WUWT Science Denialist Blog Hits New, Historic Low

Spread the love

At this moment, there is a guest post over at WUWT blog downplaying the size, strength, wind speeds, overall effects, and even the death toll of Super Typhoon Haiyan. Even as the monster storm steams across the sea to it’s next landfall (probably as a huge wet tropical storm, in northern Vietnam and southern China), Anthony Watts and his crew are trying to pretend this monster storm didn’t happen, and instead, that it was a run of the mill typhoon.

At the moment, nobody is really saying that Haiyan’s strength, size, power, or even existence is specifically the direct result of global warming, although it is of course impossible to remove the effects of global warming from ANY weather event because global warming is part of climate change and guess what … weather arises from the climate. The climate has changed, so ALL of our weather is affected by climate change.

This offensive post is preemptive denial, but it is denial that throws the lives and suffering of millions of people … of which thousands have lost relatives … under the bus. So that Anthony Watts and his guest poster Paul Homewood can … can do what? Feel smart? Take a shot at the reality of climate change? Pretend severe weather does not matter? What? Maybe they don’t like people who live in the Philippines.

Haiyan will be measured and remeasured over coming days, but it really is looking like it will be one for the record books. But Watts and Homewood don’t care about a big storm this year, or the fact that there have been several big storms in the Pacific, because there were a lot of Pacific typhoons in 1964, before fossil fuels were discovered by humans and thus unlinked to climate change. … ;( … Haiyan will be measured in terms of the death toll and destruction to property and forests, and it will be one of the worst typhoons ever, probably. But Watts and Homewood don’t want storms to be important for the simple reason that the best models strongly suggest that there will be more storms … especially in the Pacific, where Haiyan struck, over coming decades because of the changes to climate that humans are carrying out and that Anthony Watts and Paul Homewood deny to be real.

Update on Haiyan/Yolanda Death Toll

The final figures are not likely in but the numbers have stabilized and we can now probably put a number to the human toll of this storm that will not change dramatically in the future, at least in terms of orders of magnitude. The current “official” death toll in the Philippines from Typhoon Yolanda/Haiyan is 6,009 with 1,779 missing and 27,022 injured, with the largest concentration of casualties in Eastern Visayas. This comes from a December 13th report of the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council, which you can (probably) download here. If you do download it expect to see slightly different numbers as the report seems to be updated dynamically. Wikipedia, which references the same report, gives slightly different numbers (higher for dead and injured, same for missing). Regardless of these smaller changes, we can say that the total casualty number for this typhoon is well over 30,000 with over 6,000 dead. With so many people missing we may guess that the number dead is somewhat over 7,000.

Watts needs to take this offensive and absurd post off of his site. Homewood needs to apologize, and to do so sincerely. But before they do that, go have a look. It will probably make you throw up a little in your mouth.

There is one funny thing. Homewood takes the Daily Mail to task for getting numbers wrong and exaggerating the severity of the storm. I don’t know if the Daily Mail got it right or wrong because I don’t read the drivel they publish in that rag, and I don’t normally read the drek Watts publishes on his horrid site, and the two together is just too much, so I skipped that part. But the Daily Mail is one of those rags that often publishes climate science denialism and the nefarious and mean spirited denialists like Anthony Watts often use such sources to make their point. But here apparently the sensationalism of the Daily Mail contradicts the made up crap Watts puts on his blog. Somehow the expression “You gotta dance with the one that brung ya” comes to mind.

Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:

In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.

Spread the love

82 thoughts on “WUWT Science Denialist Blog Hits New, Historic Low

  1. They’re over there feeling very smart because they found a units conversion error in a newspaper article. Gee wiz! Their competence is gobsmacking.

  2. In the comments section the immoral sycophants and Anthony are even arguing about the deathtoll. Some are making jokes. Disgusting

  3. Ha. Suddenly Watt’s site is not accepting my comments. His decision, of course, and I respect that. But notable.

  4. That post is incredibly offensive. I live in the Philippines and as news are surfacing – the communications lines are finally up – the damage seems worse than anyone initially imagined. Here is a great information spot on the strength of the Haiyan. http://www.westernpacificweather.com/

  5. Thanks for that link. Interestingly it is also giving me the weather in Ham Lake, MN. And I happen to know the obscure fact that the servers that my ISP uses, the ones nearest my house so the likely first stop on the way to the Main Tubes of the Inter-tubes, are in Ham Lake. (Location services never come up with Ham Lake for my location, so this site is using something different.)

