.

Saturday, July 16, 2016

The ice age wolf is lurking at WUWT, with Rod Martin Jr

Sou | 2:24 PM Go to the first of 56 comments. Add a comment
Anthony Watts is not deluded. He's a science disinformer. Okay, his intellect isn't the greatest but that doesn't mean he doesn't know how to feed his fans the sort of nonsense they want to read. Today he's got another "ice age cometh" article (archived here). It's written at a level suitable for his fans. The reading level is for seven-year-olds, while the content is not suited to any outlet other than a climate conspiracy blog like WUWT.

Anthony's guest, Rod Martin Jr, starts off with a synopsis of the tale about the boy who cried wolf. So what does he do? He cries "wolf" even though there's virtually no chance of his wolf appearing inside of the next 50,000 years at least. Rod wrote:

Currently, we’re approaching a solar minimum. Also, our Earth’s magnetic field is waning. We’ve also gone past the average length of an interglacial by between 500 and 6,000 years. Don’t let the boys crying “wolf” keep us from at least the minimum of preparation, just in case there actually is a “wolf” of climate stalking us. Feeding 7 billion people might not be easy when most of the farmland is either buried in permanent snow or locked in a new desert climate from the lack of rain. After all, cold oceans don’t evaporate much.
Seriously - an ice age is coming? Where from?

Data source: GISS NASA


I checked out the author of this latest ice age prediction, Rod Martin, Jr. He's not just a "climate hoax" conspiracy theorist, he's a 911-truther too. His expertise in climate science is apparently based on him writing science fiction and graduating summa cum laude in his bachelor's degree in computer information technology (from goodness knows where). His website has evidence that he's not an expert in anything, let alone climate science.



From the WUWT comments


Newt Love (@newtlove) says he or she has been reading WUWT since 2004, three years before it began, and wrote:
July 15, 2016 at 3:49 pm
Anthony,
I have been reading WattsUpWithThat.com for over a dozen years. This article stands out to me as one of the best ever for several reasons: the brevity of wit that presents point-blank what is truth versus fiction, the breadth of topics covered, and the overall quality of the presentation of the skeptical viewpoint.
I think that Rod Martin, Jr. deserves a category award at the end of the year.

Which is as damning an indictment of the overall quality at WUWT as you'll find.

56 comments:

  1. He has validated his prediction, and every prediction of an ice age that has been made at WUWT, by using the definition:

    "If the ice persists throughout the year at both poles, then we live in an Ice Age".

    Professor Inferno could hardly have done better. One has to wonder where those pesky scientists get ice cores stretching back 800,000 years or more from.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Millicent, your comment is curiously illogical. Of course scientists will find ice cores stretching back 800,000 years or more if ice persists through each year for more than a million years. Facts are plenty pesky when you understand them properly. But when you misread them, or disagree with a misunderstanding, there's a real disconnect that misses reality altogether.

      Delete
    2. You just blindly and wilfully miss the point Milicent makes Rod Martin Jr.

      The point being if you define an ice age as when ice is at the the poles then we have been in an ice age for 800000 years. Which makes a nonsense of the idea of the concept of an ice age.

      Your comment is just deflection and avoidance.

      I cannot be bothered with the rest of your comments which just seem to ignore all the very real points made in the article.

      Delete
    3. This is not exactly a controversial definition of the phrase "ice age". According to Wikipedia:

      "Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres. By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist." -- this definition was made in 1979 as referenced in works by J. Imbrie and JR Gibbon.

      The point being that we are in an interglacial warm period in the middle of a long-term ice age. These are pretty standard definitions of the terms. By most estimates, the current interglacial is cooler than three of the last four and more stable than all of them.

      Delete
    4. It may not be controversial. But it is pretty damned useless.

      Delete
    5. In this recent paper in Nature, scientists apply the common everyday usage of the term "ice age" rather than the how Rod wants to use it (perhaps to disguise the fact that he was unnecessarily alarmed there might be an imminent icing up).

      Delete
  2. If we want to relate climate science with kiddie stories, we should tell the tale of Pinocchio (aka Monckton).

    Lurker

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ad hominem at its worst. How about sticking to the facts?

      Delete
    2. Fact: Monckton is a bullshit artist. Okay, Rod?

      Lurker

      Delete
    3. According to Martin jr. if Monckton goes ad hominem, no problem, his right. But beware if someone else does!

      Delete
  3. Apparently he Graduated from the American InterContinentsl University - no me neither. Doesn't look the most academic institute:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_InterContinental_University

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Appeals to authority? Not as bad as ad hominem. It isn't Harvard or Yale, but working 40+ hours a week, I got what I could, and did it summa cum laude. Some of my undergrad work was done at Los Angeles Valley College. But you seem to think intelligence is conferred by the institution you go to. Oops!

