I’m gobsmacked

Andrew Montford at Bishop Hill writes:

The Guardian has thrown all my preconceptions into disarray by printing an article about sceptics that is not only thoughtful, but is polite too!

Sceptics such as Andrew Montford and Anthony Watts agree with the mainstream view that the greenhouse effect brings about atmospheric warming as a result of carbon emissions, but dispute levels of climate sensitivity. However, others offer far more fundamental challenges to climate science, such as fringe sceptic group Principia Scientific whoreject this orthodox view of atmospheric physics.

I can’t quite yet believe this was printed in the Guardian about me, while at the same time giving Greg Laden a swift kick in the pants:

Watts found himself under frequent challenge by members of the group on his blog, leading him to post his own experiments on YouTube to disprove their claims. As well as being a nice example of scientific claim and counter-claim on the web, Watts’s actions also helped position himself as a “mainstream” sceptic who can challenge key areas of climate science without entering into pseudoscience, a brush he had previously been tarnished with.

Watts’s public experiments provide an example of one more area in which sceptics seek to uphold standards, through transparent and auditable scientific practice. One of the most contentious issues arising from Climategate was the effort to withhold from publication data subjected to freedom of information requests. When physicist Phil Moriarty challenged these practices as being outside of accepted scientific standards, he was lauded by numerous commenters on the Bishop Hill sceptic blog as a “real scientist”.

Thank you sincerely, Warren Pearce

About these ads

132 thoughts on “I’m gobsmacked

  1. pseudoscience…
    I’m thinking he’s giving a lot more credit than I am….
    I see most, if not almost all, of it that way

    Past that….it’s a more than well deserved kudos to Anthony and his high standards

  2. Last sentence in the first quote from the Guardian:

    …Principia Scientific whoreject…

    interesting word, but more likely a typo.

  3. Wow! Me too!!

    Is this a significant shift in how warmist publications (as the Grauniad most definitely is) are now dealing with CAGW I wonder?

  4. In every one of the education wars, like reading, science, or math, there came a point where the rhetoric softened. The actual implementation never changes, but if the rhetoric softens people of good faith assume a victory or compromise and get on with life. This was never about the environment or temps for many people, especially the UN and Club of Rome.

    Since I am monitoring what is going on in the UK as well, I can tell you everyone’s curriculum is about to be about real world problems and global challenges and taking AGW as a given. The Regional Equity planning is premised on AGW and it is going into effect. I have seen the curriculum and I have the agency reports laying out what is up.

    Anthony, you and Andrew deserve the credit and kind words but no way is this a change in direction. But neither of you is likely to be monitoring what Pearson is putting out via digital learning to classrooms. And a couple of years of modeling visually what is not so will makes the influential false beliefs paramount. Reality will not be what guides the typical student’s perspective. And at 18 they get to vote en masse. Despite acute carefully cultivated ignorance.

  5. Anthony 97% of what is posted here and what I have read by you is nothing but real Data and Facts.
    You do deserve a thoughtful & polite write up about you.

  6. Anthony, they gave an example of your experiment that disproves Scientific Principia, but they never mentioned your experiment that showed Al Gore was full of cr*p. Until they start making the same comments of people like Gore who have it wrong as skeptics who have it wrong then we still have a way to go with the media.

  7. Anthony: Congratulations on the persistent and diligent attitude to science. Facts are facts. Speculation is speculation. And climate science is…..

  8. Did you read the comments one character called PeterSimmons was doing the usual name calling (flat earthers… etc), when he was challenged by Answeris42 asking what scientific qualifications he had of course he never answers the question, either a troll or an unqualified cheerleader for the extreme greens :)

  9. The new paradigm after the old publishing model collapsed was to become an on line news source that will be quoted, create conflict and tag a rent seeking ad onto the clicks.
    This model then allows for the odd random article to not only assist the model but to make ‘clear’ the unbiassed aspect of the new model.
    Now the Guardian has linked to a site with millions of redirected clicks on offer, WUWT, this will drive readership and, of course, the revenue stream.
    Unlike with Reuters, where they have woken up,this Guardian article is a good way of tapping a rich vein, but only that.
    As such it remains an outlier in the mix of climate articles.

  10. Reading the comments on that website makes my head hurts… They will never “get” it no matter how hard we try to present facts. They’ve already made up their mind and put fingers in the ears and go “LA LA LA LA LA LA”.

  11. Truly amazing to see a piece about climate sceptics in the MSM that isn’t at best patronizing and at worst insulting and offensive. Can’t say the same about most of the comments on the Guardian website though – you can feel the sense of shock that the ‘deniers’ have been allowed through the hallowed doors for even a few moments. The whole place will need to be disinfected.

  12. The creation of religions has always been a tango of bait and switch.

    This CAGW religion’s creation is no different.

    The most important thing is never to examine the following too carefully:

    1. How accurate the data actually is.
    2. How reliable the methods of measurement are.
    3. Whether the statistical analysis tools used are appropriate.
    4. Whether the messages used to present the data are measured, accurate and representative.
    5. What levels of uncertainty exist and for how much longer they will exist prior to a resolution.

    It’s the same in the way absolutely everything is presented in the Press: wilful distortions in one way or another, claiming that the readers ‘can’t understand the details’. I’ve never come across people who can’t understand if the communicator can communicate well. If you can’t explain your science to a person with no training in the subject, you shouldn’t be deputed to represent your branch of science to the general public.

    The truth of the climate religion is that you just write a new gospel if the old one doesn’t fit.

    The truth of global politics is that it is in the interests of the shadowy powers behind the thrones to have a bunch of fairly ignorant representatives in Parliaments: that makes scams so much easier to be swallowed. That’s as true for City of London/Wall Street scams as it is for ICT scams as it is for gambling scams as it is for scientific scams. They hate forensic, honest minds as the money making from scams goes down if you have 100 of those sorts of people on your case.

    Where is the rigorous analysis of the frequency, timing and sequences of articles written about CAGW in the Guardian, the Independent, the BBC??

    That is the only way to tell you what the true objectives are: one article is meaningless.

    With 100 articles, you start to get the picture of how things are going, how they are evolving.

    Time for someone to present that sort of analysis perhaps??

  13. Not to mention he has to deal with number of regular sceptic ‘crackpots’ including
    yours truly.

  14. some essential background:-

    Warren Pearce, last week, gave sceptic Ben Pile (climate Resistance) an article at Warrens Pearce’s project (at Nottingham University) – with a must see Prof Mike Hulme (UEA) comment (in the comments, panning John Cook’s 97% paper)

    http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/#comment-182401

    “Ben Pile is spot on. The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?” – Mike Hulme [ founding director of Tyndall Centre for Climate Change]

    Prof Mike Hulme clarified further (link to comment)

    http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/#comment-182771

    Dana virtually demanded a right to reply…

    http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/29/an-accurately-informed-public-is-necessary-for-climate-policy/

    A psychologist should take a look at the Guardian comments under Warren’s new article!!
    Except one did Dr Adam Corner (who published Lewandowsky’s Moon Hoax work in the Guardian)

    http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/25595216

    Adam moans to Warren about abuse at Bishop Hill, but fails to spot the abuse of sceptics and Warren in the Guardian comments. I’m in the comments as (BBCbias) responding to Adam

    Dan Kahan (Yale) and Judith Curry had a few things to say about Dana, Cook’s paper and Prof Mike Hulmes comment about Cook’s 97% paper.

    http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/7/27/weekend-update-the-distracting-counterproductive-97-consensu.html

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/26/the-97-consensus/

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/27/the-97-consensus-part-ii/

    I even sneaked a challenge or 2 into the comments at Skeptical Science itself (not moderated.)