  6. And by the way, they don’t even follow their own comment site policy, like when moderator named dbs accidentally outed himself as the commenter named Smokey.

    “Trolls, flame-bait, personal attacks, thread-jacking, SOCKPUPPETRY, name-calling such as “denialist,” “denier,” and other detritus that add nothing to further the discussion may get deleted; also posts repeatedly linking to a particular blog, or attempting to dominate a thread by excessive postings may get deleted. Take that personally if you wish, but all deletions/snips are final. Grousing about it won’t help since deleted posts can’t be recovered. Rather than trying to deal with each comment, bulk moderation may be employed to save time.”

  7. Greg, re #3, you’re not obligated to “respect” his decision to censor you for criticizing him. You’d be well within your rights to call him a censorious arse-haul right here, and dare him to let you post at length lest his refusal to do so expose him for what he is.

    Here’s a tactic I think is useful when fighting these types of battles: “prescribe the symptom.”

    Get on his site under a pseudo, and post comments that appear to agree with him, but take it to the logical conclusion and bring in other issues that will make the postings seem absurd or paranoid or otherwise objectionable.

    For example make reference to “the truth about 9/11”, and “the New World Order,” and refer to the President by a derogatory name with vague racist overtones, and so on. This needs to be done subtly in order to work, and it’s best done by a group of people working together.

    The net impact is to associate the objectionable blog article with a range of other content that average readers will find objectionable, so their emotional reaction against the postings carries over to the blog article itself.

    Also useful, if he comes over here and sees this post, it will leave him wondering how many posts on his blog are of this type. That will in turn alter his censorship behavior, either to make him more paranoid and censorious (and alienate a portion of his audience), or to make him more likely to let other stuff stay up (in which case take advantage by shooting down his denialism and sounding far more reasonable than the crazy-posts).

    This sort of tactic is a no-no in polite debate, but IMHO it’s justified when dealing with extremist content that poses a clearly foreseeable threat of harm to others. Climate denialism, anti-vaccination conspiracy theory, and overt hate speech fall into that category, along with the more obvious cases such as support for terrorism.

  8. Thanks G. I am one of those guys who started questioning comments when spotting a few anti-Darwinist comments among the bunch.

    But the more I question comments on Watt’s site, the more I also question comments found in e.g. the Church of IPCC’s published reports.

    And FWIW, it seems NYTimes have joined the denialist camp as well:
    ” The Philippine weather agency measured winds on the eastern edge of the country at about 150 m.p.h., he said, with some tracking stations recording speeds as low as 100 m.p.h.

    The United States Navy’s Joint Typhoon Warning Center used satellite analysis to estimate sustained winds at 195 m.p.h., with gusts up to 235 m.p.h., but that measured the center of the storm when it was over the ocean. ”


  9. Further more; when debating AGW the activists continuously move the discussion from trench to trench. The discussions follow similar patterns: The medieval high average temperatures were local -> A neutral trend for the past 16+ years (despite no decrease in CO2 emissions) is still only weather and not climate -> The temperature increase can be found deep in the ocean where we conveniently suffer a lack of data -> oh, and look at the hurricanes, there was one more than average in 2009, so that means the world is ending -> etc ad nauseam.

    There is no documented criteria for anyone to falsify the hypothesis of AGW — all observations made (even a dramatic drop in temperature) can be spun to account for AGW. Which, to me, makes this look more like a doomsday prophecy rather than science. I’ve never played well with religion, so I have a problem with that.

  10. The desperation felt by the denialists as yet another extreme weather event pecks away at their Bubble Of Delusion is nowhere in greater evidence than you’ll see over at WUWT (“We Use Wishful Thinking”). They’re tired, and they’re trying earnestly to hang onto their mangled swords with sweaty, weary hand as they whip it blindly back and forth, all sense of technique beaten out of them,, hitting nothing but themselves. Even though they clearly haven’t internalized it yet, the fight is over; science triumphed. Again. As we always knew it would…

  11. Rune, starting your exploration of the actual science with claims about falsifiability is unhelpful. It might sound science-ey, but it’s a good indicator that you haven’t done your homework.

  12. G,
    Why are alarmists always using and promoting disingenuous debate tactics that avoid the details of science and evidence.

    You have world of science to support your position yet fail miserably to bring it .

    Here in Oregon academia and governments at every level are pushing sweeping public policies impacting every aspect of out lives for the sake of climate change.

    They too avoid scientific debate.

    Here we have yet another angle of the AGW theory that has collapsed.
    The never supported (with any science) that we are seeing more extreme weather because of our CO2 emissions.

    Alarmists cannot provide ANY science in ANY discussion of this one of many fatal flaws.

  13. We are seeing high latitude cooling which is increasing the meridional temperature gradient. Our planet is heated unequally by the sun as everyone knows with cold, more dense air masses forming towards higher latitudes, especially over land where the air is also very dry.

    The temperature disparity with latitude is always greatest when temperatures are colder at higher latitudes and its no coincidence that those areas are also effected most by global warming and global cooling.

    This is why the Arctic warmed the most in the 1980’s/90’s. Also, by no coincidence, along with the decrease in the meridional temperature gradient comes a decrease in energy available for extreme and violent weather in the mid and high latitudes.

    This is why strong and violent tornadoes went DOWN during that period of global warming.

    I would suggest that rather than bash deniers of global warming and sites like WUWT, you spend more time looking at what is really happening right now.

    I’ve been an operational meteorologist since 1981 and am seeing the most high latitude cooling in the Northern Hemisphere that I’ve witnessed during that period. It’s not just a fluke that the Arctic had one of its coldest Summers in the record books.

    Is this weather? Could be but there are numerous other signals that are suggesting the 15 year global temperature stall is evolving into more serious high latitude cooling.

    This would indeed increase severe, violent and extreme weather.

    BTW, I believed that increasing CO2 caused the 80’s/90’s warming until around 11 years ago when changes in CO2 and changes in temperatures parted ways.

    Open you eyes and mind. There is much happening in front of us to learn from.

  14. Not really a new low; there were similar posts around Sandy. They were up in arms about people calling it “Hurricane” Sandy when in fact it ceased to be a hurricane fully thirty minutes before landfall. They also were up in arms about the Colorado flooding being hyped, and Australian bush fires, and they’re still bitter that Katrina was reported to be a bad storm. It’s a peculiar malady.

    That said, the death toll report is unfair to criticize; the media reported first three dead, then 100, then 1200, and now 10k. Watts did update the post as the number went up. I won’t defend the commenters who make Watts look totally reasonable.

  15. Numer, it will likely be a new recorded low. Also, Sandy was a hurricane. Saying it stopped being a hurricane before it hit he coast is silly; many, many hurricanes do this. In the case of Sandy it was actually stronger than it’s category classification because it ate another storm (or was eaten by it).

    Watt’s commenters were defending the low estimate. I can’t imagine a scenario in which Watts looks reasonable.

  16. That is correct about Sandy being a hybrid storm and actually the result of the strongly -AO at the time.
    In recent Winters, we’ve seen some pretty strong -AO’s persist.
    This usually causes cold snowy weather and had Sandy been atmospheric energy arriving later in the year(instead of late Oct) that part of the country would have seen another massive blizzard like we’ve seen in recent Winters.

    Sandy was a doozy though. However the hurricane season of 1954 in that part of the country featured 3 major hurricanes in the area, the last one was hurricane Hazel in October(like Sandy).

    Hazel was much, much stronger than Sandy. Keep in mind that the very active hurricane seasons in the 1950’s took place during global cooling.

  17. Greg, I’m not sure you read my first paragraph the right way. I’m merely arguing that the Hayian nonsense at WUWT is no crazier than the nonsense they post about other storms — the low to which I refer is the one in your post title, not the atmospheric pressure.

  18. Numberobis, sorry, I did read that correctly but my response was more general, and in agreement. Could have written it better but the timer on the oven was going off and the three year old was concerned that the muffins would burn. (THough there were no muffins to begin with, sadly)

  19. CO2 distribution is same everywhere; when there was the typhoon in the Philippines – the weather was good on the rest of the planet, CO2 -not guilty: LINK DELETED

    Stephan The Denier:

    Um … oh never mind.

