Now on ScienceBlogs: Alright, Neutrinos, The Jig Is Up!
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
Our goal has been achieved. The Religious Right is solidly in place, and religious conservatives in America are now in for the duration.
[Jerry Falwell]
« Friday Cephalopod: Sucking face, again | Main | Looking for a theme park of your very own? »
More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!
Category: Environment
Posted on: July 31, 2009 4:29 PM, by PZ Myers
That crank pseudoscience site, Watt's Up With That, got thoroughly reamed out with the video below (just the fact that the chief crackpot, Anthony Watts, would show up on Glenn Beck's show is indictment enough, though). Watt was not too happy with his public evisceration, however, and scurried off to get it taken down. Here it is, reposted. Enjoy — it's a very good takedown of the climate denialist claims.
(via Deltoid)
EnvironmentHTML commands: <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <a href="url">link</a>, <blockquote>quote</blockquote>
Orac 02.21.2012
Orac 02.22.2012
Tim Lambert 02.01.2012
ERV 02.22.2012
PZ Myers 02.21.2012
Comments
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 31, 2009 4:42 PM
Give any of these crackpots real power, and they'll be banning free speech left and right.
Knowing themselves on an unconscious level, and knowing how loathsome their tactics are, they must rail away about their "persecution," especially since their claims are always able to be eviscerated.
I wonder if we'll get a movie like Expelled about AGW. You just need to find one crank with deep pockets...
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 31, 2009 4:51 PM
The AGW denialists don't want to accept that measures necessary to deal with global warming because such measures will affect their life styles. Their objections are political, social and, particularly, economic. However, most of them are too craven to admit this. So they try to refute the science.
Posted by: Richard Harris
|
July 31, 2009 4:56 PM
It's another example of the tragedy of the Commons.
Posted by: Ray C. | July 31, 2009 5:06 PM
But...but...but...AAAAAALLLLLLLL GOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRE!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 31, 2009 5:09 PM
That gave me a good chuckle
Posted by: ursa major | July 31, 2009 5:16 PM
True, the denialists are trying to avoid the economic and political changes required to deal with GW; but even if there were no GW we would still need to improve energy efficiency, go to renewable energy sources and so forth.
really like the Random Quote I got:
All God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.
[Fran Lebowitz]
Certainly applies to the denialist'.
Posted by: Chris | July 31, 2009 5:23 PM
Is he any relation to that Reaganite douchebag James Watt?
Posted by: Brian D | July 31, 2009 5:25 PM
PZ, it's "Watts", not Watt.
Glenn D: We have the Great Global Warming Swindle, which interviewed only skeptics (except in the first version, where it edited a scientist it deceived to make it seem like he was denying AGW), made claims contrary to every form of evidence, plain-ol' made up data (filling in blank graphs, monkeying with both axes, misattributing graphs, and cutting graphs off twenty years early since the correlation broke down then), and made tons of conspiracy theory claims the whole way through. When the director (Martin Durkin) was challenged by scientists on the misrepresentations, he told them to "go fuck [yourself]" and called them "a big daft cock". You can see him get eviscerated when the video premiered on Australian TV here. (Aside: Why can't we get journalists like Tony Jones here?)
Interestingly, Peter Sinclair (who made the video in this thread) also made a video debunking the Swindle (available here). There's a lot of other videos debunking it in addition to the official complaints.
Posted by: James F | July 31, 2009 5:26 PM
This automatically garners cool points for the Buckaroo Banzai clip.
"Evil! Pure and simple, from the Eighth Dimension!"
Posted by: Holbach
|
July 31, 2009 5:28 PM
I wonder what moron Watt would say if it was revealed to him that his god is causing global warming.
"What? That is pure bullshit, as my god would not do so without consulting me first. Is it trying to make look like a half wit? Besides, global warming is all bullshit, with or without my god. I call the shots; screw god!"
Posted by: Brian D | July 31, 2009 5:30 PM
Oh, I forgot to mention: Just as the "Discovery Institute" sounds very different than what it actually is, Martin Durkin (behind the Swindle) is a member of "Living Marxism" - actually an extremist free-market libertarian group.
Just so this comment has more meat to it than the above, allow me to add in some British rapier wit on the subject via Markus Brigstocke.
Posted by: jemand | July 31, 2009 5:30 PM
When it becomes undeniable that the earth is warming, the fundamentalists and religious right will jump to an alternative theory of AGW. We're ticking off God by not stoning gays and upitty women and therefore he's venting Hell's atmosphere on us.
(sadly, I've already heard the rumblings of this theory in arguing with certain global warming denialists...)
Posted by: Alan E. | July 31, 2009 5:32 PM
I love how the voice over sounds like it belongs in the X-Files. Living in the San Francisco Bay Area, it is difficult to compare climate changes since it is so cold compared to much of the country during the summer. Our "summer" isn't until September and October. I have noticed that my garden is doing so much better than previous years though...
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
July 31, 2009 5:36 PM
Peter Sinclair is great! I saw this video when it originally came out. Why am I not surprised that Watts DMCA'd it? Typical!
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 31, 2009 5:40 PM
I just want to jump in there to say fuck Al Gore because I don't think it's said enough.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000522/silverstein
Posted by: littlejohn | July 31, 2009 5:49 PM
Wait a minute. The narrator repeatedly used "data" in the singular. Weren't we discussing that abomination elsewhere?
Posted by: Robert | July 31, 2009 6:02 PM
*yawns* I just woke up from a most restful nap induced by this dullest of videos.
Apart from its ability to put me soundly to sleep with the very slow cuts, embarrassingly bad (and old) pop culture references, and unbearable narration, these were my favorite parts:
1. The 2 minute tangent about smoking and the mention of WMDs. While the scientists may claim this is a non-political issue, this video certainly tries to politicize things.
2. The scientifically incorrect reasoning that the 70 "good" weather stations should diverge from the pool of 1200 total stations. This assumes the 70 good'uns are situated in a random and representative fashion and are spatially independent.
