climate snarking
Category archives for climate snarking
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…
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)”…
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…
Well, bumps is over for another year, so some kind of normal service can resume. WUWT was pushing “Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization” by Steirou and Koutsoyiannis. Why? Because it appeared to show problems with station data homogenisation. There was some comedy before AW realised it wasn’t a peer-reviewed paper, just a conference…
So, Lindzen f*cked up (Misrepresentation from Lindzen) badly enough that he needed to apologise. He is being weaselly, though, in throwing the blame on someone else. And he is wrong to say that the URLs of the datasets were the same. Part of his “apology” is rather amusing: The public interest in this quantity, however,…
There is an absolutely classic WUWT piece of stupidity up from Joe Bastardi (h/t QS, who has been annoying me with ZOD nonsense recently). Sometimes, it is nice to find a small simple easily understood issue which demonstrates how clueless the septics are. And the quote is: Nor am I going to question them as…
“Dr” Roy Spencer has finally and conclusively demolished all arguments opposing his position that… well, whatever his position is. Read All About It. But that isn’t the interesting bit, obviously. The interesting bit is that the black helicopters are coming for him and his tin-foil hat: Given the history of the IPCC gatekeepers in trying…
For a fair while now I’ve defended Lindzen {{cn}} on the grounds that he is actually a Real Scientist, albeit edging ever further off onto the sceptical wing. And this has been difficult because whilst his papers have, I think, been reasonable his public pronouncements and his congressional-testimony type stuff has been poor. But, happily,…