For those of you who don’t know him, Joe Bastardi is one of the lead forecasters for AccuWeather. He’s also a global warming skeptic.
Fox news invited Greenpeace to come on and support their press reports here and here that:
“Climate change is driving a new generation of fires with unknown social and economic consequences,”
and
“With climate models predicting increased heat waves in the coming years, we are fast approaching a global emergency.”
These are statements from Miguel Soto, Greenpeace Spain forests campaigner. I think he’d be surprised to learn, and possibly even deny, that the biggest contributor to the cause of California wildfires was an ocean cooling event, La Nina.
Fox news invited Greenpeace to come on, they initially accepted. Then late declined. Perhaps they heard they’d be up against Joe Bastardi. Watch the video as Joe takes apart the Greenpeace argument and more.
For further background, see my arguments on 60 minutes recent re-run about global warming and wildfires.
More rubbish from 60 Minutes tonight. “The Age of Megafires”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oh, Ryan Maue may make a copyright claim:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6383#comment-355659
But, but, but……they need to tax energy to give free handouts from Washington, The facts are getting in the way here of the great Washington power base.
Cap and Tax and free health care for all! woohoo, what a plan.
Greenpeace just showed their true face by not showing up. They rather take it the leisure-way, paid by their donators.
They just ordered a “super yacht” designed by the famous dutch Super Yacht Architect Gerard Dykstra (http://www.gdnp.nl/project/index.php?cat=miscboot&boot=4) for a whooping Euro 23 Million / US $ 32.2 Million!!
Why not a more humble pre-owned 60 meter sailing boat of, say, US $ 5 Million and refurbished for its tasks? These people are extremely irresponsible with money that other people trusted them with, and that was supposed to be used for different purposes. They are just like our European politicians, spending taxpayersmoney for their own little, and bigger, interests.
That picture of what the models predict the atmosphere should look like, and the picture of what it does actually look like, in a sane world no one would mention the computer models again.
Vincent (13:04:10) :
Mike Abbott:
“What is the source of the Temperature Anomalies graph behind Bastardi’s head? (It appears at about 1:20 in the video.) It looks suspiciously like the one published by Lord Monckton that Lucia made “mincemeat”
Mincemeat you say? The graph shows a declining zig zag of observed temperatures superimposed against the IPCC projections. Lucia doesn’t even take issue with the declining observed temperatures, but with the slope of the IPCC projection. It turns out that Monckton used a gradient of 0.35C/decade and Lucia reckons in should be closer to 0.2C.
Devastating huh?
Yes, I consider an overstatement of 75% to be devastating. Even worse, as noted by Lucia, “That graph” is still there on his website uncorrected. In any case, if Lucia did not make “mincemeat” out of Monckton’s projections, Gavin Schmidt sure did at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/.
Mike Abbott (14:09:16) : You realize of course that Lucia can be right even if Gavin, who may get a rare and uncharacteristic score on this one, was wrong.
Don’t point to Gavin. He’s a dishonest hack. Dishonest hacks are not fit to rebutt even one-another. The demolition by lucia was more than enough.
It’s too bad O’Reilly is such a smug, [self-snip]. He might actually have something important to say, but his presentation just drives me away.
JP (13:36:58) : Yes, and that’s exactly what the McCabe et al. paper showed. I find it remarkable that people fail to see that there is no evidence for a AGW link to large scale drought!!!
I wouldn’t refer to any of the cable news sources.
Do you always speak in double-negatives (wouldn’t–neither)?
Jeff Alberts (14:28:58) Maybe so. But can we have an O’Reilly on our airwaves, please, just for old times sake?
The Mayor of Istanbool blamed global warming on the recent heavy rainfall with floodings. But actualy he is cuffering up for some mistakes.
1) bad sewer systems
2) suburbs build on wrong places.
actualy he is saying climate change and then he say’s 80 years ago the same happend.
“It was the heaviest rain in Istanbul in 80 years. Such natural disasters leave human beings totaly desperate. These are the problems stemming from climate changes in the world. We need to use natural resources more carefully. On the other hand, Istanbul’s topography is already known. All local administrations have responsibility to this end,” he said.
Cassandra, very good points! Here in the Mid West, a lot of Farmers in my area burnt off their Wheat fields after the Wheat was taken as with the straw. This produces pot ash and other minerals and puts them back into the soil. I’ve seen it more and more the past few years.
I’ve always believed the Sun affects this Planet in more ways than Man can understand. What Man does know, do you think it’s put into Alarmists Climate Models, I think not! Plus there’s so much more to this Complex Climate than Man can prove! There’s always more to learn!
I thought that the segment was highly politicized and could have been more effective had it just stuck to the facts. Too much time was wasted on politics and Obama and why Greenpeace didn’t turn up.
Mind you this is Fox News – what did I expect? Fair and balanced?
Speaking of Accuweather, I just saw this at their site.
http://www.accuweather.com/news-weather-features.asp?#extremes
Can someone tell me if I’m looking at what I think I’m looking at here.
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/194/frankfurtq.jpg
I think I’m looking at Frankfurt’s annual temperature history with some kind of filter, but I’m not sure. Strange looking graph. (I chose the airport location, but obviously, the early data pre-date aviation).
The other city mentioned was Dijon France, which I don’t find in the database. If someone can tell me if I’m using this thing right, I’ll look for something close to Dijon.
BTW, here’s the source.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/getstations.cgi
David Madsen (10:12:48) :
“This video presented an issue that I have seen occur in increasing numbers in American Society: We are gradually loosing our critical thinking and analyzing skills and simply accepting what people in perceived positions of authority are saying as undeniable and undebatable fact. This may be happening in other international locales, but I can only comment on what I see here in the US. Those of us that work with the younger generations of our respective societies have a responsibility to teach them to develop critical thinking skills and to demand justification and reason behind decisions and not just emotional rhetoric.
