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.
KR:
I read your post at September 19, 2012 at 9:15 am.
Laugh? I fell off my chair.
More of the same please. But don’t forget the sarc tag when next posting such ludicrous nonsense in future because there are people who lack a sense of humour so may take you seriously.
Richar
Anthony,
RE the “epic fail” tag – just my opinion, but a bit over the top. It certainly is worth drawing attention to. Hell, Dana can create a legion of skeptics all by his lonesome. The comment is certainly a bit ironic from someone who constantly talks about real climate scientists and “peer review”. It just isn’t of epic quality.
On the other hand, “Scooter” Nuccitelli probably does qualify as one big fail.
Ian W – Basic math here: if you add up both positive and negative contributions equaling 100% of the forcings, the sum of the positive contributions will be be >= 100%, and the sum of the negative contributions will be <= 0%.
Their behavior resembles more and more like the extreme worshipers of Islam. Severe lack of reality check. Any type of criticism, even constructive , are considered as attacks against their religion.
Back to the
FutureMiddle Ages …Thank you Anthony
You have made my day seeing the over 100% quote
Keep ’em rattled. It’s best that way 🙂
Dave
I don’t think it is as much of a fail as it looks, certainly not by Dana’s elevated standards. It is just an assertion without any supporting evidence that without CO2 emissions the warming trend since the LIA would have gone sharply into reverse over the last 100 years, that is, CO2 is responsible for all the recent warming and preventing some cooling that would otherwise have taken place. Completely made-up and implausible without an explanation of why the prior warming would have suddenly gone into reverse, but not logically impossible.
You go on a nationally broadcast news show and say something reasonable and defensible. Is it correct? Maybe, maybe not – time will tell. But it’s a rational and well thought-out position backed by evidence.
Then you stand back and watch the reactions. Some people will disagree with you and put forward reasons for doing so. These are called “scientists”. And some will be outraged, call you names, and say that our survival depends on curtailing debate. These are called “political extremists”.
…people like us have to build the greatest guer[r]illa [ed.] force in human history. Now. Because time is up…Someone needs to convene a council of war of the major environmental movements, blogs, institutes etc. In a smoke filled room (OK, an incense filled room) we need a conspiracy to save humanity” and …
Perhaps they should make the effort to organize such a conspiracy — with emphasis on word organize. Something must be done if they are to succeed — current strategies and tactics seem to be vain and misguided hopes of glory.
I recommend that they train their elite troops to not aim their “snipers rifles” at own feet. Errors are painful. People who handle weapons of great power must be trained in use if actual target is to be acquired. This lesson is valuable. Hopefully they will credit me with the insightful recognition of their inadequacies and remedy to same.
Also, as an additional precaution during training, I recommend use of low power BB guns for their crack snipers. Use of .50 cal ammunition has been cause of many lost feet in their training exercises.
KnR says:
September 19, 2012 at 9:34 am
“Its been clear for sometime that some AGW proponents act like religions fanatics protecting their faith…”
This is the most bizarre aspect of the whole CAGW circus. Contrast their behavior with “economists” like Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman, who in my view are clearly wrong (we’ll likely be finding out in the next couple of years – I hope they are right and I am wrong). At least they talk and sound like economists, not wild-eyed religious fanatics.
Anthony,
I cannot look into Dana’s mind and will not read the entire rant. The way one gets to “over 100%” of the observed warming is to have a cooling that offsets part of that. Or perhaps part of the CO2 impact remains hidden in the ever elusive committed warming that became fashionable as the actual warming continued to fall short of high expectations.
Ever respectfully
Robert
We see true believers on a mission to save the world, whether we like it or not. True believers cannot tolerate unbelievers, those who pollute the narrative and stand in the way of the mass conversion of others or the holy scriptures itself. A believer who believes it is their mission to save the planet is called a fanatic, and they are prime material for cults. What we are seeing is a religion feeling threatened, they cannot dispute the evidence placed before them by sceptics and so the automatic response is to block the message or failing that attack the messengers and this they do with all the venom of a religious cult. This is not about science anymore, the fabricated alarmist science has failed and what we are seeing is the defence mechanism of those who have lost the argument but cannot bear to lose what they see as a war. They are hurting badly and they know it.
