It really is that bad. Climate science denialists now attack any information simply for not being what they want it to be. Lysenko’s Ghost smiles broadly.
Anthony Watts is just the most prominent of the bloggers making hoax charges of error and worse in the fourth report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), because of a footnote that cites a rock climbing magazine.
Here’s the trouble for Watts: There is no indication that the citation is in error in any way. Watts’s move is more fitting of King George III’s campaign against Ben Franklin’s lightning rods, the prosecution of John Peter Zenger, the pre-World War II campaign against Einstein’s work because he was born a Jew, or the hoary old Red Channels campaign against Texas history told by John Henry Faulk. It’s as bad as the Texas State Board of Education’s attack on Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See? Watts’ and others’ complaint is simply that Climbing magazine’s story on the worldwide retreat of glaciers suitable for climbing is not published in a juried science journal.
In other words, they indict the science, not because it’s wrong — they have no evidence to counter it — but because it’s too American Patriot correct Jewish left Texan mistakenly thought to be political well-known, too accessible, (small “d”) democratically-reported.
And of course, any comment that points that out at Watts’s blog goes into long-term “moderation,” keeping it from the light of day in the best tradition of the Crown’s defense of Gov. Cosby’s misadministration of New York (see “John Peter Zenger”). Watts said in a quote that should have been attributed to the Daily Telegraph:
The IPCC’s remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.
In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.
However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.
The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.
The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.
It comes after officials for the panel were forced earlier this month to retract inaccurate claims in the IPCC’s report about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.
By those standards, Watts’s own readers should eschew his blog — it’s not peer reviewed science by any stretch, and Watts isn’t an established authority in climate science (he’s not even working for an advanced degree). Consistency isn’t a virtue or concern among climate change denialists. Watt’s entire modus operandi is much more anecdotal than the story in Climbing, which was written by a physicist/climber who studies climate change in the world’s mountains.
And did you notice? They’re whining about research done by a scientist in pursuit of a degree, complaining about the second citation. That’s the exaclty kind of research that they claim the magazine article is not. Their complaint is, it appears, that a scientist in pursuit of education is not the right “kind” of person to do climate research. It’s the chilling sort of bigotry that we spent so much time in the 20th century fighting against. In the 21st century, though, it appears one can still get away with demonizing knowledge, education and research, part of the campaign to indict “elitism,” the same sort of elitism aspired to by America’s founders. Too much of the criticism against scientists involved in documenting global warming is the cheap bigotry the critics claim to find in science, falsely claimed in my view.
Topsy-turvy.
And the glaciers? Yeah, the evidence tends to show they are in trouble. Those Himalayan glaciers? The IPCC report was accurate in everything except the speed at which the glaciers decline — they should be with us for another three centuries, not just 50 years, if we can reduce warming back to 1990s levels (oddly, denialists rarely deal with the facts of accelerating warming, preferring to point to a local snowstorm as a rebuttal of all knowledge about climate).
Oh, and the research? The author of the story in Climbing magazine is Mark Bowen. Dr. Bowen’s Ph.D. is in physics from MIT. He’s a climber, and he researches climate change on the world’s highest mountains. His 2005 book, Thin Ice, focused tightly on what we can learn about climate from the world’s highest mountains. Bowen is the expert Anthony Watts would like to be.
Cover of Mark Bowen’s book defending climate science, “Censoring Science.”
Bowen’s newest book: Censoring Science: Inside the political attack on James Hansen and the truth of global warming. Watts doesn’t want anyone to read that book. It is easy to imagine Watt’s s attack is, he hopes, pre-emptive, against Bowen’s book.
I’ll wager Watts hasn’t read the article in Climbing, and didn’t know who Bowen was when he launched his attack, though. The denials of bias coming out of the denialists’ camp will be interesting to watch.
Let the denialists roll out the rope far enough, they’ll inevitably hang themselves.
More:
Do something for freedom: Spread the news
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
Still true in 2019 that global heating/climate change is making glaciers melt, and making mountain climbing more dangerous. See Climbing Magazine: https://www.climbing.com/news/climate-change-on-mount-everest-old-bodies-and-new/
LikeLike
Roger,
Please make comments of substance somewhere. I love the irony of your trying to deny the greenhouse power of CO2 by referring me to a greenhouse operator.