3. The fact that they stretched out what could have been said in 2 minutes into 4 times that.
Of course, I could have predicted #3 because the video maker, like PZ, thinks he's very clever and very smart, and there's nothing that smart egomaniacs like more than listening to themselves talk.
Posted by: Who Cares | July 31, 2009 6:02 PM
What I'm more curious about is the extra information that can be extracted from the data collected by NASA. There are 1500 to 3000 data sets that are not following the expected trend. Why not? What is different? That is way more interesting then that the majority of the data sets follow the expected trend.
Posted by: Matt Heath | July 31, 2009 6:13 PM
LM are fucking nuts. They arose from the (Trotskyite) Revoloutionary Communist Party and apparently still operate on the same basis: front groups (Spiked Online, Institute of Ideas, Sense About Science), (alleged) entryism and I guess some form of Leninist "democratic centralism" (since they are always so on message).The only difference is that they it do it all in the name of "let big business do we want" and "down with everything wingnuts dislike". Their attitude to science (in the abstract) is very positive and they want to lift restrictions on research (along with most other regulation of anything companies might wish to do) so you often see stuff on the sciencey blogosphere praising Sense About Science but they go into outright anti-science crankery when it comes to AGW.
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 31, 2009 6:14 PM
Not even a hint of irony...remarkable.
Posted by: Randy | July 31, 2009 6:14 PM
The fact that Watts 'scurried to take it down' is perhaps the most scathing inditment of the paucity of his claims. If this nifty little video (sorry #17... I liked it just fine... particularly the Buckaroo Bonzai clip) had the facts wrong, Watts should have taken this as an opportunity to put the hammer down and show he had his shit together. The fact that he tried to silence it just shows he is full of shit.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 31, 2009 6:16 PM
Robert were you always this big of a douche bag?
The incorrect reasoning was that of the denialists. He used THEIR picks and showed there was little difference to the 1200 as a whole. The denialist were making a big deal about the placement of the stations as if it skewed the results.
It didn't.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 31, 2009 6:20 PM
My irony meter begs to differ. Dang, another dozen fuses blew.Posted by: Number8Dave | July 31, 2009 6:22 PM
Anthony Watts (note spelling) gives his version of events at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/on-climate-comedy-copyrights-and-cinematography/
The bottom line seems to be that the graph which is the main evidence the video cites against his surface stations project (comparing the best 70 stations against all stations) uses "homogenized" data. That is, the records from those 70 stations have been adjusted according to the figures recorded at surrounding stations - so in reality the graph is showing results from a large proportion of the stations and not just the 70 best. Not surprisingly, the two curves end up looking very similar.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 31, 2009 6:24 PM
I just want to jump in there to say fuck Al Gore because I don't think it's said enough.
*yawn*
as if an article from the "Nation" from 2000 has any relevance whatsoever.
how bout this:
fuck yourself.
Is that said enough to you?
Posted by: Who Cares | July 31, 2009 6:26 PM
@Number8Dave:
That is just Watts trying to weasel his way out. Unless he can prove that claim the assumption has to be that raw data is used.
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | July 31, 2009 6:34 PM
I have no idea what that is even supposed to mean, but the video was pointing out that this is the same cast of unscrupulous mercenary-denialist characters.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio
Posted by: Nap | July 31, 2009 6:35 PM
I love science :D.
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 31, 2009 6:40 PM
Posted by: Bartholomew | July 31, 2009 6:42 PM
For some reason this man's face often appears when you log into Wordpress.com.
Posted by: Number8Dave | July 31, 2009 6:43 PM
Who Cares (#26):
The NCDC Talking Points memo that the graph comes from says of the graph:
"Two national time series were made using the same homogeneity adjusted data set and the same gridding and area averaging technique used by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center for its annual climate monitoring."
Seems fairly clear they're saying themselves the data are homogenized.
Posted by: logic-rocks | July 31, 2009 6:44 PM
I am confused as to the point of the whole tobacco-representation portion regarding the Heartland Institute. It seems the videomaker wanted to indulge in a little guilt-by-association and poisoning of the well. With valid science to back up the video's thesis, all this portion did was undermine its credibility, and to put it up front seemed to serve as a warning that the video was as politically driven as the claims it sought to debunk. That portion should be excised and the whole video would be stronger.
Also, it's bad form, when quoting a book passage in which the author acknowledges that "Defending smokers is a thankless task," to add (and flatly attribute to the author) the codicil "But someone has to do it," when the passage shown plainly does not include that sentiment. Again, this error simply detracts from the perceived legitimacy of the video.
I also love that the video states (and obviously considers it a damning indictment) that the Heartland Institute claims to be dedicated to "free market principles." The horrors! How could anyone possibly be in favor of any degree of human freedom? Savages!
Posted by: sav | July 31, 2009 6:50 PM
Thanks for the link to this. These folks need to be exposed. Two words: Heartland Insitute who tries to discover "free-market solutions to social and economic problems." Sure. And I have a bottle of water to sell you.
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 31, 2009 6:52 PM
Possibly in reference to that company's support of the AGW denial industry.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
Regulation, needed to limit global warming, is an anathema to free market proponents and much of the dubious claims of scientific uncertainty over AGW come from free marketers.
Posted by: Greg F. | July 31, 2009 6:59 PM
I've dealt with Watts personally and I can tell you that he's a first grade jackass. If you point out flaws in his logic or note that he uses a red herring or a non-sequtur to his army of followers, he calls you a moron and bans you from his site.
All the while insisting that he's politeness incarnate, that he's so super green, he has an I *heart* Prius tattoo on his chest and that he never, ever called anyone a moron publicly before.
Posted by: Who Cares | July 31, 2009 7:08 PM
@Number8Dave:
The homogenizing is done on the time axis of the data, not across data of different stations (which can be induced by looking at the smoothness of the graph).
As to the second part of your rebuttal I think you misread the PDF. It never states that they use all the data with the 70 stations. Merely that they use the same techniques.
Posted by: sav | July 31, 2009 7:13 PM
@Bartholomew You're right. I see his mug almost every day. Hmm. Maybe because his sight won a Weblog Award in 2008 (Why? I don't know.) Maybe it's time to write WordPress a letter.
@Greg F. Unfortunately, Watts seems to be in line with the rest of the jackasses who have Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Posted by: Who Cares | July 31, 2009 7:22 PM
I've to retract a bit (I dug up the PDF that was referred to). The homogenization is not across time but station specific to remove bias, if detected.
Posted by: Last Hussar | July 31, 2009 7:27 PM
Re Marcus Brigstocke- Probably the best description of Dick Littlejohn I have ever heard.
Posted by: Number8Dave | July 31, 2009 7:39 PM
Who Cares (#36):
No, smoothing is different from homogenization. Again from the Talking Points (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf):
"Yet the two time series, shown below as both annual data and smooth data, are remarkably similar." They show both smoothed and unsmoothed data, and this is distinct from the homogenization spoken of previously, which as far as I can make out applies to all plotted curves.
Regarding your second point, it says: "One analysis was for the full USHCN version 2 data set. The other used only USHCN version 2 data from the 70 stations that surfacestations.org classified as good or best." I don't see how I'm misreading this. It seems quite clear to me that it's comparing data from all stations with data (using "the same gridding and area averaging technique", i.e. homogenized) from the 70 best stations.
Posted by: Number8Dave | July 31, 2009 7:41 PM
Who Cares:
Sorry our posts crossed in the mail!
Posted by: Jacob Bendixen | July 31, 2009 7:53 PM
The original video was made by greenman3610.
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610?blend=1&ob=4
Go watch his videos they are quite good.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | July 31, 2009 8:08 PM
I believe the homogenization that Watts is complaining about is the urban heat correction that's discussed here:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/surface-stations/
Note that looking at the pre-correction data still shows a similar upward temperature trend.
Posted by: Treppenwitz
|
July 31, 2009 8:13 PM
I found the tangent about the Heartland Institute pretty off-putting. Maybe their involvement is noteworthy, but the video presented it very poorly.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | July 31, 2009 8:13 PM
The Heartland Institute is to climate change as the Discovery Institute is to evolution.
They even have their own version of the "Scientists Who Dissent From Darwin" list, but they made the mistake of forgetting to ask the scientists they put on their list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares" if they agreed with that description of themselves, with hilarious results:
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2008/05/heartland-institute-publishes-bogus.html
Posted by: RedGreenInBlue | July 31, 2009 8:19 PM
logic-rocks:
Call me a socialist (no, really, please do) but I think you are making the mistake of assuming that "free market principles" equate to "human freedom". I can think of any number of freedoms that I value, but none which depend on treating either human labour or natural resources as commodities to be traded for profit. I do like the principle of acting on the basis of complete and accurate information, but apparently this is a seditious anti-capitalist idea, as our current economic system encourages quite the opposite: commercial confidentiality, disingenuous product claims, prohibitions on reverse-engineering (how dare people demand to know how their product works?) and suppression of unfavourable research results.
Posted by: foxfire | July 31, 2009 8:22 PM
Robert @ 17,
A couple of questions:
1. Who are the scientists who claim "this" (I assume by "this" you mean global climate change) is not a political issue? Just because something is a fact doesn't make it non-political. Take evolution, for example...
2. Unless I'm missing something from the video, the Watts declared "70 good'uns" displayed the same trend as the not "70 good'uns". So, you are saying the Watts selection of "good" stations is wrong?
3. I'm not sure I understand the objective of your 3rd point. I thought your polemic was focused on delivering an ad vidiem and then, by use of the word "they", you appear to be switching to ad hominem.
If I'm lucky, these tiresome questions of mine will put you back to sleep so you don't show up again under this topic, in which case I might have a chance at a "thread win" out of sheer gratitude.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
July 31, 2009 9:44 PM
Number8Dave, you clearly do not understand the algorithm applied to the data. The data are time series, and the corrections have any effect only if 1)you get a glitch, or 2)if there is a systematic error. That is not the case here.
Indeed, a fellow denialist contributor on Watt's own execrable site. Watts banned him for having the temerity to actually do an honest analysis. Once again Micro-Watts is talking out of an alternative orifice.
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | July 31, 2009 10:35 PM
Saw this a couple days ago on Deltoid. Very good take down. I especially liked the "Okay, let's test your hypothesis" part. Apparently, Watts never did the blindingly obvious test of his own "theory".
Posted by: Brian D | July 31, 2009 10:39 PM
Jim Lippard: I believe the homogenization that Watts is complaining about is the urban heat correction that's discussed here...
He's correct. The homogeneity present here is exactly the method GISS/NOAA uses to account for the Urban Heat Island Effect that Watts is so riled up about. NOAA accepts that it exists and has a way of accounting for it.
The gist of it is simple:
Urban stations are adjusted based on nearby rural stations. For instance, if a station in a city shows a +3C/[unit time] trend and all the surrounding rural stations show a +1C/[unit time] trend, then the urban station is adjusted with a -2C trend as a clear anomaly. This only applies on urban stations (i.e. most of the ones that Watts has siting problems with, and most of these are from the older network designed to track temperature and not climate. The newer ones are all in rural areas), though it might also apply to other stations with weird systemic biases. (I haven't looked at the algorithm in a while.)
In lay English, the NOAA analysis in the video shows that the methods used to account for the UHI essentially mean the bad data isn't anywhere near as corrupting as Watts suggests it is. If you wanted to look at nonhomogenized data, it would tell you nothing about the GISS analysis, since GISS doesn't use nonhomogenized data in its final reports.
