Not fighting like ‘Gentlemen’ at all. And the mainstream guys like Gleick don’t know how to deal with this. Queensberry Rules rather than biting and gouging.

..So, either Mother Nature deigns to give the world a terrifying wake up call. Or people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history. Now. Because time is up…Someone needs to convene a council of war of the major environmental movements, blogs, institutes etc. In a smoke filled room (OK, an incense filled room) we need a conspiracy to save humanity.

[As quoted by Geoff Chambers in this Bishop Hill thread. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/3/26/opengate-josh-158.html?currentPage=2#comments ]

Yet climate skeptics are being painted as conspiracy theory nutters by the very same people who say “a conspiracy to save humanity” is needed.

More here.  Dana Nuccitelli’s email response to me on 9/14/2012 when I asked him if he had any remorse about this?

“No.”

I have to wonder, does Dana put tinfoil under that helmet to protect him from skeptical climate thoughts of the general populace when he rides his scooter around in Sacramento?

Dana on his scooter, from his public blog “about” page

One final note, Nuccitelli says this in his rant at Romm’s romper room:

Not only has the accuracy of the surface temperature record been confirmed by BEST and Watts’ own Fall et al. (2011), but also by a number of other peer-reviewed papers such as Peterson et al. (2003) and Menne et al. (2010).  If Watts believes these studies are flawed, he should attempt to demonstrate it in a peer-reviewed paper.  Until he has accomplished this, by his own standards his argument is invalid.

Apparently it was just too much for him to link to the Watts et al 2012 paper, even though he’s written about it before (or to mention that the BEST paper failed peer review).

Oh and for the record Dana, I have two peer reviewed papers in which I am an author, not one. See here, you might want to fix your article. And, there’s more to come, not that it matters to people like Dana whether it is peer reviewed or not, they’ll diss it just the same because we need a conspiracy to save humanity.

*He’s on a mission from clods.

*with apologies to Jake and Elwood
About these ads
This entry was posted in Humor, Quote of the Week, Satire and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

176 Responses to Quote of the week, the hilarious EPIC FAIL of Dana Nuccitelli

  1. Chris Reilly says:

    Tamblyn’s argues that (1) skeptics are the Viet Cong, and (2) alarmists must build the greatest guerrilla force in human history. Guy needs to take some meds (or, alternatively, start taking some) and stop watching the History channel …

  2. Gary says:

    GHGs must be like the best athletes — they give 110%.

  3. Luke….

    You have the FORCE….you have nothing to fear from the nutticelli droids ! ! !

    Obi “No Warm” Kenobi

  4. DaveF says:

    I expect over a hundred percent of climate scientists agree with Nuccitelli.

  5. pat says:

    Who pays these angry delusionals and why?

  6. kcrucible says:

    “Yet climate skeptics are being painted as conspiracy theory nutters by the very same people who say “a conspiracy to save humanity” is needed.”

    And more to the point, if anyone suggests that there actually IS a conspiracy, there’s now a paper purporting to claim that you believe that everything is a conspiracy. How convenient.

  7. cagwskeptic99 says:

    Anthony, I think you see hate where I see people desperately trying to protect the flow of grant money. The alarmists know very well that the spigot is about to run dry because there is nothing to be alarmed about. Even if the Obama administration continues for four more years, the spigot will probably run dry. If Obama loses, some of these rent seekers could wind up discussing false claims and false statements in their grant business with the Justice Department.

    Any discussion in the main stream media to the effect that CO2 is not about to cause the end of the world as we know it threatens their honey pot.

  8. KR says:

    I believe the >100% statement comes from the fact that GHG increases alone would have caused more warming than observed without the offsetting natural factors (volcanic activity, decreasing TSI) that have had a small cooling contribution over the last few decades. See the discussion at http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

    In other words, a completely supportable statement given the evidence discussed in that context.

  9. John from CA says:

    The reaction is amazing, a perfect example of shooting the messenger and willingness to censor debate. If anything, I thought your comments understated the situation but they were very focused.

  10. DGH says:

    How is this an epic fail? According to the models over 100% of the observed warming is caused by human activity. Ask Hansen.

  11. O2BNAZ says:

    “It isn’t about science…”
    It’s never been about science nor is it about their “un-mitigated hate…”. “Science” was and still is just the medium used to justify their proselytism and imposition of a specific economic and political ideology/theology. You are taking away the means to their end and believe this; they haven’t even begun to show their hatred for you. This bitterness, enmity and acrimony prove a systemic ideological rot in the climate science community and belie a deeply rooted fear of you.

  12. James Padgett says:

    In case you missed it Dana also commented on the youtube video of your interview:

    “Absolutely horrible reporting. Why even interview a blogger to begin with? If you want to learn about climate science then talk to a climate scientist, not a conspiracy theorist.

    dana1981 1 day ago”

    http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?threaded=1&v=UmIJCGQzCiU

  13. Davos says:

    I believe the reason why she said “over 100%” was because the net effects of ‘all other forcings’ would be for cooling. So, in her assessment, not only does CO2 balance out the net effects of all (100%) other forcings, but also adds an extra measure (the >100%) that puts us in a warming trend.

    It didn’t seem as ‘epic’ a fail to me.

  14. highflight56433 says:

    “For example, this came from the SkS secret web forum where all of the moderators and authors (including Nuccitelli) get together to talk about what they are going to do about the climate skeptics.”

    A shift from saving the planet from false claims of over indulgent use of cheap energy to villainous rhetoric toward opposition to the false peril and calamity just around the corner. Note a lack of sincere concern for your own survival upon doomsday.

  15. Man Bearpig says:

    “and these same studies have all found that GHGs are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming over this timeframe”

    >100 % !! Its a lot worse than we thought then – are we all going to die ?

  16. Alan the Brit says:

    Sadly Nucciltelli appears to be one of those dumbed down people! We here it in society sadly all the time. Q.”How sure are you of that?” A. “150%!” Q. “How did you rate that event?” A. ” a thousand percent!” I could go on but it is so embarrasing. What started off as a sales/marketting encouraging statement as in, “you must give it a hundred & ten percent!” Which is partly forgivable in some ways, but arithmetically, it’s a nonsense that has become enshrined in modern English usage mostly by the “yoof” of today! The subtile observation that percent, means per hundredth part seems to have escaped them, man/woman in street or scientific intellectual included! God forbid I here an engineer say it, then I’ll throw in the towel, hang up my soccer boots, take an early bath, fold, hang up my gunbelt, ride off into the sunset, hang up my spurs, jack it in…………..sorry got carried away, all that CO2 in the atmosphere is what’s done it, it’s affected my concise thoughts!

  17. Ian W says:

    KR says:
    September 19, 2012 at 9:15 am

    I believe the >100% statement comes from the fact that GHG increases alone would have caused more warming than observed without the offsetting natural factors (volcanic activity, decreasing TSI) that have had a small cooling contribution over the last few decades. See the discussion at http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

    In other words, a completely supportable statement given the evidence discussed in that context.

    Nice try KR – but what he actually said is: “and these same studies have all found that GHGs are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming over this timeframe”

    That to put it simply is an impossibility.

  18. cRR Kampen says:

    “GHG’s are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming?”
    Yes, of course they are. Without GHG increase earth would have slowly cooled. We do remember solar insulation is diminishing a little bit don’t we?

  19. JJ says:

    cagwskeptic99 says:

    Anthony, I think you see hate where I see people desperately trying to protect the flow of grant money.

    Well, there is no one that a liberal hates more than someone standing between them and a government check, so there would appear to be some common ground here.

  20. Man Bearpig says:

    ” Davos says:
    September 19, 2012 at 9:26 am

    I believe the reason why she said “over 100%” was because the net effects of ‘all other forcings’ would be for cooling. So, in her assessment, not only does CO2 balance out the net effects of all (100%) other forcings, but also adds an extra measure (the >100%) that puts us in a warming trend.

    It didn’t seem as ‘epic’ a fail to me.

    hmmm then why have they changed the text? Surely if the statement was correct there would be no need to change it.

  21. cui bono says:

    So he’s saying we might be heading for a new Ice Age without CO2? That was Sir Fred Hoyle’s view.

    Yaaaay – let’s hear it for CO2! (can’t decide whether to add /sarc)

  22. KnR says:

    Its been clear for sometime that some AGW proponents act like religions fanatics protecting their faith from ‘evil ones ‘ rather than actual people involved in science. And to be fair to the ‘ground troops’ its a approach their ‘prophets’ themselves take and promote.

  23. timg56 says:

    Dana Nuccitelli is a clown. An angry, boorish, ill mannered clown at that. But then I guess that is the skill set one needs to be SkS’s resident attack dog. (I am reminded of a snippy little chihuahua.)

  24. Man Bearpig says:

    I think that over 100 percent of climate scientists need to read statistics for dummies.

  25. Andrew30 says:

    He surveyed 500% of self described enviro-socialist climate scientologist writers and 97% of them agree that humans caused the end of the last ice age.

    PS.
    Anthony, whats up with the banner headline Above your masthead?

    REPLY: WordPress has identified WUWT as a high traffic site, so they’ve added more advertising. I get a small percentage with each click. Hopefully when I get the site retooled soon we can make it less obtrusive – Anthony

  26. richardscourtney says:

    KR:

    I read your post at September 19, 2012 at 9:15 am.

    Laugh? I fell off my chair.

    More of the same please. But don’t forget the sarc tag when next posting such ludicrous nonsense in future because there are people who lack a sense of humour so may take you seriously.

    Richar

  27. timg56 says:

    Anthony,

    RE the “epic fail” tag – just my opinion, but a bit over the top. It certainly is worth drawing attention to. Hell, Dana can create a legion of skeptics all by his lonesome. The comment is certainly a bit ironic from someone who constantly talks about real climate scientists and “peer review”. It just isn’t of epic quality.

    On the other hand, “Scooter” Nuccitelli probably does qualify as one big fail.

  28. KR says:

    Ian W – Basic math here: if you add up both positive and negative contributions equaling 100% of the forcings, the sum of the positive contributions will be be >= 100%, and the sum of the negative contributions will be <= 0%.

  29. SasjaL says:

    Their behavior resembles more and more like the extreme worshipers of Islam. Severe lack of reality check. Any type of criticism, even constructive , are considered as attacks against their religion.

    Back to the Future Middle Ages …

  30. Dave A says:

    Thank you Anthony
    You have made my day seeing the over 100% quote
    Keep ‘em rattled. It’s best that way :-)
    Dave

  31. David S says:

    I don’t think it is as much of a fail as it looks, certainly not by Dana’s elevated standards. It is just an assertion without any supporting evidence that without CO2 emissions the warming trend since the LIA would have gone sharply into reverse over the last 100 years, that is, CO2 is responsible for all the recent warming and preventing some cooling that would otherwise have taken place. Completely made-up and implausible without an explanation of why the prior warming would have suddenly gone into reverse, but not logically impossible.