”
Seems to be the same everywhere. The last thing that governments want is independent thinkers in the population.
I’m sure I have heard youngsters talking about the ‘critical thinking’ classes – mostly focused on good old green issues of course, and how to make the masses believe them.
Critical Thinking Classes is best Orwellian doublespeak of course.
Control the ground, frame the discussion. Make sure you use ‘Warm Words’.
http://www.ippr.org/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=485
Yes, I really do need some help here. I’m having a “Microsoft Minute”. I get different results when I swear, I swear I tell you, I’m doing the same thing. I must have done something with the filter, because now I get a much smoother curve with a slight dip about 40 years ago and a slight rise over the last 20 years or so.
Maybe it’s best if I just plead for someone who knows what they’re doing to dig out a temperature time series for Frankfurt.
Anthony, what’s happening here: Roger Pielke Jr, debating Marc Moreno on Climate Tax? Do we have a Horse of Troy situation here?
I have regarded Pielke Jr to be a Skeptic. If a Skeptic is in favor of a Climate Tax,
what’s the use of being a Skeptic. One of our objectives is to fend of the legal measures to curb and tax CO2 emissions.
There is no difference between Pielke Jr and our German Scientist poster here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/07/german-climate-adviser-who-says-the-wests-carbon-quotas-are-used-up-once-co-authored-a-paper-saying-climate-models-are-flawed/
I regard this as a most damaging development.
If we would win the scientific arguments that the past rise in temperatures is caused by naturural cycles and “Skeptic scientists still endorse Cap & Trade or a Carbon Tax, this seriously undermines our cause. And so is a debate among Skeptics.
Would you be so kind to present your view on this matter?
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/09/inviting-marc-morano-to-debate.html
REPLY: Pielke Jr doe shave some lukewarmer leanings, I’m not sure why though he offered to step in for the WaPo reporter who ducked debate with Morano. Odd – A
timetochooseagain (14:27:19) :
Mike Abbott (14:09:16) : You realize of course that Lucia can be right even if Gavin, who may get a rare and uncharacteristic score on this one, was wrong.
Don’t point to Gavin. He’s a dishonest hack. Dishonest hacks are not fit to rebutt even one-another. The demolition by lucia was more than enough.
Yes, I realize where Lucia stands vis a vis Gavin. She has gone head-to-head with him and won a few rounds. However, in the case of Monckton’s graph they landed one-two punches. She showed that Monckton’s projections were grossly overstated and Gavin showed that the observed temperatures fell within the margin of error of the correct IPCC projections over the short time period covered.
My concern is this: By trotting out what Lucia calls “That graph”, Bastardi gives the alarmists the ammunition they need to attack the credibility of his otherwise excellent presentation.
By the way, Lucia recently punched holes in some of Tamino’s work (claiming it violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics) and was permanently banned from his board as a result. I don’t know who was right; differential equations beyond my comprehension were flying back and forth.
Oort cloud (13:08:20) :
Fox is a Republican propaganda instrument. Most of what is said there has to be questioned. If I were the guy from Greenpeace, I wouldn’t have attended neither. Fox is definitely not on the list of sources I would refer to, when I try to make my layman mind (which to date is not made at all) on that debate, polarised to a mind-boggling extent.
Hi Oort, the source is irrelvant – the facts are king. What are the facts of the matter? Look up “Poisoning the Well” for what you are being fooled by.
If Joseph Goebbels stood up in a burning theatre and shouted “fire” would you turn around and say “Hey don’t believe it – Goebbels is a complete Liar” or would you address the facts.
Graeme Rodaughan (17:32:08) :
Oort cloud (13:08:20) :
“Fox is a Republican propaganda instrument. Most of what is said there has to be questioned. If I were the guy from Greenpeace, I wouldn’t have attended neither. Fox is definitely not on the list of sources I would refer to, when I try to make my layman mind (which to date is not made at all) on that debate, polarised to a mind-boggling extent.
Hi Oort, the source is irrelvant – the facts are king. What are the facts of the matter? Look up “Poisoning the Well” for what you are being fooled by.
If Joseph Goebbels stood up in a burning theatre and shouted “fire” would you turn around and say “Hey don’t believe it – Goebbels is a complete Liar” or would you address the facts”.
Right Graeme, it’s the message and the facts that count.
Oort cloud, do you have a viable alternative for Fox News available?
Do you really believe CNBC or CNN would question the garbage from GreenPeace,
let alone discuss it?
Please provide me with “your list” of candidate News Broad Casters that meet your standards!
For the moment, Fox is all we have.
Cool Graph:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5b89255970c-pi
Ron, C3 headlines is a fine site for graphs & other info: click. Thanx for posting!
Scott A. Mandia (10:01:21) : “I do not think he [Bastardi] is an authority on climate change and BOR could have chosen a much better person to try to debunk AGW.”
Uh huh. Go figure you would say that. You probably would rather listen to another Penn State “authority” such as the broken hockey stick of Michael Mann.
Your politeness is disarming, Scott, but then you go on to insult the same person you compliment.
There is a little psychology at play here…but I will leave that alone.
And you could not be more wrong on Bastardi.
He is one of the brightest of his generation. Combining use of the models [while criticizing the physics] with analogues, and a damn good dose of common sense and passion…Joe runs circles around other specialists on autopilot today who are buried in their computers, extrapolations, and equations…to their peril of missing real world observations.
No he is not a climatologist…but he IS a scientist….and a damn good one at that…so I reject your assessment of him as “not being qualified” to debunk AGW on popular television.
Its all well and good, anyway. Joe is not needed to “debunk” AGW.
It “debunks” itself.
Res ipsa loquiter.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA