.

Friday, May 24, 2013

An economist should know better, maybe ...but what about Anthony Watts?

Sou | 1:59 PM Go to the first of 10 comments. Add a comment


On WUWT today Anthony Watts seems to be trying to make up for his rampant promotion of disinformation - but is he?


An economist should know better, maybe...but what about Anthony Watts?


Anthony puts up an article about someone on a radio show who doesn't understand the greenhouse effect.  She said a car heats up in the sun because of greenhouse gases, which is woefully wrong.  Someone who works for the Natural Resources Defense Council should know better. A car with all the windows and doors closed will heat up by incoming radiation from the sunlight.  As long as it's in the sun it will stay hot until you open the doors and windows to diffuse the heat (convection).



Ridicule is both powerful and satisfying...


Anthony needs to look in a mirror.  The following aren't rare occurences.  They are typical of the disinformation and ignorant ramblings he spews out daily to pollute cyberspace:




Pinocchio with long nose
Pinocchio by André Koehne
Lots more from Anthony Watts, who is so paranoid about "real science" that he enrolls his dog, Kenji, to spy on his behalf at the Union of Concerned Scientists. A man who can barely attract anyone but science deniers and bans people who have no tolerance for his anti-science nonsense. A 'free market' man who despises governments but wants to run squawking and squealing to the government when someone mocks his scientific ignorance.


PS Anthony's not doing a very good job of educating his readers about the greenhouse effect - this from Latitude who says:
May 23, 2013 at 12:04 pm  so tell me again how many people believe in global warming………I’m just curious to know how many total idiots we have

It's also nice to see Kurt in Switzerland vindicating my snark blog, writing:
May 23, 2013 at 11:38 am  ...Ridicule is both powerful and satisfying, especially when the target is begging to be shot.



"Charts are so confusing!"

Update: Anthony Watts Classic: those baffling temperature anomalies


I'd been looking for this article for a while - and thanks to Lars Karlsson in the comments below here it is.  Scroll down the page for this real gem in which different baselines get the better of Anthony:
I was surprised to learn that only 5% of the GISS data-set was on the cool side of zero, while a whopping 95% was on the warm side. Even with a rising temperature trend, this seems excessive.
When the distribution of data is so lopsided, it suggests that there may be problems with it, especially since there appears to be a 50% greater distribution on the cooler side in the HadCRUT data-set.



(Kenji whispers to Anthony: GISTemp uses a baseline of 1951-80 while HadCRUT uses a baseline of 1961-90, so of course the temperature anomaly will move above the baseline sooner with GISTemp than for HadCRUT.)



Kenji, the scientific dog, must be so embarrassed.

10 comments:

  1. Yes, I felt a little sorry for Laurie Johnson. A silly mistake to make, but she is an economist and we do tend to use greenhouses as an analogy for the greenhouse effect, so maybe she is understandably confused.

    I also saw Kurt's comment and I still find it amazing that people can make such comments and not realise that it makes them seem close-minded and unpleasant. As you, quite rightly, point out, there are many things said on WUWT that one could justifiably ridicule and given that they think it is both "powerful and satisfying" maybe more of us should be putting effort into doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great post Sou. I've actually stopped visiting WTFIWWAW because the constant facepalming gets painful. I am starting a new series about contradictory statements made by idiots and I think Dullard could be a good source.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm starting to, partly, regret starting my blog in that it is explicitly intended to respond to what is said on WUWT. Not only does this seem pointless (as those on WUWT clearly seem unwilling to consider alternatives) but also might make it appear as though there is some merit to what is said on WUWT. Maybe I should consider renaming it and just address misconceptions about global warming and climate change in general.

      Delete
    2. I would say that WUWT is a legitimate target. It is the largest "skeptic" blog. This is where mainstream climate extremism is.

      Personally, my main objection to correcting errors on WUWT, is that it is simply too much work. Thank you for your efforts. Don't forget to use nofollow.

      Delete
  3. This one is a classic:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/28/a-look-at-4-globaltemperature-anomalies/

    About the GISTEMP global anomaly 1979-2008:

    "I was surprised to learn that only 5% of the GISS data-set was on the cool side of zero, while a whopping 95% was on the warm side. Even with a rising temperature trend, this seems excessive."

    ReplyDelete
  4. We should collaborate on a rap sheet. Christopher Monckton has one. Establish a wiki. I have collected several wonderful quotes...

    "Name calling and labeling does nothing but lower your own level of discourse, when you have no other facts to present, which is why alarmists often resort to name calling and labeling." -- Anthony Watts, May 17, 2009.


    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes Sou and Lars, it is indeed unbelievable that someone who doesn't understand that anomalies from a temperature series that uses an earlier baseline period will look relatively 'warmer' *because of global warming* than anomalies from a series that uses a later baseline period (like the satellite ones) has so many useful idiots still following him. But, of course, it's all the Dismissives gathering in their own little echo chamber.

    Watts has written 3 or 4 articles on this, and each time he gets corrected in the comments, but refuses to learn. Blinded by ideology. Pfft.

    --metzomagic

    ReplyDelete
  6. Replies
    1. Yes. Despite what Anthony has said, IMO the reason he's banned the Slayers is not that they deny the physics of the greenhouse effect. Many of his writers and commenters do that. I think it's because they quarrel with Anthony. He can't stand being challenged directly.

      Delete
  7. He's seriously unhinged Sou. I used to think he was just a paid shill because nobody in their right mind could believe the crap that he spouts (and encourages from the dopes who post there) but he's moved well into crank territory.

    ReplyDelete

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.