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/making-science-work-ben-pile-rebuttal.html#96775

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/making-science-work-ben-pile-rebuttal.html#96792

    Given that this is the same Prof Mike Hulme (Tyndall Centre, UEA) who was trying to get sceptic Prof Stott off the BBC airwaves in the climategate 2 emails, things have moved on!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/climategate-2-impartiality-at-the-bbc/

    except as Mike Hulme made clear John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli and the co-authors can’t see this.

  15. Good for His Lordship & A. W., but instead of mentioning “never-ending audit”, the author ought IMO have extended kudos to Steve McIntyre as well. Still, a welcome departure for a formerly relentlessly CACCA-spewing organ of the anti-human International.

  16. Well done, that man. If you were a Brit, you might have been made a Lord. Pity Brenchley is already taken! Still, as a former colonial, you ain’t done too bad.

  17. @vukcevic

    Crackpot,hardly.
    Your ‘alternative’ views keep others on their toes, looking at the data and testing their theories.
    Keep it up!

  18. I would not get too carried away. They, at the Grauniad, are most likely working on rehabilitating their credibility and are repositioning themselves old SSR style, to push their agenda from another angle.

  19. I’m headed over to the comments section to watch the banning bloodbath firsthand.

    Tom

  20. Watts found himself under frequent challenge by members of the group on his blog, leading him to post his own experiments on YouTube to disprove their claims.
    Glad to see that the The Guardian is warming up to you, but to play a devil advocate one could look at it as they are just in effect using you to try to reinforce the sagging standard AGW theory.
    Yes, they are trying to discredit many of the commenters and others associated with this blog, and many skeptics generally, that don’t believe there is any evidence or proof that CO2 affects climate level temperatures. All we have, these skeptics may say, is an arguable theoretical model, no evidence. Look at the recent 15 year temperature pause that even The Economist has highlighted, and you see the clear disconnection of CO2 & temperature, which leaves open at the least the possibility that CO2 is not driving temperatures. I maintain that we need to challenge the supposed “established physics.” And another point, even if the warmist physics is true, considering that there doesn’t seem to be evidence of a CO2 / temp causal correlation, maybe “Gaia” is a homoeostatic system with lots of mechanisms to limit temperature variation … such that even a sharp rise in CO2 may have a minimal effect even if the warmists’ basic physics is correct. Who knows exactly, but there’s a basis for doubting that CO2 is doing anything regarding temperature, and if it’s not doing anything, the warmist physics is wrong.
    Also, not to pile on, but is being “mainstream” really such a laudable thing? I know, it’s better than being “fringe,” but for a while it seemed like we were fringe, and it was the mainstream that was perpetrating the global warming deceptions, and calling us fringe (as they try to do with the “97%” line), and denigrating us as “deniers” actually. Being among the ragtag skeptics is the laudable thing, not being among the mainstream deceivers.
    But again, congratulation AW for the positive press you have received from The Guardian.

  21. The level of vitriol in the comments is illuminating – these people really don’t like having their worldview challenged, do they?

  22. Wow.

    What’s next? Am I going to read a balanced analysis from SkS acknowledging uncertainties and the possibility that AGW will be minor?

    Heh. Got a bit carried away there.

  23. ‘Duster says:
    July 30, 2013 at 2:37 pm
    A return to real journalism was in order for some time. This seems very appropriate.’

    I shouldn’t hold your breath if I were you. Greeks bearing gifts and all that. The Guardian isn’t likely to change its spots quickly, if at all.

  24. Robin says:
    July 30, 2013 at 2:09 pm

    Since I am monitoring what is going on in the UK as well, I can tell you everyone’s curriculum is about to be about real world problems and global challenges and taking AGW as a given. The Regional Equity planning is premised on AGW and it is going into effect. I have seen the curriculum and I have the agency reports laying out what is up.

    The bien pensant mainstream is putting its credibility on the line on a very dodgy proposition and thereby setting itself up for a huge fall in its credibility if global warming remains elusive.

  25. Robin says:
    July 30, 2013 at 2:09 pm

    “In every one of the education wars, like reading, science, or math, there came a point where the rhetoric softened. The actual implementation never changes, but if the rhetoric softens people of good faith assume a victory or compromise and get on with life. This was never about the environment or temps for many people, especially the UN and Club of Rome……

    Anthony, you and Andrew deserve the credit and kind words but no way is this a change in direction. But neither of you is likely to be monitoring what Pearson is putting out via digital learning to classrooms. And a couple of years of modeling visually what is not so will makes the influential false beliefs paramount. Reality will not be what guides the typical student’s perspective. And at 18 they get to vote en masse. Despite acute carefully cultivated ignorance.”

    Excellent warning, Robin. I don’t see any sleepers here, though. We all have been through way too much during this episodic war over science. In the U.S. we have Ayers, Sunstien, et al who will never stop their elitist totalitarian propaganda war against critical thinking, let alone CAGW. Since the totalitarians have won over most academia they now are advancing against “home schooling”. Education has always been, and will be, a prime battleground.

  26. Wow the comments over there are a hoot, aren’t they.
    I need to make some popcorn. :)

    If you read this: thank you, Warren Pearce.

  27. The Guardian politburo start to realize the game is up. Instead of fighting the enemy they are trying to find a new strategy which is possibly the only way for their continued survival. That strategy is to reform by small step at a time while still avoiding a total collapse. Openness and restructuring are the new buzzwords.

  28. Anthony,
    Please excuse me for not saluting you and others noted for being recognized even by the opposition as formidable adversaries while using superior methodology.

  29. Anthony,
    Please excuse me for not saluting you and others noted EARLIER for being recognized even by the opposition as formidable adversaries while using superior methodology.

    Time for supper!

  30. GPWayne comes right out with it, doesn’t he:

    Climate science has a message whose implications are unavoidably political: only consensual, egalitarian cooperative measures can assuage the worst of climate change, and that message is socialist in nature, if not by design. It is at that junction, where science and social responses to it occur, that sceptics become deniers, because they now oppose climate science, not merely question it.

    Talk about going Bulsworth! (Or whatever it is the press says President Obama longs to do)

  31. rogerknights says:
    July 30, 2013 at 3:11 pm

    Hope you’re right about the MSM’s credibility, but the NYT wasn’t fazed by its correspondent Duranty’s covering up Stalin’s crimes against humanity.