      Delete
    2. " you seem to think intelligence is conferred by the institution you go to"

      What you think Bwana thinks? Oh dear. Let me tell you what I think Bwana thinks and we can see which of us makes more sense. Here goes:

      For those of us born without the proverbial silver spoon somewhere in the room, the institutions we can go to are limited by our intelligence.

      I think that makes a lot more sense.

      Delete
  4. Currently, we’re approaching a solar minimum. Also, our Earth’s magnetic field is waning. We’ve also gone past the average length of an interglacial by between 500 and 6,000 years.

    And yet it just keeps getting warmer... What's up with that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you have spotty thermometer coverage, and some thermometers are next to heat exhaust vents, then the temperature record is corrupt. Of course things get warmer when you stand next to a heater. Why someone would need to tell you this is a curiosity. But some people don't understand science or logic.

      Delete
    2. Ha ha ha ha ha ha

      Bravo Sir.

      Delete
    3. That is what I would call a strawman answer. Where, Rod Martin, do you get the impression the OP does not understand "things get warmer when you stand next to a heater"?

      You complain repeatedly about ad-hominem directed towards you but what do you think your reply is? A completely unfounded and unwarranted "insult" that does not answer his point in the least. Typical denier modus operandi to avoid actually discussing anything of substance.

      I try to avoid insults. But you are a "--- insert completely irrelevant insult of your choice here ---"

      Delete
    4. I see satellites have lost their appeal this year.

      Delete
    5. Satellites? They are so last year.

      Delete
    6. Rod Martin Jr.

      "When you have spotty thermometer coverage, and some thermometers are next to heat exhaust vents..."

      Give it a rest, you are a fraud. You know full well NOAA checked to see how much effect UHI had on the temperature indexes.

      Delete
  5. His real name is Carl Martin and his real bio ( http://carlmartin.net/ ) is even less impressive. His list of awards for writing appears to be entirely made up. And from his IMDB page (which he wrote himself) we find this nugget:

    "He was even filmed by local TV news at a gallery opening on Wilshire Boulevard, where he had set up his easel, canvas and paints."

    In short, he is a typical WUWT writer who thinks he is very important and very clever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, Humma Kavula (liked "your" Hitchhiker's movie). But you really have your facts wrong.

      I'm not impressive and never claimed to be. If ad hominem, like this is all you have, then you have zero argument. Dumb!

      Me, clever? Sometimes. Made up awards? Did you think up that lie by yourself, or did you have help?

      Real name? Carl Martin? You really are an idiot. Carl is my middle name. All you had to do was ask. But you don't even use your real name, Humma. Ashamed?

      Delete
    2. I note you carefully avoid confirming if the blog is yours Rod Carl Martin Jr.

      If it is yours I like this modest appraisal of yourself:

      "In the last few years, I’ve studied climate science in great depth."

      Oh, oh, oh .... piffle!

      Delete
    3. After browsing the dozens of websites which you have, any sane person almost immediately detects a pattern: the author loves to aggrandize about everything; about his studies, about his career, about his knowledge and about his accomplishments.

      Your 'I've taught professional ethics in information technology' claim at your own site becomes 'I taught ethics in college' at your Smashwords.com bio hich you wrote yourself.

      Your 'Hollywood Artist with screen credit' boils down to a 'special thanks' at the end of the film, a film in which the person responsable for the whole set decoration went uncredited so it is extremely unlike that someone who just contributed 4 paintings would get 'screen credit'.

      And don't get me started on your other alter-ego Tharsis Highlands and the claims about Amazon best sellers for the BS you've written and try to flog.

      Delete
    4. So, no takers on bestseller-to-be 'The Bible's Hidden Wisdom, God's Reason for Noah's Flood. '?

      How about if I was to tempt you with -

      ___________________

      Before Noah's Flood, Man did something bad. It was bad enough to justify a worldwide deluge. What is most peculiar is that no one has really asked what that crime was. We know that it was something Man has been incapable of doing, since. Why? Because God said that He would never again use the Flood. What can possibly be far more evil than the acts of Hitler, Stalin, John Wayne Gacy, and thousands of other evil individuals from the last several thousand years? Now, we know. Finally, we know God's reason for the Flood — not only the surprising target, but why that target needed to be eliminated
      ________________

      Well, um, Jesus!

      What did John say about Dunning-Kruger afflictees? ;-)

      Delete
  6. Check out the bit halfway down this page on his webpage, where he explains that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by a conspiracy involving the Rockefellers, the CIA, and the Federal Reserve Bank..or something:

    http://blog.ancientsuns.com/language-of-science-right-terms-communication/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One's first thought is "where does Anthony Watts dig up these odd people". Then you realise that he doesn't have to make any effort. It's the weirdos who are drawn to Anthony's conspiracy blog.