But you’ve not answered any argument I’ve made, except to deny the science behind what I’ve posted.
LikeLike
Ed,
Please comment on my blog.
I will answer there.
Cheers
Roger
LikeLike
You assume that pollution cannot be controlled, and so industry must stop. How patently bizarre.
Had you bothered to notice, every proposal to control pollution deals in the real world, in the world of what is possible. No one proposes to melt down any economy.
I find it unethical to spread such tales.
LikeLike
By your definition, nothing can be a pollutant. You claim CO2 isn’t a pollutant because it’s “natural” and “essential to life.”
You can’t name a pollutant that doesn’t also fit that defintion.
When I detail your errors, you punt, and claim I should read your site more carefully. The more carefully I read it, the more errors and nonsense I find.
Like your claim that CO2 isn’t a pollutant.
Mind if I come over to your house and fill it with CO2?
5,000 ppm is still a tiny percentage of the atmosphere, 0.5%. In public health, we consider stuff that can cause such physical harm to be “pollutants.”
CO2 is a pollutant by any rational public health definition, by any rational air pollution control definition, and since we know it causes greenhouse effects, we can consider concentrations past a safe greenhouse effect to be pollution.
LikeLike
Ed,
The answers in my blog. There is no proof of anything there, but there is some disproof of the AGW hypothesis.
The reason I am unable to answer your comment objectively because it dosnt make a lot of sense.
For a start, where in my blog do I deny there is global warming?
Past warmings especially since the last ice age most certainly do disprove the AGW hypothesis.
I refered to the Mongolian and Chinese cold snap to point out that it was unlikely that the Gulf Stream theory had much to do with their problems.
What malaria has to do with the conversation is tenuous but it does show that you need to bone up the difference between a hypothesis and a fact.
But worst of all you associate CO2 with dirty air.
Sure air can become polluted and I explained that most sensible people including myself are concerned about pollution, but CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT. End of story.
It is a friendy gas like water is a friendly liquid.
So stop accusing me of promoting “dirty air” and stop thinking that lowering CO2 emissions is going to “clean” the air.
If you are unable to grasp that major cut backs on CO2 emissions will melt down the world economy, just wait for the new page I am preparing for my blog.
“How can clean air kill anybody” Wow well said:)
The rest of your comment rambles on so its difficult to follow your logic. For instance remind me where I talk about the weather in Texas again?
Cheers
Roger
LikeLike
How am I off point, Roger? I’ve read your blog carefully — and that’s quite a trick, with the awkward formatting and complex threading — and I find nothing that qualifies as a proof that warming isn’t occurring, nor any proof of a lack of human causation.
I think it’s quite telling that when I ask you to tell us what your proof is, you don’t.
LikeLike
Ed,
Frankly you are way off the point.
Try reading my blog carefuly before you comment again.
Cheers
Roger
LikeLike
Roger said:
I find it difficult to tell where the lampooning ends and serious discussion starts. That’s troubling to me because it makes it difficult to know whether you’re serious and crabby-bordering-on-evil, or just seriously ill-informed.
I didn’t find any disproofs. And, as Aristotle should have said, every good argument has a 30-second summary. Can you summarize for us here what your disproofs are? As best I can determine, you’re saying that because it was warmer in the Jurassic, generally, warming should be no problem for dinosaurs. You appear to have missed a couple of complicating factors along the way, though — like, dinosaurs are mostly extinct, and humans didn’t do very well in the Jurassic. We aren’t dinosaurs.
(There’s an old joke in the space industry: “Dinosaurs are extinct because they didn’t have an effective space program.” You can tell it’s old because it rather assumes that we can migrate to some other hospitable spot, if we have an effective space program. Instead, we have learned that there are damnably few other spots to migrate to, from this planet, in any reasonable time. So, our space program have provided the benefits of their research and technology to help us patch up our planet, our little space ship, to keep us alive. You dismiss all of that. Dismissing, ignoring science, is not a disproof.)
Even more, temperatures and CO2 levels in the Jurassic disprove nothing today. Past warming doesn’t “disprove” current warming. Past warming from whatever causes doesn’t disprove human causation from fossil fuel burning today.