Personally I think that you should have stated from the outset that the Man-made part of warming is so small that it is virtually insignificant. The danger with agreeing that there is an element of warming from CO2 but we don’t know how much gives credence to the warmist view.
Personally I dismiss their arguments from the outset which upsets them tremendously and gives clear clarification. It is up to the warmists to present their catastrophic ideas and proof to go with it.
Otherwise it appears to others that both sides are dancing on the head of a pin but are in general agreement with the idea that CO2 causes global warming or climate change.
Hooray for Team C02! No matter what, they always give 110%
;->
Of course the implication of the > 100% of observed warming claim is that CO2 has caused 100% of the OBSERVED warming. Or, as a poster said above, to paraphrase, CO2 CAN explain 100% of the warming ALL BY ITSELF. Whoa….hold on. That implies that the CO2 driven models attribute too much of the observed warming to CO2. It is no wonder the CO2 based “projections” are too high. Epic Fail either way you look at it.
“Your only taking flak when your over the target.” (quote: Florida congressman Allen West, retired U.S. army Lt. Colonel)
Brad Keyes’ brilliant summary on Dana’s recent WorldShaping post:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ever wonder why your cause is losing, Dana?
Because when people ask you for evidence that your position is correct you
– give dubious evidence for it
– say you don’t need to give any evidence for it
– say it’s self-evident
– say that asking for evidence for your view = denial of your view
– say that asking for evidence for your view = denial of the wetness of water
– say that asking for evidence for your view = trolling
Open minded people read these threads. They can only conclude that the case for alarm is weaker than they’ve been told. Thanks to your arguments, there is one more “skeptic” (infidel, disbeliever, denier) in the world.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“GHGs are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming” means he thinks it would have cooled without GHGs.
Thanks, Anthony. I needed a laugh today. I’m writing my post about Trenberth and Fusello 2012 and that sort of nonsense that’s peddled as climate science these days makes me cranky.
But Dana Nuccitelli’s “GHGs are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming” has me giggling as I write this. How absurd!!!!!!
Thanks again.
It seems I have to rehash my previous analysis and observe that 105.6% of climate statistics are made up on the spot
KR and Davos are correct. Take a look at the graph below the comment, and that is, in fact, the context of the quote, poorly worded and misleading though it may be.
The greater error in my view is that this is yet another blatant attempt at cherry picking. Take a look at the time period the stats are drawn from, which is the last 50 to 60 years. So, let’s ask ourselves what that chart would look like in comparison for the last 15 years, in which GHG’s have been at their highest levels ever, while temps have remained flat.
For the temps to have been flat in the last 15 years, despite GHG’s being at their maximim over both the last 60 years and the last 15 of those 60 years, something has to have changed such that the energy balance from 60 years ago was not stable, but for the last 15 years it has been. Two possibilities come to mind:
1. The cooling effects from all sources combined have increased from 6x to 8x from what they were 60 years ago, or:
2. The warming effects of GHG’s are grossly over estimated in the first place.
There being no evidence to support the former, the latter is the more logical conclusion. All cooling effects combined would have had to increase by factors of 6 to 8 to counterbalance the increase in Co2 from 60 years ago until now to arrive at a flat temperature record for the last 15 years.
REPLY: Oh I don’t doubt that, but if he’s going to cite statistics as some sort of expert, he gets to take the knocks just like everybody else. – Anthony
My father taught me to always give 110% on anything I do.
@KR: 2 + 2 = 5?
Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger wrote a book in the 15th century called Malleus Malleficarum, dealing with the topic of witches and witchcraft, and especially what should be done about those people who show skepticism regarding the existence of witches or their phenomenal powers to do evil. It’s an amusing read. At some point they distinguish between the unlearned illeterate majority of the public, and those who hold prominent positions in society. The former can be shown some leniency for their skepticism, on account of their vast ignorance. But the latter should be expected to know better, and should therefore be dealt with harshly. They also distinguish between skeptical proclivities that are kept to oneself (not advisable, but permissible) and the public expression of those intimate thoughts, which is outrageous. The entire work can be read here:
http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/
Some quotes:
Here beginneth auspiciously the first part of this work. Question the First. Whether the belief that there are such beings as witches is so essential a part of the Catholic faith that obstinately to maintain the opposite opinion manifestly savours of heresy.
[…]
Here are three heretical errors which must be met, and when they have been disproved the truth will be plain. For certain writers, pretending to base their opinion upon the words of S. Thomas (iv, 24) when he treats of impediments brought about by magic charms, have tried to maintain that there is not such a thing as magic, that it only exists in the imagination of those men who ascribe natural effects, the cause whereof are not known, to witchcraft and spells. There are others who acknowledge indeed that witches exist, but they declare that the influence of magic and the effects of charms are purely imaginary and phantasmical. A third class of writers maintain that the effects said to be wrought by magic spells are altogether illusory and fanciful, although it may be that the devil does really lend his aid to some witch.
[…] This error seems to be based upon two passages from the Canons where certain women are condemned who falsely imagine that during the night they ride abroad with Diana or Herodias
. This may read in the Canon. Yet because such things often happen by illusion are merely in the imagination, those who suppose that all the effects of witchcraft are mere illusion and imagination are very greatly deceived.
[…]
Accordingly, how can it be that the denial or frivolous contradiction of any of these propositions can be free from the mark of some notable heresy? Let every man judge for himself unless indeed his ignorance excuse him. But what sort of ignorance may excuse him we shall very shortly proceed to explain. From what has been already said we draw the following conclusion; It is a most certain and most Catholic opinion that there are sorcerers and witches who by the help of the devil, on account of a compact which they have entered into with him, are able, since God allows this, to produce real and actual evils and harm, which does not render it unlikely that they can also bring about visionary and phantastical illusions by some extraordinary and peculiar means. The scope of the present inquiry, however, is witchcraft, and this very widely differs from these other arts, and therefore a consideration of them would be nothing to the purpose, since those who practise them may with greater accuracy be termed fortune-tellers and soothsayers rather than sorcerers.
[…]
Here it must be noticed that there are fourteen distinct species which come under the genus superstition, but these for the sake of brevity it is hardly necessary to detail, since they have been most clearly set out by S. Isidore
in his Etymologiae, Book 8, and by S. Thomas in his Second of the Second, question 92. Moreover, there will be explicit mention of these rather lower when we discuss the gravity of this heresy, and this will be in the last question of our First Part.
[…]
The second part of our inquiry is this, whether obstinately to maintain that witches do not exist is heretical. The questions arises whether people who hold that witches do not exist are to be regarded as notorious heretics, or whether they are to be regarded as gravely suspect of holding heretical opinions. It seems that the first opinion is the correct one. For this is undoubtedly in accordance with the opinion of the learned Bernard.
[…]
The Warmistas can’t tell the truth so a lack of mathematical acumen isn’t surprising–at all!
The greater than 100% claim is probably based on the claim that Chinese coal plant SOx emissions are cancelling some CO2 warming. So CO2 is responsible for more warming than we’re measuring.
My understanding of percentages only allows numbers great than 100% in the case of estimates, usually that of volume; e.g. I have a bucket, I estimate it may hold 1 gallon, and I have placed the bucket in a large platter whose volume I have previously recorded. Unfortunately, I somehow missed the bright yellow and green label indicating the bucket was a rinneadh in Éirinn, and was a litre bucket, and so had some spillage into my pan. Estimating the volume of spillage (2.78541 of a liter) would give me the percentage over my failed estimate. In short, I’m admitting my basic grammar school science project was a dismal failure……….