    Your link is removed though as it violates policy (see the about page)

  20. Greg and other global warming activists are always trying to promote the, “Increase in extreme weather events” mantra. However, I’ve yet to see them post ANY data that demonstrates that the frequency of current ‘extreme’ events is any higher than in the past.
    For every ‘extreme’ event that activists have screamed about over the last year (Sandy, bush fires, etc), a multitude more can be found throughout a record that goes back a hundred years or more.
    To be honest, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth is getting rather boring. I used to be a fully signed-up global warming believer, but soon realised that the church of Global Warming had become a religion just like so many others. As an atheist, I wanted no part of this organised mass-hysteria that seemed no better than the ‘world is about to end’ preachers on the God Channel.
    BTW Greg is getting his a** firmly whipped over at the comments section at WUWT. It’s really funny!


    There isn’t a climate scientist in the business (a real one, anyway) that does not think global warming means more storminess. The situation is complext, however. There may be changes in storminess that are not simply “more” or “less.” But, likely, globally, hurricanes will increase. The best climate models that have predicted hurricane seasons very well so far (including the present Atlantic season) show over the long term more hurricanes and more powerful ones.

    Here’s some other info:

    From Nature Geoscience http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/full/ngeo779.html

    “…future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. For all cyclone parameters, projected changes for individual basins show large variations between different modelling studies.”

    From PNAS http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/07/05/1301293110.abstract

    “A recently developed technique for simulating large [O(104)] numbers of tropical cyclones in climate states described by global gridded data is applied to simulations of historical and future climate states simulated by six Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) global climate models. Tropical cyclones downscaled from the climate of the period 1950–2005 are compared with those of the 21st century in simulations that stipulate that the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases increases by Formula over preindustrial values. In contrast to storms that appear explicitly in most global models, the frequency of downscaled tropical cyclones increases during the 21st century in most locations. The intensity of such storms, as measured by their maximum wind speeds, also increases, in agreement with previous results. Increases in tropical cyclone activity are most prominent in the western North Pacific, but are evident in other regions except for the southwestern Pacific. The increased frequency of events is consistent with increases in a genesis potential index based on monthly mean global model output. These results are compared and contrasted with other inferences concerning the effect of global warming on tropical cyclones.”

    From the guardian http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jul/26/global-warming-future-of-storms :

    “recently, a publication appeared by perhaps the world’s best-known hurricane scientist, Dr. Kerry Emanuel of MIT. Dr. Emanuel combined global computer simulations with more regional simulations to look into the future at the evolution of storms. What he found was surprising. Because the storms will become stronger and more numerous, within the next century, the power dissipated by future storms will increase by about 50 percent. What was particularly interesting was that his findings show increases in both strong and weaker cyclones.”

    USA Today “Storm warning: Climate change to spawn more hurricanes” http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/07/08/climate-change-global-warming-hurricanes/2498611/

    From Science Daily:

    “ March 17 online version of Nature Climate Change, Katz and Thomas Muschinksi, a senior in physics who came to Katz looking for an undergraduate thesis project, describe the results of their analysis of more than 70 years of hourly precipitation data from 13 U.S. sites looking for quantitative evidence of increased storminess.
    They found a significant, steady increase in storminess on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State, which famously suffers from more or less continuous drizzle, a calm climate that lets storm peaks emerge clearly.”

    NOAA’s list of billion dollar disasters: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/

  21. Why does a correction of a wind speed ” throw the lives and suffering of millions of people … of which thousands have lost relatives … under the bus”? Would it be more sensitive to discuss it next week? next month? next year? Why did you comment on it?

    Greg, I’ll appreciate any data regarding the measured (not estimated) wind speed of this horrible storm. Of course, people who issue warnings would rather err on the high end of the danger – remember Italian geologists who went to jail for underestimating an earthquake risk for the city of L’Aquila?

    George: This is simple and obvious but will be denied by denying deniers, and every person looking on with a brain can see it but I’ll say it anyway. Bad storms are to climate science denialists what mass shootings are to gun nuts. When they happen they bring attention to something you don’t want attention brought to and you try to pretend it didn’t happen, or Obama did it, or it wasn’t as bad as it really was.