Having e-mails stolen is not a disproof of warming, nor of human causation, by the way.
Warming is not a hypothesis, it’s a fact. Human causation is as solid a hypothesis as is possible at this point — there is precious little to contradict it in any way. Some contrarians hope that humans don’t cause the warming, and most serious people hope there is a natural mechanism that will stop it, soon. There is no evidence of such a mechanism, however.
We didn’t know that malaria was a parasite when we discovered that keeping mosquitoes from spreading the disease was a good idea. We had no cure for yellow fever when we stopped its spread with the same methods that stopped malaria in the Panama Canal construction project. Had we waited for “proof” of the cause of those diseases, the Panama Canal would still be a far-fetched idea today. Your plea to wait for more information is a plea to wait for disaster, really.
By your standards, I suppose we haven’t disproven Lord Kelvin’s claim that the Sun is made of iron, either — after all, no one has gone there to sample it, so we can’t be sure.
We can also find out by continuing our current path of too little controls to prevent a dramatic increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases far in excess of anything in human history, and generally far in excess of anything during the 65 million-year history of mammalian dominance of land. The serious difficulty there is that once the runaway warming starts, it will be more difficult, or impossible to stop, by humans. You propose a dangerous experiment that can’t be controlled.
I find that irresponsible, and reprehensible.
Nor does doing nothing disprove it. What if we’re wrong? We get cleaner air. Yo think that’s a problem? I’m reminded of what the founder of Grist offered:
We get cleaner air, better vehicles, more industry and more jobs. Sounds like a good deal to me. Clean air is always a better deal, health wise. I look forward to the day we don’t need to put vitamin D in milk in order to grow healthy children.
Balderdash. How can clean air kill people? You make exactly the same claims made by denialists in years past. ‘If we clean the air of sulfur oxides, it’ll cripple industry.’ ‘We can’t run autmobiles without lead in the gasoline.’ (Getting lead out of gasoline literally increased the IQ of American kids by an average of 10 points — all that brain damage from lead was ended, and — miracle of miracles! — there are even more motor vehicles today.) ‘If we clean the particulates out of coal-fired power plants, it will destroy our landscape with landfills.’
You’re exaggerating, wildly, without history and without much credible evidence, and less credible evidence appropriately applied.
You assume some monolithic governmental entity to dictate bad solutions. Won’t happen — Bush was term-limited out of office.
We have certain deaths and massive destruction from doing nothing versus your wildly exaggerated, completely unevidenced claims. If this were a junior college debate, we could beat with deaths on the flow just from climate disasters in the last ten years.
Killing people isn’t okay with me at all. Your suggestion — you don’t even say it outright — that doing something right will kill more people than doing stuff wrong, is just bizarre hyperventilating.
On the other hand, I’ve seen death here in Texas from warming. It’s happening now, with the astounding spread of West Nile, with the return of a tougher, more tropical dengue fever, and with the threat of malaria. Here in Texas homeowners pay more than $1,000 a year extra in insurance because of the already-demonstrated effects of warming on weather disasters.
That’s not hypothetical in any way. I think perhaps you’re not quite correct on what you think “hypothetical” means.
No, killing people isn’t okay with me, and it’s reprehensible that you advocate letting it continue.
Plus, I don’t think PhotoShop mashups of children’s coloring books about children’s fables, and photos of world leaders, is a particularly convincing argument for your side.
You appear heavy on insult and fantasy, not much on current events and science.
Are you a one-handed economist? Have you studied the economics of air pollution? How do you justify the Donora, Pennsylvania, Killer Fog? The London Killer Fog? Acid rain? Rickets? If you’re an economist, look at economics history and the benefits we get from controlling air and water pollution, and rerun your numbers. In the long run we’re all dead, but that’s a piss-poor reason to poison people and drown them to speed the process. Plus, as an economist you must know that war is not more productive than peace, nor is disaster a better economic outcome that clean air. Every high school kid learns that.
Funny. You dismiss the predicted increased severity of weather disasters in Texas as no evidence, then you turn around and use the predicted increased severity of weather disasters in China and Mongolia from global warming as evidence to the contrary, not stopping for even a breath to try to understand the science.
