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
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
—————————————————————————————————————-
Cracked up on that reply! I personally love the differing viewpoints on this site as it helps me think “outside the box”. I think that is one (of many) reasons for your site’s popularity (the primary ones being its educational value,integrity and honesty).
Keep up the good work!!
Why should any sentient human being care what a bunch of communo-fascist crumbums at the (so-called) Guardian think of anything?
vukcevic says:
July 30, 2013 at 2:32 pm
> Not to mention he has to deal with number of regular sceptic ‘crackpots’ including
yours truly.
We’d miss you if you went away. Well, maybe sometimes. 🙂 And maybe some people. 🙂
Headlines you definitely won’t see at The Guardian: “Climate Skeptics Shocked At Kind Guardian Reporting”
Lil Fella from OZ says:
July 30, 2013 at 4:21 pm
Congrats Anthony. But be watchful of the Trojan horse. The Left can’t rest.
——————————————–
Exactly – since they can’t get real jobs, they have to steal money from the people who can, in order to survive as our pseudo-rulers.
There’s a few things I miss about medieval solutions to problems like this.
Blind squirrel? Stopped clock? Or is The Guardian actually getting a clue? Let’s see if it really is a change.
The climate is changing, all right…
OT I guess, but I just heard a clip of our new EPA mistress telling her followers at Harvard how fighting “carbon pollution” for the next three years is going to produce “jobs.” Really. In the 10-second sound-bite she repeated “carbon pollution” over and over. Nice to know what we’re in for if we can’t elect a veto-proof Republican Congress in 2014 and defang the EPA. And that’s a faint hope, I expect.
/Mr Lynn
Looks like it was just a vehicle to have sock puppets have their “say”.. maybe their even paid for sock puppets …. a.k.a. climate prostitutes.
It’s great to see the Guardian swirling it’s way down into the sewer from whence it came.
That would be “its way”
f*****g spellchecker
Can I say it? PURE projection.
And I’ll wager the poor sod can’t cite a one. Were Ryan to think to apply himself it should be to post something substantive in the way of a good rebuttal to the projected hogwash, but, sadly, why does that seem to be beyond his capability?
I would LOVE to see a fully thought-out rebuttal for the same reason I like to watch Katrina VanDen Houvel (sp?) from The Nation on ABC’s Sunday morning talking-heads show; she’s so d*mned entertaining in a twisted and demented sort of way …
.
I like it. I’m thinking of getting some cards made up.
Anthony, I just want to reiterate my congratulations, and to say that on closer scrutiny I’m more impressed with The Guardian article, and in my last comment above I was perhaps too much of a devils advocate, and I missed some key points, as you were said to be mainstream among skeptics, not mainstream among the mainstream. So, good work Anthony. The Guardian article is about as good as we can get with the MSM now. Although I thought that the recent series of agw related articles by The Economist have been very good for us. Is the tide turning?
That is…an absolutely accurate assessment. I can’t believe the Guardian actually printed that.
It’s a trap!
One last time before I go to bed as it appears to me that people are still misunderstanding this situation.
This is not an article by the Guardian or any of its staffers. This is not mainstream media. This is not a print article.
This is a guest blog by a student which appears on the science blogs hosted by the Guardian group on their servers. In reality it has nothing to do with the newspaper. In much the same as the Guardian’s “comment is free” area is for people to have a say, the science blog is the same with a more succinct subject.
By all means give credit to the author and anywhere else it might be due but don’t confuse this for anything other than a third-party submitted opinion piece that is hosted on server space paid for by the Guardian group newspapers. ( Who happen to have their head offices in my back yard )
The Guardian need content. This is all that their blog space is about. It’s intended to receive traffic so that numbers satisfy advertisers.
A-TH-Y actually spoke to me!!! What a happy surprise. Thanks (and, you are most welcome)!
********************************************
Say, re: the name of the above article’s author… “Warren Pearce.” Oh, right. Come one, Mr. “War and Peace,” tell us your REAL name. ” #[:)] Meh, it’s probably real. His parents just had a good sense of humor.
*****************************
Speaking of names, or, rather, titles, Alan Clark. AHEM! Is that meant to say: W.H.O. Reject? Hm.
Well deserved, Anthony, however it came about, and many thanks for WUWT. I’m not a researcher, experimenter, or scientific expert, but I am a decent engineer, in at least senses of the word (competent, polite, clothed) and have learned much from my daily review of your publication. I look forward to many more years of reasoned enlightenment, good humour, and civilised conversation made possible by WUWT.
Anyway, we don’t need no stinkin’ approval from the CAGW sheep.
That should have read “at least THREE senses of the word”
There was once a time when Anthony Watts was “the name that should not be spoken.”
‘The Guardian’ often deletes comments critical of the party line on global warming, but on the other hand, when Steve MacIntyre spoke in London in 2010, it was organized by the Guardian, and chaired by George Monbiot. Recently it reprinted an article from ‘The American Conservative’. Edward Snowden chose the Guardian, not the New York Times or the Washington Post.
Andrew Montford and Anthony,
I am also surprised the Guardian’s website posted a reasonably balanced and reasonably credible guest article on you. I thank the author of the guest article.
But with respect to the Guardian’s predominate behavior on climate matters, I am reminded of this Aesop fable:
It is the
scorpion’sGuardian’s nature . . .John
@Joe Kirklin Ryan says:
July 30, 2013 at 7:50 pm
It’s a trap!
My exact thought. It’s a TRAP! Watch out for the backhand. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOVfODDq2oc
byz – mentioned the comments by PeterSimmons & i wonder if it’s one & the same as follows:
June 2012: WUWT: Anthony Watts: Climate Craziness of the Week – I get mail
There seems to be a disturbance in the farce. Peter J. Simmons uses the WUWT Submit Story link (making it fair game to publish) to send this fine example of climate delusion in action, complete with “you people” and big oil claims…
Comment by jayman: There appears to be a Peter J. Simmons at the University of East Anglia who seems to be paid for doing nothing of any particular significance. He is interested in nuclear power, I’m not sure whether for or against.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/26/climate-craziness-of-the-week-i-get-mail/
to answer jayman, the Simmons he writes of – whether the same guy or not – is, obviously, pro-nuclear:
Sept 2008: Guardian: James Randerson: Nuclear plants’ neighbours back expansion
Read the full text of the Royal Society report (pdf)
People who live close to nuclear power stations are more supportive of building new plants than the UK population in general, according to independent researchers who have conducted the most detailed survey of attitudes to the nuclear industry since the mid-1980s…
“Our recommendation to the industry would be get on with it. If you think you’ve got some sites then start talking to the local population now because you will only end up with uncertainty, concern, more distrust,” said Peter Simmons, of the University of East Anglia…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/sep/30/nuclearpower.energy
– – – – – – – –
François GM,
Good stimulating comment! Thanks.
Lukewarm positions have not achieved scientific strength to the same degree as the alarming positions have not achieved scientific strength and for the same reasons.
Where the maximum and minimum thresholds of climate response to CO2 lie is an uncertain work in progress. Science on it is now much more unfettered from the IPCC’s ideologically corrupting influence. I think we will see trends in the studies on thresholds of climate response to CO2 which will be significantly toward zero levels.
John