      Crank magnetism in action.

      Delete
    2. He's also anti-GMO, an anti-vaxxer, and 9/11 truther.

      Delete
    3. And the Gettys, the Rothschilds, the Vatican, the Queen and Colonel Sanders.

      Delete
    4. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund is divesting its investments in fossil fuel companies. I guess that's enough in the eyes of fossil fuel industry shills (and wannabe shills) to justify inclusion in their conspiracy theories.

      Delete
    5. "... a conspiracy involving the Rockefellers, the CIA, and the Federal Reserve Bank..or something"

      And all so they can murder 7 billion people.

      Delete
    6. Curious the state of conspiracy blindness, here. Conspiracies are dirt ordinary and you guys are treating them like fantasy. Good luck with that delusion. Every war started with a conspiracy. Every drug deal is a conspiracy. Every crime involving more than one person involves at least one conspiracy. Get real, people. Based on documented facts, there are at least 15 BILLION conspiracies starting every year. That's more than 489 new conspiracies starting every second on average.

      Sure, Rockefellers divested their portfolios of fossil fuel companies. But if you actually studied history, you'd know that the Rockefeller fortune was built on petroleum (fossil fuel), and they divested kind of late -- like 2014!

      You are the kind of idiots who will blithely ignore crimes until your world crumbles around you. Pity. Humanity could use more help, but with the level of logical incompetence shown here, perhaps it's just as well.

      Delete
    7. "Sure, Rockefellers divested their portfolios of fossil fuel companies. But if you actually studied history, you'd know that the Rockefeller fortune was built on petroleum (fossil fuel), and they divested kind of late -- like 2014!"

      Yes I know all that. Don't assume the kind of ignorance here that you will find at WUWT. But where is the evidence that they have engaged in any kind of conspiracy?

      Delete
    8. "You are the kind of idiots who will blithely ignore crimes"

      Are you saying the Rockefellers have engaged in criminal activity?

      Delete
    9. "Curious the state of conspiracy blindness, here. Conspiracies are dirt ordinary and you guys are treating them like fantasy."

      Sure conspiracies can be dirt ordinary, but they're not the sort of conspiracy you are talking about here. You cannot argue that if two people conspired to rob a bank, that means it's equally likely that some one conspired to create an entire scientific theory in order to murder 7 billion people.

      Delete
    10. "You are the kind of idiots who will blithely ignore crimes until your world crumbles around you."

      You mean the way that climate change deniers ignore, deny, and otherwise misrepresent the science, and act to delay mitigation of emissions, to the point that we're now inevitably committed to a seriously damaged biosphere, and in the near future may be committed to a planet that will not host a biosphere capable of sustaining a continuing global human civilisation?

      Delete
  7. "...brevity of wit..." depth and breadth vanishing to a "...point.." ultimately leaving a "...blank..."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, shucks, folks. I didn't mean to stir up such a fuss. But this article writer doesn't even get his facts straight. And from the poor intelligence displayed by the comments, the audience seems to be similarly challenged.

    The writer said, "Seriously - an ice age is coming? Where from?"

    Well, you're sitting in it! If you would have read more carefully, you'd see in the article that I state quite plainly, "...we live in an Ice Age." Those two little white things at the poles give us that reality. They are made of -- get this! -- ICE! When they persist throughout the year, that means we live in an Ice Age. It's simple, really, but perhaps too simple for you. If you look at a graph of temperature for the last 600 Million years, you'll see that the your graph is insignificantly nothing by comparison. You're talking about 8/10 of ONE degree. How many people can feel that small a change? Residents of Los Angeles get far more than that change every day. They're not freaking out. Phoenix residents get even more. Earth has experienced average temperatures up to 20C warmer and life thrived. And some idiots are proclaiming that warmth is bad. I'd like to see them grow crops in the snow.

    We've been in an Ice Age for 2.6 million years. The Holocene is one of the interglacials of the current Ice Age. But why am I explaining it to you? You're not careful enough to read accurately. Perhaps someone else who stumbles onto this backwater will get a chuckle. Alas!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>Well, shucks, folks. I didn't mean to stir up such a fuss.

      Hi Rod. Welcome to HotWhopper. With your ten tweets so far, and your seven comments here (so far), I'd say you are enjoying the attention:D HotWhopper specialises in replacing science denial with science. It shows up the wacky conspiracy theories, too.

      >>How many people can feel that small a change?

      Some people might not notice (lots of people spend all their time indoors). My 96 year old mother has noticed. Scientists have observed and measured many changes as climate change kicks in. By the end of this century, if we don't cut emissions, we could be looking at 4 to 6 C hotter than pre-industrial temperatures, and it won't stop there unless we do something about it. An ice age (or glacial if you prefer) when much of North America is under ice would be 4 to 8 C cooler than pre-industrial temperatures. People will notice.