Warming doesn’t mean we don’t get weather changes — it means weather changes will be more wild, with greater amplitudes. We are seeing that all over the world, including in those disasters you cite.
One way to corroborate, or “prove” a hypothesis is to look at the predictions and see how they turn out. A warming planetary climate is predicted to provide more weather disasters, and more severe weather disasters.
Isn’t that exactly what you just cited?
I think that, as a climate change specialist, you don’t demonstrate good chops as an economist.
After you rerun your “human deaths” model to see what happens with cleaner air, fewer and less severe hurricanes and cyclones, continued use of the world’s ports, no drought in the American and Canadian midwest, reduced drought in the Sahel, etc., etc., see if you can come up with any explanation for just how the climate warming Paul Reveres managed to get the world’s corals, finches, migrating raptors, polar bears, thistles, trees, flowers and butterflies, to buy into the hoax of global warming. If you’re right, that warming isn’t occurring and there’s no human cause, we ought to pay heed to people like Al Gore just because, you know, someone who speaks to the animals and plants worldwide and gets them to go along with his charade is a supernatural force to be reckoned with. You are, in effect, claiming Al Gore has King Solomon’s ring and all of God’s creation likes him and listens to him, and does his bidding so he can make movies.
Which is more difficult to “believe?”
LikeLike
Ed’s comment is answered at http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Nick,
I’m not talking about politics. Did you read my blog? I lampoon politicians.
However the undeniable fact is that the “anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming hypothesis” remains just that, a hypothesis and unproven to boot.
If you read my blog, there are a number of simple facts that actually disprove it.
And the other truth is, there is no way of actually proving the hypothesis except by turning industry off, and neutralising soil bacteria perhaps for a year or two and seeing if the temperature actually drops. And even that wouldn’t be enough to prove the hypothesis, probably have to start and stop industry a number of times before there would be reasonable proof.
Building models and calculations based on the hypothesis most certainly do not prove the hypothesis!
So what if you are wrong?
If we carry out the advice of the IPCC and somehow reduce our CO2 emmissions by about 60 or more percent. (I hear numbers advocating 1990 levels less 50% etc) If we attempt reductions as severe as that, economically we are most definitely going to kill a lot of people, not only in third world countries where we have already made a start with the biogas plantings fiasco (which is pushing up food prices and enroaching on hitherto untouched rain forest), but also most cetainly in your country and mine.
Would killing people like that be OK with you?
Now we better be ultra sure that the current hypothesis is correct dont you think?
Because I am an economist I am equipped to research this in a modest way, and this is in the pipeline for a new page in my blog. Please watch the blog. (see address above)
Cheers
Roger
Oh and I suppose that the ice melting in Greenland is responsible for record low temperatures -50 C, (as reported in Chinese News) in Northern China and Mongolia, where there are human casualties and wide spread stock losses. Even the ice sculpture festival in Harbin had to be put on hold because the ice was too cold and collapses occurred killing tourists. What do you think?
LikeLike
So, Roger, because of something said in the 70’s similar claims later on are always automatically and absolutely wrong?
Lets see if you like that logic in a different situation. The neocons and the right wing claimed for years that Saddam Hussein had WMD’s. And oops..he didn’t. They claimed for years he was responsible for 9-11. And oops he wasn’t.
Does that mean that the right wing and conservatives are always absolutely wrong about everything else?
Oh and by the way, let me buy you a clue. if the ice sheets in the arctic and on Greenland melt care to guess what will happen? An ice age. Why? Because the influx of that much cold water into the Atlantic will stop the gulf stream dead in its tracks. And in case you haven’t bothered to notice, the gulf stream has quite a bit to do with our weather.
You can claim that climate change is wrong all you want but I do have one question for you. What if you’re wrong?
LikeLike
No, I don’t remember any ice age “panic” in the ’70s. I was in air pollution research at the time. What I recall is the intense debate in science about whether human actions were already affecting weather too much to turn back.
You’re quoting Time on the thing — why not cite the science journal articles on the problem, if there were any? Surely, in the Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association you would find a gold mine of panic stories, were there a panic.
In one of my classes, we read the literature that outlined the debate. Particulate and aerosol pollution contribute to cooling; greenhouse gases contribute to warming. There was a lot of discussion over whether the two forms of pollution cancelled one another out, and that formed the basis for one particularly offensive conservative attack, saying we shouldn’t control any pollution, because that would lead to climate effects no one could predict.
