climate snarking

Category archives for climate snarking

Can I really be the first to snark about this? Expert and Government Review Comments on the IPCC WGI AR5 Second Order Draft – General is now available for download. As you’d expect, the pompous “Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, United Kingdom” notches up a string of “reject”, please read the guidelines. Someone called “Jyrki Kauppinen,…

Retirement of a Dr* Salesman

Image credit:

The AGU has a revised policy statement on Human-induced climate change requires urgent action (h/t: everyone). As with any serious item like this, people release comedy versions. RP Sr had a go and JC threw in her bit, and now Screaming Lord Monckton has had a go, at the home of Blog Science Comedy, WUWT.…

What a weird phrase. It sort of sounds like it ought to mean something, but it means nothing at all. “It speaks clearly of truth” would be better – but the grammar doesn’t quite work. The alternate title to this post, incidentally, was “Like a trouser, yet not a trouser“. I’ll reserve that for future…

Super snarky fun!

Yes, its the wonderful Heartland / WUWT own-goal over the Chinese translations of HI’s Climate Change Reconsidered. I have nothing to add except laughter, so you may as well read * BCL(SB), * Eli, * HW. Not edifying, true, but certainly amusing. Since I’m here I may as well put up something: can I interest…

Um. sorry folks, don’t blame me, blame Eli. ’twas the now-aged lagomorph who attempted to interest me in the good old days of sci.env when we were all young and bushy-tailed. And indeed that thread does make for interesting reading: the present-day switch to blogs doesn’t encourage that style of discussion any more. Anyway, what…

Attacked!

h/t to JM for More on the Iconography of IPCC 1990 Figure 7 – scroll down for the breathless prose. First the background: why does anyone care about figure 7.1.c of the IPCC ’90 report? Well, if you’re a denialist you care, because it represents the true uncorrupted state of climate science before the evil…

Ah, superb. WATTS EXPLAINS WHY LEWANDOWSKY PAPER ON CONSPIRACY THEORIES IS WRONG: ITS A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN JOHN COOK AND THE PROF Sorry for the all-caps, I couldn’t be bothered to re-type it without.

I’ve started reading it (I was going to read BEST, but the little b*gg*rs have it behind a permission-wall at the moment. So much for openness. Update: because their site is screwed; its really here), and got to: As documented in surveys presented in Watts, (2009) OK, well, obviously, its “Watts (2009)” not “Watts, (2009)”…

Muller is still rubbish

When BEST first came out I said it was boring, because it just said what everyone knew already “Summary: the global temperature record is just what we thought it was”. There was some soap opera thrown in for fun, but that didn’t affect the science. But now (New Global Temperature Data Reanalysis Confirms Warming, Blames…