  32. Hum says:
    July 30, 2013 at 2:18 pm

    Anthony, they gave an example of your experiment that disproves Scientific Principia, but they never mentioned your experiment that showed Al Gore was full of cr*p. Until they start making the same comments of people like Gore who have it wrong as skeptics who have it wrong then we still have a way to go with the media.
    ————–

    Lewis P Buckingham says:
    July 30, 2013 at 2:22 pm

    The new paradigm after the old publishing model collapsed was to become an on line news source that will be quoted, create conflict and tag a rent seeking ad onto the clicks.
    This model then allows for the odd random article to not only assist the model but to make ‘clear’ the unbiassed aspect of the new model.
    Now the Guardian has linked to a site with millions of redirected clicks on offer, WUWT, this will drive readership and, of course, the revenue stream.
    Unlike with Reuters, where they have woken up,this Guardian article is a good way of tapping a rich vein, but only that.
    As such it remains an outlier in the mix of climate articles.

    ==================

    I would have to agree with the above comments.

  33. Mike Alexander says:
    July 30, 2013 at 2:45 pm
    Expect mass cancellations of Guardian subscriptions in 3… 2… 1…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    Oh dear no, this is the climate debate. We have precedents.

    The editor will have to resign, stating that although the article was factually accurate, that s/he shouldn’t have allowed it to be published anyway. Followed by an apology to Kevin Trenberth.

  34. Anthony, first of all I’ll pass on congratulating you or the Bish for featuring in Pearce’s article in the Guardian. It’s a mere token of the respect you truly deserve and really late for the party. But at least it’s a step forward. It does show that WUWT and BishopHill are serious contenders in the march for the truth. There are many others that I have not included here as I am only responding to the article.

    I will extend my congratulations to you, Montford, McIntyre, Curry, etc., etc., for hosting serious scientific discussions. Now, I could not even begin to offer well deserved congratulations to all the guest posters and commenters so please accept this comment as that well deserved and sincere congratulations. A powerful army of “ones.”

  35. What’s next WUWT and Bishop Hill become part of The Guardian Environment network :-)
    Or does he’ll freeze over first?

  36. I always knew the 97 percenters were NOT scientists, I knew the people who would not share a platform were NOT scientists. Heck, I even knew that the tree ring guys were Not scientists.

    I DID know that Steve Mac was a scientist. I am now chuffed to bits that A Watts is included. A Watts – scientist.

  37. Clearly the guardian doesn’t watch close enough. There are loads of pseudoscientific hogwash posts on this blog.

    REPLY: Yes, some of them come from you, but I still allow your comments anyway. – Anthony

  38. paul-since you brought up homeschooling apparently David Coleman, the former McKinsey consultant who is the architect of the Common Core that is actually the OECD international Competency push in pursuit of the Green Growth welfare state, has reached out to the head of the Homeschooling Legal Defense Fund. That letter has been circulating in recent days and I don’t think it is a good sign the homeschoolers will be allowed to continue.

    As the College Board that Coleman now heads revises the SAT as he has said it is doing they will go to Higher Order Thinking Skills which is not synonymous with analytical. That is likely where the homeschoolers will get trapped. Plus perhaps the new OECD PISA American version that tracks attitudes and answers to open-ended nonlinear questions with no fixed answer.

    It is hard to comprehend how essential the belief in AGW is to this vision for transformation.

    Anthony-one of the aspects of the curriculum is to get students to accept like a mantra that the models are grounded in empirical observations. No, they are not in the least.

    Ed certainly intends to be the backdoor on this.

  39. The Leopard in the Basement, on BH today, pointed to another ‘Gobsmacking’ article in today’s Guardian that is also worthy of a a perusal.
    Titled “The green movement is not pro-science”, it’s a few thoughts from Robert Wilson, a PhD student in Scotland.

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/30/green-movement-science?commentpage=1

    Robert and Warren may feel grateful for any support you may wish to offer as they’re both getting a severe bashing from Grauniad regulars!

    Here is a comment I put on the Bishop Hill unthreaded sectio a few days ago.
    I think it not inappropriate to repeat it here:

    Fallen back in love with the Grauniad, I have!
    Not all of it though; just the CIF environment section.
    And it’s all because of “Scooter-Boy Dana and “I took on Lord M AND survived” Abraham with their fascinating articles and sharp intellects.
    No, it’s not the ferocity of the censorship, from which I believe the acronym was coined, that draws me back but the one-man, one-vote recommend facility.
    If you haven’t tried it before then do so. No need to register; just point your mouse at the button, captioned Recommend, and click if you like the post.
    There is caveat however. Some of the denizens of those blogs do seem to get a wee bit exercised if their party falls behind in the polls.
    Please use your vote sympathetically – many of the regulars there appear to suffer from a surfeit of ‘issues’ already:(

  40. With all the traffic that Warren Pearce’s piece has brought to that rag’s site, maybe his voice of reason will become a regular feature. Where else is its lunatic fringe readership going to go? Trying reason may be a big winner for the bird cage liner.

  41. The Daily Telegraph (nicknamed “Torygraph” – i.e. supposedly conservative) has of recent years been taking an increasingly left/liberal position on many issues. This includes “environment”, with compassionate head-tilting characters like Geoffrey Lean and Louise Gray dribbling out the “consensus” view.

    I amused myself with the notion that some genius in the Telegraph publishing dept. had noticed that the left/liberal Guardian was losing readers at a high rate (true) and came up with a “cunning plan” to scoop those lost readers up by becoming more like the Guardian. They certainly increased their numbers of lost readers alright…

    So now I’m amusing myself with the notion that the Guardian has adopted this “cunning plan” right back at them.


    (safe for work)

  42. Anthony, the reason I suspect why Warmists called us deniers is because of the dragon slayers. They assumed we were all deniers of co2 being a greenhouse gas.

  43. Our electricity just came back on for the 5th time this evening. This is what it’s like living in a poor, developing country. This is why I come to WUWT – Warmists want to deny us of energy, reduce our populations while leaving them and their families unscathed. Thank you.

    I have been asked by many Warmists at the Guardian in the past “what drives you?” It’s the above. I like light and electricity. Now take a look at the plans to withhold funding for coal powered power stations for the developing world. I am at the sharp end of this bullshit and I am not going to remain silent. Get ready for HEAVY DUTY DEFORESTATION. Coal and wood are the same to me.
    ——————————–

    “European investment bank to stop financing coal-fired power plants”

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/24/eu-coal-power-plants-carbon-emissions-climate

    “World Bank to Limit Funds for Coal-Fired Plants”

    http://www.wunderground.com/news/world-bank-limit-funds-coal-fired-plants-20130627

    Jimbo out.

  44. Sounds like a great time for WUWT-TV to resurface. I can just see Spencer, Curry and Whitehouse in an interview together ;-)

    How about a replay?

  45. I just went to the toilet to urinate and ohhhhhh the water supply has just gone – for the SECOND TIME TODAY!!! I know some Warmists will think I am making this up but that’s good news. It shows they don’t have a grip on the reality that affects most of the world’s population. I feel sorry for such confused, led-along sheep.

  46. PS, the water supply sometimes shuts down because there is no electricity running the booster pumps. I am working from a battery powered laptop with smartphone / shared modem.

  47. Congratulations Anthony, congratulations to the blog contributors to this forum, and congratulations to the many people that comment at this site.

    We share a common belief that was once defined as ‘a gentleman of science’. The perfect gentleman of science was Michael Faraday. Faraday was incapable of a deliberate miss-truth and would actively investigate the discharged hypothesis (again and again), as scientific investigation of hypotheses is an essential step to find and confirm truth. ‘Gentlemen of science’ search for truth, respect and investigate alternative hypothesis (again and again), a gentleman of science looks for data and logic to disprove a hypothesis, abhors lies, and so on. Gentlemen of science can change their mind. Gentleman of science use logic and reason, rather than ad hominem to advance a hypothesis.

    http://daliennation.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/gentleman-of-science-michael-faraday/

    Comment:
    Climate ‘change’ is a peculiar issue, a peculiar branch of ‘science’. It appears scientific truth and environmental ‘protection’ is on the side of so called ‘skeptics’, the so called ‘deniers’. The extreme AGW activists (An activist is not a scientist. An activist believes they are fighting a war and hence believe lies, distortion, and propaganda are justified if it helps them win their war. The problem of course for the AGW activists, is that the justification to fight their war disappears if there is scientifically no extreme AGW problem associated with the increase in CO2. Lukewarm warming (Scientifically there will be less than 1C warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 if there is no amplification of the CO2 forcing) is a fact if the planet does not amplify the CO2 forcing. Unfortunately it appears the CO2 mechanism saturates and the planet will cool due to solar magnetic cycle change. The benefits due the increase in atmospheric CO2 if there is lukewarm warming (no amplification) will result in an expansion of the biosphere, as plants eat CO2 and the biosphere is limited high latitude regions due to the number of frost free days. The atmospheric increase in CO2 is win-win for environmentalist, those people who care about the environment.

    Activists pick a cause and then fight. To fight a war on the wrong side is madness. It appears, the 350.org position is madness, anti- environmentalism.

  48. Anthony,

    I truely believed that you were being foolish and wasting your time in having a discusion with the Sky Dragons. I watched and took part in the debate with them at Judy Curry’s blog, Climate Etc. I then saw Dr. Roy Spencer try to engage them. Both were a complete waste of time IMHO.

    You then did the same here at WUWT, And I thought it was a complete waste of time and effort. I thought it was akin to p*ssing into the wind.

    I now freely admitt, my judgement was wrong. And yours was right. ( and Dr. Judith Curry & Dr. Roy Spencer ). This one article in the MSM is, IMHO, worth all the effort expended.

    Congratulations.

    It is also amusing to see the Alarmists their going Ape, pulling their hair out and generally making fools of them selves. Very counter-productive.

    Best regards

    /ikh

  49. And finally, I would love to have a free solar panel installation on my roof while being connected to the mains. I would love to have a free, small domestic wind turbine while being connected to the mains. If I have to pay then I will have to look at the payback time / maintenance etc. I don’t want a free solar panel / wind power infrastructure to run the nation’s electrical supply. Issues are: unreliable, back-up, storage problems – it could be worse than it is today, and today has been bad.m :(

  50. Ryan says:

    July 30, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    Clearly the guardian doesn’t watch close enough. There are loads of pseudoscientific hogwash posts on this blog.

    REPLY: Yes, some of them come from you, but I still allow your comments anyway. – Anthony
    ____________________________________________________
    Lovely

  51. Beautiful, Anthony but being a sceptic, “beware the Greek bearing gifts.” Next thing you know, Cook and Scooter will be claiming you as part of the warmista. ;)

  52. “fringe sceptic group Principia Scientific”

    Oh, please! Does the guardian seriously think this dross will wash? PSI was always a false flag operation. They were never a fringe sceptic group. Their mission was far more successful than the openly pro AGW Soros funded sites. They made most sceptics to fearful to question the basic inanity of the radiative greenhouse hypothesis. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability? Utter tripe. But PSI were very, very successful. How many sceptics would now claim that the net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm?

    Are you fearful of being branded a “slayer”? Did it work on you too?

  53. Wow!! A serious congratualtions for years of effort.

    And 1 point to the Guardian for writing something reasonable.

  54. Anthony,

    I did not fully or correctly express what I learned in my previous comment. One of our biggest complaints is that the Alarmists won’t engagage in discussion with us. If we don’t ever engagage with the “tin foil hat” brigade then we are guility of the same sin.

    Thanks again for a great bblog.

    /ikh

  55. Jimbo thanks for sharing the link to Anthony’s bio — I just never came upon it. (and, [sarc ON] thanks for sharing at 4:40PM [OFF], LOL) — sure hope your electricity is on to STAY on SOON. Take care, O Researcher Extraordinaire.

    Dear Anthony,

    While the grin and compliment of a crocodile are not worth much (the danger being your potentially falling prey to their mischaracterizing you even further as a supporter of CAGW), the upshot is GOOD! Publicity, good, bad, or dubious, is, still, publicity! And, of course, in the eyes of those who matter, those on the side of Truth in Science, you have always been a de facto scientist and a TRUE SCIENCE HERO.

    BTW, [thanks, OssQss, for the link -- enjoyed watching WUWT TV] you have remarkably lovely tone and modulation in your voice and the timbre is beautiful. That you accomplish that with impaired hearing and with excellent diction to boot is impressive. No wonder you had a long career on TV; you have a delightfully engaging personality (MUCH better than that pompous, lazy, windbag, Rush). You personify, both on camera and off in your fight for science truth, decency, integrity, generosity, kindness, and courage, all that a man of honor ought to be. What a guy!

    With gratitude,

    Janice

    ***************
    @ ikh — I LIKE YOU! Please, do call yourself something more complimentary than a phonetic version of “Ick!” Well, your post was definitely a “like,” not an “ick.”

    • @janice moore. Thank you for the kind words.

      My voice is I believe a direct result of my hearing impairment. I’ve lost everything above 2 kilohertz, with significant losses in the remaining frequencies. I was fortunate that I learned to speak before I started losing my hearing, but as I lost more hearing I started compensating for losing track of my own voice in my head. That and at an early age, I was thrust into a public speaking roll by one of my teachers.

  56. Congrats, Anthony. But, does that make you a lukewarmer ?

    Lukewarm is fine. It takes the C out of CAGW, which means more rational energy policies, and maybe, just maybe, less CO2 taxation.

    But as far as the Science is concerned, I’m not taking any prisoners. I won’t feel vindicated until it becomes incontrovertible that CO2 has ZERO sensitivity in a chaotic, self-regulating system.

  57. Whilst I don’t think anyone should be surprised that Anthony gets any form of praise and recognition for his work, well, from honest parties at least, I think it’s fair to understand what is happening here in a little more detail.

    The article referenced is a blog post on their open forum. I could post there if I gave them something of interest and jumped through a few hoops. Anthony could post there himself if he took an article that they deemed of interest to their science blog.
    However it’s not the Guardian newspaper. This is not journalism. This is an opinion piece by a university student who has an interest via study, of climate science scepticism. And he appears to do this quite honestly and from a position that is not pre-disposed.

    The Guardian newspaper remains, and I really want to avoid the political side of things as much as possible, a liberal left advocacy tool and it always has been. That being said it is no less bias and willing to distort reality for it’s position than the Daily mail are and I know many Americans are happy to accept the Daily Mail as a voice of reason because they support the sceptic’s AGW position. It remains one of the most distasteful tools for fear and mistrust publishing in the UK today. These two are like two polar opposite sides of the same coin.

    The guardian, like most print newspapers in the UK is suffering, to the point of there is a genuine chance that many of the long established print outlets in the UK could fail. The guardian has learned that there is a media outlet in the internet and has embraced online content, albeit not one that is showing them any revenue of note yet.

