Today I am writing about Anthony Watts at WUWT writing about Joe Romm at Climate Progress, who is writing about a new paper in PLOS by Hansen et al, which has been doing the rounds of science blogs and anti-science blogs alike. (WUWT is an award winning anti-science blog.)
In a nutshell, what the paper shows is that if we allow 1000 Gt carbon to accumulate in the air, although the initial rise in surface temperature may be 2 degrees, over the medium term slower feedbacks would result in a rise of 3 to 4 degrees. This of course means a lot of unpleasantness, not the least of which would be the huge sea level rise over time.
Going by his article, Anthony Watts is a piker. He gives up very easily. He is a "can't be done" man, not a "can do" man.
Anthony Watts spends a bit of cyberspace letting his readers know that there is a chap called Tom Nelson who isn't familiar with people who work in climate science. Apparently Tom didn't recognise any of these names:
James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Frank Ackerman, David J. Beerling, Paul J. Hearty, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Shi-Ling Hsu, Camille Parmesan, Johan Rockstrom, Eelco J. Rohling, Jeffrey Sachs, Pete Smith, Konrad Steffen, Lise Van Susteren, Karina von Schuckmann, James C. Zachos.(I'm not sure why Anthony Watts thought that Tom Nelson's ignorance was in any way newsworthy. Even I recognise quite a few of the authors and I haven't been blogging about climate science for nearly as long as Anthony Watts and Tom Nelson have been protesting it.)
Anyway, Anthony Watts thinks that humans aren't capable of switching to clean energy. He writes:
They are clamoring not only for a carbon tax, but also for green technology. But, real world data they cite suggests they are living in a dream world:
I put Anthony Watts in the same category as people who used horses and donkeys and swore that the motor car would never catch on. Although Anthony doesn't appear to favour a switch to renewable energy, one thing he is in favour of governments spending taxpayers' money on is nuclear energy. Anthony writes:
I will give them props for calling for more nuclear energy, but the rest of the paper is nothing more than a climate activist’s wet dream.
I'm in a rush today with lots to do, so I'll just post a link to the Hansen paper and the Climate Progress article and an archived version of the WUWT article. If you want you can comment below.
Oh, I've just got to post this comment from one of the WUWT deluded. This is the most scientific rebuttal that most of the WUWTers can come up with!
December 3, 2013 at 5:46 pm
One can not assume good intentions that have been misdirected by stupidity. Ever single person in this list is a Marxist. The destruction of capitalism is the goal. Peoples lives are unimportant.