Watts' argument boils down to saying that cookies taste bad because flour tastes bad and thus flour ruins the cookie. Flour might taste bad on its own, but you aren't eating flour, you're eating a cookie.
You can see a clearer example of this adjustment in action at Open Mind.
While I'm on the subject of Open Mind, I should note that Watts has a long history of being debunked there. He's done incredibly stupid things, up to and including not being aware that the different temperature anomaly records were on different scales. I compiled several examples for DeSmogBlog a while back; see the bottom section here.
Posted by: Brock | July 31, 2009 11:42 PM
Awesome, I could have used this video like a year ago. One of Heartland's lackeys (Chris Horner IIRC) came to campus (via invite from College Republicans) and blathered on about the surface stations and Al Gore and political conspiracy. I asked a ton of questions but he refused to stay on one topic and even insulted me for questioning him without bringing my own data. He was seriously rude and unscientific...
Maybe I'll forward the video to the College Republicans :p
Thanks to everyone else for the links too, I'll check 'em later.
Posted by: recovering catholic | July 31, 2009 11:45 PM
I just want to jump in there to say fuck Mark Abian because I don't think it's said enough.
Posted by: recovering catholic | July 31, 2009 11:57 PM
So sorry--that's Marc, not Mark.
Posted by: Brian Rapp | August 1, 2009 12:03 AM
How dare NOAA record temperatures in urban areas. Of all the nerve.
Posted by: Dan W | August 1, 2009 12:42 AM
I'm not surprised that this crock appeared on Glenn Beck's show. Beck seems to love to have loons like that guy. Of course, Beck, like 99% of all other people on Fox "News" has a heavy conservative, Christian bias on everything he discusses, and thus doesn't like facts and evidence.
I love how the maker of this video rips apart the loon's ridiculous ideas just by stating the simple facts.
Posted by: Brian D | August 1, 2009 12:57 AM
I should also note that Watts claims that he is not a political activist. Of course, he is not engaging in not political activism.
Yes, the apparently non-partisan, not-politically-active just-skeptical JAQ-off Anthony Watts is on record as being not only a contributor to his local Republican party group, but also their web administrative contact.
Now add in that he publishes in Heartland (note to logic-rocks: The problem with Heartland isn't that it's free-market, but rather that it's a known advocacy group with a predetermined agenda - it starts from a conclusion and reasons backward, so if the problem can't be solved via the free market, they'll assume there is no problem).
Yep, no sir, no political motive here.
Posted by: John Mashey | August 1, 2009 1:35 AM
re: Heartland
1) Heartland has for decades taken money from tobacco companies, which thrive only by addicting children (not adults) to smoking. It is hard to really create lifelong addiction if someone starts after 18, and really hard after about 22. See comments @ Harry Clarke, or comments at John Quiggin. These quote specific examples from the Tobacco Archives that show the tobacco companies have long understood this.
If an organization takes money, in effect to help get children addicted, what exactly, would they not do?
If you study the history, it is clear that many thinktanks learned techniques via tobacco, and now apply them to AGW. Some of the same people are involved, but given the Tobacco Archives, we can actually see the internal records (and Heartland has some there).
2) Consider a good strategy for thinktanks, which are really combined PR&lobbying entities that happen to be nonprofits, hence can be cheaper:
Promote free-market capitalism, economic growth, minimal government, American flags, Bald Eagles, etc ... (many nice things) but in practice, get most of the funding from a):
a) Companies that "privatize the profits and socialize the costs", especially those whose benefits are fairly low relative to the costs.
#1 is tobacco.
#2 might be asbestos, plus locally-polluting companies
#3 would be fossil-fuel companies, whose costs might be concentrated (Appalachian coal), but which actually do provide important benefits, i.e., energy. Of course, there's now recognition of long-term climate costs, as well as some of the local-pollution issues. [I'm in CA, and air pollution has to be taken seriously here.]
Also included are family foundations usually built on fortunes from teh above, i.e., Richard Mellon Scaife's.
But, also attract b) and c) and play up the legitimate wishes within:
b) Companies that want lower taxes and less regulation for themselves. This is a legitimately arguable issue, about which reasonable people can disagree, of course ... although recall the current mess with banks.
c) Companies or individuals that want less bureaucracy.
Minimizing unnecessary bureaucracy makes sense. However, someone in a) might fight against rules that let gold miners dump Mercury in streams.
Funding trails are *really* Byzantine. See Sourcewatch or DeSmogBlog on Heartland or DeSmogBlog on Heartland funding, featuring Scaife.
You may ask, who's Scaife? I'm from Pittsburgh, PA so I knew offhand: Gulf Oil/Texaco/Chevron.
Category a) *hides* amidst categories b) and c). Think of this as wanting to throw rocks at police. It's not smart to do that by yourself .. which is why obvious industry "front groups" like the Council for Tobacco Research have generally disappeared in favor of outsourcing to thinktanks.
They let the rock-throwers stand in the middle of a crowd of relatively untroublesome folks. That either stops the police from shooting back, or if they do, they may hit some innocent, encouraging more to pick up rocks.
It's a nice business, and it's *non-profit*!
Posted by: Alverant | August 1, 2009 1:47 AM
logic-rocks:
First, the tobacco reference was made to show the Heartland Institutes's belief that economic greed trumps actual facts. Second, there's no connection between free-market and human freedom. In fact, they're opposing goals in many cases. For example, human freedom requires a degree of equality and responsibility and morality for everyone. Free-market, on the other hand, is a virtual blank check to do anything in the name of profit no matter how immoral.
Here's a simple question, do you think our rights are inherent or that you only have as many rights as you can afford? If you go with the former, you're for human freedom. If you go with the latter you're for the free market.
Posted by: MTGAP | August 1, 2009 2:05 AM
This is exactly what we need to get this thing some publicity after Watts tried to ban it. Thanks for posting it!
Posted by: MTGAP | August 1, 2009 2:27 AM
Any responses to Watts's new rebuttal of the video?