  32. rabbit says:

    You go on a nationally broadcast news show and say something reasonable and defensible. Is it correct? Maybe, maybe not – time will tell. But it’s a rational and well thought-out position backed by evidence.

    Then you stand back and watch the reactions. Some people will disagree with you and put forward reasons for doing so. These are called “scientists”. And some will be outraged, call you names, and say that our survival depends on curtailing debate. These are called “political extremists”.

  33. WillR says:

    …people like us have to build the greatest guer[r]illa [ed.] force in human history. Now. Because time is up…Someone needs to convene a council of war of the major environmental movements, blogs, institutes etc. In a smoke filled room (OK, an incense filled room) we need a conspiracy to save humanity” and …

    Perhaps they should make the effort to organize such a conspiracy — with emphasis on word organize. Something must be done if they are to succeed — current strategies and tactics seem to be vain and misguided hopes of glory.

    I recommend that they train their elite troops to not aim their “snipers rifles” at own feet. Errors are painful. People who handle weapons of great power must be trained in use if actual target is to be acquired. This lesson is valuable. Hopefully they will credit me with the insightful recognition of their inadequacies and remedy to same.

    Also, as an additional precaution during training, I recommend use of low power BB guns for their crack snipers. Use of .50 cal ammunition has been cause of many lost feet in their training exercises.

  34. Dan in Nevada says:

    KnR says:
    September 19, 2012 at 9:34 am
    “Its been clear for sometime that some AGW proponents act like religions fanatics protecting their faith…”

    This is the most bizarre aspect of the whole CAGW circus. Contrast their behavior with “economists” like Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman, who in my view are clearly wrong (we’ll likely be finding out in the next couple of years – I hope they are right and I am wrong). At least they talk and sound like economists, not wild-eyed religious fanatics.

  35. RobertInAz says:

    Anthony,
    I cannot look into Dana’s mind and will not read the entire rant. The way one gets to “over 100%” of the observed warming is to have a cooling that offsets part of that. Or perhaps part of the CO2 impact remains hidden in the ever elusive committed warming that became fashionable as the actual warming continued to fall short of high expectations.

    Ever respectfully
    Robert

  36. Stephanie Clague says:

    We see true believers on a mission to save the world, whether we like it or not. True believers cannot tolerate unbelievers, those who pollute the narrative and stand in the way of the mass conversion of others or the holy scriptures itself. A believer who believes it is their mission to save the planet is called a fanatic, and they are prime material for cults. What we are seeing is a religion feeling threatened, they cannot dispute the evidence placed before them by sceptics and so the automatic response is to block the message or failing that attack the messengers and this they do with all the venom of a religious cult. This is not about science anymore, the fabricated alarmist science has failed and what we are seeing is the defence mechanism of those who have lost the argument but cannot bear to lose what they see as a war. They are hurting badly and they know it.

  37. Paul says:

    Personally I think that you should have stated from the outset that the Man-made part of warming is so small that it is virtually insignificant. The danger with agreeing that there is an element of warming from CO2 but we don’t know how much gives credence to the warmist view.
    Personally I dismiss their arguments from the outset which upsets them tremendously and gives clear clarification. It is up to the warmists to present their catastrophic ideas and proof to go with it.
    Otherwise it appears to others that both sides are dancing on the head of a pin but are in general agreement with the idea that CO2 causes global warming or climate change.

  38. PaulH says:

    Hooray for Team C02! No matter what, they always give 110%
    ;->

  39. Tom in Indy says:

    Of course the implication of the > 100% of observed warming claim is that CO2 has caused 100% of the OBSERVED warming. Or, as a poster said above, to paraphrase, CO2 CAN explain 100% of the warming ALL BY ITSELF. Whoa….hold on. That implies that the CO2 driven models attribute too much of the observed warming to CO2. It is no wonder the CO2 based “projections” are too high. Epic Fail either way you look at it.

  40. gringojay says:

    “Your only taking flak when your over the target.” (quote: Florida congressman Allen West, retired U.S. army Lt. Colonel)

  41. JerryM says:

    Brad Keyes’ brilliant summary on Dana’s recent WorldShaping post:
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Ever wonder why your cause is losing, Dana?

    Because when people ask you for evidence that your position is correct you

    – give dubious evidence for it
    – say you don’t need to give any evidence for it
    – say it’s self-evident
    – say that asking for evidence for your view = denial of your view
    – say that asking for evidence for your view = denial of the wetness of water
    – say that asking for evidence for your view = trolling

    Open minded people read these threads. They can only conclude that the case for alarm is weaker than they’ve been told. Thanks to your arguments, there is one more “skeptic” (infidel, disbeliever, denier) in the world.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  42. John says:

    “GHGs are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming” means he thinks it would have cooled without GHGs.

  43. Bob Tisdale says:

    Thanks, Anthony. I needed a laugh today. I’m writing my post about Trenberth and Fusello 2012 and that sort of nonsense that’s peddled as climate science these days makes me cranky.

    But Dana Nuccitelli’s “GHGs are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming” has me giggling as I write this. How absurd!!!!!!

    Thanks again.

  44. mark says:

    It seems I have to rehash my previous analysis and observe that 105.6% of climate statistics are made up on the spot

  45. davidmhoffer says:

    KR and Davos are correct. Take a look at the graph below the comment, and that is, in fact, the context of the quote, poorly worded and misleading though it may be.

    The greater error in my view is that this is yet another blatant attempt at cherry picking. Take a look at the time period the stats are drawn from, which is the last 50 to 60 years. So, let’s ask ourselves what that chart would look like in comparison for the last 15 years, in which GHG’s have been at their highest levels ever, while temps have remained flat.

    For the temps to have been flat in the last 15 years, despite GHG’s being at their maximim over both the last 60 years and the last 15 of those 60 years, something has to have changed such that the energy balance from 60 years ago was not stable, but for the last 15 years it has been. Two possibilities come to mind:

    1. The cooling effects from all sources combined have increased from 6x to 8x from what they were 60 years ago, or:

    2. The warming effects of GHG’s are grossly over estimated in the first place.

    There being no evidence to support the former, the latter is the more logical conclusion. All cooling effects combined would have had to increase by factors of 6 to 8 to counterbalance the increase in Co2 from 60 years ago until now to arrive at a flat temperature record for the last 15 years.

    REPLY: Oh I don’t doubt that, but if he’s going to cite statistics as some sort of expert, he gets to take the knocks just like everybody else. – Anthony

  46. more soylent green! says:

    My father taught me to always give 110% on anything I do.

    @KR: 2 + 2 = 5?

  47. Francisco says:

    Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger wrote a book in the 15th century called Malleus Malleficarum, dealing with the topic of witches and witchcraft, and especially what should be done about those people who show skepticism regarding the existence of witches or their phenomenal powers to do evil. It’s an amusing read. At some point they distinguish between the unlearned illeterate majority of the public, and those who hold prominent positions in society. The former can be shown some leniency for their skepticism, on account of their vast ignorance. But the latter should be expected to know better, and should therefore be dealt with harshly. They also distinguish between skeptical proclivities that are kept to oneself (not advisable, but permissible) and the public expression of those intimate thoughts, which is outrageous. The entire work can be read here:
    http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/

    Some quotes:

    Here beginneth auspiciously the first part of this work. Question the First. Whether the belief that there are such beings as witches is so essential a part of the Catholic faith that obstinately to maintain the opposite opinion manifestly savours of heresy.
    [...]
    Here are three heretical errors which must be met, and when they have been disproved the truth will be plain. For certain writers, pretending to base their opinion upon the words of S. Thomas (iv, 24) when he treats of impediments brought about by magic charms, have tried to maintain that there is not such a thing as magic, that it only exists in the imagination of those men who ascribe natural effects, the cause whereof are not known, to witchcraft and spells. There are others who acknowledge indeed that witches exist, but they declare that the influence of magic and the effects of charms are purely imaginary and phantasmical. A third class of writers maintain that the effects said to be wrought by magic spells are altogether illusory and fanciful, although it may be that the devil does really lend his aid to some witch.

    [...] This error seems to be based upon two passages from the Canons where certain women are condemned who falsely imagine that during the night they ride abroad with Diana or Herodias
    . This may read in the Canon. Yet because such things often happen by illusion are merely in the imagination, those who suppose that all the effects of witchcraft are mere illusion and imagination are very greatly deceived.
    [...]
    Accordingly, how can it be that the denial or frivolous contradiction of any of these propositions can be free from the mark of some notable heresy? Let every man judge for himself unless indeed his ignorance excuse him. But what sort of ignorance may excuse him we shall very shortly proceed to explain. From what has been already said we draw the following conclusion; It is a most certain and most Catholic opinion that there are sorcerers and witches who by the help of the devil, on account of a compact which they have entered into with him, are able, since God allows this, to produce real and actual evils and harm, which does not render it unlikely that they can also bring about visionary and phantastical illusions by some extraordinary and peculiar means. The scope of the present inquiry, however, is witchcraft, and this very widely differs from these other arts, and therefore a consideration of them would be nothing to the purpose, since those who practise them may with greater accuracy be termed fortune-tellers and soothsayers rather than sorcerers.
    [...]
    Here it must be noticed that there are fourteen distinct species which come under the genus superstition, but these for the sake of brevity it is hardly necessary to detail, since they have been most clearly set out by S. Isidore
    in his Etymologiae, Book 8, and by S. Thomas in his Second of the Second, question 92. Moreover, there will be explicit mention of these rather lower when we discuss the gravity of this heresy, and this will be in the last question of our First Part.
    [...]
    The second part of our inquiry is this, whether obstinately to maintain that witches do not exist is heretical. The questions arises whether people who hold that witches do not exist are to be regarded as notorious heretics, or whether they are to be regarded as gravely suspect of holding heretical opinions. It seems that the first opinion is the correct one. For this is undoubtedly in accordance with the opinion of the learned Bernard.
    [...]

  48. RockyRoad says:

    The Warmistas can’t tell the truth so a lack of mathematical acumen isn’t surprising–at all!

  49. vboring says:

    The greater than 100% claim is probably based on the claim that Chinese coal plant SOx emissions are cancelling some CO2 warming. So CO2 is responsible for more warming than we’re measuring.

  50. My understanding of percentages only allows numbers great than 100% in the case of estimates, usually that of volume; e.g. I have a bucket, I estimate it may hold 1 gallon, and I have placed the bucket in a large platter whose volume I have previously recorded. Unfortunately, I somehow missed the bright yellow and green label indicating the bucket was a rinneadh in Éirinn, and was a litre bucket, and so had some spillage into my pan. Estimating the volume of spillage (2.78541 of a liter) would give me the percentage over my failed estimate. In short, I’m admitting my basic grammar school science project was a dismal failure……….