    Again, this is blindingly obvious please don’t pretend that is not the agenda at WUWT. That, and finding bigfoot or proof of aliens.

  22. Curious, also, you can do your own homework and find the data, I’m not your research assistant. For my part I’ll wait for the official report.

  23. Accumulated cyclone energy:


    A couple of things worth noting. The Atlantic basin is in the active phase of a natural cycle and has seen alot of storms/hurricanes. 2005 really stands out as being the most active since this measure started in the 1950’s.

    The Pacific basin has been the exact opposite. In the last 15 years, only 1 season, 2006 was above average.

    Clearly no global warming/climate change fingerprint. Regarding models and studies that project stronger hurricanes with warmer ocean temperatures.

    Theoretically, one can make a case for this but the real world empirical data from the last 15 years is making theories and global models from the 1980’s/90’s look very silly.

    If sea temperatures were to increase a couple of degrees, I think we would see stronger hurricanes. 15 years ago, I thought this could happen. Those of us actually looking at empirical data since then and giving it the proper weighting it deserves think its unlikely.

  24. “Anthony Watts and his crew are trying to pretend this monster storm didn’t happen, and instead, that it was a run of the mill typhoon.”
    The problem is, this isn’t true, Greg. It does not bode well for you when the main point of your post is wrong. When you begin from a position of error, you are likely to make more errors.

  25. Watts is the lowest kind of bottom feeder on the net. He will publish literally anything as long as it keeps his hit count up. I don’t think he meant to be callous with this post, but he’s just too dumb to see how his own thinking operates.

    And bragging publicly about a 100 dollar donation? Is this the 6th grade?

  26. Greg – sorry, I mistakenly thought that you were bringing attention to this matter. Damn those pesky deniers. Keep penning your posts without waiting for official data.

  27. Strange. After complaining that WUWT is no longer accepting his comments. le Laden has NO comments published in opposition to his expansive definition of effects of global warming. BTW, haven’t we had a 17 year plateau in global warming?

    1. No, there has not been a 17 year plateau in global warming. The extra heat goes into the atmosphere, the sea surface, and the deeper ocean. Over the last 17 years all of those measures have gone up, though during some of that time much more has been going into the deeper ocean. Meanwhile, the present year is going to be at least the sixth warmest on record. Global warming is real, anthropogenic, and continuing.

      I’m not quite sure what your talking about regarding comments. This blog typically does not allow science denialists (bigfoot hunters, ghost stalkers, anti-vaxers, rabid climate change science denialists, etc.) At the moment, though, I’m allowing all comments on this thread. However, it seems that Anthony Watt’s minions have chosen not to come by here for some reason.

      I don’t know what is going on over at his blog, in the comments section or otherwise, because I generally don’t read his blog or pay attention to it. I felt moved,however, to point out his recent post by a guest author because I found it so offensive.

  28. Sorry Greg,
    Your reply to my comment at #28 is perhaps the best example of hand-waving I have ever seen from a CAGWer:
    “There may be changes in storminess that are not simply ‘more’ or ‘less.'”
    What the hell is that supposed to mean? Either it’s gotten more stormy as you claim it has, or it hasn’t.
    The following graphics tend to suggest that there is no increasing trend in global ‘storminess’ (apologies in advance if the html doesn’t work! If it doesn’t work, I’ll just repost them as clean links):

    As some sort of ‘evidence’ you then go on to link to a load of studies that use computer models. Please remember Greg: simulations are not evidence, they are just someone’s idea about what they think might happen in the future. The only real-world example you supply is a study that showed it got a bit more drizzly in Washington State. Colour me unconcerned.
    For your finale, you linked to an exercise in alarmism from the NOAA with a report they cobbled together about ‘billion dollar disasters’. The report manages to shoot itself in the foot quite spectaculalry when it admits that:
    “A number of studies have concluded that population growth, increased value of property at risk and demographic shifts are major factors behind the increasing losses from weather and climate disasters (Pielke et al. 2008; Downton et al. 2005; Brooks and Doswell 2001). Nevertheless, the billion dollar disaster dataset is only adjusted for inflation.”
    In other words, the NOAA study is worthless as it only looks at the situation in a completely one-dimensional and simplistic way. But hey, don’t all those zeroes look really scary???!!??