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 1, 2009 5:15 AM
eh, it's possible, but everything I read by or about them screams "true believers". I think they really think that if The Dead Hand of the State was removed from the Fountainheads of Human Creativity, it will unleash in The New Man who will usher in the Utopian Age of Communism. (OK maybe not exactly that, but something)Posted by: Marc Abian | August 1, 2009 6:40 AM
Ichthyic, you'll have to back up your dissmisal of the article I linked or it doesn't count.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 1, 2009 6:59 AM
Matt Heath,
I'm not sure the "True Believer" and "funded by corporate interests" hypotheses about LM are incompatible. One can imagine corporate sponsors thinking it worthwhile having a link into Trot-world, for a pretty trivial spend, back in the day; and the LM Trots, when they really were Trots, convincing themselves they were righteously using the funding to advance the revolution. It was certainly always mysterious that an insignificant sectlet such as the RCP could produce such a glossy, high-production-quality magazine.
Posted by: Truth-loving sceptic | August 1, 2009 7:19 AM
Of course "global warming" isn't real! It was very cold here last week! And what reason would the Heartland Institute have for lying, just because they get funding from the fossil fuel industry?
What's puzzling is how Algore and those evil warmists have subverted patriotic American birds, fish, flowers, lakes and glaciers into changing their behaviour to give the impression temperatures are rising.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 1, 2009 7:27 AM
Nine years ago Al Gore was connected to a company that wanted to drill for oil in indigine land. Quelle horreur! as the Québécois would say. In other news, Dick Cheney is still getting checks from Halliburton who are still supplying "services" to the Iraqi occupation.
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 1, 2009 7:43 AM
knockgoats: Oh I'm sure corporate money is how they are able to operate, but why seems to come to down to sincerely held crazy.
Posted by: blf | August 1, 2009 7:51 AM
The birdies &tc haven't changed their behaviors. That's just another lie by the evil libturdal commie-infested athiest mooslin eviluationish mejia, owned by fats al and the other gorzis.
Posted by: Marc Abian | August 1, 2009 7:54 AM
I don't understand the reasoning behind this point. I know you can't be saying that it's ok for Dick Cheney to do that, therefore it's ok for Al Gore too.
You are understating the case when you say he was merely "connected" or just that Occidental wanted to drill in some indigine land.
Posted by: Martin | August 1, 2009 7:56 AM
Nice video, if you discount the first 4 minutes and the last 30 seconds.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
August 1, 2009 10:05 AM
@#2
Actually, the denialists readily admit they have political, social, and economic objections to AGW. They haven't been "craven" at all about it. They can often be heard saying things like "environmental policy X causes small businesses to fail because of the cost of compliance", or what was oft-heard during the Clinton years "you can legislate that advances in engine efficiency occur within a certain timeframe". When it comes to things like lifestyle they decry environmental laws that prohibit logging, the flattening of large swathes of land, or that prohibit camping and hunting.
I do not agree with their positions largely because in most cases they are making excuses (backed by faked or forged expertise) for humans to continue being irresponsible with resources that are dwindling as our numbers swell. But I can see some of the honest positions in their argument even if the science says they're wrong. I'm not so much saying all of them are good intentioned, but I am saying there are a couple points that are feasible, which allows them to be able to spread the notion that AGW and any associated preventative legislation is a socialist plot to re-terraform the lives of Americans.
Posted by: DavidCOG
|
August 1, 2009 12:58 PM
> Any responses to Watts's new rebuttal of the video?
If you read his diatribe, he doesn't even attempt to rebut the video. It's a rambling piece, that whines about ad hominem without specifying what the ad hominem is. He then expends lots of words painting the video author as a child.
He mentions that he knows the video author's son supports Ron Paul. He claims he was doing Sinclair a favour by having the video taken down because it infringed various copyrights. He makes no mention of fair use - maybe he doesn't know such a thing exists. He rambles on and on without making much of a point until the last few paragraphs - and when he does it's weak and flawed, as per usual.
Here's a dissection: http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/act-iii-scene-1-but-but-from-the-watts/
~~~
I'm looking for an authoritative rebuttal of his "homogenized data so it doesn't count" claim. Anyone?
Posted by: uncle frogy | August 1, 2009 3:07 PM
of course the disagreement about whether Global Warming is real and or man made is political. It makes no difference at all what we think or know about the climate it will respond to the all of the inputs. Our knowledge about the whole process will not change anything it is our behavior only that will have any effect.
The knowledge of our effect on climate is important in determining what behavior might give us the results we want. The denialists seem to be engaging in magical thinking as thinking alone will make it so.
Posted by: Sandy McCulloch | August 1, 2009 8:12 PM
As an Aussie, I like Tony Jones. It's his job to ask the hard questions of both sides of a debate, and he does.
If a lot of your writers are impressed by us Aussies,
they should check out our Prof. Ian Plimer's new book,
" Heaven + Earth " or Joanne Nova's Blog site,especially
joannenova.com.au80/2009/07/27/a-case-against-precipitous-
climate-action/ where you can read what your own Prof.
Richard Lindsen says, some very interesting " evidence "
I think there should be more informed debate.
Posted by: SC (of the Blogger SCs), OM | August 1, 2009 8:20 PM
Better - go here
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/
and do a search on "plimer."
Posted by: John Draper | August 1, 2009 8:52 PM
Scientific answers, unlike the irrational bible, cannot be taken as certainty and can also evolve (change) with time based on new or better understood evidence.
I am very disappointed to see you attempt to destroy the credibility of Anthony Watts. First, apart from being on the subject of science, I don’t see what it has to do with atheism unless you think that only the PZ Myers version of science is acceptable. Why would the opinion of Anthony Watts on Climate change have any relevance to atheism?
