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.
0% of the warming is due to the ice. 100% of the warming is due to the boiling water.
And a Believers site that calls itself ‘Skeptical Science’ has 0% credibility.
97% chance Dana is a guy or a girl.
Jeez, someday I really must temporarily disable Adblock to see what all these ‘vertisements people are commenting on are all about.
Or not.
😉
Well, the warmists and all the lukewarmists like Anthony are wrong. And before you go on about Arrhenius and Tyndall, etc., the effects they measured are clearly trivial and nugatory in the actual entropic environment of the atmosphere.
corrected tags:
Well, the warmists and all the lukewarmists like Anthony are wrong. And before you go on about Arrhenius and Tyndall, etc., the effects they measured are clearly trivial and nugatory in the actual entropic environment of the atmosphere.
Reblogged this on Fox Enterprises Limited Weblog and commented:
Ignore our conspiracy, they are the nutjobs
+1
Dana (a guy) says:
September 19, 2012 at 7:26 pm
I am confused. Is Dana a guy or a girl.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes.
I seem to recall the Viet Cong won.
Thank you for the recommendation but I don’t require a remedial lesson on CO2. But with all due respect you somehow missed my point completely.
That point is that DanaNutty, R.Gates, and Mosher all are saying that 100% ( or more 🙂 of the warming since the LIA is from human activities, which means we are still in the LIA and but for the extra CO2 we should be freezing our butts off. They will not complete that simple thought and just state that for the record. Make them spell this out in plain language.
Nothing I said disputes the properties of that rare, CO2 molecule. But it must be a magic molecule because a mere extra 100 ppm, allegedly all added by humans since the LIA, has magically stopped the LIA with an equally magical 0.7°C no less! No more frozen fairs on the Thames. No more widespread starvation.
Anyway, sorry to sound sarcastic, but you really did miss the point.
Dana (a guy) says:
September 19, 2012 at 7:26 pm
I am confused. Is Dana a guy or a girl.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It doesn’t matter. Dana is a harpie.
He’s on a mission from clods????
i go to bed laughing.
Eugene WR Gallun
Ask someone who tells you: caims – they believe in global warming why if it’s real, the infrared astronomy field hasn’t simply trotted out the photographs of the sky for the past 100 years showing ever
more
astmospheric
infrared.
For that matter ask them why the optical astronomy field which has an immense time with atmospheric convection directly caused by earthshine infrared,
why they never have trotted out photographs from THEIR equipment showing ever more atmospheric scintillation.
It’s a con. The atmosphere doesn’t have more infrared in it or there’d be pictures of the night sky, there’d be optical telescope mirror flexing machines which showed ever more mirror flex to accomodate ever more atmospheric scintillation.
It’s a con from the first word, to the last.
“…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.”
[Scottish brogue] Dang it Captain! …now the dilithium crystals’ll disintegrate.
Run out of Climate scientists so only have the PR web sites left ah! Anthony. At this rate you’ll put yourself out of a billion dollar grant from Oil@Gaia buisness in no time.
They need to organize like a cult or a religion. You know with saints and articles of faith and high priests and holy books. Oh, wait, they already are.
I’m in China on business and this morning visited the famous Terracotta army near Xian. Emperor Qin had a model army built in terracotta complete with weapons, since he believed he would need this army to defend him from adversaries in the afterlife. 8000 model soldiers with hundreds of chariots and horses, also in terracotta, were arrayed in trenches and buried with the emperor at his death. 700,000 workers were conscripted for the task. These workers as well as many concubines were sacrificed and buried with him.
http://www.imperialtours.net/terracotta_warriors.htm
It occurred to me that this terracotta army is a good analogy for expensive policies against global warming. A huge effort at huge expense, to create an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem.
Only the terracotta army at least leaves an artistic and cultural heritage.
“and these same studies have all found that GHGs are responsible for over 100% of the observed warming over this timeframe.”
With that talent it’s a small wonder the White House hasn’t hired him already.
KR said on September 19, 2012 at 9:44 am:
So by that logic, it can be stated that condoms cause -98% of all new HIV infections, while unprotected sex causes +197% of all new HIV infections.
Well that sure sounds logical. Now you have to convince the reporters that unprotected sex is only half as risky as those perfectly mathematically valid numbers suggest. Good luck with that.
_Jim says:
September 19, 2012 at 6:21 pm
“Maybe Blade needs a molecular EM physics refresher; pay particular attention to Dr. Roy Spencer (since I doubt you will simply take my word or Scott Denning’s word for it) regarding GHG molecule absorption and re-emission:”
Thanks for the video. While I don’t disagree with Denning’s principal explanation of the CO2 greenhouse effect I have one problem with his talk. He skips from saying “Tyndall has shown that CO2 emits heat” to “It’s 4 W / m^2 for a doubling of CO2”. Which Tyndall didn’t show, to my knowledge, as he had no means of coubling the CO2 content in the Earth’s atmosphere nor an intention of becoming the worlds first CO2AGW alarmist.
It was Arrhenius – not mentioned by Denning – who CALCULATED a hypothetical additional 4 W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2. And that is a hypothesis; it needs to be shown experimentally, but Denning says nothing about how this added Wattage has been experimentally observed.
Dana is one of the “enemy” and hence must be attacked here. It doesn’t matter what he says, or how he acts, he is bad.
As for all those warlike people at Skeptical Science, they are only warlike because of a campaign of deliberate confusion being waged by “skeptics” everywhere. That they want to fight this campaign is hardly surprising.
DirkH says:
September 20, 2012 at 2:52 am
“Thanks for the video. While I don’t disagree with Denning’s principal explanation of the CO2 greenhouse effect I have one problem with his talk. He skips from saying “Tyndall has shown that CO2 emits heat” to “It’s 4 W / m^2 for a doubling of CO2″. Which Tyndall didn’t show, to my knowledge, as he had no means of coubling the CO2 content in the Earth’s atmosphere nor an intention of becoming the worlds first CO2AGW alarmist.”
Ok, I’m farther through the video, at 41:00 Denning says Tyndall has shown 4 W/m^2 for a doubling in 1863. If anyone can point me to an account of whatever experiment he did I’d be thankful.
As a good friend reminded me;
so we’re like the Viet Cong, great, they won the war.
John Brookes:
Thanks for the laugh you provide with your post at September 20, 2012 at 3:13 am. It says in total
No. I had never heard of Dana until the report at the top of this thread. Whether or not he or she is “bad” I have no idea, but the nonsense spouted by Dana is deserving of ridicule and is getting it. Anybody who spouts that nonsense is an idiot (be they good or bad).
For more than a decade the nutters at SkS and their fellows have been attacking people who promote scientific rigour because empirical evidence refutes the ideology promoted by the nutters at SkS and elsewhere.
Those whom you attempt to excuse are condemned by both their words and their actions. They are the ones spreading “deliberate confusion”: AGW-sceptics cite replicable scientific findings.
The nutters are increasing their obnoxious and – as you admit – “warlike” behaviour because they are losing their cause.
Richard
John Brookes says:
September 20, 2012 at 3:13 am
“Dana is one of the “enemy” and hence must be attacked here. It doesn’t matter what he says, or how he acts, he is bad.
As for all those warlike people at Skeptical Science, they are only warlike because of a campaign of deliberate confusion being waged by “skeptics” everywhere. That they want to fight this campaign is hardly surprising.”
So you DID miss the SkS e-mail dump.