  51. Bob Tisdale says:

    Anthony: I told you SkepticalScience was a comedy website:
    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/climate-skeptics-forget-the-obvious-intent-of-the-website-skepticalscience/
    Dana’s goofy statement still has me smiling. I had to check it. They haven’t corrected it yet.

  52. Brian R says:

    Is that an electric scooter that Mr. Nuccitelli is riding? It doesn’t look like it to me. Maybe someone should tell Mr. Nuccitelli that tailpipe emissions from scooters are some of the worst on the roads. 2-stroke motors have never been known for their clean exhaust emissions.

  53. Mark of OK says:

    Anthony, I would expect your clients from your “real” business will be targeted soon if they haven’t already. Since they cannot dispute with facts, I would imagine they will go after you in other cowardly ways. Keep up the great work, I’ll keep on reading.

  54. highflight56433 says:

    “This has a lot of similarities to the Vietnam War….And the skeptics are the Viet Cong… Not fighting like ‘Gentlemen’ at all..”

    I recall those of us who were dropping our influence on the thinking process of Hanoi to be more gentlemenly then one whose lacking in character is to make conspiracy a means to enforce a lie in a desperate effort to legitamize their belief. To cheat is not a value of which to promote. Being said, I wonder who is least of a gentleman; or is that too obvious.

  55. Richdo says:

    “REPLY: WordPress has identified WUWT as a high traffic site, so they’ve added more advertising. I get a small percentage with each click. Hopefully when I get the site retooled soon we can make it less obtrusive – Anthony”

    click, click, click, …

  56. You’ve got a large bucket of water at room temperature.

    Into it you dump a small amount of ice, and you pour in a small amount of boiling water.

    You take the temperature of the water in the bucket again. It has risen.

    What percentage of the warming is due to the ice?

    Bonus points: What percentage of the warming is due to the boiling water?

    Sheesh.

    Also, see the radiative forcings diagrams from the IPCC AR4. It’s clear that GHG’s are responsible for > 100% of the total forcings.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-ts-5.jpeg

  57. highflight56433 says:

    P.S. The top banner should go. Why be secondary?

  58. John Whitman says:

    Dana & the CSRRT?

    Let’s take the CSRRT’s mission as rapid response to all things skeptic, but not credible response; which probably explains Dana’s incompetent rapid responses wrt PBS hosting Anthony.

    John

  59. KR says:

    rustneversleeps – I would agree; many of the posters here appear unaware of negative numbers, or their effect on sums.

  60. richardscourtney says:

    davidmhoffer:

    I rarely disagree with you except on matters of politics (where we are poles apart) but I write to dispute your post at September 19, 2012 at 10:10 am which begins saying

    KR and Davos are correct. Take a look at the graph below the comment, and that is, in fact, the context of the quote, poorly worded and misleading though it may be.

    Sorry, the “poorly worded” excuse does not apply.

    Nucciltelli is reported to have said

    the amount of warming caused by human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is known to a high degree of certainty, and these same studies have all found that GHGs are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming over this timeframe

    One can assume he believes the completely untrue assertion that “the amount of warming caused by human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is known to a high degree of certainty” and, therefore, he was speaking on the basis of that belief. In that case he was talking about “the observed warming over this timeframe”.

    The “observed warming” cannot be “over 100%” of itself.

    He may have meant
    (a) the observed warming would have been greater if not mitigated by other factors
    or he may have meant
    (b) the observed warming is less than the understanding of “the amount of warming caused by human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions” so the understanding is wrong
    or he may have meant
    (c) the observed warming is a result of the moon being made of green cheese
    or he may have meant
    (d) etc.

    But we can only reasonably assume he meant what he said. And what he said is nonsense.

    Richard

  61. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Over 100% of climate scientists polled agree that global warming is caused by man. It would have been higher if it weren’t for all those skeptics who had a kind-of cooling response to the question.

  62. Bob says:

    This Nuccitelli guy seems to have it all wrong, but we see that more and more. His fellow travelers don’t discuss science because they have none outside of all the refuted papers of Mann, Sherwood, etc. Like Willis said, it’s models all the way down.

    In one of Anthony’s posts, an AGW fanboy site called watchingthedeniers.com was mentioned, I checked it out. It seems to be a high school type society with the requisite tribal structure. That site is run by somebody that is afraid to engage in a reasonable discussion, and snips comments of those who intimate their little website is appropriate for the Looney Tunes set. Oh, the indignity of it all, being snipped by a high school mentality.

    Then I took a look at SkepticalScience, and was astounded at the rank ignorance as represented by the content of their site. Under the menu tag, “Evidence”, is a collection of unrelated events and terms presented as evidence. For example, “last year was a hot year!” They have no clue how to discuss physical relationships instead of coincidences.

    I was embarrassed for them.

    Guys, we are up against an intractable foe. They don’t even know when they are right or wrong. Like little robots they will keep attacking people not because they disagree. They attack because that’s how they are programmed. Intelligence not required.

  63. Bill Jamison says:

    I’ve seen the claim that GHG are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming before. The idea is that the GHG levels should have made it even warmer than it is but other things like aerosols have prevented that warming.

    If that’s the case then I’m REALLY glad we increased atmospheric GHG levels otherwise it would be really CHILLY around the world because the manmade cooling impact would push us lower than it was during the LIA.

    Of course in his interview with Newsweek a few years back Al Gore stated that the latest science showed that increased CO2 was responsible for 49% of the observed warming and that other things such as black carbon, land use changes, etc. were responsible for the rest. So it’s still AGW even though it’s not all attributable to increased atmospheric GHGs.

  64. Another glass of acid punch, Davos?

  65. Sam the First says:

    Quote “Not fighting like ‘Gentlemen’ at all. And the mainstream guys like Gleick don’t know how to deal with this. Queensberry Rules rather than biting and gouging.”

    This is such a textbook example of ‘projection’, it’s almost funny
    http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Projection
    They even cite Gleick as an example of gentlemanly naivety – Gleick, who has already been proven to have committed fraud in this context!
    You couldn’t make this stuff up, it’s breathtaking

  66. Iane says:

    Well, to be fair, if we should have been cooling (without AGW, that is) then it is conceivable that CO2 could have lead to more than the observed warming, because it would have had to reverse the putative cooling and also lead to the actual observed warming. Whether he meant that is not clear to me!

  67. Caleb says:

    Do you suppose all the Alarmist hoop-la is John Cook’s “Rapid Response Network” in action.? (At times a bit like the Keystone Cops.)

    Here is Jon plotting about the idea up in his secret treehouse, (No SKePtiXs aLLowEd.)

    “I’ve been waiting for a quieter moment to bring up the Rapid Response Network but now that I think about it, we probably never will have a quieter time. So I’m going to get the ball rolling on this and keep the development percolating away as we furiously pound away on other projects. At the start of the year, I considered this the most significant SkS project of 2011 and if it grows as I hope, it may still be (although so many things are in motion now, who knows where we’ll be in a few weeks time, let alone the end of the year).

    The point of the Rapid Response Network is fairly simple – monitor skeptic articles in mainstream media and keep track of what responses have been made. So the system will list the latest mainstream articles (and other media, blogs, etc but the emphasis will be on mainstream). Users can log what responses they’ve made – letters to the editor, post an online comment, call the reporter, submit an opinion piece, etc. So we’ll keep track of what’s going on, support each other as we attempt responses and by seeing what everyone is doing, will give us ideas of what is possible and how to do it.”

    See Bishop Hill “opengate” comments: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/3/26/opengate-josh-158.html?currentPage=2#comments

  68. cui bono says:

    WillR says (September 19, 2012 at 9:52 am)
    “Perhaps they should make the effort to organize such a conspiracy…”
    —–
    Even now they’re probably irreversibly splitting into the Climate Popular Front and the Popular Front for Climate.

  69. John Mason says:

    Events will see who is right, Anthony. it would be erroneous to forget that….

  70. Juraj V says:

    There is not a single scientific proof, that 1975-2005 warming was any different from the 1910-1945 warming.
    And what about this?
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002

  71. highflight56433 says:

    …disregard the request to illiminate the top banner. Turning of the cookies fixed my irritation of it. :)

  72. James Evans says:

    KR

    “I would agree; many of the posters here appear unaware of negative numbers, or their effect on sums.”

    Gosh, you’re just so much cleverer than most people here. It must feel incredible to be that much cleverer than the stoopid eedyots who have been brainwashed by Big Whateveritisweareblamingtheconspsiracyonthisweek.

    Of course, once you do the calculations you realise that the current global temperature can be very precisely attributed to Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Slytherin and Ravenclaw percentages. It’s the nasty Slytherin percentage of current temperature that we have to watch out for. Grrrrr. Blast those darend Slytherins!

  73. gary krause says:

    “Guys, we are up against an intractable foe. They don’t even know when they are right or wrong. Like little robots they will keep attacking people not because they disagree. They attack because that’s how they are programmed. Intelligence not required.”

    Amen

  74. Steve C says:

    I reckon Noel Sheppard has it about right. Any normal person. hearing there’s a spat and looking at what’s going on, is going to see AW sitting there being quietly reasonable and a load of nutters foaming at the mouth about him. Which is a pretty fair view, really.

  75. D. J. Hawkins says:

    KR says:
    September 19, 2012 at 9:44 am
    Ian W – Basic math here: if you add up both positive and negative contributions equaling 100% of the forcings, the sum of the positive contributions will be be >= 100%, and the sum of the negative contributions will be <= 0%.

    Nice spin; do you do plates in the circus?

    It is beyond ludicrous. He did not say the GHG’s would have caused higher temperatures in the absence of negative forcings; not at all. He said GHG’s were responsible for more than 100% of the observed warming, not observed forcings. It’s like there’s another 0,2 or 0.3 degrees waiting in the wings to come on stage. And where, exactly would that leave the continuing rebound from the Little Ice Age?

  76. Blade says:

    A Deeper Look At False Balance On PBS News Hour | ThinkProgress:

    “…the amount of warming caused by human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is known to a high degree of certainty, and these same studies have all found that GHGs are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming over this timeframe.”

    There it is again! He is bumping right up against an obvious conclusion just like Mosher and R.Gates. But they will never complete this simple thought and just say this …

    The world had completely stopped all warming when the Industrial Revolution came along. No more warming was going to occurr, zip, zero, nada. This means that we would still be in the Little Ice Age but for man, who all by himself brought an end to it. Humans changed the planet all by themselves by warming it during the LIA, not even a single fraction of a fraction of a degree since then should have occurred because it was all AGW. Man screwed it all up.