Secondly, the video uses personal ridicule and selected data to make the case. That’s very poor arguing and is descending to the same level as creationists! If you would bother to look at the arguments by Anthony Watts, you might see that perhaps Watts made an error in his case about measurement data but one error does not destroy the whole argument. There is no attempt in the video to answer the rest of the case – there is just personal ridicule and a tie-in with the Heartland Institute which has a questionable background. If we disputed everyone who had an axe to grind we would dismiss out of hand all evidence of atheism by Dawkins, Hitchens and others because they have books to sell. Good scientists should look at evidence no matter its source and decide on its merits and not based on possible motivation by the writer.
For the record, my view is that Climate change was happening up to around 2001 but there has since been cooling and the jury is still out on the longer term trend although it currently appears the effect of AGW is very small. Skepticism is healthy and atheists are generally skeptical – why be selectively non-skeptical on climate change? More on my personal opinion here. http://www.cobourgskeptic.com And before everyone tells me I’m wrong about the climate – maybe I am, but I don’t stoop to your tactics to criticize those who disagree.
Posted by: SC (of the Blogger SCs), OM | August 1, 2009 8:59 PM
Draper,
You go here, too:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/
PZ linked to it in the post. Try to make your case there.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 1, 2009 9:01 PM
You dont' get this blog asshole. Science is being attacked by the AGW denialists, which is a subject of interest. Why do you think this blog is only for atheism? Read the masthead like an intelligent person before you make a fool of yourself.A true scientist like myself must see if idiots like Watts have an agenda. If they do, everything they say must be taken with a grain of salt the size of Montana. And Watts fails once the real science is examined.Unless you publish regularly in the peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject of climate change, we true scientists don't give a shit about your view. Welcome to real science, where AGW is a given, and the only questions is how fast is the warming coming.Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
August 1, 2009 9:14 PM
John Draper,
Anthony Watts would not know science if it bit his pecker off. That is not surprising. He has no formal scientific training. When he's good, he merely gets things wrong. When he's bad, he would have made Wolfgang Pauli yell in a fit of apoplexy, "This is so bad, it's not even wrong!!!"
You say: "And before everyone tells me I’m wrong about the climate – maybe I am, but I don’t stoop to your tactics to criticize those who disagree."
Simpler translation: "I may be an idiot, but I'm a polite idiot."
Posted by: John Draper | August 1, 2009 9:50 PM
I still say, criticizing the writer (either me or Watts) answers nothing - you need to answer what was said. If you visit my sites - you'll see I am both a strong atheist and a skeptic of a particular scientific hypothesis. There is no reason you can't be both. I may be a polite idiot, but I'd rather be that than what others on this discussion have descended to. You make creationists look respectable.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 1, 2009 10:00 PM
No sir, you didn't cite the peer reviewed scientific literature, which meant you have nothing. Period, end of story. Self appointed trolls like yourself are dime a dozen. Your only qualification that counts is do you publish on climatology in the peer reviewed literature? All else is totally and utterly irrelevant. Show real credentials.Only to an idiot. Show some intelligence. Many of us are scientists, and we trust scientists for one reason. In the their profession dealing, they must perforce be honest in treatment of the data. We can't say the same for you. In fact, given your posts, I can say you torture the evidence to make it say what you want it to.Posted by: John Draper | August 1, 2009 10:12 PM
I am disappointed that PZ allows people to insult others. You have no idea of my background, qualifications or anything. I have not tried to prove anything in my comments here. On my "Climate change" blog, I quote and discuss other papers and discussions which are fully peer reviewed. This blog is also noticeably lacking in peer review or references! Instead of insulting people and disparaging their qualifications, you might look at what is actually said. You are saying that unless you have a peer supported review of a paper it's not worth saying - so why are you even commenting here? I see no list of references. You are full of **it. There you got me - I'm using your method of "discussing". Have a look at my comments on all this here: http://www.cobourgatheist.com - sorry it does not have any references except this post and the post from Watts. I'm talking here about methodology - not whether there is in fact global warming or not - after all this blog is about atheism and science
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 1, 2009 10:18 PM
I am disappointed that PZ allows people to insult others.
I am disappointed that you blogwhore for climate change denial in a manner that insults intelligence, with an unmistakable undertoad of concern troll.
Boo FCCing Hoo.
Posted by: SC (of the Blogger SCs), OM | August 1, 2009 10:21 PM
Draper,
You're ranting. Why are you afraid to go attempt to make your case at Deltoid?
here's the link again:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/
Run along now.
Posted by: E.V. | August 1, 2009 10:23 PM
Awwww, there, there Mr. Draper. Don't go and get yourself in such a dither.Wow, one sacred cow exposed as unholy and you just fall to pieces. (You can keep your secret shrine to Watts; we'll never tell.)
Posted by: John Draper | August 1, 2009 10:29 PM
You've both just made it clear what kind of quack scientist, rationalists you are. I use my real name - with a small effort you can even find my email address from either web site. But you'd rather grandstand. Bye.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 1, 2009 10:31 PM
Bullshit. You gave a view.I don't give a shit what you say. Cite the literature or shut the fuck up. Welcome to real science.Discussion on scientific matters should only take place in the peer reviewed literature. If you are scientist, you would know that. And Watts is still an idiot, and those who listen to him are even bigger idiots.If you don't like our attitude, you can stop posting here.
Posted by: SC, OM, Virtual Bad Girl | August 1, 2009 10:38 PM
Not to mention that I've got this corner all month. Go whore your sad little blog somewhere else, Draper.
Posted by: SC "Hey, sailor! Lookin' for a blog?" OM | August 1, 2009 10:42 PM
Why on warming earth would anyone want to?