    This article is welcome and it’s good that someone chose to accept it. It’s not a warmist changing tack or accepting a different position, it’s a student writing honestly about the things he sees and reads, like many of us here try to do, and having that writing accepted for blog publication.

    You only have to read the first comment in the readers comments to understand what the actual readership is like and how little an effect the article will have on them, other than to twist their panties.

    WUWT readers who want to make a difference at places like the Grauniad? Produce your own articles and offer them for submission. When people like the first commentator in the replies make the ad-hominen and unfounded comments he has done then offer a rebuttal. I know it’s difficult to argue with idiots, they drag you down to their level then beat you with experience ( sorry I forget who to attribute that comment to ) but I know the people here strive for truth and proper understanding. Anthony’s site may well be the most-read climate science blog on the planet but places like the Guardian online exist in an echo chamber of their own agreement for the most part.

    Challenge that.

    But please don’t think an advocacy outlet such as the Guardian is changing position by allowing one voice of reason in the guest blog area. It’s no different than Anthony allowing Gavin et al to post an op-ed at this site with freedom to say what he believes.

    Craig Frier

  58. Maybe this would be a good time for all WUWT readers to get a Guardian account and leave a comment or two. Show them just how much more web traffic they can get by supporting a sceptical viewpoint than the usual alarmist one. Maybe then they will post more of this kind o’ thing.

  59. Clearly the guardian doesn’t watch close enough. There are loads of pseudoscientific hogwash posts on this blog.
    REPLY: Yes, some of them come from you, but I still allow your comments anyway. – Anthony
    —————————————————————————————————————-
    Cracked up on that reply! I personally love the differing viewpoints on this site as it helps me think “outside the box”. I think that is one (of many) reasons for your site’s popularity (the primary ones being its educational value,integrity and honesty).
    Keep up the good work!!

  60. Why should any sentient human being care what a bunch of communo-fascist crumbums at the (so-called) Guardian think of anything?

  61. vukcevic says:
    July 30, 2013 at 2:32 pm

    > Not to mention he has to deal with number of regular sceptic ‘crackpots’ including
    yours truly.

    We’d miss you if you went away. Well, maybe sometimes. :-) And maybe some people. :-)

  62. Headlines you definitely won’t see at The Guardian: “Climate Skeptics Shocked At Kind Guardian Reporting”

  63. Lil Fella from OZ says:
    July 30, 2013 at 4:21 pm
    Congrats Anthony. But be watchful of the Trojan horse. The Left can’t rest.
    ——————————————–

    Exactly – since they can’t get real jobs, they have to steal money from the people who can, in order to survive as our pseudo-rulers.

    There’s a few things I miss about medieval solutions to problems like this.

  64. Blind squirrel? Stopped clock? Or is The Guardian actually getting a clue? Let’s see if it really is a change.

  65. OT I guess, but I just heard a clip of our new EPA mistress telling her followers at Harvard how fighting “carbon pollution” for the next three years is going to produce “jobs.” Really. In the 10-second sound-bite she repeated “carbon pollution” over and over. Nice to know what we’re in for if we can’t elect a veto-proof Republican Congress in 2014 and defang the EPA. And that’s a faint hope, I expect.

    /Mr Lynn

  66. Looks like it was just a vehicle to have sock puppets have their “say”.. maybe their even paid for sock puppets …. a.k.a. climate prostitutes.

    It’s great to see the Guardian swirling it’s way down into the sewer from whence it came.

  67. Ryan says July 30, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    Clearly the guardian doesn’t watch close enough. There are loads of pseudoscientific hogwash posts on this blog.

    Can I say it? PURE projection.

    And I’ll wager the poor sod can’t cite a one. Were Ryan to think to apply himself it should be to post something substantive in the way of a good rebuttal to the projected hogwash, but, sadly, why does that seem to be beyond his capability?

    I would LOVE to see a fully thought-out rebuttal for the same reason I like to watch Katrina VanDen Houvel (sp?) from The Nation on ABC’s Sunday morning talking-heads show; she’s so d*mned entertaining in a twisted and demented sort of way …

    .

  68. Anthony, I just want to reiterate my congratulations, and to say that on closer scrutiny I’m more impressed with The Guardian article, and in my last comment above I was perhaps too much of a devils advocate, and I missed some key points, as you were said to be mainstream among skeptics, not mainstream among the mainstream. So, good work Anthony. The Guardian article is about as good as we can get with the MSM now. Although I thought that the recent series of agw related articles by The Economist have been very good for us. Is the tide turning?

  69. That is…an absolutely accurate assessment. I can’t believe the Guardian actually printed that.

  70. One last time before I go to bed as it appears to me that people are still misunderstanding this situation.

    This is not an article by the Guardian or any of its staffers. This is not mainstream media. This is not a print article.

    This is a guest blog by a student which appears on the science blogs hosted by the Guardian group on their servers. In reality it has nothing to do with the newspaper. In much the same as the Guardian’s “comment is free” area is for people to have a say, the science blog is the same with a more succinct subject.

    By all means give credit to the author and anywhere else it might be due but don’t confuse this for anything other than a third-party submitted opinion piece that is hosted on server space paid for by the Guardian group newspapers. ( Who happen to have their head offices in my back yard )

    The Guardian need content. This is all that their blog space is about. It’s intended to receive traffic so that numbers satisfy advertisers.

  71. A-TH-Y actually spoke to me!!! What a happy surprise. Thanks (and, you are most welcome)!

    ********************************************
    Say, re: the name of the above article’s author… “Warren Pearce.” Oh, right. Come one, Mr. “War and Peace,” tell us your REAL name. ” #[:)] Meh, it’s probably real. His parents just had a good sense of humor.

    *****************************

    Speaking of names, or, rather, titles, Alan Clark. AHEM! Is that meant to say: W.H.O. Reject? Hm.

  72. Well deserved, Anthony, however it came about, and many thanks for WUWT. I’m not a researcher, experimenter, or scientific expert, but I am a decent engineer, in at least senses of the word (competent, polite, clothed) and have learned much from my daily review of your publication. I look forward to many more years of reasoned enlightenment, good humour, and civilised conversation made possible by WUWT.

    Anyway, we don’t need no stinkin’ approval from the CAGW sheep.

  73. ‘The Guardian’ often deletes comments critical of the party line on global warming, but on the other hand, when Steve MacIntyre spoke in London in 2010, it was organized by the Guardian, and chaired by George Monbiot. Recently it reprinted an article from ‘The American Conservative’. Edward Snowden chose the Guardian, not the New York Times or the Washington Post.

  74. Andrew Montford and Anthony,

    I am also surprised the Guardian’s website posted a reasonably balanced and reasonably credible guest article on you. I thank the author of the guest article.

    But with respect to the Guardian’s predominate behavior on climate matters, I am reminded of this Aesop fable:

    The fable of a frog and a scorpion is about them at the edge of a river where the frog is asked by the scorpion to take him to the other side. The frog skeptically asks the scorpion, “You might sting me, right?” The scorpion
    says, “No I won’t. Reason I won’t is if I do, I will also die.”