Another part of the debate which is not much closer to settling is the question about how air temperatures might affect ocean currents directly, and how they might affect winds that affect ocean currents and temperatures, and precipitation.
But the math was impressively balanced. It showed much of a standoff between the warming effects of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, and the cooling effects of particulates and aerosols. At the lab I worked at, we had large contracts to measure the current conditions around massive coal-fired power plants then under construction, and around massive plants already in existence. In the years of doing that, we watched closely the construction of the devices that clean the particulates out. Our lab played a big role in the discovery that aerosols affect light-scattering, which led to an increased urgency to control them.
We wondered how fast heating might occur once particulates and aerosols were largely controlled.
Our classroom calculations at the time did not assume the massive increase in use of oil and coal worldwide. I recall the sick feeling we got realizing that warming would create havoc probably in our lifetimes, and no later than the lives of our children.
How many years have you studied pollution?
LikeLike
From your site.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
How very true!
Remember the Ice Age panic of the 1970’s?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00.html
Interesting that drought is being blamed on cooling in this article.
LikeLike
There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it.
There are a host of porkies and not very much truth barraging us everyday so its difficult to know what to believe.
I think I have simplified the issue in an entertaining way on my blog which includes some issues connected with climategate and “embarrassing” evidence.
In the pipeline is an analysis of the economic effects of the proposed emission reductions. Watch this space or should I say Blog
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.
Cheers
Roger
PS The term “porky” is listed in the Australian Dictionary of Slang.( So I’m told.)
PPS I have left many comments on AGW supporter sites and a reasonable reply has been very rare. I dont mind healthy disagreement citing facts etc but generally the reply is couched in personal attacks. I have yet to receive one properly referenced explanation that supports the AGW hypothesis. I wish to make it quite clear that my blog disproves the AGW hypothesis in a number of ways. Read it if you dare. Please leave a comment with referenced facts etc. I never moderate out comments unless they contain obscenities and that hasn’t happened yet.
LikeLike
Just by the way, on this entire issue one would be remiss in not reading Deltoid’s piece:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate.php
LikeLike
I think I see where the confusion is. Darrell says “Denialists claim all knowledge is wrong” where “knowledge” is “acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition”.
Watts reads this as “Denialists claim all knowledge is wrong” where “knowledge” is “the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.”
Deniers love absolutes, because they are so very useful as strawmen. So, for Watts, this is a win-win: he gets to butt his head pointlessly against a perfectly accurate claim due to a semantic detail, and he gets to plug the “but we don’t know everything” meme again.
Watts: if you were ever capable of admitting an error, then I might have a little time for you. But instead you dance around and look stupider and stupider. Still, you sometimes give us all a good laugh. We all remember your inability to comprehend the concept of anomaly baselines, and the spectacular back-fire of your surface stations project was highly enjoyable to watch.
Ed Darrell: something new for my Amazon wishlist. Thank you.
LikeLike
I just gotta … gotta … lay down the EINSTEIN CARD!
LikeLike
“By those standards, Watts’s own readers should eschew his blog — it’s not peer reviewed science by any stretch, and Watts isn’t an established authority in climate science (he’s not even working for an advanced degree). ”
Doesn’t even have a BS, as far as anyone’s been able to find out.
“About that moderation you complain about. Yes your comments are now in automatic moderation, and it is because make claims that are often untrue, and as demonstrated here in this article, personally attack me. So I have your comments held so that I can personally respond to them.”
Ed, keep this paragraph handy. Watts has his followers believing that he allows anyone to post at his site. It’s a clear lie, but it’s nice to have a short, concise statement demonstrating the lie close at hand.
LikeLike
While you’re having your colleagues-in-denial check out the masters student’s work, Anthony, have them check out this one, too:
http://www.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr/risknat/projets/climchalp_wp5/pages/etudes/hoelzle&al_2003.html
I think that’s the paper IPCC referred to here, noting glacier decline in Europe.
(http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch12s12-2.html#12-2-1 )
Imagine that: More than one source, and they agree that glaciers are in decline.