Posted by: E.V. | August 1, 2009 10:43 PM
And with a snarky, "Good Day to YOU sir!", John Draper flounced away, rebuked after offering his Atheist membership card, secret handshake and True Identity&trade as evidence of his vastly superior knowledge of AGW.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 1, 2009 10:47 PM
The old avoid showing your education, training, and publications. Is that rule one or two for con men? That tells us educated skeptics all we need to know about JD. Keep a tight hold on your wallets and don't believe anything he says.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 1, 2009 10:50 PM
Oh, and Draper, I made up my mind on AGW after reading the literature for 30 years. I was fairly convinced after the first 10, and nothing has happened since to change my mind.
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | August 1, 2009 10:57 PM
Funnily enough, the rules for GW deniers are just out:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/the_agw_denialists_rules_for_d.php
Posted by: John Morales | August 1, 2009 11:01 PM
John Draper:
I love the non sequitur about using his real name.
PS John, it's better to grandstand than to prance foolishly and then spit the dummy.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 1, 2009 11:27 PM
Not to mention that I've got this corner all month.
Priceless...
Posted by: opony szczecin | August 2, 2009 6:19 AM
Yes, you are right. Good job !
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
August 2, 2009 11:33 AM
Ahh, what a pity, Little Jonnie Draper took his nonexistent logic and went home.
Here's a cite for you Little Jonnie: Over 90% of scientists who publish on climate science believe climate is changing and that we're causing. That even includes the climate scientists the Exx-Mob was paying--they were counseling that the evidence was too strong to oppose.
Now, if you or Watts were scientists, that would put you in the bottom 10% of the class--the butt end of the butt end. Here's another cite: the 2300 most cited climate scientists. Have fun looking for your favorite denialists. Here's a hint: look toward the bottom of the list.
Posted by: course8 | August 2, 2009 1:43 PM
Actually the Exx-Mob rather likes climate science. Some of its explorationists are on record in the first abstract of this remarkable conference program as describing climate modeling as "a powerful tool for hydrocarbon exploration". Shorter, simpler version is in the conference summary and less-technical background in the comments thread of a completely irrelevant RC post.
Posted by: Lookin' for a True Scientist | August 2, 2009 2:04 PM
Nerd of ReadHead:
You dont' get this blog asshole.
A true scientist like myself
we true scientists don't give a shit about your view.
Talk dirty to us some more. Please.
Posted by: Andy | August 2, 2009 2:53 PM
There was just an article in the Marion, IN paper today about Watts' findings and how Global Warming was BS. Apparently some people are buying this.
Posted by: costanza | August 2, 2009 2:59 PM
OK...I'm no "climate change denier", but it seems to this simple (and constantly skeptical) physicist that Watt's work was perfectly proper. Examine the ground stations for accuracy. Does it make a difference? Then, one can move on to more important questions, such as whether or not the globally avg'd sfc temperature is a good metric for AGW?....Especially since the role of land use changes is becoming inportant. Personally. I agree w/ Pielke...the avg'd heat content of the ocns is a better choice of metric. I'm no denier, but I AM extremely skeptical when I hear the word "consensus".
Posted by: Courtney Franklin | August 2, 2009 8:19 PM
The guy's videos are interesting, well the science parts of them are. I find clearly he talks out of his arse with the political side.
Most of the science sides with the AGM, almost all political power sides with AGM, almost all money goes to the people who campaign(sic) on the awareness of AGM and almost all media sides with AGM.
I feel the political power of the people on the "skeptical" side of climate change is akin to walking up a water slide with people coming down it. It just seems to mention it is akin to a red herring.
Posted by: Blaine | August 2, 2009 8:25 PM
Imagine that..... Watts gets rebuked again. That's nothing new at this point, nor are his connections to that "think" tank The Heartland Institute (Don't you love how these think tanks always have the most Hallmarkish, cliche names on planet? Heartland Institute? That's rich.... Yea, I'm sure they're all about the "Heartland"... raping it that is). I'm just surprised people still follow Watts. He's a tool whose lack of scientific literacy is immediately noticable the instant you start reading his blog.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 2, 2009 8:33 PM
Whatever it takes...Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | August 2, 2009 8:45 PM
It's nice when PZ creates a thread for the AGW denier loons and TruCast of characters to commune on. It's like a birther romper room. And then the reasonable people can just ignore them, or stop by and mock if they choose. Win.
Posted by: jinond | August 3, 2009 1:34 AM
so i didn't read all the comments here ,but here's my issue besides the totally irrelevant tangents on smoking and WMD's.
at the end he says "climate change is real" which i do not deny but then he says "we are doing it." and i know he says "real scientists are telling us", but no where does he offer any evidence. in fact i have not seen any compelling evidence that we are. maybe there is and i just haven't seen it in which case point me in the right direction.
it seems intellectually dishonest to lump a conclusion into your video that is not supported by any of the evidence given, along with one that is.
Posted by: jwc | August 3, 2009 2:17 PM
However there are real scientists (from MIT) that think we're being way too alarmist about global warming: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/27/a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action/
The surface stations are problematic. Look at the satellite data: http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/graphs/temp-co2/CO2_temp_1995-2009_uah_giss-ppt.jpg. If you can see a correlation between a linearly increasing value (CO2) and a varying but essentially flat value (Temp) then you're seeing things. There was considerable warming between 97 and 02 and if that had continued, we'd be in trouble. However it didn't.
Also, in the video "gardeners know" is BS anecdotal evidence. Migrations? Peak flows of streams? There's no way we have this sort of data on a time scale that's relevant.
Posted by: jwc | August 3, 2009 2:21 PM
The first few sentences of Lindzen's article are worth posting, especially the part about "scientific illiteracy"; something that's discussed frequently around here.
Quote:
The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing.
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 2:25 PM
*cricket* *cricket* *cricket*
(Shhhh. Please don't feed the trolls. Thank you)
Posted by: jwc | August 3, 2009 2:34 PM
@108: Pish posh. Science includes dissent. Some dissent is right, some is wrong. It just comes with the territory.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
August 4, 2009 2:05 PM
JWC, Lindzen's diatribe is entirely a straw man. No climate scientist maintains that climate is static. The evidence, however shows that the past 10000 years is a period of exceptional stability. That period also coincides with the evolution of human civilization and all the infrastructure that supports it. If you are looking for trends in climate on timescales of less than 30 years, you are simply fooling yourself.