  29. When it comes to predicting future changes in climate, climate models are what we use. Climate science denialism, what you practice, has gotten to the point that it is virtually criminal. I’m thinking you don’t have kids. Right?

  30. Images didn’t work, so here are the links. Have a look at them Greg, and then dial down the alarmism:

    The links violate the policy for the blog. You are of course free to put the links on your blog.

  31. “Climate models are what we use”. Yeah well, Hansen’s ABC scenario model didn’t turn out quite so succesful, did it?

    BTW I certainly do have kids Greg. Three of them.
    The oldest, aged 14, asked me about global warming. I told him to go look at the following sites and make up his own mind:
    Skeptical Science
    Climate Progress
    Jo Nova.
    He came back to me the next day and said, “that global warming stuff is rubbish, and why is Joe Romm so upset? He needs to calm down!”
    Out of the mouths of babes (sort of)…..

  32. Dear Greg, for a non-scientists it is not easy to weigh the arguments of alarmists and sceptics. But I can see when somebody is wriggling and avoiding to argue on facts. It gives me comfort to see how you try to avoid answering the questions of David Smith and have to resort to ad hominem arguments. If that is the best Alarmists can come up with, we should not be too worried about this planet. (I expect you to remove this comment as well, which would be a further sign of weakness of you)

    I answered David’s question and he chose to ignore the answers or claim that predictive models of the future climate are wrong because the future has not happened yet.

  33. I suspect you are lying because most 14 year olds are smarter than that. But, don’t worry, if he really said those things I’m sure he’ll be fine after going to public school and getting some good science in the classroom.

  34. Why should David Smith be lying? Stop projecting Greg.

    I probably am projecting from my own experience with 14 year olds, but I strongly suspect dad is being appeased. 🙂

    As far as ‘good science in the classroom’ goes, David’s always welcome to send his kids to the school where I teach maths. They can look at the graphs and charts on my classroom walls that show the lackof warming for the past seventeen years,

    Interesting to hear that climate science denialism is being taught in that school. Which school is it? You need graphs that are not designed to lie to the children in your classes.

    the huge disparity between the models’ predictions and the real world temperatures, and the really miniscule percentage of the atmosphere that is occupied by CO2.
    Most kids are shocked to learn that there has been no discernible global warming for the whole of their lives and that CO2 only constitutes 0.04% of the atmosphere. Not one of them I have spoken to has known about the most dominant GHG, water vapour, until I’ve given them the real facts.

    Also, the math teacher seems to be teaching bad physics. Shame on you.

  35. ”For example make reference to “the truth about 9/11?, and “the New World Order,” and refer to the President by a derogatory name with vague racist overtones, and so on. This needs to be done subtly in order to work, and it’s best done by a group of people working together.”

    Yes, you can’t argue scientifically at WUWT becuase they have an advantage that real world science tends to acknowledge that there has been no global warming for over 15 years and none of the models can account for it. So go there and argue your conspiracy theories, how about the big oil conspiracy..

  36. “Also, the math teacher seems to be teaching bad physics. Shame on you.”
    What bad physics Greg? Are co2 levels not currently at roughly 400ppm? Is water vapour not the major GHG? Have you discovered something the rest of the scientific world are unaware of Greg?

    Water vapor does not retain in the atmosphere for centuries. The implication is that this small amount of CO2 is irrelevant, but it is very relevant.

  37. “The links violate the policy for the blog. You are of course free to put the links on your blog.”
    Well, one of the links was to a graph compiled by Dr Ryan Maue. He’s a professional meteorologist. What’s wrong with your readers viewing his work?

    The policy is no links to denialist sites. As a denialist you provid links to denialist sites. It’s what you do. Don’t do it again.

  38. “Interesting to hear that climate science denialism is being taught in that school. Which school is it? You need graphs that are not designed to lie to the children in your classes”
    Why do you need to know what school Andy teaches in? Is it so you can report him to the ‘authorities’?
    If you’re so convinced the globe has been warming for at least the past 15 years, can you post a link to a graph that demonstrate this so that Andy could put it on his classroom wall? BTW don’t bother asking the IPCC, cause even they have admitted that the warming has stopped.