LikeLike
Good to hear you think some knowledge is not wrong. Specify some with regard to global warming, can you?
From my view, you appear to disagree that the climate is warming, denying all research that shows it is. If we get past that, you deny that humans have any great culpability in warming, and you entertain guest posts from people who claim there is no warming at all, and that all measurements are wrong. You contest the claim that we can tell what happened in the past with any specificity, and especially with regard to science claims that we can tell CO2 didn’t cause all past warming sequences, or that CO2 is causing warming now.
You complain about peer review material, you complain in the latest post that material is not peer reviewed. You complain that we shouldn’t accept peer review over authoritative claims, but when Mark Bowen makes an authoritative claim you describe him as a “journalist” instead of a physicist and you denigrate his expertise in glaciers.
What knowledge do you accept, Anthony?
LikeLike
Hey Ed, GREAT NEWS
While you are fomenting over here about quote marks and formatting and playing ego games, people have been out following my lead, looking itno the IPCC issues raised that you dislike.
Guess what? The student dissertation IPCC referenced is about decline of mountain guide trade…and while climate is mentioned, the main cause is given as:
“Recession and a strong Swiss franc, followed by changes of the natural environment as main causes for a decrease in the demand.”
The dissertation itself seems pretty weak.
More on that later, in the meantime please change your title, since you know full well that I and others at WUWT do not “claim all knowledge is wrong”.
You are posting a lie based on your emotional viewpoint.
LikeLike
Ed, nobody else has any trouble figuring out that the Telegraph story reference.
Only you.
LikeLike
Your readers may wish to read about the continuing story of surface stations and assessing their accuracy (a point of contention, I believe, with one of your dear readers–see http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/01/toms-trick-and-experimental-design.html ).
Oh…,and read the following post as well.
LikeLike
So what’s the problem with work done by a graduate student? Scientists recognize that many valuable contributions have been made by graduate students. At my office we have many theses and dissertations in our library and have frequently cited them.
LikeLike
Again: Straw men attacks and ad hominem attacks from you, and with growing hysteria.
This actually goes ebyond straw men, this is downright libel.
That is the patter with you. Get over yourself.
Deal with the reality. That reality is the fraudsters have been found out.
LikeLike
Sure, just as soon as you indicate that at your post. You haven’t fixed the attribution yet — it still doesn’t indicate it’s an excerpt from the newspaper. I’m sure they’ll let you know if they are worried about copyright, but you don’t get to claim all material against science as your own. Fix your post, I’ll note that you’ve fixed it.
No hatred of you nor your readers. I have a distinct distaste for how you’ve been misled (assuming, of course, that you’re not doing the misleading).
My headline? How is it in error? In this case we have a solid piece of research and a guy who actually knows the glaciers — and you claim that there is something wrong with what they say. You have no contrary information, but you entertain all sorts of calumny against them and the report, not once defending their data, nor any data.
Where did I err? What knowledge are you defending? It’s a humorous headline — but where is it in error?
I could retract, but I’ll follow your lead. You’ve got some work to do, starting with this misleading, science-denigrating headline:
“IPCC Gate Du Jour: UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article”
And:
“Gate du Jour – Now it’s Greenpeace reports in the IPCC AR4”
“Floating Islands”
“Amazon flavor “gate du jour” leaves a bad taste”
“Du Jour-gate flavor: Amazon”
And this one in particular, which seems a great deal of projection to me:
“The IPCC: More Sins of Omission – Telling the Truth but Not the Whole Truth”
You’ve offered no reason why we shouldn’t take Dr. Bowen’s word over yours, he being a physicist and familiar with many of the glaciers he writes about and all. In the end, no amount journalistic error on my part changes the science, and the critics’ utter failure to respond with science.
LikeLike
I thought you had a background in television.
If you’ve got data to contradict the claims, why are you worried about their stagecraft, and not yours?
LikeLike
Ed,please provide proof for your title:
“Denialists claim all knowledge is wrong”
Wow, broad brush, huge assumption.
Since you attribute to me, show me where I’ve said ALL KNOWLEDGE IS wrong.
You might want to simply retract this entire post, you’ve made quite a mess of it in your zeal to show the world your hatred of me and the readers of WUWT.
