Scroll To Top

Monday, November 10, 2014

Fallen off their rockers...

Sou | 2:53 PM Go to the first of 13 comments. Add a comment

Seems like Anthony Watts and everyone else at WUWT have fallen off their rockers. They've gone into denial extremis. Today Anthony has posted the dumbest article ever by his good friend and much alleged scientist defamer, Tim Ball (archived here).

Tim writes:

Man-made global warming is real, because it was humans who created the idea and proved, independent of nature, that human activity was the cause. It is a real idea; it is not real in fact. 

And then started quoting Goethe. I didn't read any further. Why would I? Would you? I'll just post a selection from the comments of the "fallen off their rockers" WUWT brigade.

Meanwhile, in the Bering Sea ...

If you want to read something more interesting, try this article about the strongest storm in the Bering Sea since records began in the 1970s - from Angela Fritz of the Capital Weather Gang. Looks like some people are riding it out.

From the WUWT comments

Dick Storm writes - and I call Poe:
November 9, 2014 at 3:41 am
Thank you Dr. Ball, Mr. Watts and all who are offering the true facts on AGW. Yes it is Political and sadly the well funded greens are against the best interests of the Free World. Keep up the excellent work. 

kk16085 might not be completely off his rocker:
November 9, 2014 at 5:00 am
Destroying the mother Earth is not by humans but those few who are exploiting it for super profit! 

jim south london says (extract)
November 9, 2014 at 5:37 am
We now live in a Media savvy digital age
So why not use crowd Sourcing perhaps allowing Andrew Montford to hire a TV production crew to do a Youtube video version of The Hockey Stick Illusion/Yamal Conspiracy.
History will hopefully look back on Climate Skepticism as the first international political Coalition movement in the 21st Century.
It will certainly look back on Climate Change Alarmism as the last post Cold War Millennial angst movement of the last Century. 

 Alx says
November 9, 2014 at 5:43 am
This re-enforces my thoughts I have had for awhile. GW is more interesting and has more value as a study of sociology, psychology and culture than climate.

TimC mistakenly thinks he is writing to a sentient being and asks, in vain:
November 9, 2014 at 7:21 am
Dr Ball said “Man-made global warming is … a real idea; it is not real in fact”.
I agree that it is a real idea, but could you please analyse this a little further so I can fully understand your position (that it is not real in fact): (a) is humankind wholly or partly the cause of the increased Co2 in the atmosphere (or are you saying humankind is not the cause, or there is no such increase in Co2); (b) does such increase in atmospheric Co2 (if present) potentially cause any discernible increase in temperatures at the earth’s surface – whether or not this is purely transient or masked by some other natural cycle(s) and (c) do I have it correctly that you suggest there will be no long-term increase at all in temperatures at the surface –is this because increased Co2 does not have any transient effect at all, or because the transient effect will be wholly reversed by some other long-term feedback effect – and, if so, what is this?
Would be grateful for clarification … 

.Physicist. wrote some meaningless gobbledegook that I cannot be bothered trying to decipher:
November 9, 2014 at 6:03 pm
You’ll never get anywhere arguing with lukes and warmists over temperature records because natural warming will start again after the year 2029. You need to attack the false physics. The calculation of the 255K temperature is way out and it should have been 30 to 40 degrees higher because they forgot to take out the reflection by clouds and they used emissivity of 1.000 instead of 0.88 or less for a rocky planet which would have been hotter than current temperatures (not 33 degrees colder) because of a lack of water vapour, clouds, oceans, carbon dioxide, vegetation, methane etc.. 


  1. My possums have more intelligence than these cretins. We have a nightly ritual where I place fresh (multigrain) bread on a platform for their survival.

    Just lately a native rat has joined the party. She was very scared at first. Then she got more brave and was waiting for the handout. Now she just rushes up and takes the bit of bread out of my hand and runs away. It is getting out of hand as now her children are just as cheeky! Bert

    1. How delightful, Bert. The magpies and kangaroos here help restore my sanity - or they do their best (they are not always successful).

      It does look as if Anthony Watts has given up on pretending to be a climate blog, and has now handed his blog over to the utter nutters. Although that was always his target audience, wasn't it.

    2. We used to have two sayings in our laboratory.

      If you are doubting your own sanity. Everything is still fine.

      If you remembered you forgot. Everything is still fine.

      If like some people you do not doubt your own sanity and conveniently forget what you have forgotten or omitted and then denigrate your perceived enemies without any evidence you get the behaviour of these denialists. The projection of their own motives is palpable.

      Lewandowsky did it far better. Bert

  2. I don't know what I'd do if a student handed this in as a piece of writing. It's bad practice to laugh and belittle the best but failed efforts of the not-too-bright.

    Good thing these people are adults. I can point and laugh with a clear conscience.

  3. The entire premise to Tim's argument is that the evidence of AGW is entirely from computer models. Of course if he did just a little bit of research, he would understand that this is simply not the case. The evidence of AGW, based on observations (such as the spectrography of carbon dioxide, Stefan's Law, Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation), was already around in the 19th century, decades before the first computer climate models. But of course facts and observations of reality have no place in the denier hive mind.

  4. "I didn't read any further."
    Well, I did and it actually went down-hill. Did you know that Marc Morano has made a "documentary"?

  5. TB should not have limited himself to one Goethe quote but should have heeded Goethe's advice "… to restrain himself within the limits of his comprehension." and not have written his article at all. Leave aside the dubious content of the article, its structure is appalling; in short, it's all over the place. In future, TB should be heedful of the Goethe comments, "Nothing shows a man's character more than what he laughs at." and "We know accurately only when we know little; …" And, within my somewhat limited knowledge of the works of Goethe, the quote "the unnatural, that too is natural" is a reference to showing tolerance to others, specifically the metaphysical poets of his era.

    Further into his article, TB draws a long bow in his attempt make a link between gossiping and the way the media (and Al Gore, surprise, surprise) determine the message on AGW. TB's ideas on gossip need refining as not all gossip is destructive. 'Good' gossip can bind people and a community together; gossip in itself is inevitable and blameless, it's the content that can be a problem. In evolutionary psychology, gossip has an important role which has escaped TB's attention. And somehow or other, he tries to draw it all together within a "the medium is the message" theme. Articles like this are, in the words of Fred Singer, "giving skeptics a bad name". (Oh! The irony.)

  6. Goethe about how we all can contribute so solve a problem:

    "Let everyone sweep in front of his own door, and the whole world will be clean."

  7. I have some sympathy with Alx - "GW is more interesting and has more value as a study of sociology, psychology and culture than climate" - although I'd say "as interesting" rather than more.

    1. But they are not interested: when Stephan Lewandowsky does study them they have a tissy fit and issue threats of legal action.

    2. Which is interesting :)

  8. But the next time you will be debating a mitigation sceptic at a place where he needs to look reasonable he will claim: "sceptics [of mitigation] do not claim that CO2 is not causing some warming, we only ..."

    We should gather statements like the above. Then we can link to it and answer: "That is not fully correct." or something a bit more snarky.


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.