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?
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.
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 …
GHGs must be like the best athletes — they give 110%.
Luke….
You have the FORCE….you have nothing to fear from the nutticelli droids ! ! !
Obi “No Warm” Kenobi
I expect over a hundred percent of climate scientists agree with Nuccitelli.
Who pays these angry delusionals and why?
“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.
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.
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.
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.
How is this an epic fail? According to the models over 100% of the observed warming is caused by human activity. Ask Hansen.
“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.
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
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.
“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.
“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 ?
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!
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.
“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?
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.
” 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.
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)
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.
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.)
I think that over 100 percent of climate scientists need to read statistics for dummies.
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