    The scorpion thus convinces the frog to carry him and half way across the scorpion stings the frog. The dying frog asks the scorpion “Why?”. The scorpion answers as he drowns: “Its my nature”

    It is the scorpion’s Guardian’s nature . . .

    John

  75. byz – mentioned the comments by PeterSimmons & i wonder if it’s one & the same as follows:

    June 2012: WUWT: Anthony Watts: Climate Craziness of the Week – I get mail
    There seems to be a disturbance in the farce. Peter J. Simmons uses the WUWT Submit Story link (making it fair game to publish) to send this fine example of climate delusion in action, complete with “you people” and big oil claims…
    Comment by jayman: There appears to be a Peter J. Simmons at the University of East Anglia who seems to be paid for doing nothing of any particular significance. He is interested in nuclear power, I’m not sure whether for or against.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/26/climate-craziness-of-the-week-i-get-mail/

    to answer jayman, the Simmons he writes of – whether the same guy or not – is, obviously, pro-nuclear:

    Sept 2008: Guardian: James Randerson: Nuclear plants’ neighbours back expansion
    Read the full text of the Royal Society report (pdf)
    People who live close to nuclear power stations are more supportive of building new plants than the UK population in general, according to independent researchers who have conducted the most detailed survey of attitudes to the nuclear industry since the mid-1980s…
    “Our recommendation to the industry would be get on with it. If you think you’ve got some sites then start talking to the local population now because you will only end up with uncertainty, concern, more distrust,” said Peter Simmons, of the University of East Anglia…

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/sep/30/nuclearpower.energy

  76. François GM on July 30, 2013 at 5:49 pm

    Congrats, Anthony. But, does that make you a lukewarmer ?

    Lukewarm is fine. It takes the C out of CAGW, which means more rational energy policies, and maybe, just maybe, less CO2 taxation.

    But as far as the Science is concerned, I’m not taking any prisoners. I won’t feel vindicated until it becomes incontrovertible that CO2 has ZERO sensitivity in a chaotic, self-regulating system.

    – – – – – – – –

    François GM,

    Good stimulating comment! Thanks.

    Lukewarm positions have not achieved scientific strength to the same degree as the alarming positions have not achieved scientific strength and for the same reasons.

    Where the maximum and minimum thresholds of climate response to CO2 lie is an uncertain work in progress. Science on it is now much more unfettered from the IPCC’s ideologically corrupting influence. I think we will see trends in the studies on thresholds of climate response to CO2 which will be significantly toward zero levels.

    John

  77. @Rod McLaughlin

    ‘‘

    The Guardian’ often deletes comments critical of the party line on global warming, but on the other hand, when Steve MacIntyre spoke in London in 2010, it was organized by the Guardian, and chaired by George Monbiot.

    Umm… that’s only about a quarter the truth. You are right that the Graun organised a debate on Climategate chaired by GM. There were 5 panellist: Bob Watson, Fred Pearce, Trevor Davies (UEA), Doug Keenan and Steve McIntyre. And IIRC the ‘sceptical’ attendees had to have a whip round to pay Steve’s plane fare, as the Graun. weren’t offering expenses.

    So it wasn’t really ‘Steve McIntyre speaking in London’. He was one part of a bigger event.

    Here’s the contemporary reportage

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/15/reports-from-the-guardian-climategate-debate/

  78. Fox has left out Taxpayers for Common Sense spokesperson saying it’s another case of the govt picking “winners”. i agree. if it’s wrong for solar & wind, it’s wrong for nuclear:

    30 July: Fox News: John Roberts: Mini-nuclear plants the next frontier of US power supply — or the next Solyndra?
    A boon to the economy? Or a boondoggle?
    That’s the debate raging over a new nuclear technology that — depending on your perspective — is either a game-changer in electrical generation, or a failure-in-the-making that will fleece taxpayers for a half-billion dollars.
    The technology, called “small modular reactors,” will be the centerpiece of an entirely new way of thinking about nuclear power…
    In his June speech on climate change, President Obama talked about shutting down dozens of older coal plants, which left open the question of how that electricity would be produced…
    B&W has taken the lead in the development of SMRs with its mPower design…
    TVA was expected to apply for a construction permit last year. But that application has been delayed until 2015 at the earliest.
    That’s not the only controversial point with SMR’s. The federal government has pledged more than $500 million to help develop the technology. B&W has so far received $79 million for R&D, with the possibility of an additional $150 million…
    That’s not sitting well with the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. It points to the long history of expensive failures in the nuclear industry, backed by 60 years of subsidies.
    Ryan Alexander, president of the group, sees the potential for a nuclear version of Solyndra, the solar power company that went belly up after taxpayers poured a half-billion dollars into the company…

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/30/mini-nuclear-plants-next-frontier-us-power-supply-or-next-solyndra/

  79. The ice on which AGW stands seems rotten and while I don’t see an ice free summer any time soon yet, the ice bears of big green are looking at the melting of their slush funds.

    I was, however, boggling at the word “whoreject” until I split it into “who reject”. For a moment there …

  80. I couldn’t resist responding to one comment. Here’s the comment:

    Robert Lacatena

    30 July 2013 6:17pm

    This article is nonsense, and a complete distortion of reality. It represents a twisted perspective (Warren’s own?) rather than anything of substance.

    Fact: Watts tried to submit his own paper on surface stations and has repeatedly failed to have it accepted (because it is inherently flawed).

    Fact: Watts said he would stand by the results of the BEST study, and then when he didn’t like the actual results, he backpedaled and tossed it under his skeptic bus.

    Fact: 90% of what Watts posts is scientific nonsense or a gross misrepresentation of real science.

    Fact: Watts and skeptic sites have had ZERO IMPACT on the actual science, which is the true measure of the answer to the question posed in this article’s title.

    If skeptics are the “true champions of the scientific method,” then where is the evidence? In fact, where is any evidence that they even follow the scientific method themselves?

    They don’t engage in science. They engage in name calling and ignorant confusion from the sidelines. They cannot be “champions” of the scientific method because they aren’t even actively involved in science in any tangible way. If they were… you’d know it, because there would be some sort of direct cause-and-effect that you could observe, quantify and use to argue the point.

    Here’s my reply:

    Mike Alexander Robert Lacatena

    31 July 2013 7:24am

    Robert L, you wrote:

    Fact: Watts tried to submit his own paper on surface stations and has repeatedly failed to have it accepted (because it is inherently flawed).

    False. he did eventually get it published in 2011:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD015146/abstract

    Fact: 90% of what Watts posts is scientific nonsense or a gross misrepresentation of real science.

    Pretty hard to take you serious when you make a 90% claim without backing it up.

    If Watts has “ZERO IMPACT” on the “actual science”, then why the vitriolic reaction?

  81. Lewis P Buckingham says (July 30, 2013 at 2:22 pm )

    The new paradigm after the old publishing model collapsed was to become an on line news source that will be quoted, create conflict and tag a rent seeking ad onto the clicks.

    Got it in one.

    Yet there is a problem with this strategy related to dividing the market up for targeted advertising. Most articles need to appeal to one group only in order to let the advertisers know who they are talking at.

    Conflict doesn’t help – usually they want a uniform target group.

    Yet the target group has to be self-sustaining or they will shrink and the group will die – and so will the revenue stream.
    The new Guardian echo-box moderation (that denies the opportunity to debate, thanks Dana) has taken the life out of the target group.

    It’s infected the whole environment site at the Guardian. For example, look at this exciting story of exploration from the weekend:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/28/explorer-discovers-uncharted-waterfalls-canada

    Yet the cynical comments below the story show that the pool of advert-bait must be quite isolated.

  82. The Grauniad is ‘my paper’ (it’s affectionately named that way because, before the era of computerised type-setting, it was famous for its typos in many articles, daily). When I lived in Britain, and when I’ve visited since, it’s the one I buy. It’s left-liberal, or liberal-left, but for Americans those terms don’t convey its position, because for many Americans, anyone or anything ‘left’ of Reagan or Thatcher is almost communist. Sorry, European politics is far more subtle, with many distinctions. The ‘liberal’ part of the description refers to a commitment to open discussion, freedom of speech, debate, and other freedoms. It’s true, The Guardian has made what I consider major errors in its editorial policies (not only on CAGW, but also, for example, on Israel), but I haven’t given up on it. Can anyone name a daily newspaper with which you 100% agree? If yes, maybe you should consider that a transport worker friend of mine (of more than 40 years) refers to The Daily Mail as ‘The Truth’, sarcastically of course. So, at least, The Guardian published on its blog a sceptical article about climate change, with a respectful mention of Anthony and WUWT. That goes with its liberal stance, as described above. We don’t need to go into raging paranoia mode (‘It’s just a trick’), but rather look for ways to continue the discussion.

  83. Robin says:
    July 30, 2013 at 2:09 pm

    In every one of the education wars, like reading, science, or math, there came a point where the rhetoric softened. The actual implementation never changes, but if the rhetoric softens people of good faith assume a victory or compromise and get on with life….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You nailed it. Here is a fresh example:

    Farmers fought NAIS (National Animal Identifcation System) to a stand still.
    February 9, 2010 For four years DC Downsizers joined with other organizations and countless farmers to oppose the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).

    Finally, the USDA saw the writing on the wall. It is scrapping NAIS!

    More realistically:

    February 8, 2010 Easter Bunny Reports “NAIS is Dead!!!!”
    As I reported after returning from the NIAA (National Institute for Animal Agriculture) meeting last August, rumors of the death of NAIS have been greatly exaggerated. (Read http://nonais.org/2009/09/05/ding-dong-nais-is-not-dead/) The USDA has finally admitted that they have too much negative publicity surrounding the name NAIS, and that they actually have to do what they tried to do in the first place: get the states to do their bidding on ‘animal identification’ and ‘traceability’ according to World Trade Organization standards. So yippee. They are only going to exercise their rule-making authority to control interstate commerce. Well, that’s all they had the authority to do at the outset. So we should be giddy with excitement that they are openly proclaiming they will do just that now.

    Should we be happier than a pig in a puddle because they openly stated that they will leave animals which never exit the state out of the new plan? They never had the authority to deal with those animals anyway…unless, of course, you take money from the USDA. Otherwise, that authority rests with your state. The USDA will continue to fund the states and work in a ‘collaborative’ way with states and industry (continuing the Public Private Partnership otherwise known as fascism) to develop the “minimum standards” that must be followed in order to participate in interstate commerce.

    So, as many conversations with my compatriots in the fight against NAIS have alluded to, at last the USDA is pulling the commerce clause out and holding it up as their hammer for “minimum standards” that will be required by forthcoming regulations for ‘disease traceability’. And why has the USDA taken to calling it ‘disease traceability’ instead of ‘animal identification’? Because they only HAVE authority over the diseases! The FDA has authority over live animals on the farm (http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm114752.htm), even though the majority of people don’t know this, and it is a very useful poker chip in the globalization game. It is called misdirection, and those of us who have been deeply involved in the fight against the NAIS are very aware of this agency’s use of misinformation, disinformation, subterfuge and general sneakiness in foisting upon us their WTO driven desire that will create captive supply for export of the entire domestic livestock population…..

    The war against NAIS then dwindled as people got on with their lives and two years later like a zombie NAIS rises from the dead and becomes Animal ID.

    From the USDA website:

    USDA Issues Final Rule for Animal Disease Traceability

    WASHINGTON, December 20, 2012—The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today announced a final rule establishing general regulations for improving the traceability of U.S. livestock moving interstate.

    “With the final rule announced today, the United States now has a flexible, effective animal disease traceability system for livestock moving interstate, without undue burdens for ranchers and U.S. livestock businesses,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “The final rule meets the diverse needs of the countryside where states and tribes can develop systems for tracking animals that work best for them and their producers, while addressing any gaps in our overall disease response efforts. Over the past several years, USDA has listened carefully to America’s farmers and ranchers, working collaboratively to establish a system of tools and safeguards that will help us target when and where animal diseases occur, and help us respond quickly.”

    Under the final rule, unless specifically exempted, livestock moved interstate would have to be officially identified and accompanied by an interstate certificate of veterinary inspection or other documentation….

    Not to worry they will slip in the Commerce Clause making ID within state needed a few years down the road. The major hurtle, getting a framework set-up and persuading people the fight is over and they can turn their attention to other things has been accomplished.

    The Elite NEVER GIVE UP they just change the game plan but the goal always remains the same.

  84. Well I have just finished reading the article and every single comment. It is so obvious that the “deniers” and skeptics ( and sceptics ) are interested in the science and what it means while the “warmists” are simply interested in the politics by and large.

    It is quite refreshing to see all of the arguments put out in such a public forum but it does whet my appetite for a full on, live, debate between the pro and anti AGW big brains. It really would be the final push that would topple this absolutism into the abyss. Oh and the debate had better cover the silliness of ocean “acidification” at the same time before that becomes the new battle ground between left and right.

  85. Peter Hannan says:
    July 31, 2013 at 1:16 am
    “The Grauniad is ‘my paper’ (it’s affectionately named that way because, before the era of computerised type-setting, it was famous for its typos in many articles, daily). When I lived in Britain, and when I’ve visited since, it’s the one I buy. It’s left-liberal, or liberal-left, but for Americans those terms don’t convey its position, because for many Americans, anyone or anything ‘left’ of Reagan or Thatcher is almost communist. Sorry, European politics is far more subtle, with many distinctions. The ‘liberal’ part of the description refers to a commitment to open discussion, freedom of speech, debate, and other freedoms.”

    In Germany the word “liberal” doesn’t mean leftist at all. It means classical liberalism. So obviously Grauniad readers have hijacked the term for themselves; EXACTLY as the socialist progressives in the US.

    I see not much subtlety in that, Peter Hannan.

    The Grauniad can best be compared to the hard left German “taz” in my regard. As for subtleties in European policies, well, the UK has the Fabians which control both main parties; now ain’t that subtle – and BBC and Grauniad of course mention the word “Fabian” about two times in a decade.

    Quite subtle; much like the more continental Bilderbergers – similar frequency of mentions and no reporting about their meetings on the continent; and just so the US is not forgotten; they have the CFR with 4700 members, and no reporting on the CFR at all.

  86. Robin says:
    July 30, 2013 at 2:09 pm
    In every one of the education wars, like reading, science, or math, there came a point where the rhetoric softened. The actual implementation never changes, but if the rhetoric softens people of good faith assume a victory or compromise and get on with life. This was never about the environment or temps for many people, especially the UN and Club of Rome.
    ——————————————————————–
    The last paragraph of their article may offer a glimpse of where this might be going.

    “The conundrum is that both “sides” (if one can use that term) seem to focus on real science as the arbiter of knowledge claims. In doing so, they risk constricting material policy measures issues of wider public significance than scientific debates about climate change.”
    The link to material policy measures goes to here: http://www.academia.edu/3998653/The_Vital_Spark
    cn

  87. M Courtney says:
    July 30, 2013 at 11:41 pm
    “It’s infected the whole environment site at the Guardian. For example, look at this exciting story of exploration from the weekend:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/28/explorer-discovers-uncharted-waterfalls-canada

    Yet the cynical comments below the story show that the pool of advert-bait must be quite isolated.”

    M Courtney, you do realize that the Grauniad is the natural biome of what would be a typical Green in Germany; and that they all wallow in their conviction that the natural world is collapsing right now all around us? They are atheists and they have constructed their belief in this ongoing collapse to have something to believe in.

    Do them a favour and tell them that we’re all going to hell in a handcart; they’ll love it.

  88. It’s eyewash. It’s a one-time event to be trotted out as evidence of “balance” to calm a gullible and uncurious public on those rare occasions when they raise their heads from their iPads, iPhones, and TVs to see what’s going on in the real workd. Nothing has changed.

  89. I agree with this partial quote from the article’s comments. (with some additions)
    Variable vested interests, each in itself justified will sustain the fight.

    “Mark Eastaugh
    31 July 2013 4:45am
    This is where you lose the plot.
    You don’t NEED a conspiracy when the policy put forward has a whole array of benefits (albeit unrelated to the AGW issue) to a lot of different, highly important groups of people.

    1. What government is not going to want embrace a tax/trading system? More revenue, more control. The only reason governments oppose such doctrine is for votes, or because they are (rarely) smart enough to have actually done some medium term economic sums.
    2. What financial institution would be against it? Carbon trading desks, exchanges, commission , account fees, huge multi trillion dollar funds sloshing about the planet like ocean tides.
    3. What research, institution thirsting for funds, would put up a word of dissent, and risk all that research money and new positions?
    4. What multinational organization such as the UN , or the World Bank, could resist such a siren song of power and money?
    5. What green organization could rest such a noble cause (saving the world) to enlist to help add to their overflowing coffers?
    6. What energy company with a preponderance of gas reserves, or even oil reserves, (seeing the demonization of coal), would decide to stand up and speak against such a fruitful concept.”

    I add:
    Oil companies would be even more vilified than they are if they overtly spoke out in favor of the status quo.
    Plus:
    What healthy young adult would not want to become an activist to march and show support and to do their part to end Big Oil’s dirty pollution and heal the planet?

    What’s not to like? It has something for everybody.
    Kinda makes one wonder how it’s being held back, don’t it?
    This is the curse of CAGW … not GW or even AGW.
    Me, I don’t think they can stop climate change and I’m not sure if they should try.
    cn

  90. WUWT is invited to join the mainstream. Why the surprise and congratulations?The warmists are on the run and are testing the waters for an alliance.
    The warmists at the Guardian and the luke-warmists at WUWT and Bishop Hill are both wrong about CO2. They both need an alliance to oppose the non-warmists at Principia Scientific International ( PSI ) and elsewhere.

  91. ***
    jeez says:
    July 30, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    I we could stop the posts by Archibald, the credibility here would rise significantly.
    ***

    I’d say there’s a reason for that — to bring out Dr S & others to demonstrate his fallacy.

  92. This may have as much to do with the survival of the Guardian in the light of a steady loss of circulation figures that threatens bankruptcy within two years.

    Other publications that have taken a prominent position on CAGW are also losing sales, eg. The New Scientist, which I note has also softened it’s position from a few months ago.

    Newspapers that are effectively painting themselves into a corner with their one sided CAGW editorial may find they have nowhere to go once cooling sets in and public opinion undergoes a sea change with it.

    I think we will see further attempts to to gradually move editorial into more neutral waters.

  93. Result! I’ve had a marvellous time playing with the alarmist in the comments. So glad you’ve been highlighted.

  94. It appears us skeptics are becoming more assured of our skepticism every day whereas more and more alarmists are looking for a graceful exit.

  95. It’s infected the whole environment site at the Guardian. For example, look at this exciting story of exploration from the weekend:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/28/explorer-discovers-uncharted-waterfalls-canada

    Yet the cynical comments below the story show that the pool of advert-bait must be quite isolated.

    “Lucky for him Niagara has already been discovered…..”

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/30/canoeist-praised-for-changing-the-map-of-canada-after-dramatic-encounter-with-unknown-waterfalls/#comment-982812053

  96. The Grauniad must be looking ahead to the post-CAGW era when the search for the miscreants of CAGW is in full swing. The Grauniad will hope to say ‘It was not anything to do with us; we were very balanced’.

  97. DirkH says:
    July 31, 2013 at 4:09 am
    “….They are atheists and they have constructed their belief in this ongoing collapse to have something to believe in….”

    Dirk I do not know if atheists really fits as a description for the greens. Unless it describes that they are not part of – how to call it? main-street-religions?
    I have more the feeling that they are all kind of esoterics, believe in love potions and talismans, believe in Gaya that unites all living beings in one higher spirit, have their kosher food (no meat), kosher energy and so on. It is a complex set of beliefs and rules that is giving birth to a new religion.
    Many of us have recognised that it is not possible to rationally convince them when rational conclusion is against their beliefs.

  98. I shouldn’t have read the comments over there – left me very sad for the state of humanity.

  99. “WUWT is invited to join the mainstream. Why the surprise and congratulations?”

    Precisely. Warmist gangsterism didn’t worked now it is the honey and cocktail invitation tactic.

  100. Sorry, but Anthony’s experiments did NOT represent the atmosphere or how anything works in the atmosphere. Period.

    The guardian article is a misrepresentation on many levels.

    The capitulation on Co2 is going to bite skeptics in the ass.

    My opinion only.

  101. The models that use forcing are inaccurate.

    Empirical evidence refutes Co2 having ANYTHING to do with warming.

  102. Gail COmbs says July 31, 2013 at 1:20 am

    The Elite NEVER GIVE UP they just change the game plan but the goal always remains the same.

    Nefarious. Con-spir-acy. Theories?

    Behind every rock a _______________ .

    Were you ‘an adult’ you might realize this is exemplified nanny-ism appearing on either a state, national or world scale. Often it is also seen locally; city councils, nosy, do-gooder or prying neighbors … at one time it used to be mother-in-laws!

    Think: Hizoner Mayor Bloomberg and the (now overturned) ban on 16 oz+ soda drinks, or the (former) ban (it was overturned) on fire-arms in the state of Illinois and the continued attempted-ban in Crook -er- Cook County Illinois … “do good-ism” or is it con-spir-atorial action on behalf of the elites; on the surface it appears the same BUT inside it’s just plain old nanny-ism …

    .

  103. Kudos….
    It’s been a long time coming from a long time reader.

    Oh, and welcome to the 97%ers.

Comments are closed.