I don't know if it's just the mood I'm in but Anthony Watts' blog WUWT seems rather dull today. Here's a quick rundown.
How the mighty have fallen
Richard Lindzen has had to resort to publishing his non-science at WUWT (archived here). How long is it since he published anything himself? It must be quite a while. His article is not original. It's just a repeat of denier talking points, with stuff like:
arctic sea ice is suddenly showing surprising growthLindzen's wrong!
Sea ice this year isn't growing as fast as it did last year! It was almost a year ago when deniers were enthralled at the growth of sea ice in the Arctic, observing "2012 is the fastest refreeze ever!". This year they'll have to admit that 2013 won't be breaking that record. This day last year ice added 36% to the minimum whereas today it's only added 31% to the minimum, and it had longer to do so (via JAXA)! /sarc
Tisdale on oceans
Perennially Puzzled Bob Tisdale is surprised that he found a chart he likes in the IPCC report (archived here). I'm surprised at how short Bob's article is, compared to his usual fare. He still manages to say really dumb stuff like this:
I’ve noted this a number of times before: the NODC should be commended for the amount of work that went into assembling all of the data required for their ocean heat content datasets.
But the NODC cannot be praised for their portrayal of their ocean heat content data as a globally complete dataset with little uncertainty."Little uncertainty"? Bob must only look at the pictures without reading the text, where there is a strong emphasis on uncertainty and its measurement. Even if he only looked at the pictures, he can't have understood them. For example, from page 3-93 of Chapter 3 of the full report - note the gray bars:
Anthony Watts hasn't done too much scientist-bashing lately, or not on a personal level. He was probably getting twitchy, because he came up with an excuse that he figured probably wouldn't land him in court.
Anthony decided to fake some outrage at an image used as part of an election campaign (archived here). He writes:
The imagery is dishonest.Anthony Watts accusing someone of being dishonest. Now there's irony in action.
Norfolk Virginia is a flood-prone city and there was an image highlighting the risks of rising sea level, over which Anthony decided to take personal offense. It probably took him a while to figure out it wasn't "real" and he when he did he felt very foolish. Enough to get real mad. I can see him now, googling away looking for a picture of the house under beautifully clear water. I doubt anyone else thought the picture was anything but illustrating a point. But then, Anthony isn't all that bright.
Here's the picture, it's got a caption saying seas have risen by 14.5 inches since 1930. I wonder if Anthony thought at first it was a very very tiny house, before he realised it was an illustration?
From the WUWT comments
Nope, sorry. The Mann-bashers let forth their pent up fury in the usual fashion. It's not repeatable. I barely scanned them myself because the ones I did read are so distasteful. Ignorance at its worst, fuelled by the lack of opportunity Anthony's provided lately to come together as a lynch mob or vent their various spleens. It's archived here for the ghouls.