    I implore everyone to hold their feet to the fire and make them complete this thought. They literally say all warming is from AGW! There is no room for other conclusions. DanaNutty, R.Gates and Mosher, now stand up and be counted. Tell us we are still in the Little Ice Age.

    “Absolutely? horrible reporting. Why even interview a blogger to begin with? If you want to learn about climate science then talk to a climate scientist, not a conspiracy theorist.

    dana1981 1 day ago”

    No DanaNutty, the conspiracy theorists are on your side. The warmie side. Those that are most likely to believe in Roswell UFO’s, grassy knoll shooters, faked moon landings, 9/11 WTC inside job by Cheney and the Jews, will also believe in Global Warming from the magic molecule. This is Roseanne Barr and occupy Wall Street IQ level. They are Socialist malcontents, hardwired in their DNA to accept government control. They are your target audience.

  77. I think it is about time for another Junior Senator from Wisconsin to conduct a modern inquisition. I’m sure Wisconsin has lots of nuts around to do the job too.

  78. highflight56433 says:

    “They are Socialist malcontents, hardwired in their DNA to accept government control.”

    I always contend it is genetic. A full fledged desire to selfinflict an addiction to being thoughtless.

  79. Paul Westhaver says:

    Pity. A young man threw his life into a fraud….. He must be having a melt down for sure.

    Pretty sad watching him self-destruct.

  80. Dave N says:

    KR:

    “I would agree; many of the posters here appear unaware of negative numbers, or their effect on sums”

    You attempted to attribute the math to negative percentages, not numbers.

    You might like to use some actual figures to demonstrate how Dana’s statement is somehow correct, because as it is worded, it is simply impossible.

  81. Leo Morgan says:

    With respect, Anthony, this post seems to me to be a ‘gotcha’.
    And as such, giving it exaggerated importance reflects more unfavorably upon us than it does on him.
    Yes its clear he misspoke, but his meaning is not obscure. Lets let it go, and pass on to more important issues.

  82. davidmhoffer says:

    richardscourtney;
    One can assume he believes the completely untrue assertion that “the amount of warming caused by human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is known to a high degree of certainty”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Yup, that’s my assumption. Of course, I’m in the business of making assumptions about what people meant verus what they said ;-)

    In this case, what he (she? it?) said was pure nonsense. The point I was trying to get at is that if you took the exact same data in the chart, and depicted it as the last 60 years versus the last 15 years, you could only draw a conclusion that what s/he meant was ALSO nonsense, depriving the warmists of the defense that we’re taking the nut bar statement out of context. Put back into context, with entire context considered, the nut bar statement is more like a truck load of…. nut bars (feeling a bit polite today, maybe I’m ill).

  83. H.R. says:

    Man Bearpig says:
    September 19, 2012 at 9:28 am
    “and these same studies have all found that GHGs are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming over this timeframe”

    >100 % !! Its a lot worse than we thought then – are we all going to die ?
    ==============================================================
    Yes, when we reach the tipping point it’ll get so hot that more than 100% of us are going to die. We must act now!

    Wait up! We’re in luck. Our government is spending over 150% of our income taxes right now to solve all our problems. Things are looking up ;o)

  84. Nigel S says:

    “These go to eleven.”

  85. DGH says:

    Indeed Nuccitelli’s statement is interesting when taken out of context. In context his point makes more sense and the statement “greater than 100%” isn’t worthy of quote of the week status.

  86. richardscourtney says:

    davidmhoffer:

    re your post at September 19, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    Yes, I get that. And I appreciate the humour with which you present the point; thankyou.

    Importantly, I apologise if I misunderstood the gender of Dana Nucciltelli. The person is not known to me and there was nothing to my ascribing a gender other than my probably wrong assumption.

    Richard

  87. Dave Trimble says:

    Trying to make sense of Dana’s statement is like trying to figure out: “Is it longer to New York or by train?” or “The smoker you drink, the player you get.”

    Dave

  88. Gunga Din says:

    GHGs are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming over this timeframe.

    Gosh. GHG’s are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming? That’s an epic fail if I’ve ever seen one.”
    ===============================================================
    Perhaps he’s including the “missing heat” that only he has observed?

  89. Morph says:

    I presume his scooter runs on Unicorn gas only ?

  90. Nick in vancouver says:

    Message to SkS, if the skeptics are the Viet Cong and the alarmists are the US, what can we learn from history?

  91. Rob Honeycutt says:

    Can anyone answer this question for me? What is -10 plus 110?

  92. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    It amazes me the number of people who don’t understand what per cent means.

    If your giving 110% effort then you were not giving 100% effort in the first place!

  93. Annie says:

    Steve from Rockwood @ 10:47 am:

    Hilarious!

  94. davidmhoffer says:

    Rob Honeycutt says:
    September 19, 2012 at 1:28 pm
    Can anyone answer this question for me? What is -10 plus 110?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Certainly. 100.

    Now, could you answer a question for me?

    In 1960, CO2 was about 310 ppm. Over the last 50 years, it has risen to about 390 ppm.
    According to Dana, over this time period, the human contribution to warming was about 6 times as big as all the contributions to cooling combined. Yet, in the last 15 years, despite CO2 concentration being 25% higher than it was in 1960, there has been no warming at all. Do you suppose that this means that:

    a) cooling processes increased by 6 fold +25% to balance out the warming from human contributions? or;

    b) that the warming contribution was grossly exagerated in the first place?

    Please answer quickly. The matter is urgent, the stakes are high, the facts uncertain. If cooling processes have increased 6 fold plus 25% (total of 7.5 fold) since 1960, while CO2 has only gone up a paltry 25%, we better act now to stop the cooling or there will be ice sheets from north and south in a race to claim the equator.

    So which is it? Did cooling processes go up 7.5X? Or were the warming processes grossly over estimated in the first place? What should we do? Cut the warming, cut the cooling, or cut the b*ll?

  95. Ray says:

    According to Nuccitelli in the article ‘A Deeper Look at False Balance on the PBS News Hour';

    PBS, who is funded by the Koch Brothers (fossil fuel industrialists), interviewed Watts, a contrarian blogger, based on a recommendation by the Heartland Institute, a fossil fuel funded, global warming denying, anti-science think tank.

    I think I smell a conspiracy, perhaps Lewandowsky could shed some light on this….[sarc]

  96. mfo says:

    Seems like Nuccitelli must be the physicist who thinks that 3% exceeds 2% by 1% :o)

  97. lurker, passing through laughing. says:

    Perhaps it is time to point out that people who refuse to enter into an honest discussion are probably not honest.
    AGW fanatics do not enter into honest discussions.

  98. Merovign says:

    It was never about science. It was always about power and control.

  99. Rob Honeycutt says:

    davidmhoffer… Hold your horses right there!

    My point here is that everyone here is flipping their lids that the human contribution to warming could be a number in excess of 100%. Right? I can count dozens of posts already that can’t seem to fathom this idea.

    So, IF there was natural cooling mechanisms at play, where if you took away all man-made greenhouse gases we would have had a mild cooling trend, you are starting from a negative number. Then you have to add back a positive radiative forcing to get back to 100%. If there is a natural negative factor you then have to have a figure in excess of 100% to get back to 100%. If there were a natural warming factor taking place then you would need less than 100% to get back to 100%.

    That is the point I’m making.

  100. coalsoffire says:

    …the amount of warming caused by human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is known to a high degree of certainty, and these same studies have all found that GHGs are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming over this timeframe.

    Okay the 100% solution has brought all the rapid response minions out of the closet. Thanks for playing fellas. I hope you enjoy your parting gifts. It’s been a blast to read your efforts to spin a stupid quote. I’m with those who say that if your spin is correct then we must be in for some real cold times if the human component (is that 4% of the total we are talking about – talk about the tail and the dog!) were to flag at all, it could get really really cold. Which is it? Do we need more CO2 to save the planet as your analysis suggests? If so we better get busy and produce more of it. That’s the only logical conclusion from your spin. For my part I’m thinking we are coming out of the LIA and a little warming is expected and appreciated. Human GHG had almost nothing to do with it. I have a high degree of certainty on that point. I also do some farming and any extra CO2 in the atmosphere is also appreciated. It makes things grow. And now we also hear from you that it is keeping things from getting cold. Win win.

  101. Rob JM says:

    Actually to get a 4degC rise the models say that CO2 is responsible for 200% of the observed warming. Climate sceptic has a brilliant read on this http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2011/07/return-of-the-plug.html
    Basically CO2 should have caused 2deg of warming in last century So modellers use a plug and claim that without the CO2 increase the world would have cooled by 1 deg.
    This is absurd and ignores a host of evidence supporting natural warming over that time period including
    1/Warming trend since little ice age
    2/Half warming occurred prior to significant human CO2 input
    3/Low volcanic activity in 2nd half 20th century (assuming they understand volcanic effects)
    4/Positive phase of PDO
    5/Observed 4% decreases in low cloud cover in the 90s that is responsible for 2/3rds to 3/4th of observed warming.

  102. D Boehm says:

    Rob Honeycutt,

    Be aware that you are making an assumption if you believe that human emissions cause any global warming at all. A conjecture. Because there is no scientific evidence supporting that assumption. If there was, then the question of the climate sensitivity number would be decisively answered. But as we know, there is a wide range of opinions regarding the sensitivity number.

  103. Rob Honeycutt says:

    davemhoffer… “According to Dana, over this time period, the human contribution to warming was about 6 times as big as all the contributions to cooling combined. Yet, in the last 15 years, despite CO2 concentration being 25% higher than it was in 1960, there has been no warming at all.”

    There are a couple of problems here with this statement. First you’re jumbling up the past 15 years and the past 50 years. There is natural variation always at play. The past 15 years actually DO show warming in the UAH data, the GISS and HadCRU4, though at a lesser rate than the past 50 years. No one claims that temp and CO2 operate in lockstep.

  104. davidmhoffer says:

    Rob Honeycutt says:
    September 19, 2012 at 2:26 pm
    davidmhoffer… Hold your horses right there!
    My point here is that everyone here is flipping their lids that the human contribution to warming could be a number in excess of 100%. Right?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Right.
    As I was one of the first to state if you were paying attention.
    As others pointed out, even if that is what he MEANT, that is not what he SAID.
    So…. what he said was wrong.

    Turning to what he supposedly MEANT:

    If you will read my comment again, you will discover that if we accept your (and my) version of what he MEANT, then the evidence he presented says the OPPOSITE. The evidence he presents can only be interpreted one of two ways. Either the amount of warming claimed in his chart is orders of magnitude too large, or the emergence of cooling processes in the last 15 years has swamped 60 years of warming trend and is in danger of plunging us into an ice age.

    Get it?

    What he SAID was WRONG.
    What he MEANT was also WRONG according to HIS data.
    Or her. Or it. Or s/he. Or s/he/it. Take your pick.