LikeLike
“Watts said in a quote that should have been attributed to the Daily Telegraph:”
Still not fixed, I did attribute it, twice, with links and you just admitted you’d seen the links.
The correct way to say it is:
“Watts posted an excerpt from the Daily telegraph”
LikeLike
Oh and thanks for the link to Bowen’s book. I’ll use that in a future post.
For balance, you might want to post about the stagecraft that went into that
“One sweltering June afternoon in 1988, an understated Iowan named James Hansen turned global warming into an international issue with one sentence.”
Here you go:
And I won’t stoop the the “story Ed doesn’t want his readers to know” jab since I know you are a student of history, and this was part of it. Be sure to watch the Frontline video where former Senator Tim Wirth talks about his stagecraft that day.
The main question: If Hansen’s position on global warming was so “undeniable” why did they need stagecraft to “sex it up”?
I don’t have Bowen’s book, but since you’ve apparently read it, does he mention this part of the history of that day?
LikeLike
I saw your link to The Telegraph. You don’t use quote marks nor any other set off to indicate the words you print are from the paper, and not yours. Yes, I was misled — but I fixed my attribution. Now fix yours.
No, I’m not driven by hatred of you. I’m driven by a hatred of false charges and political smears of science, especially done by insinuation.
Why do you fail to note Bowen’s credentials? Had you noted them, it would have given him credence. Do you note anywhere that you have no contradictory data? No.
Do you have the good manners to confess that the work cited by IPCC is at least as solid as what you have on your blog?
No. And yet you label them with all sorts of calumny, insinuate they are dishonest, on the take, and otherwise evil people.
Anthony, neither you nor I would be a witness in court on this issue — we’re not experts. Hostile? You haven’t called me to defend you. I’m a witness for the defense of truth.
Most of the stories on your blog about climate change are what a court would call “impeached testimony” after we got done with it.
All I’m asking you to do is tell the truth, the whole truth, and claim nothing but the truth. If you want to get all legal on us, I’ll take you.
Your repeat of gossip amounting to calumny doesn’t mean I need new glasses.
LikeLike
Oh forgot to mention. I refer to the Telegraph not only at the beginning, but at the very end, which you also seemed to have missed.
“read the complete article at the Telegraph”
Seems clear enough to everyone else. New glasses for you maybe?
LikeLike
No Ed, still wrong. As usual, you are blinded by your hatred for me.
Look carefully at this article:
Second paragraph, to the right of the magazine cover (which not even the Telegraph had in their article, nor the link to Mr. Bowen’s page, which I did indeed read before posting. So you are wrong on that count too.)
2nd paragraph in my posting, it says:
“The Telegraph reports on the magazine issue:”
It is followed by their text.
Embedded in that sentence is the link to the Telegraph article. You missed both the sentence and the link it seems.
And just in case you can’t find the link to Bowen’s page further down. Here it is, first the text:
The magazine article, which was written by Mark Bowen, a climber and author of two books on climate change.
That bolding in that part of the Telegraph report is mine, as is the link that bolded name goes to:
http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/mark-bowen
You won’t find that link in the Telegraph story.
So your assertion that I didn’t know who he was is wrong also. I did do research, both on him and the magazine, and added that information (including a link from the magazine’s volume index see if you can find that) that the Telegraph did not. You shot from the hip, and missed.
About that moderation you complain about. Yes your comments are now in automatic moderation, and it is because make claims that are often untrue, and as demonstrated here in this article, personally attack me. So I have your comments held so that I can personally respond to them.
You are what a court would call a “hostile witness”.
I look forward to corrections here at the bathtub, again.
Word has it (I’m in touch with Telegraph reporters) that the Telegraph has now assigned a reporter team to Dr. Pachauri. So I’m sure there will be more stories that will cause you to blow your stack.
LikeLike
You’re right! The long march toward the truth starts with a single step, Anthony. Now that you’ve reversed course, don’t change back again!
By the way, as I noted in a post you probably won’t have the good manners or guts to publish at your site, I noted that you’ve failed to indicate where you quote the Telegraph. Fix it.
Beyond that, you’ve made a false charge against the IPCC. Fix that, too.
LikeLike
You’ve misquoted me, apparently becuase you’ve misread. That passage is from the Telegraph.
Fix it.
LikeLike