Jinondi, you haven't been looking very hard. There are thousands of peer-reviewed articles that support anthropogenic causation. In terms of effects, how would you explain simultaneous tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling without a greenhouse mechanism?
Look at the references in the IPCC summaries. Anthropogenic causation is established at the 90% CL by the evidence we have at hand. What evidence are you looking for?
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 4, 2009 2:19 PM
jwc,
While there is some evidence the anthropogenic climate change we have already had has had bad consequences, the concern is over what future changes will happen - both as a result of the greenhouse gases already emitted, and as a result of those emitted in future. Lindzen knows this perfectly well of course. He also knows perfectly well that no climate scientist has ever denied that climate is always changing. Conclusion: he's a liar. Secondary conclusion: since he resorts to such obvious lies, his intended audience is the scientifically ignorant.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 4, 2009 2:25 PM
Migrations? Peak flows of streams? There's no way we have this sort of data on a time scale that's relevant. - jwc
With regard to seasonal changes in animal and plant behaviour generally, simply false. Start here. Records of changes in glaciers also go back many decades. Come on, jwc, even the vast majority of denialists have given up pretending climate change isn't happening.
Posted by: E.V. | August 4, 2009 2:26 PM
Ahh dammit, Knockgoats, you went and fed 'em anyway. Now they'll never go away. *wanders off to find his trusty TrollKnocker&trade*
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 4, 2009 2:34 PM
jwc, the scientific dissent should be expressed in the proper venue, which is the peer reviewed literature. If the dissent is only found on the intertubes, what does that say about the scientific quality of the dissent? As a scientist, it says that dissent is manufactured, and not real. Which is why we don't believe you, compared to those who publish in the peer reviewed literature.
Posted by: jwc | August 4, 2009 5:24 PM
@112: "even the vast majority of denialists have given up pretending climate change isn't happening": I don't recall saying that. I yeah, that's because I didn't.
Posted by: jwc | August 4, 2009 5:28 PM
Just for the record: Climate change is happening. It never stopped happening.
Posted by: jwc | August 4, 2009 5:40 PM
@114: The article I linked to is an opinion piece. It seems inappropriate for it to be peer reviewed. However, the article does reference 10 peer reviewed papers that Lindzen uses to support his argument. I've at least read some ID papers before I decided they were crap. I suspect you didn't read the Lindzen article before you decided it was crap.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 5, 2009 1:44 PM
Jwc, I don't follow leads of liars and bulshitters like yourself. It is just a waste of time. Either cite the peer reviewed primary literature here, or shut the fuck up. That is, put up or shut up. Welcome to real science.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 5, 2009 1:51 PM
jwc,
So why are you pretending we don't have the evidence to show that climate change is happening, when we clearly do? Time you denialists actually decided what you are claiming.
Posted by: jwc | August 5, 2009 1:53 PM
@119: "liar... bullshitter"
Wow.
Posted by: luxmann | August 6, 2009 6:21 AM
In various parts of the world, the educational background for nurses varies widely.
In some parts of eastern Europe, nurses are high school graduates with twelve to eighteen months of training.
In contrast, Chile requires any registered nurse to have at least a bachelor's degree.
In the United Kingdom, nurses must attend a university in order to qualify as a nurse.
Student obtain either a High National Diploma or a Bachelor's Degree
(which varies from institution to institution; some may award BCs,
whilst others may award a BN). Some university courses attract an Honours Degree
(eg BN (Hons)). The requirements for the degree or the diploma are set down by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC),
which is the regulatory body for nursing and midwifery.
Typically, [url=http://luxmann-sib.ru]student nurses[/url] will complete a minimum of three extended (42 weeks) academic years,
of which 50% is theoretical and 50% is practical.
A variety of placements are attended during this time, including care of the elderly,
medical and surgical wards, community and critical care.
Some students may get to experience a short placement in maternity, too.
[url=http://luxmann-sib.ru]Nurses[/url] are the most needed workers in the medical field today,
there are over thousand registered nurses in the United States of America (U.S.) alone,
comprising about 13% of the fifteen thousand workers in the health care and social assistance
category tracked by the U.S. Department of Labor
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 9, 2009 8:16 AM
JWC, still no peer reviewed literature citations. So we only conclude you have none, and are nothing but a crank. Welcome to real science, which is put up or shut up.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
August 9, 2009 8:56 AM
JWC, most of the Lindzen's citations do not support his contention. More important, his "effect" is only seen when the dataset is uncorrected for orbital decay. Lindzen stopped doing science a long, long time ago. He now confines his efforts to duping gullible, nontechnical audiences with questionable arguments. As an example, in one "debate," he claimed that other planets were warming--implying a solar mechanism--even though most of the bodies he mentioned get most of their energy from tidal or gravitational forces. This is merely the most egregious of several ethical breaches.
Here's a clue: This is about established science. The greenhoust effect of CO2 in climate has been known for nearly 200 years--and well understood for ~60 years. The sensitivity of CO2 is constrained by at least 9 different independent lines of evidence--all of which favor the same range of values. There is every evidene that we face a credible threat and no credible evidence that we do not.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 11, 2009 9:08 PM
Has this become some sort of spammer training thread?
Oh, well - has as much value as the AGW deniers' posts.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 16, 2009 4:58 PM
I don't get it. What's the point of spam if it's not in english?
Posted by: John Morales | August 17, 2009 2:15 AM
Steve_C, I don't get it either.
No matter how little effort these spammers put into posting in dated comment threads, it is nonetheless wasted.
Only an idiot would click on their links and make them any return.
...
Oh. I forgot, we do get many (evident) idiots commenting. Maybe they make their money out of the creationists, goddists and other denialists who venture here. :)