  105. Rob Honeycutt says:

    D Boehm says… “Be aware that you are making an assumption if you believe that human emissions cause any global warming at all.”

    You might want to take that up with Anthony Watts because he clearly states in the video that is the original subject of this post that human emissions do cause warming.

    REPLY: Oh, so now you like my video? what a freaking hypocrite! – Anthony

  106. Rob Honeycutt says:

    D Boehm said… “Because there is no scientific evidence supporting that assumption.”

    I would refer you back to Tyndall (1850’s) and Arrhenius (1890’s) on that point.

  107. D Boehm says:

    Rob Honeycutt,

    Since you do not understand the definition of ‘scientific evidence’, I won’t waste any more time explaining. Go ahead and believe that Arrhenius and Tyndall produced testable evidence per the scientific method, if that’s what you want to believe.

    BTW, what is the climate sensitivity number for 2xCO2? Provide scientific evidence. You will be the first.

  108. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..DGH says:

    September 19, 2012 at 9:21 am

    How is this an epic fail? According to the models over 100% of the observed warming is caused by human activity. Ask Hansen……”””””

    Well That statement means that the models predict human activities to cause more warming than actually occurs; ergo the models are clearly wrong. If they were right, they would not be predicting more warming than is observed.

    We have from fairly reliable sources, that the natural causes are still causing warming, due to Milankovitch and ice ages etc, but only a natural cooling trend could cancel a surfeit of human causes that exceed what is observed..

  109. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..Rob Honeycutt says:

    September 19, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    Can anyone answer this question for me? What is -10 plus 110?…..”””””

    Well it is 99% if you are talking percentages which the original statement was.

  110. richardscourtney says:

    Rob Honeycutt:

    I copy all your post at September 19, 2012 at 2:26 pm so both your points are quoted in context

    davidmhoffer… Hold your horses right there!

    My point here is that everyone here is flipping their lids that the human contribution to warming could be a number in excess of 100%. Right? I can count dozens of posts already that can’t seem to fathom this idea.

    So, IF there was natural cooling mechanisms at play, where if you took away all man-made greenhouse gases we would have had a mild cooling trend, you are starting from a negative number. Then you have to add back a positive radiative forcing to get back to 100%. If there is a natural negative factor you then have to have a figure in excess of 100% to get back to 100%. If there were a natural warming factor taking place then you would need less than 100% to get back to 100%.

    That is the point I’m making.

    Firstly, you ask,
    “everyone here is flipping their lids that the human contribution to warming could be a number in excess of 100%. Right?
    Answer: WRONG.
    People are laughing because the statement Nucciltelli made is nonsense. If you don’t understand that then it is explained in my post addressed to davidmhoffer at September 19, 2012 at 10:42 am. I was a leader of the laughter and I disputed with davidmhoffer because he was making your point.

    So, David accepted your suggestion that “If there were a natural warming factor taking place then you would need less than 100% to get back to 100%” and he addressed it in the post you claim to be answering. That post is at September 19, 2012 at 1:51 pm.

    In that post he asks you

    Now, could you answer a question for me?

    He explained the problem with the suggestion that natural cooling may be reducing the anthropogenic warming and asked you

    So which is it? Did cooling processes go up 7.5X? Or were the warming processes grossly over estimated in the first place? What should we do? Cut the warming, cut the cooling, or cut the b*ll?

    Your answer to him ignores his questions to you but addresses my point which he disputed with me.
    In my country the polite description of your reply to davidmhoffer is to say it is not cricket.

    Richard

  111. D Boehm says:

    Rob Honeycutt,

    If I were you I would not argue with George E. Smith about mathematics. George has BSc degrees in Physics, Pure Mathematics, Radio-Physics, Applied Mathematics, and Mathematical Physics.

  112. u.k.(us) says:

    DGH says:

    September 19, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    Indeed Nuccitelli’s statement is interesting when taken out of context. In context his point makes more sense and the statement “greater than 100%” isn’t worthy of quote of the week status.
    =================
    Here is the full paragraph (for context):

    There is a fairly large degree of uncertainty in these figures, primarily because the magnitude of the cooling effect from human aerosol emissions is not well known. However, the amount of warming caused by human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is known to a high degree of certainty, and these same studies have all found that GHGs are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming over this timeframe (Figure 3).
    ——–
    So, if it wasn’t for the cooling (which is uncertain), it would be warmer, eh.
    Correct me if I missed something in the circular logic presented ?

  113. richardscourtney says:

    D Boehm:

    At September 19, 2012 at 3:02 pm you say to Rob Honeycutt,

    BTW, what is the climate sensitivity number for 2xCO2? Provide scientific evidence. You will be the first.

    Actually, he would not be the first.

    Idso first reported empirical derivations of climate sensitivity for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. He used 8 different methods and reported his results in 1998. His paper can be read at
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
    Idso’s “8 natural experiments” provide a “best estimate” of climate sensitivity 0.37 deg.C for a doubling of CO2.

    Much more recently, Lindzen&Choi analysed ERBE data from the tropics. Their paper can be read at
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
    Its conclusions include

    For sensitivities less than 2 deg.C, the data readily distinguish different sensitivities, and ERBE data appear to demonstrate a climate sensitivity of about 0.5 deg.C which is easily distinguished from sensitivities given by models.

    And

    Finally, it should be noted that our analysis has only considered the tropics. Following Lindzen et al. [2001], allowing for sharing this tropical feedback with neutral higher latitudes could reduce the negative feedback factor by about a factor of two. This would lead to an equilibrium sensitivity that is 2/3 rather than 1/2 of the non-feedback value. This, of course, is still a small sensitivity.

    So, Lindzen& Choi find a climate sensitivity of about 0.4 deg.C which agrees with Idso’s finding of 0.37 deg. C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. And these empirical derivations were independently obtained using very different methods.

    In other words,
    The rise in global temperature from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration would be about 0.4 deg.C which is so small and insignificant that it would not be discernible.

    Richard

    PS I would approve if moderators choose to snip this PS which says I am pleased the Bandit still has a friend.

  114. Bob Layson says:

    The winner in a tug of war contest is 100 percent responsible for dragging the losing side over the line. The winning side is not 100 percent responsible for the tension in the rope or the time taken to win the contest.

  115. It’s not just Nuccitelli who’s given that reply – we heard this from Gavin Schmidt:

    Q – In your opinion, what percentage of global warming is due to human causes vs. natural causes?

    [Response: Over the last 40 or so years, natural drivers would have caused cooling, and so the warming there has been (and some) is caused by a combination of human drivers and some degree of internal variability. I would judge the maximum amplitude of the internal variability to be roughly 0.1 deg C over that time period, and so given the warming of ~0.5 deg C, I'd say somewhere between 80 to 120% of the warming. Slightly larger range if you want a large range for the internal stuff. - gavin]

    Second point – I’d like to hear Mr Nuccitelli’s take on the Leroy 2010 paper, which puts into question some of the papers he cited (“…Not only has the accuracy of the surface temperature record been confirmed by BEST and Watts’ own Fall et al. (2011), but also by a number of other peer-reviewed papers such as Peterson et al. (2003) and Menne et al. (2010). If Watts believes these studies are flawed, he should attempt to demonstrate it in a peer-reviewed paper. Until he has accomplished this, by his own standards his argument is invalid…)

    Remember, Leroy 2010 was and endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observation (CIMO-XV, 2010) Fifteenth session, in September 2010 as a WMO-ISO standard, making it suitable for reevaluating previous studies on the issue of station siting.

    So, Mr Nuccitelli, when Anthony’s paper passes peer review (which may happen before Muller’s does), will you give the same rant against those scientists that used out-of-date siting standards for their papers?

    We’ll wait…

  116. davidmhoffer says:

    richardscourtney;
    In my country the polite description of your reply to davidmhoffer is to say it is not cricket.
    Richard
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Being a colonial of your country, oddly, we never took up cricket. We do have crickets though. Lotsa crickets. And cattle. Lotsa cattle. He managed to combine the two in his last response. His response was a product of the latter and his answer to my question was the sound of the former.

  117. Something else I’ve noticed about warmers like Mr Nuccitelli – they only like to post where they (or someone friendly to the “cause”) controls the moderation.

    Which is why he was able to get a “featured poster” status at the John Cook moderated Shaping Tomorrows World site (http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/nuccWhatsDone.html).

    Yep, he’s a part of “Lew’s World”, and the moderation shows.

    Not bad for someone who bills himself as an environmental scientist (he works at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area).

    Fairly popular, too. Most of his posts have at least one or two comments. Of course, those were the comments that survived.

  118. mfo says:

    Dana.
    If 50 warmists are observed, and an interview on PBS is responsible for over 100% of the observed warmists getting into a tizzy, how many of the observed warmists are getting into a tizzy?

  119. J. Felton (the Cowboy) says:

    Anthony, you have a great more deal of patience when dealing with these people then I do, and your dialogue with them is to be commended.
    In fact, the very words out of my mouth when I saw the “over 100%” claim was ” ****ing idiot!”

  120. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    I say to the “clueless climate scientists”: Surface temperatures don’t mean anything, but the availabilty of fresh water means everything.

  121. Mueller an ex skeptic? NO HE IS A FAKE, A BS artist

    Here is Prof. Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist, toward the conclusion of his 2003 paper on
    global warming data: “Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of
    paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.”

    Richard Muller would be the only climate skeptic ever awarded a MacArthur Fellowship.

    Other MacArthur fellows include;
    Obama’s “Angel of Death” eugenics advocate John P. Holdren
    Paul R. Ehrlich, population biologist.
    Stephen Schneider, climatologist . ( The big freeze man)
    Jane Lubchenco, marine biologist (currently diddling the NOAA temp records – very bad eugenicist)
    Benjamin D. Santer, atmospheric scientist

    Why would a climate change skeptic urge governments to buy windmills and biofuels?

  122. timg56 says:

    Henry3rd,

    I wonder if I can start calling myself an environmental scientist, just like Scooter does. Afterall I have 3 degrees compared to his 2, with one of the two Masters an MS in Environmental Science and Engineering. That seems to be more germane than a MS in Physics. I even interned with USGS, which about as good as it gets for doing science research involving our physical environment.

    Nah, maybe not. I think I prefer educator. Getting students interested is science is far more likely to make a difference than anything Dana comes up with.

  123. _Jim says:

    Blade says September 19, 2012 at 11:40 am

    There it is again! He is bumping right up against an obvious conclusion just like Mosher and R.Gates. But they will never complete this simple thought and just say this …

    Maybe Blade needs a molecular EM physics refresher; pay particular attention to Dr. Roy Spencer (since I doubt you will simply take my word or Scott Denning’s word for it) regarding GHG molecule absorption and re-emission:

    .

  124. Dana (a guy) says:

    I am confused. Is Dana a guy or a girl.

  125. scarletmacaw says:

    rustneversleeps says:
    September 19, 2012 at 10:29 am
    You’ve got a large bucket of water at room temperature.

    Into it you dump a small amount of ice, and you pour in a small amount of boiling water.

    You take the temperature of the water in the bucket again. It has risen.

    What percentage of the warming is due to the ice?

    Bonus points: What percentage of the warming is due to the boiling water?

    0% of the warming is due to the ice. 100% of the warming is due to the boiling water.

    And a Believers site that calls itself ‘Skeptical Science’ has 0% credibility.

  126. scarletmacaw says:

    Dana (a guy) says:
    September 19, 2012 at 7:26 pm
    I am confused. Is Dana a guy or a girl.

    97% chance Dana is a guy or a girl.

  127. Brian H says:

    Andrew30 says:
    September 19, 2012 at 9:38 am

    PS.
    Anthony, whats up with the banner headline Above your masthead?

    REPLY: WordPress has identified WUWT as a high traffic site, so they’ve added more advertising. I get a small percentage with each click. Hopefully when I get the site retooled soon we can make it less obtrusive – Anthony

    Jeez, someday I really must temporarily disable Adblock to see what all these ‘vertisements people are commenting on are all about.

    Or not.
    ;)

  128. Brian H says:

    Rob Honeycutt says:
    September 19, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    D Boehm says… “Be aware that you are making an assumption if you believe that human emissions cause any global warming at all.”

    You might want to take that up with Anthony Watts because he clearly states in the video that is the original subject of this post that human emissions do cause warming.

    REPLY: Oh, so now you like my video? what a freaking hypocrite! – Anthony

    Well, the warmists and all the lukewarmists like Anthony are wrong. And before you go on about Arrhenius and Tyndall, etc., the effects they measured are clearly trivial and nugatory in the actual entropic environment of the atmosphere.

  129. Brian H says:

    corrected tags:

    Rob Honeycutt says:
    September 19, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    D Boehm says… “Be aware that you are making an assumption if you believe that human emissions cause any global warming at all.”

    You might want to take that up with Anthony Watts because he clearly states in the video that is the original subject of this post that human emissions do cause warming

    .

    REPLY: Oh, so now you like my video? what a freaking hypocrite! – Anthony

    Well, the warmists and all the lukewarmists like Anthony are wrong. And before you go on about Arrhenius and Tyndall, etc., the effects they measured are clearly trivial and nugatory in the actual entropic environment of the atmosphere.

  130. foxenterprises says:

    Reblogged this on Fox Enterprises Limited Weblog and commented:
    Ignore our conspiracy, they are the nutjobs

  131. Brian H says:

    richardscourtney says:
    September 19, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    In other words,
    The rise in global temperature from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration would be about 0.4 deg.C which is so small and insignificant that it would not be discernible.

    Richard

    +1

  132. davidmhoffer says:

    Dana (a guy) says:
    September 19, 2012 at 7:26 pm
    I am confused. Is Dana a guy or a girl.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Yes.

  133. Jack Simmons says:

    This has a lot of similarities to the Vietnam War….And the skeptics are the Viet Cong…

    I seem to recall the Viet Cong won.

  134. Blade says:

    _Jim [September 19, 2012 at 6:21 pm] says:

    “Maybe Blade needs a molecular EM physics refresher; pay particular attention to Dr. Roy Spencer (since I doubt you will simply take my word or Scott Denning’s word for it) regarding GHG molecule absorption and re-emission:”

    Thank you for the recommendation but I don’t require a remedial lesson on CO2. But with all due respect you somehow missed my point completely.

    That point is that DanaNutty, R.Gates, and Mosher all are saying that 100% ( or more :-) of the warming since the LIA is from human activities, which means we are still in the LIA and but for the extra CO2 we should be freezing our butts off. They will not complete that simple thought and just state that for the record. Make them spell this out in plain language.

    Nothing I said disputes the properties of that rare, CO2 molecule. But it must be a magic molecule because a mere extra 100 ppm, allegedly all added by humans since the LIA, has magically stopped the LIA with an equally magical 0.7°C no less! No more frozen fairs on the Thames. No more widespread starvation.

    Anyway, sorry to sound sarcastic, but you really did miss the point.

  135. gymnosperm says:

    Dana (a guy) says:

    September 19, 2012 at 7:26 pm

    I am confused. Is Dana a guy or a girl.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    It doesn’t matter. Dana is a harpie.

  136. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    He’s on a mission from clods????

    i go to bed laughing.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  137. We Told You So says:

    Ask someone who tells you: caims – they believe in global warming why if it’s real, the infrared astronomy field hasn’t simply trotted out the photographs of the sky for the past 100 years showing ever
    more
    astmospheric
    infrared.

    For that matter ask them why the optical astronomy field which has an immense time with atmospheric convection directly caused by earthshine infrared,

    why they never have trotted out photographs from THEIR equipment showing ever more atmospheric scintillation.

    It’s a con. The atmosphere doesn’t have more infrared in it or there’d be pictures of the night sky, there’d be optical telescope mirror flexing machines which showed ever more mirror flex to accomodate ever more atmospheric scintillation.

    It’s a con from the first word, to the last.

  138. F. Ross says:

    “…the amount of warming caused by human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is known to a high degree of certainty, and these same studies have all found that GHGs are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming over this timeframe.”

    [Scottish brogue] Dang it Captain! …now the dilithium crystals’ll disintegrate.

  139. Shevva says:

    Run out of Climate scientists so only have the PR web sites left ah! Anthony. At this rate you’ll put yourself out of a billion dollar grant from Oil@Gaia buisness in no time.

  140. anotherfred says:

    They need to organize like a cult or a religion. You know with saints and articles of faith and high priests and holy books. Oh, wait, they already are.

  141. phlogiston says:

    I’m in China on business and this morning visited the famous Terracotta army near Xian. Emperor Qin had a model army built in terracotta complete with weapons, since he believed he would need this army to defend him from adversaries in the afterlife. 8000 model soldiers with hundreds of chariots and horses, also in terracotta, were arrayed in trenches and buried with the emperor at his death. 700,000 workers were conscripted for the task. These workers as well as many concubines were sacrificed and buried with him.

    http://www.imperialtours.net/terracotta_warriors.htm

    It occurred to me that this terracotta army is a good analogy for expensive policies against global warming. A huge effort at huge expense, to create an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem.

    Only the terracotta army at least leaves an artistic and cultural heritage.

  142. DirkH says:

    “and these same studies have all found that GHGs are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming over this timeframe.”

    With that talent it’s a small wonder the White House hasn’t hired him already.

  143. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    KR said on September 19, 2012 at 9:44 am:

    Ian W – Basic math here: if you add up both positive and negative contributions equaling 100% of the forcings, the sum of the positive contributions will be be >= 100%, and the sum of the negative contributions will be <= 0%.

    So by that logic, it can be stated that condoms cause -98% of all new HIV infections, while unprotected sex causes +197% of all new HIV infections.

    Well that sure sounds logical. Now you have to convince the reporters that unprotected sex is only half as risky as those perfectly mathematically valid numbers suggest. Good luck with that.

  144. DirkH says:

    _Jim says:
    September 19, 2012 at 6:21 pm
    “Maybe Blade needs a molecular EM physics refresher; pay particular attention to Dr. Roy Spencer (since I doubt you will simply take my word or Scott Denning’s word for it) regarding GHG molecule absorption and re-emission:”

    Thanks for the video. While I don’t disagree with Denning’s principal explanation of the CO2 greenhouse effect I have one problem with his talk. He skips from saying “Tyndall has shown that CO2 emits heat” to “It’s 4 W / m^2 for a doubling of CO2″. Which Tyndall didn’t show, to my knowledge, as he had no means of coubling the CO2 content in the Earth’s atmosphere nor an intention of becoming the worlds first CO2AGW alarmist.

    It was Arrhenius – not mentioned by Denning – who CALCULATED a hypothetical additional 4 W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2. And that is a hypothesis; it needs to be shown experimentally, but Denning says nothing about how this added Wattage has been experimentally observed.

  145. John Brookes says:

    Dana is one of the “enemy” and hence must be attacked here. It doesn’t matter what he says, or how he acts, he is bad.

    As for all those warlike people at Skeptical Science, they are only warlike because of a campaign of deliberate confusion being waged by “skeptics” everywhere. That they want to fight this campaign is hardly surprising.

  146. DirkH says:

    DirkH says:
    September 20, 2012 at 2:52 am
    “Thanks for the video. While I don’t disagree with Denning’s principal explanation of the CO2 greenhouse effect I have one problem with his talk. He skips from saying “Tyndall has shown that CO2 emits heat” to “It’s 4 W / m^2 for a doubling of CO2″. Which Tyndall didn’t show, to my knowledge, as he had no means of coubling the CO2 content in the Earth’s atmosphere nor an intention of becoming the worlds first CO2AGW alarmist.”

    Ok, I’m farther through the video, at 41:00 Denning says Tyndall has shown 4 W/m^2 for a doubling in 1863. If anyone can point me to an account of whatever experiment he did I’d be thankful.

  147. nzrobin says:

    As a good friend reminded me;
    so we’re like the Viet Cong, great, they won the war.

  148. richardscourtney says:

    John Brookes:

    Thanks for the laugh you provide with your post at September 20, 2012 at 3:13 am. It says in total

    Dana is one of the “enemy” and hence must be attacked here. It doesn’t matter what he says, or how he acts, he is bad.

    As for all those warlike people at Skeptical Science, they are only warlike because of a campaign of deliberate confusion being waged by “skeptics” everywhere. That they want to fight this campaign is hardly surprising.

    No. I had never heard of Dana until the report at the top of this thread. Whether or not he or she is “bad” I have no idea, but the nonsense spouted by Dana is deserving of ridicule and is getting it. Anybody who spouts that nonsense is an idiot (be they good or bad).

    For more than a decade the nutters at SkS and their fellows have been attacking people who promote scientific rigour because empirical evidence refutes the ideology promoted by the nutters at SkS and elsewhere.

    Those whom you attempt to excuse are condemned by both their words and their actions. They are the ones spreading “deliberate confusion”: AGW-sceptics cite replicable scientific findings.

    The nutters are increasing their obnoxious and – as you admit – “warlike” behaviour because they are losing their cause.

    Richard

  149. DirkH says:

    John Brookes says:
    September 20, 2012 at 3:13 am
    “Dana is one of the “enemy” and hence must be attacked here. It doesn’t matter what he says, or how he acts, he is bad.

    As for all those warlike people at Skeptical Science, they are only warlike because of a campaign of deliberate confusion being waged by “skeptics” everywhere. That they want to fight this campaign is hardly surprising.”

    So you DID miss the SkS e-mail dump.

  150. DGH says:

    u.k.(us)

    And the paragraph that precedes the one you cherry picked says?

  151. philjourdan says:

    Rob Honeycutt says:
    September 19, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    You might want to take that up with Anthony Watts because he clearly states in the video that is the original subject of this post that human emissions do cause warming.

    Actually, no he does not. His exact quote is: ” I agree with him that global warming exists. However, the ability to attribute the percentage of global warming to CO2 versus other man-made influences is still an open question.”

    He says “global warming”, not AGW. And he clearly states that any percentages are still an “open question”. In other words, he says we do not know. He does not say “do cause”.

  152. philjourdan says:

    John Brookes says:
    September 20, 2012 at 3:13 am

    Dana is one of the “enemy” and hence must be attacked here. It doesn’t matter what he says, or how he acts, he is bad.

    It seems you have it backwards. Dana did the attacking. Anthony did the ridiculing based upon the histrionics of Dana.

  153. R Barker says:

    Anthony, it is good news that your site is drawing more advertisers and more power to you for it. From a personal perspective I become annoyed with sites where the advertising has become so “in your face” that it interferes with what I am trying read. But I suspect that even the most extreme forms of advertising will not deter your regular readers and I am one of them.

  154. PaulID says:

    Morph says:
    September 19, 2012 at 1:17 pm
    I presume his scooter runs on Unicorn gas only ?
    you didn’t see the hose set up to catch methane?
    /sarc

  155. Ed Zuiderwijk says:

    The skeptics are the “VietCong”?

    They must know they are losing.

  156. John Whitman says:

    John Brookes on September 20, 2012 at 3:13 am

    Dana is one of the “enemy” and hence must be attacked here. It doesn’t matter what he says, or how he acts, he is bad.

    As for all those warlike people at Skeptical Science, they are only warlike because of a campaign of deliberate confusion being waged by “skeptics” everywhere. That they want to fight this campaign is hardly surprising.

    – – – – –

    John Brookes,

    A question for you. Can you not perceive that your comment (implying the existence of evil skeptics organizing conspiracies against the good guys who are planet saving CAGWists) clearly helps confirm that John Cook merely runs an ideological website based on him and his squadrons absolutely believing that there exists a systemically programmed anti-CAGW conspiracy run by skeptics? Can you not perceive your comment confirms JC as being fundamentally conspiracy driven?

    That he and his squadrons appear to rigidly sustain that myopic & paranoid conspiracy belief is the reason I call John Cook’s site ‘Conspiracy Paranoiaville’ instead of its official intellectually / scientifically duplicitous title ‘Skeptical Science’.

    To the extent that John Cook’s strategy continues to irrationally focus on mythical conspiracies he will accelerate the public’s distrust of what he claims is ‘settled’ science. He defeats himself.

    The skeptical scientific position has the strongest possible base that can exist in a free society. It has a self volunteered and freely associated collaboration of independent thinkers / scientists /intellects. For John Cook to prevail in his dialog against that open and transparent skeptical base they (the skeptics) NEED TO BE MUCH LESS FREE TO PURSUE AN OPEN, TRANSPARENT & PUBLIC DIALOG. I think JC is not naive and knows that he cannot win against skeptics in a free, open, independent and non-authoritarian dialog.

    John

  157. timg56 says:

    John Brookes,

    Dana Nuccitelli is not “the enemy”. He’s simply someone who believes he can distinguish what is fact and what is fiction better than most people. He is someone who apparently believes he is also far more capable of determining how humans should behave than they themselves do. Finally, when posting on the web he’s an arrogant, ill-mannered, yipping little attack puppy. And while that may not be his mode of behavior in person, it is what we see from him at almost every turn.

    One of the wonders of the Internet is it’s ability for allowing people to make fools and asses of themselves. Dana takes full advantage of that trait on a regular basis.

  158. John Whitman says:

    Dear Mods,

    My very recent comment did not go into waiting moderation as a comment normally does. Can you look for it in the WPnether regions? NOTE: it did contain the ‘C’ word, that may be why WP got it.

    Thanks.

    John

    [nowhere to be found, sorry . . mod]

  159. Resourceguy says:

    Gee I wonder if the enforcer warmist hate groups will be added to any watch lists at FBI, DoJ, or the Southern Poverty Center? I think not

  160. Glenn Tamblyn says:

    Anthony.

    “Here is Glenn Tamblyn (Skeptical Science author/moderator) secretly conversing with his SkS pals on their off limits forum and saying “we need a conspiracy to save humanity”

    Thanks for the pplug Anthony. However I am a little confused as to why you only published an edited version of what I said. Way too many ellipses in there Anthony.

    For the benefit of your readers, here is the full quote:

    On a broader level, and it might be worth raising with people like the Rapid Response Team and to disseminate broadly within the scientific community. ‘Don’t go solo’. There is support out there if we all work together. If Peter had contacted others and networked this their might have been a very different outcome. We in the blogging community need to reach out to the scientists – not just the few engaged ones – and let them know that if needed, we have your back. Just like the security guards around a military research facility, our community might understand the enemy better than you do. And no individual can trust their judgement alone. The discussions here can be robust and we don’t always get it right, but get the balance of judgement thing right better than we ever could as individuals.

    The Science guys need help from people like us – and if anyone can come up with some serious money, a few PR firms. The closed collegiate nature of science is their greatest weakness.

    And this isn’t about science or personal careers and reputations any more. This is a fight for survival. Our civilisations survival.

    As a small example of what is going wrong. DeSmogBlog should not have gone with this without consulting and sanity checking with others. Strategy checking.

    Unfortunately this has utterly outgrown the ‘blog’ model. We need our own anonymous (or not so anonymous) donors, our own think tanks. Not dedicated to coming up with plans for zero carbon economies, valid as that is. Our version of the HI and all the rest of the network. Our Monckton’s, our James Taylor’s, our Fox News. Our assassins.

    Anyone got Bill Gates’ private number, Warren Buffett, Richard Branson? Our ‘side’ has got to get professional, ASAP. We don’t need to blog. We need to network. Every single blog, organisation, movement is like a platoon in an army. But the platoons don’t work under a commmon command structure.

    Everyone here at SkS for example should have a full time job communicating. Not snouts in the trough but paid to work full time on this. With budgets for marketting, etc.

    This has a lot of similarities to the Vietnam War. The French then America came in thinking they could apply major power military tactics and the Viet Mhin then later the Viet Cong ran rings around them. The conventional Scientific/IPCC/UN/Governmental structures are like the Americans. And the skeptics are the Viet Cong. Low budget but really focused, probing for weaknesses und vulnerabilities. Not fighting like ‘Gentlemen’ at all. And the mainstream guys like Gleick don’t know how to deal with this. Queensberry Rules rather than biting and gouging.

    Unfortunately the think tanks/institutes etc arguing our side are still stuck in the mould of arguing to Government, Academia etc rather than seeing themselves as the ones who are going to confront the Viet Cong. Every time a VC tries to set a trap to kill a GI, the VC gets killed by the trap we have set. We don’t just fight this war on bicycles. We fight it on roller skates, with caltrops to puncture the bicycles tires.

    Government won’t find a way through this. Academia won’t find a way through it. Business will blow with the winds of profit. And the masses will keep sucking on the tit of consumer society analgesia.

    So, either Mother Nature deigns to give the world a terrifying wake up call. Or people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history. Now. Because time is up.

    Stop blogging, start networking. Not just communicating. Building the network that with one voice and one plan acts. First build the tool, only then use it.

    Someone needs to convene a council of war of the major environmental movements, blogs, institutes etc. In a smoke filled room (OK, an incense filled room) we need a conspiracy to save humanity.

    The black hats think there is an agenda, an ideology. Lets give em one!

    Exactly what were the reasons you chose for picking the bits you included and excluded Anthony?

  161. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Glenn Tamblyn September 21, 2012 at 4:42 am:


    Thanks for the pplug Anthony. However I am a little confused as to why you only published an edited version of what I said. Way too many ellipses in there Anthony.

    Exactly what were the reasons you chose for picking the bits you included and excluded Anthony?

    Gee Glenn, sorry to hear about your reading comprehension problem.

    As Anthony said above:

    [As quoted by Geoff Chambers in this Bishop Hill thread. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/3/26/opengate-josh-158.html?currentPage=2#comments ]

    Exactly the same as he said on the ‘we need a conspiracy’ thread linked above:

    [As quoted by Geoff Chambers in this Bishop Hill thread. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/3/26/opengate-josh-158.html?currentPage=2#comments ]

    So Geoff Chambers chose those bits, not Anthony. Why are you blaming Anthony?

    Now Anthony did choose what bits to highlight in bold. Do you want to ask why he chose those bits?

  162. Glenn Tamblyn says:

    Kadaka

    Actually I did but Anthony hasn’t replied. Think about it. Another blog carries a copy of comments purporting to be by me, obtained by an at least dishonest if not illegal hack. Those comments are then put up at BH – filled by ellipses. If one were being careful, just in the simple journalistic sense, those ellipses would be setting off alarm bells. Surely he would have wanted to check the primary source to ensure that the words missing, hidden by those ellipses, didn’t actually convey a diffferent meaning.from what I had actually written. So my original question to Anthony was why he had left of a fair portion of what I said.

    So you suggest that Anthony didn’t check the original source but even worse, just copy and pasted what someone else said. Didn’t do any checking of his own to verify that the text he copied and pasted was an actual reflection of my words. Just ‘Gee Whiz, I like that, think I’ll copy it to my blog.’ Maybe the words on BH where a total fabrication, maybe the truncated text was a very accurate reflection of what I said, may be it was somewhere in between.

    By your statement, Anthony just didn’t care. I don’t know whether Anthony did or didn’t do any checking, but it seems you don’t care whether he followed the sort of standards one would expect in basic journalism. If that is all you expect of a blog like this, it seems you are setting the bar pretty low. Confirmation Bias! Bias hardly seems like a strong enough word for it Kadaka

    My question to Anthony still stands.

  163. RACookPE1978 says:

    Your reply is noted, and appreciated.

  164. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Glenn Tamblyn on September 22, 2012 at 3:30 pm:

    (…) Think about it. Another blog carries a copy of comments purporting to be by me, obtained by an at least dishonest if not illegal hack. (…)

    And right at that point I realize you and the truth will only have a passing relationship as best, as it was clearly stated on the ‘we need a conspiracy’ post:

    For the excitable people that get upset about such things as this post, it is worth pointing out that the SkS “secret” forum was left wide open, and Cook blames himself No hack or ‘Gleick Queensberryness’ was needed, also from BH by poster David who captured this SkS announcement on 23 February 2012 by Cook himself:

    Got an email from Brian P this morning saying that the whole forum was publicly available to him, even when he wasn’t logged in. I checked and this was true.A little panicky, I investigated and worked out that all the permission levels of each forum had been set down to zero. Normally, they’re set so only authors can access most of them, except the translator forum is also accessible to translators. Strangely though, there is an admin forum that only admins can access and that wasn’t set to zero – it was still set so only admins can access it.