      It's not just the heat (which if we keep adding it will make some areas uninhabitable), it's the pace of change. We're warming at a phenomenal rate, and heading for ten times faster than any in the past 65 million years. (Humans have only been around for a couple of hundred thousand years.) Lots of species don't have time to adapt, let alone evolve. If some people don't "notice" then it'll be because they are too busy worrying about the fate of the world.

      Here's a link to an intro to global warming, if you're willing to learn about it. (If you prefer conspiracy theories to science I suggest Prison Planet, Jesse Ventura, David Icke, Above Top Secret, Judith Curry, Jo Nova, and/or WUWT.)

      Delete
    2. "If you prefer conspiracy theories to science I suggest..."

      You left out the best one - Denial Depot.

      Delete
    3. "You're talking about 8/10 of ONE degree. How many people can feel that small a change?"

      Well, fair enough if you're talking about the temperature of your cup of coffee. But when you're talking about the surface temperature of a planet? Just how much energy has to be "pumped" in to achieve that increase?

      Delete
    4. Just the other day, I read an article on "And Then There Was Physics" which decried the trollish internet posts against two Australian scientists.

      I pointed out that there was no monopoly on trollish behavior by one side or the other.

      Thanks for proving me right.

      Delete
    5. So, you are judge and jury of your own amazing insight are you Lorcan? It would help if you actually pointed out some trolling behaviour in at least this part of the thread.

      Let me see Rod says the facts are wrong and everyone is unintelligent. Sou gives a measure reply to Rod. Millicent suggests, tongue in cheek, another web site. Chris makes a point about 8/10 ths of a degree. And then your contribution.

      Justify your comment.

      Delete
    6. Lorcan Bonda.

      "I pointed out that there was no monopoly on trollish behavior by one side or the other."

      You have come to the wrong blog to call the posters here trolls. This is not Jo Nova or WUWT where "outsiders" are pounced upon by attack dogs immediately.

      People on this blog get a fair hearing. But if they continue to attempt to post disinformation and factually-incorrect material, they will cop it.

      Delete
    7. I think we know who is trying hardest to troll here.

      Anon 2

      Delete
    8. Lorcan, hyperlinks are always helpful. The ATTP article you refer to is Gergis et al. ATTP does not use the term 'trollish' -- because he didn't mean trollish behavior. An internet troll is someone that is a provocateur. Starting arguments just for fun. The behavior ATTP was describing is far beyond trollish -- it's dangerous; i.e., scientists have received death threats.

      There is a line of civility and respect that one must extend if one wishes it to be reciprocated. On the denial side you can find posters calling scientists frauds, liars and whatever --- then expect the same scientists to treat their every request with alacrity and seriousness.

      Most of the denizens of WUWT and similar sites are *NOT* internet trolls. Their boorish behavior is a result of ignorance and/or self-delusion. Most of them believe in the crap they spout which is why they lap up the crap AW feeds them.

      Delete
    9. Lorcan Bonda is absolutely right. He has proved himself right :)

      Delete
    10. Rod Martin, Jr.

      quote

      But this article writer doesn't even get his facts straight...

      ...The writer said, "Seriously - an ice age is coming? Where from?"

      End quote

      There is an irony in that statement. Now what's this about intelligence? If you have any you will discover what is ironic about your statement, can you?

      Delete
    11. @Lorcan

      "Justify your comment."

      "But answer came there none--
      And this was scarcely odd, because
      They'd eaten every one."

      Delete
    12. I find Martin's website to be fairly eye-opening for someone claiming a computer sciences degree in itself, let alone using fractions, minimising global scale and pointing out that the plants will be just fine. We know that the plants will be fine, it's the Mammalian life we're worried about.

      Delete
  9. I'm guessing that RMJ already has his ticket for the bus that will take climate change deniers to the next ice age, courtesy of the latest coronal hole which must surely be further evidence that the sun is responsible for all that deviation from a Holocene Optimum climate.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Let me point out, there's nothing wrong with being a fantasy/science fiction writer with a computer science background who has made an effort to learn about topics like climate science. That's my bio too. I do not, however, confuse my fantasies with reality, nor try to disinform the public.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said. I immediately thought of Michael Crichton and Jerry Pournelle when I read your post.

      Delete
  11. I offer a rule that has saved me much time:
    never engage with serious Dunning-Kruger afflictees ...
    of which there are many.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd have to modify that to "never engage with Dunning-Kruger afflictees with any serious intent on your own part" because I have found the contact extremely entertaining.

      Delete
  12. Each to their own, but I've been on public electronic disucssions groups since 1985, and after a while, amusement shrinks. :-)

    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.