    Here you go: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

  39. Greg,
    I showed your comment about “being appeased” to my son.
    He just laughed and then went back to playing Minecraft.
    It seems the youth of today aren’t quite as worried about global warming as you are Greg!

    Just make sure you know what he is laughing at! 🙂

  40. ”For example make reference to “the truth about 9/11?, and “the New World Order,” and refer to the President by a derogatory name with vague racist overtones, and so on. This needs to be done subtly in order to work, and it’s best done by a group of people working together.”
    If you bother to go and visit WUWT you’ll find that they have a strict site policy that has banned any mention of the ridiculous ‘Troother’ movement, they laugh at anyone who tries to claim the moon landing was a hoax, and I’ve yet to see any racist comments whatsoever (I’m fully confident that Mr Watts and his mods would chuck racist nastiness straight in the comment bin).
    In fact, why don’t you toddle on over to WUWT and try out your little ‘experiment’ and see how far you (fail) to get. I dare you.

  41. “Here you go: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
    Ah yes, a graph showing how all the ‘missing heat’ has gone off to hide in the ocean.
    I have a bit of a problem with the ‘hiding in the oceans’ theory: When the land temps were rising in the 80s and 90s and alarmists were telling us we were all going to fry, why wasn’t the heat during that time slinking off to go and hide in the ocean like it is supposedly doing today? Did it suddenly decide in 1998 that the ocean was a much nicer place to be?
    Additionally, what happened to the tropospheric hotspot that all the models said would be there? Has that also gone to hide away in the oceans?

    BTW I would steer clear of skepticalscience if I was you. Their (not so) private discussion forums have exposed them to be not very nice and rather irrational people.

  42. And so the winged monkeys retreat to their eyrie, chattering smugly to themselves, eager to fly again to do their master’s bidding…

  43. I just wonder if Mr. Smith has ever noticed that it takes longer in the morning for water to warm up than the air, or that water stays warmer in the evening.

    He laughs out of ignorance.

  44. So, you deny that there has been no significant warming for 17 years,

    I’ve provided the evidence that there has been significant warming and the so called hiatus is a hoax. See above.

    you deny that the recent storm was over hyped in the press,

    I saw no hyping beyond the usual but I don’t read the Daily Mail or National Enquirer

    and you aren’t trying to raise money for the victims.

    Why do you say that? I’ve promoted a site to send money to and made a donation myself.

    And you rely on shaming people who disagree with you.
    Please do continue.
    Thanks for the visit.
    Once is more than enough.

    Good by forever. Hopefully.

  45. “In honor of, and solidarity with, UN COP Delegate Yeb Saño and the people of the Philippines, and for the sake of the world’s children, I am now cutting off the fire hose of climate denialism.”
    Ha ha, it seems you can’t handle the truth Greg, and now you’ve gone off to sulk.
    Oh well, at least it was fun for a while!

  46. “I just wonder if Mr. Smith has ever noticed that it takes longer in the morning for water to warm up than the air, or that water stays warmer in the evening.

    What’s that go to do with alarmists suddenly moving the goalposts when the air temps stalled? Why did all the land-based heat suddenly decide to start plunging into the depths at the turn of the 21st century? Please Michael, do tell.

  47. “What is a 5,000 php donation?”
    It’s the currency of the Philippines.
    You’d know that Greg if you’d made a donation to charity like Anthony Watts has done.

    Right, I’m tiring of having fun at the expense of you and your warmist groupies. You lot are too much of an easy target.

    So, I’m sure you’ll be heart-broken to know that I’m off to look at some real science at WUWT.
    Toodle pip and stay warm!


  48. Andy, I made my donation in dollars. I’m short of Philippine currency.

    I will try to stay warm but it is currently 15 degrees F!

  49. “BTW I would steer clear of skepticalscience if I was you. Their (not so) private discussion forums have exposed them to be not very nice and rather irrational people.”

    Oh the ironing!

  50. Greg your comments might stand a chance of being taken seriously if you expressed them in scientific terms rather than resorting to words like crap and drek.

