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.
Nice spin; do you do plates in the circus?
It is beyond ludicrous. He did not say the GHG’s would have caused higher temperatures in the absence of negative forcings; not at all. He said GHG’s were responsible for more than 100% of the observed warming, not observed forcings. It’s like there’s another 0,2 or 0.3 degrees waiting in the wings to come on stage. And where, exactly would that leave the continuing rebound from the Little Ice Age?
There it is again! He is bumping right up against an obvious conclusion just like Mosher and R.Gates. But they will never complete this simple thought and just say this …
The world had completely stopped all warming when the Industrial Revolution came along. No more warming was going to occurr, zip, zero, nada. This means that we would still be in the Little Ice Age but for man, who all by himself brought an end to it. Humans changed the planet all by themselves by warming it during the LIA, not even a single fraction of a fraction of a degree since then should have occurred because it was all AGW. Man screwed it all up.
I implore everyone to hold their feet to the fire and make them complete this thought. They literally say all warming is from AGW! There is no room for other conclusions. DanaNutty, R.Gates and Mosher, now stand up and be counted. Tell us we are still in the Little Ice Age.
No DanaNutty, the conspiracy theorists are on your side. The warmie side. Those that are most likely to believe in Roswell UFO’s, grassy knoll shooters, faked moon landings, 9/11 WTC inside job by Cheney and the Jews, will also believe in Global Warming from the magic molecule. This is Roseanne Barr and occupy Wall Street IQ level. They are Socialist malcontents, hardwired in their DNA to accept government control. They are your target audience.
I think it is about time for another Junior Senator from Wisconsin to conduct a modern inquisition. I’m sure Wisconsin has lots of nuts around to do the job too.
“They are Socialist malcontents, hardwired in their DNA to accept government control.”
I always contend it is genetic. A full fledged desire to selfinflict an addiction to being thoughtless.
Pity. A young man threw his life into a fraud….. He must be having a melt down for sure.
Pretty sad watching him self-destruct.
KR:
“I would agree; many of the posters here appear unaware of negative numbers, or their effect on sums”
You attempted to attribute the math to negative percentages, not numbers.
You might like to use some actual figures to demonstrate how Dana’s statement is somehow correct, because as it is worded, it is simply impossible.
With respect, Anthony, this post seems to me to be a ‘gotcha’.
And as such, giving it exaggerated importance reflects more unfavorably upon us than it does on him.
Yes its clear he misspoke, but his meaning is not obscure. Lets let it go, and pass on to more important issues.
richardscourtney;
One can assume he believes the completely untrue assertion that “the amount of warming caused by human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is known to a high degree of certainty”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yup, that’s my assumption. Of course, I’m in the business of making assumptions about what people meant verus what they said 😉
In this case, what he (she? it?) said was pure nonsense. The point I was trying to get at is that if you took the exact same data in the chart, and depicted it as the last 60 years versus the last 15 years, you could only draw a conclusion that what s/he meant was ALSO nonsense, depriving the warmists of the defense that we’re taking the nut bar statement out of context. Put back into context, with entire context considered, the nut bar statement is more like a truck load of…. nut bars (feeling a bit polite today, maybe I’m ill).
Man Bearpig says:
September 19, 2012 at 9:28 am
“and these same studies have all found that GHGs are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming over this timeframe”
>100 % !! Its a lot worse than we thought then – are we all going to die ?
==============================================================
Yes, when we reach the tipping point it’ll get so hot that more than 100% of us are going to die. We must act now!
Wait up! We’re in luck. Our government is spending over 150% of our income taxes right now to solve all our problems. Things are looking up ;o)
“These go to eleven.”
Indeed Nuccitelli’s statement is interesting when taken out of context. In context his point makes more sense and the statement “greater than 100%” isn’t worthy of quote of the week status.
davidmhoffer:
re your post at September 19, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Yes, I get that. And I appreciate the humour with which you present the point; thankyou.
Importantly, I apologise if I misunderstood the gender of Dana Nucciltelli. The person is not known to me and there was nothing to my ascribing a gender other than my probably wrong assumption.
Richard
Trying to make sense of Dana’s statement is like trying to figure out: “Is it longer to New York or by train?” or “The smoker you drink, the player you get.”
Dave
“GHGs are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming over this timeframe.
Gosh. GHG’s are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming? That’s an epic fail if I’ve ever seen one.”
===============================================================
Perhaps he’s including the “missing heat” that only he has observed?
I presume his scooter runs on Unicorn gas only ?
Message to SkS, if the skeptics are the Viet Cong and the alarmists are the US, what can we learn from history?
Can anyone answer this question for me? What is -10 plus 110?
It amazes me the number of people who don’t understand what per cent means.
If your giving 110% effort then you were not giving 100% effort in the first place!
Steve from Rockwood @ur momisugly 10:47 am:
Hilarious!
Rob Honeycutt says:
September 19, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Can anyone answer this question for me? What is -10 plus 110?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Certainly. 100.
Now, could you answer a question for me?
In 1960, CO2 was about 310 ppm. Over the last 50 years, it has risen to about 390 ppm.
According to Dana, over this time period, the human contribution to warming was about 6 times as big as all the contributions to cooling combined. Yet, in the last 15 years, despite CO2 concentration being 25% higher than it was in 1960, there has been no warming at all. Do you suppose that this means that:
a) cooling processes increased by 6 fold +25% to balance out the warming from human contributions? or;
b) that the warming contribution was grossly exagerated in the first place?
Please answer quickly. The matter is urgent, the stakes are high, the facts uncertain. If cooling processes have increased 6 fold plus 25% (total of 7.5 fold) since 1960, while CO2 has only gone up a paltry 25%, we better act now to stop the cooling or there will be ice sheets from north and south in a race to claim the equator.
So which is it? Did cooling processes go up 7.5X? Or were the warming processes grossly over estimated in the first place? What should we do? Cut the warming, cut the cooling, or cut the b*ll?
According to Nuccitelli in the article ‘A Deeper Look at False Balance on the PBS News Hour’;
PBS, who is funded by the Koch Brothers (fossil fuel industrialists), interviewed Watts, a contrarian blogger, based on a recommendation by the Heartland Institute, a fossil fuel funded, global warming denying, anti-science think tank.
I think I smell a conspiracy, perhaps Lewandowsky could shed some light on this….[sarc]
Seems like Nuccitelli must be the physicist who thinks that 3% exceeds 2% by 1% :o)
Perhaps it is time to point out that people who refuse to enter into an honest discussion are probably not honest.
AGW fanatics do not enter into honest discussions.
It was never about science. It was always about power and control.
davidmhoffer… Hold your horses right there!
My point here is that everyone here is flipping their lids that the human contribution to warming could be a number in excess of 100%. Right? I can count dozens of posts already that can’t seem to fathom this idea.
So, IF there was natural cooling mechanisms at play, where if you took away all man-made greenhouse gases we would have had a mild cooling trend, you are starting from a negative number. Then you have to add back a positive radiative forcing to get back to 100%. If there is a natural negative factor you then have to have a figure in excess of 100% to get back to 100%. If there were a natural warming factor taking place then you would need less than 100% to get back to 100%.
That is the point I’m making.