Seen under the incomprehensible gobbledegook by Tim Ball at WUWT (archived here):
For the record, I don’t agree with Dr. Ball’s opinions on CO2, not being a greenhouse gas, the science is quite clear on that issue long before global warming being an issue. The only valid question is climate sensitivity – Anthony
Maybe the owner of that pseudo-science blog, Anthony Watts, has been reading HotWhopper!
Okay, just a couple of snippets from Tim Ball that Anthony hasn't objected to:
...The supposed prestige of that Society was used to persuade other national Science Societies that human caused global warming was a serious and proven fact....
...Climate science is the work of specialists working on one small part of climatology. It’s a classic example of not seeing the forest for the trees, amplified when computer modellers are involved. They are specialists trying to be generalists but omit major segments, and often don’t know interrelationships, interactions and feedbacks in the general picture....
...The claim that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) didn’t exist is a classic example of a piece that didn’t fit... (Sou: Scientists don't claim that the Medieval Warm Period didn't exist. It did, as discussed by Michael Mann. It wasn't a world-wide warming though.)
If Watts doesn't agree with Ball about it, then why give Ball a platform to make those claims on Watts' blog?
ReplyDeleteSince there is nothing in Tim Ball's rambling article that makes any sense, and with Tim Ball constantly spouting crazy paranoid conspiracy theories - that is the $64,000 question.
DeleteMaybe he's just following instructions from on low :(
It may be that Watts accepts CO2 is a greenhouse gas because someone he trusts (Pielke?) told him so, not because he has any real understanding of the concept. This could lead to cognitive dissonance that may account for some of his inconsistencies.
ReplyDeleteI don't have the stomach to wade through his past writings, but is there any evidence that Watts really understands how greenhouse gases work?
Deniers rarely contradict each other. It is a big tent that accomdates the whole gamut of conjecture that, when considered as a whole, makes no sense. In other words they have no overarching theory that describes all the observations. This is compounded by filtering acceptable data on the basis of these conjectures.
ReplyDelete