    1. Please explain how you know that global warming did not “take hold” in 1969. What is your basis for saying that? This does not relate to Camille in particular, but it is an important question. You seem to have a date in mind after which there is global warming, before which there is not. You need to elaborate that because if you are correct you’ve come up with an entirely new theory!

  51. So, you deny that there has been no significant warming for 17 years,

    No-one has ever shown that the changes in global temperatures in the past 17 years have differed significantly from those expected by climatologists, even when we ignore the fact that picking an abnormally warm year as the starting point invalidates the statistics.

  52. Runa @14:

    There is no documented criteria for anyone to falsify the hypothesis of AGW

    Sorry for the late response – I have just noticed it.

    To falsify the hypothesis of AGW you need to demonstrate any of the following:
    1. CO2 does not absorb infra-red radiation.
    2. There is insufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to alter Earth’s temperature.
    3. Atmospheric CO2 levels are not increasing.
    4. The increase does not result from human activity.
    5. There is a previously unknown phenomenon that closely counteracts the effects of increasing CO2.

    Points 1 and 2 have been known for 150 years, 3 and 4 for just 50 years or so.

    These falsifications follow naturally from the basic physics behind the concept of AGW and should not need pointing out to anyone with even a basic understanding of what is going on

    Any arguments based on supposed ‘pauses’, etc, merely demonstrate a lack of knowledge of basic climatology or statistics, and probably both.

  53. Greg,

    Never visited here before (and probably never will again).

    “Group think” alarms me as does people who won’t allow links to ANY “skeptical (or “denier”) web site and then (how hypocritical) provide links to SKS & Nature – are you KIDDING).

    Here is a link that you CAN’T delete because it isn’t a link to a skeptical site.

    It is a link to a written evidence statement by Professor Pierre Darriulat to the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee in response to the IPCCs AR5 report. (BTW – I get the feeling that Professor Darriulat knows just a TAD more than you or any other AGW believer posting here about the subject!!).


    Once read by any believers of AGW I would expect them to change their view IMMEDIATELY and become hardened skeptics and when you read it Graham i would think the ONLY response would be for you to close down this website/blog or if you don’t it will prove that you’re full of ..it!!


  54. Greg,

    So you “dekete” a link to a submission to the UK parliament – WHY? It could ONLY be because you don’t want anyone to read it cause it contains some REALLY soul destroying messages for “true believers”.

    PROVES my point above “you’re full of ..it!!”

    If anyone is interested in a REAL scientists views just type Professor Pierre Darriulat into Google – submission link on first page – enjoy!!

    Cheers & GOODBYE!!

  55. I deleted it because you obnoxiously declared that I could not. Yes, anyone who wants to spend their time following your advice is certainly free to do so.

    Good bye, but I have a feeling you will not be able to resist commenting again.

  56. Greg,

    I know you’ve read it now.

    Please read para 7 again though – it specifically relates to you and the tactics you use here to deny discussion.


  57. Just as I suspected.

    Read what, your link? Haven’t clicked on it. I’m busy spending time with my family and preparing a for a talk and a couple of TV interviews on climate change. I may get a chance to glance at it later.

  58. Wow. What a heated thread. As someone weighing the debate, I’m amazed that something called a “science” blog primarily resorts to calling people “deniers” as the main argument while offering little in the way of substantiated observations. The wholesale deletion of “skeptical” links hardly seems the stuff of science and more akin to burning books you haven’t read – a tradition in fundamentalist cultures.

    And while you put so much faith in the IPCC’s models, you seem content to ignore their findings as well when it concerns extreme weather. Nothing in their literature supports AGW causing more extreme weather. While Haiyan and Sandy are tragic events, one visit to the National Hurricane Center’s data sheets show the last ten years to be hardly anomalous and in fact the last two years to be lows in cyclonic activity.

    Would this make the link to it guilty of denial?

  59. He must be referring to the debate that asks the question

    Are AGW deniers:
    a. Wrong?
    b. Dangerously wrong?
    c. Ignorant?
    d. Hopelessly Ignorant?
    e. Selfish money grubbing despoilers of the Earth?
    f. Cravenly selfish money grubbing despoilers of the Earth?
    g. All of the above.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *