Andrew Montford at Bishop Hill writes:
The Guardian has thrown all my preconceptions into disarray by printing an article about sceptics that is not only thoughtful, but is polite too!
Sceptics such as Andrew Montford and Anthony Watts agree with the mainstream view that the greenhouse effect brings about atmospheric warming as a result of carbon emissions, but dispute levels of climate sensitivity. However, others offer far more fundamental challenges to climate science, such as fringe sceptic group Principia Scientific whoreject this orthodox view of atmospheric physics.
I can’t quite yet believe this was printed in the Guardian about me, while at the same time giving Greg Laden a swift kick in the pants:
Watts found himself under frequent challenge by members of the group on his blog, leading him to post his own experiments on YouTube to disprove their claims. As well as being a nice example of scientific claim and counter-claim on the web, Watts’s actions also helped position himself as a “mainstream” sceptic who can challenge key areas of climate science without entering into pseudoscience, a brush he had previously been tarnished with.
Watts’s public experiments provide an example of one more area in which sceptics seek to uphold standards, through transparent and auditable scientific practice. One of the most contentious issues arising from Climategate was the effort to withhold from publication data subjected to freedom of information requests. When physicist Phil Moriarty challenged these practices as being outside of accepted scientific standards, he was lauded by numerous commenters on the Bishop Hill sceptic blog as a “real scientist”.
Thank you sincerely, Warren Pearce
Anthony, don’t forget the BEST saga and the old aphorism –
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
And, of course, Pete Townshend’s mantra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Won%27t_Get_Fooled_Again
A gentleman always gets his kudos (eventually). Congrats.
Did they change the date of April Fools Day?
I we could stop the posts by Archibald, the credibility here would rise significantly.
The Daily Telegraph (nicknamed “Torygraph” – i.e. supposedly conservative) has of recent years been taking an increasingly left/liberal position on many issues. This includes “environment”, with compassionate head-tilting characters like Geoffrey Lean and Louise Gray dribbling out the “consensus” view.
I amused myself with the notion that some genius in the Telegraph publishing dept. had noticed that the left/liberal Guardian was losing readers at a high rate (true) and came up with a “cunning plan” to scoop those lost readers up by becoming more like the Guardian. They certainly increased their numbers of lost readers alright…
So now I’m amusing myself with the notion that the Guardian has adopted this “cunning plan” right back at them.
(safe for work)
Anthony, the reason I suspect why Warmists called us deniers is because of the dragon slayers. They assumed we were all deniers of co2 being a greenhouse gas.
I’m sure the Guardian’s watermelon activists will be here so please read this about our horrible, oiled host.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/about2/
Congrats Anthony. But be watchful of the Trojan horse. The Left can’t rest.
Our electricity just came back on for the 5th time this evening. This is what it’s like living in a poor, developing country. This is why I come to WUWT – Warmists want to deny us of energy, reduce our populations while leaving them and their families unscathed. Thank you.
I have been asked by many Warmists at the Guardian in the past “what drives you?” It’s the above. I like light and electricity. Now take a look at the plans to withhold funding for coal powered power stations for the developing world. I am at the sharp end of this bullshit and I am not going to remain silent. Get ready for HEAVY DUTY DEFORESTATION. Coal and wood are the same to me.
——————————–
Jimbo out.
Sounds like a great time for WUWT-TV to resurface. I can just see Spencer, Curry and Whitehouse in an interview together 😉
How about a replay?
I just went to the toilet to urinate and ohhhhhh the water supply has just gone – for the SECOND TIME TODAY!!! I know some Warmists will think I am making this up but that’s good news. It shows they don’t have a grip on the reality that affects most of the world’s population. I feel sorry for such confused, led-along sheep.
PS, the water supply sometimes shuts down because there is no electricity running the booster pumps. I am working from a battery powered laptop with smartphone / shared modem.
Congratulations Anthony, congratulations to the blog contributors to this forum, and congratulations to the many people that comment at this site.
We share a common belief that was once defined as ‘a gentleman of science’. The perfect gentleman of science was Michael Faraday. Faraday was incapable of a deliberate miss-truth and would actively investigate the discharged hypothesis (again and again), as scientific investigation of hypotheses is an essential step to find and confirm truth. ‘Gentlemen of science’ search for truth, respect and investigate alternative hypothesis (again and again), a gentleman of science looks for data and logic to disprove a hypothesis, abhors lies, and so on. Gentlemen of science can change their mind. Gentleman of science use logic and reason, rather than ad hominem to advance a hypothesis.
http://daliennation.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/gentleman-of-science-michael-faraday/
Comment:
Climate ‘change’ is a peculiar issue, a peculiar branch of ‘science’. It appears scientific truth and environmental ‘protection’ is on the side of so called ‘skeptics’, the so called ‘deniers’. The extreme AGW activists (An activist is not a scientist. An activist believes they are fighting a war and hence believe lies, distortion, and propaganda are justified if it helps them win their war. The problem of course for the AGW activists, is that the justification to fight their war disappears if there is scientifically no extreme AGW problem associated with the increase in CO2. Lukewarm warming (Scientifically there will be less than 1C warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 if there is no amplification of the CO2 forcing) is a fact if the planet does not amplify the CO2 forcing. Unfortunately it appears the CO2 mechanism saturates and the planet will cool due to solar magnetic cycle change. The benefits due the increase in atmospheric CO2 if there is lukewarm warming (no amplification) will result in an expansion of the biosphere, as plants eat CO2 and the biosphere is limited high latitude regions due to the number of frost free days. The atmospheric increase in CO2 is win-win for environmentalist, those people who care about the environment.
Activists pick a cause and then fight. To fight a war on the wrong side is madness. It appears, the 350.org position is madness, anti- environmentalism.
Anthony,
I truely believed that you were being foolish and wasting your time in having a discusion with the Sky Dragons. I watched and took part in the debate with them at Judy Curry’s blog, Climate Etc. I then saw Dr. Roy Spencer try to engage them. Both were a complete waste of time IMHO.
You then did the same here at WUWT, And I thought it was a complete waste of time and effort. I thought it was akin to p*ssing into the wind.
I now freely admitt, my judgement was wrong. And yours was right. ( and Dr. Judith Curry & Dr. Roy Spencer ). This one article in the MSM is, IMHO, worth all the effort expended.
Congratulations.
It is also amusing to see the Alarmists their going Ape, pulling their hair out and generally making fools of them selves. Very counter-productive.
Best regards
/ikh
And finally, I would love to have a free solar panel installation on my roof while being connected to the mains. I would love to have a free, small domestic wind turbine while being connected to the mains. If I have to pay then I will have to look at the payback time / maintenance etc. I don’t want a free solar panel / wind power infrastructure to run the nation’s electrical supply. Issues are: unreliable, back-up, storage problems – it could be worse than it is today, and today has been bad.m 🙁
Ryan says:
July 30, 2013 at 3:45 pm
Clearly the guardian doesn’t watch close enough. There are loads of pseudoscientific hogwash posts on this blog.
REPLY: Yes, some of them come from you, but I still allow your comments anyway. – Anthony
____________________________________________________
Lovely
Beautiful, Anthony but being a sceptic, “beware the Greek bearing gifts.” Next thing you know, Cook and Scooter will be claiming you as part of the warmista. 😉
“fringe sceptic group Principia Scientific”
Oh, please! Does the guardian seriously think this dross will wash? PSI was always a false flag operation. They were never a fringe sceptic group. Their mission was far more successful than the openly pro AGW Soros funded sites. They made most sceptics to fearful to question the basic inanity of the radiative greenhouse hypothesis. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability? Utter tripe. But PSI were very, very successful. How many sceptics would now claim that the net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm?
Are you fearful of being branded a “slayer”? Did it work on you too?
Wow!! A serious congratualtions for years of effort.
And 1 point to the Guardian for writing something reasonable.
Anthony,
I did not fully or correctly express what I learned in my previous comment. One of our biggest complaints is that the Alarmists won’t engagage in discussion with us. If we don’t ever engagage with the “tin foil hat” brigade then we are guility of the same sin.
Thanks again for a great bblog.
/ikh
“whoreject” Is that like Horton hears a whor who bails out on CAGW?
Jimbo thanks for sharing the link to Anthony’s bio — I just never came upon it. (and, [sarc ON] thanks for sharing at 4:40PM [OFF], LOL) — sure hope your electricity is on to STAY on SOON. Take care, O Researcher Extraordinaire.
Dear Anthony,
While the grin and compliment of a crocodile are not worth much (the danger being your potentially falling prey to their mischaracterizing you even further as a supporter of CAGW), the upshot is GOOD! Publicity, good, bad, or dubious, is, still, publicity! And, of course, in the eyes of those who matter, those on the side of Truth in Science, you have always been a de facto scientist and a TRUE SCIENCE HERO.
BTW, [thanks, OssQss, for the link — enjoyed watching WUWT TV] you have remarkably lovely tone and modulation in your voice and the timbre is beautiful. That you accomplish that with impaired hearing and with excellent diction to boot is impressive. No wonder you had a long career on TV; you have a delightfully engaging personality (MUCH better than that pompous, lazy, windbag, Rush). You personify, both on camera and off in your fight for science truth, decency, integrity, generosity, kindness, and courage, all that a man of honor ought to be. What a guy!
With gratitude,
Janice
***************
@ur momisugly ikh — I LIKE YOU! Please, do call yourself something more complimentary than a phonetic version of “Ick!” Well, your post was definitely a “like,” not an “ick.”
@janice moore. Thank you for the kind words.
My voice is I believe a direct result of my hearing impairment. I’ve lost everything above 2 kilohertz, with significant losses in the remaining frequencies. I was fortunate that I learned to speak before I started losing my hearing, but as I lost more hearing I started compensating for losing track of my own voice in my head. That and at an early age, I was thrust into a public speaking roll by one of my teachers.
Congrats, Anthony. But, does that make you a lukewarmer ?
Lukewarm is fine. It takes the C out of CAGW, which means more rational energy policies, and maybe, just maybe, less CO2 taxation.
But as far as the Science is concerned, I’m not taking any prisoners. I won’t feel vindicated until it becomes incontrovertible that CO2 has ZERO sensitivity in a chaotic, self-regulating system.
Whilst I don’t think anyone should be surprised that Anthony gets any form of praise and recognition for his work, well, from honest parties at least, I think it’s fair to understand what is happening here in a little more detail.
The article referenced is a blog post on their open forum. I could post there if I gave them something of interest and jumped through a few hoops. Anthony could post there himself if he took an article that they deemed of interest to their science blog.
However it’s not the Guardian newspaper. This is not journalism. This is an opinion piece by a university student who has an interest via study, of climate science scepticism. And he appears to do this quite honestly and from a position that is not pre-disposed.
The Guardian newspaper remains, and I really want to avoid the political side of things as much as possible, a liberal left advocacy tool and it always has been. That being said it is no less bias and willing to distort reality for it’s position than the Daily mail are and I know many Americans are happy to accept the Daily Mail as a voice of reason because they support the sceptic’s AGW position. It remains one of the most distasteful tools for fear and mistrust publishing in the UK today. These two are like two polar opposite sides of the same coin.
The guardian, like most print newspapers in the UK is suffering, to the point of there is a genuine chance that many of the long established print outlets in the UK could fail. The guardian has learned that there is a media outlet in the internet and has embraced online content, albeit not one that is showing them any revenue of note yet.
This article is welcome and it’s good that someone chose to accept it. It’s not a warmist changing tack or accepting a different position, it’s a student writing honestly about the things he sees and reads, like many of us here try to do, and having that writing accepted for blog publication.
You only have to read the first comment in the readers comments to understand what the actual readership is like and how little an effect the article will have on them, other than to twist their panties.
WUWT readers who want to make a difference at places like the Grauniad? Produce your own articles and offer them for submission. When people like the first commentator in the replies make the ad-hominen and unfounded comments he has done then offer a rebuttal. I know it’s difficult to argue with idiots, they drag you down to their level then beat you with experience ( sorry I forget who to attribute that comment to ) but I know the people here strive for truth and proper understanding. Anthony’s site may well be the most-read climate science blog on the planet but places like the Guardian online exist in an echo chamber of their own agreement for the most part.
Challenge that.
But please don’t think an advocacy outlet such as the Guardian is changing position by allowing one voice of reason in the guest blog area. It’s no different than Anthony allowing Gavin et al to post an op-ed at this site with freedom to say what he believes.
Craig Frier
Maybe this would be a good time for all WUWT readers to get a Guardian account and leave a comment or two. Show them just how much more web traffic they can get by supporting a sceptical viewpoint than the usual alarmist one. Maybe then they will post more of this kind o’ thing.