    I have no idea how this happened. Several possibilities come to mind. First, I did it by accident when I was screwing around with the database sometime. Someone with admin access (there are about half a dozen SkSers with this access) made the change. Or we were hacked in some way and the hacker changed the levels. None of the options seem likely to me but the most likely is human error on my part although the fact that the admin forum was still set at admin level belies some kind of blanket wiping of all levels.

    So I’m a little freaked out – it’s not knowing how this happened that has me most worried. Has anyone been looking at the forum and how long has this been available? But I’ve been procrastinating some of those security measures that have been suggested to me and as soon as I get to work this morning, am going to implement some of those measures.

    So John Cook himself says the most likely reason for those comments being available was that he himself screwed up.

    So naturally you lead your latest comment by stating unequivocally it was “…an at least dishonest if not illegal hack.”

    BTW, if you’re going to complain about material obtained by dishonest if not illegal means, then issue here your condemnation of Peter Gleick for his obtaining of Heartland Institute documents by dishonest and illegal means. Otherwise you’re just a flaming hypocrite.

  165. PaddikJ says:

    While the events of the last few weeks (the Lew Circus, SkS, PBS, Nuccitelli, etc, oh – and of course the Gleick thing) have certainly been entertaining, I think we need to be careful not to exaggerate their importance, and especially, to not inadvertantly raise the profile of their authors. They are doing a fine job of self-marginilization – who are we to interfere? My best guess is that ten years from now all of this will be relegated to footnote status.

    The “conspiracy to save the world” memos read exactly like what they are: The circle-jerking of a small group of ineffectual nutters puffing themselves up among themselves. I had a brief flirtation with leftist political activism in my undergrad days of the ’70s, and the tone of these “confidential internal memos” are remarkably similar to ones I used to see then. Same as it ever was.

  166. PaddikJ says:

    The events of the last few weeks – the Lew Circus, SkS, PBS, Nuccitelli, etc (oh, and of course l’affaire Gleique) – have certainly been entertaining, but I think it would be unwise to make too much of them and perhaps inadvertently raise their authors’ profiles. They are all doing a fine job of self-marginalization – who are we to interfere? Best guess is that in ten years these teacup tornadoes and their authors will have been relegated to footnote status.

    The “Conspiracy to Save The World™” memos read exactly like what the are: Circle-jerking puffery by a small group of inconsequential nutters. I had a brief flirtation with leftist political activism in my undergrad days of the ‘70s, and it is remarkable how similar in tone these recent “confidential internal memos” are to the memos (and manifestos; oh God, the student manifestos du jour!) that floated around back then. Same as it ever was.

  167. PaddikJ says:

    Anthony or Mod: Something strange is happening here:

    + Very difficult to compose & edit in WordPress – cursor disappears & skips around a lot.

    + Comments don’t “take” on the first try.

    I comment only occasionally, and so usually don’t remember to do my composing in another text editor & paste in, with the result that I usually lose my first draft & have to reconstruct it from memory (in a different text editor, of course!)

    But here’s the really strange thing: As per above, I just lost & reconstructed a comment. The second version would of course be substantially the same, but with noticeable differences. So I compose the second version & paste-in WP, but when the comment finally appears – it’s the original disappeared one!

    Suggestions (anyone)?

  168. Glenn Tamblyn says:

    Kadaka

    Just because there may have been a security hole at SkS doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a hack. 99.999% of people wouldn’t know how to take advantage of such a security hole – a hacker would.

    Imagine, something goes wrong with my mail delivery and it gets sent to my neighbour. If he sees a letter in his mailbox addressed to me and passes it on to me, perhaps while commenting that the post office may have messed up – fine.

    Instead my mail goes to him by mistake. He sees that it is addressed to me. He opens it anyway. He sends it off to a whole lot of people. and they in turn post my mail up on a whole lot of lampposts, perhaps with comments attached. Perhaps missing pages from that mail.

    Exactly how are you comparing Apples & Oranges?

  169. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Glenn Tamblyn on September 25, 2012 at 5:32 am:

    Just because there may have been a security hole at SkS doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a hack. 99.999% of people wouldn’t know how to take advantage of such a security hole – a hacker would.

    Two days later, and that’s the best you got? The forum was left open access, thus should have had no more vulnerability than millions of other open access sites across the internet. If a hacker got in any farther than that, that tells me you people were lazy and arrogant and outright stupid. Didn’t your “secret forum” have layered access?

    Even calling that a “security hole” is disingenuous. The door wasn’t left with the key in the hole. Nor was it left unlocked. You guys left the door wide open. And now you’re trying to tell me that not only was it a squirrel that must have been what was chewing on your nuts, it had to have been a specially trained ninja squirrel.

    Imagine, something goes wrong with my mail delivery and it gets sent to my neighbour. If he sees a letter in his mailbox addressed to me and passes it on to me, perhaps while commenting that the post office may have messed up – fine.

    Instead my mail goes to him by mistake. He sees that it is addressed to me. He opens it anyway. He sends it off to a whole lot of people. and they in turn post my mail up on a whole lot of lampposts, perhaps with comments attached. Perhaps missing pages from that mail.

    Please review the definition of “analogy” and the proper construction of them, as your attempts aren’t even close.

    What was done is you left a steamy love letter laying in the open on a table at a sidewalk cafe. Now you’re griping that people not only didn’t respect your privacy by declining to read, but the juicy bits are making the rounds on Penthouse and numerous well-trafficked internet sites.

    What’s next? You’ll complain that Google Street View has shots of you laying in your buddy’s backyard, stretched out in your full glory, after the gate was left wide open and anyone passing by could look right in and see if there was any little thing worth noting?

  170. The “percentage” language is misleading, but if you stick to it “more than 100%” is quite reasonable. Anthony raises the question of “how much of the observed warming” is due to greenhouse gases. This implies an answer in percentage or fractional terms. There is no reason that the fraction cannot be greater than 100%.

    Consider a business with two product lines; product A has a net profit of a million dollars and product B has a net loss of a quarter million. Now if Anthony asks “what percentage of the $750 K profit of the company is attributable to product A”, what answer is sensible? There is only one meaningful answer: 133.33% of the profit is due to product A (while -33.3% is due to B).

    There is historical confusion over this tracing back to the attribution controversy of the 90’s. When y’all skeptics demanded observational evidence, IPCC dutifully went back over the record and expressed increasing confidence that “at least some fraction” of the warming was attributable to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing. That does not preclude the conclusion that “more than all of it” is due to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing.

    Indeed, at present the natural forcings are small and the background preindustrial trend was small. So the forcings are dominated by anthropogenic ones; the greenhouse forcing is well characterized while the various aerosol components and albedo components are less so. However it is far more likely than not that the forcings absent greenhouse forcing are toward cooling.

    The confusion traces back to the distinction between Bayesian and frequentist reasoning styles. A 100% of the warming is due to greenhouse gases (the Bayesian analysis: the “best estimate” part).

    It’s certainly the sort of thing that is mockable because it sounds silly. But it nevertheless is NOT silly. It is in fact a reasonable representation of the evidence at hand, and if you take the time to think about it clarifies the practical difference between the two main threads of statistical reasoning.

  171. Some of my text seems to have been chopped. I’m pretty sure my second to last paragraph has been garbled somehow. The frequentist part says we are 95 % sure that some of the warming is anthropogenic. The Bayesian part says that it is more likely than not that 100% or more of the warming is anthropogenic.

  172. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From mtobis (@mtobis) on September 27, 2012 at 9:35 am:

    Consider a business with two product lines; product A has a net profit of a million dollars and product B has a net loss of a quarter million. Now if Anthony asks “what percentage of the $750 K profit of the company is attributable to product A”, what answer is sensible? There is only one meaningful answer: 133.33% of the profit is due to product A (while -33.3% is due to B).

    Now that just sounds daft. The answer is “all of it”, or 100%, as only product A is generating profit. You cannot claim product B is generating negative profit, it is being sold at a loss, nothing more.

    The confusion traces back to the distinction between Bayesian and frequentist reasoning styles. A 100% of the warming is due to greenhouse gases (the Bayesian analysis: the “best estimate” part).

    Let’s say that with the greenhouse gasses there has been 1°C of warming over the past century. Without any greenhouse gasses the planet would be 30°C cooler. With “more than 100%” considered acceptable, can’t it be stated that the presence of greenhouse gasses is responsible for 3100% of the warming of the past century?

    By limiting yourself to 100%, you are following the reasoning style that leads to “100% of the profit” after deriding it.

    It’s certainly the sort of thing that is mockable because it sounds silly. But it nevertheless is NOT silly. It is in fact a reasonable representation of the evidence at hand, and if you take the time to think about it clarifies the practical difference between the two main threads of statistical reasoning.

    What can be mocked, and is silly, is resorting to such circumlocutions defending a fellow warmist that you state as a “meaningful answer” something even more ridiculous that the statement being defended, and waiting two days after the last comment and after everyone else has moved on to try to slip in your “last word”. If it wasn’t for the “Recent Comments” block I would have missed it.

    Now then, I’ve been writing this while cooking, I have a chicken to stuff, and I invite you to get the same experience.

  173. mtobis (@mtobis) says:

    There wasn’t anything tactical about the “waiting two days”; I just happened across this article today, and I thought I had something useful to add. I am not a “warmist”, I am a “truthist”. Since you understood my point I feel I succeeded in some measure.

    “More than 100%” is an awkward way of putting it, I admit, but there is a genuine and important point to be made.

    We are HIGHLY CONFIDENT that SOME of the warming is anthropogenic, but the BEST ESTIMATE is that ALL of it is AND THEN SOME. Were it not for the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, the old anthropogenic ice age scare that a few people were trumpeting in the 70s would be a realistic concern. This is an important fact. If you find some better way to state it, please let me know, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t something important to communicate here.

  174. D Böehm says:

    mtobis says:

    “We are HIGHLY CONFIDENT that SOME of the warming is anthropogenic, but the BEST ESTIMATE is that ALL of it is AND THEN SOME.”

    You are shouting because you have no testable, empirical scientific evidence showing that CO2 causes temperature change.

    However, there is scientific evidence showing that ΔT causes ΔCO2:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.25/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958

    When you can find a similar chart showing that CO2 leads temperature, wake me. Until then, you are operating on Belief, not science.

Comments are closed.