Saturday, December 7, 2013

Denier weirdness: This is Denialism at WUWT

Sou | 10:47 AM Go to the first of 40 comments. Add a comment

Deniers are in hysterics and over the moon, tickled pink with a "funny" video Anthony Watts dug up from somewhere or other (archived here).  It's supposed to be a skit on the SkepticalScience escalator.  The video shows the escalator with global surface temperature, then zooms out to to show temperatures going back about 12,000 years.  Only thing is...

Well, I'll let you see for yourself.  This isn't the whole video, just a short segment plus a bit I added.  In fact it's my very first ever YouTube video.  In fact I think it's the very first video I have ever produced or the first published at least.  (I might have played around with one a couple of decades ago.) It's just a slight edit of the one at WUWT, but I don't think anyone will mind too much seeing it's mainly charts of SkepticalScience and elsewhere.

From the WUWT comments

If you want to read the reaction to the original at WUWT, it might as well be a reaction to the edited version above :)

Seriously, though.  "Wonderful"? "Fantastic"? "Brilliant"? The "most hilarious video ever"? Sheesh, those sad sacks must be hard up for entertainment. (Archived here.)

Mike Maguire says:
December 6, 2013 at 11:16 am
That’s the most hilarious video ever!!!

philjourdan says:
December 6, 2013 at 11:21 am
The art of humor! Josh is a prize! LOL

Brian Cooper says:
December 6, 2013 at 11:21 am

Larry Ledwick says:
December 6, 2013 at 11:24 am
I think I hurt myself!
That is the best laugh I have had in a long time.

PaulH says:
December 6, 2013 at 11:24 am
Ha ha! Cute. :-)

Mac the Knife says:
December 6, 2013 at 11:27 am
….No! Don’t Go There!…Think Of The Children!….. (in that funky, whiny voice….)
Gads! Just about coughed clam chowder across the display monitor!
Too funny!

ldd says:
December 6, 2013 at 11:28 am
Succinct & funny!

dbstealey is always a bit slow on the uptake.  In fact he's usually so slow that he never gets up.  This time he eventually does and says:
December 6, 2013 at 11:31 am
At first they had me going — I ran to my bookmarks and found this.
But then I saw the article was a Cook parody.

Jonathan Abbott says:
December 6, 2013 at 11:41 am
Wonderful, people!

Tom G(ologist) actually "lectures" this way?  Poor students.  Tom says:
December 6, 2013 at 11:42 am
Very effective. When I lecture on this topic I show similar graphs for the past 250 years, 25,000 years, 250,000 yrs, 60,000,000 yrs and 600,000,000 yrs. I then hold out my pointer and invite (I actually DARE) anyone to come to the stage and draw the horizontal line across the graph which would represent the temperature the Earth SHOUD be. It is the first thing I do in every presentation and I have yet to get a taker. It is a really effective way to preclude any heckling about unprecedented temperatures or rates of warming as I go through the rest of the graphs..

john robertson says:
December 6, 2013 at 11:47 am
The proper and civilized method of dealing with delusional zealots.
Right on, John!

crabalocker says:
December 6, 2013 at 11:57 am
That’s pretty funny!

Bloke down the pub says:
December 6, 2013 at 12:02 pm
Unfortunately it sounded all too realistic.

TimiBoy says:
December 6, 2013 at 12:03 pm
Best ever. Easiest Nobel Prize win. Well, it should be…

David, UK says:
December 6, 2013 at 12:25 pm
I genuinely laughed out loud! Thanks for sharing!

phillipbratby says:
December 6, 2013 at 12:25 pm
Brilliant, just brilliant.

David, UK says:
December 6, 2013 at 12:31 pm
Duly shared on Facebook!

Stephen Brown says:
December 6, 2013 at 3:08 pm
I started watching this and went into “Gobsmacked” mode, then I started laughing, and laughing some more. Each switch to the longer time-frame graph brought on more hilarity! The “Think of the children” comment floored me!!
Abso-bloody-lutely BRILLIANT

And a zillion more in that vein.  There were a few party poopers though.  For example,  Felix says:
December 6, 2013 at 1:24 pm
Comparing global mean temperature to data from just one location is not valid. If you want to refute SkS refute this:

And Neven's comment got censored with a rude remark.  Anthony must have gone over his "no more than two science types at a time" limit. NevenA says:
December 6, 2013 at 1:10 pm
[it is humor, get over yourself - mod]

I think my version is worth at least the same level of rapturous adulation, don't you? :D


  1. Arctic Sea ice Downfall:


  2. Sou,
    it is what they do.
    cheer on anything which sounds right
    preferably needing nothing of the mind's might.


  3. FWIW, I wrote asking whether that graph splicing Greenland ice cores and the Escalator was correct, because if it wasn't I would suddenly start to understand the way deniers view AGW.

    This, of course, was too much.

    1. Neven, did you use the word "denier"?

      You are allowed to use "alarmist", "watermelon", "warmist" and much more, but AFAIK they don't like to use accurate terminology when applied to the vast majority.

      Thing is, the majority of people at WUWT really do think that the average global surface temperature of Earth is minus 33 degrees. At least that's what the comments indicate.

      They also think that the average surface temperature of earth has gone up and down by three degrees and more during the Holocene.

      They are a very weird mob at WUWT.

      I see that arch-denier Smokey is even saying since it's not yet as hot as it was in the hottest periods of the Jurassic and Cretaceous then we shouldn't be complaining and have "nothing to worry about"! I don't know how he reconciles that with the WUWT view that the current global average surface temperature is minus 30 degrees or so.

    2. Why, yes, I used the word 'denier', as it was used in the title (how deniers view global warming).

  4. I just watched your video, Sou. Is that graph an 'improvement' on the Don Easterbrook piece of disinformation?

    I really understand now how deniers view AGW. They just make stuff up. And when someone says 'hey, that's not correct', they write in small letters 'it is humor, get over yourself'.

    In the meantime, there are people out there who think that graph is correct.

    1. Yes the majority of people who commented really do think that. I'm not just kidding around. You can see from the comments that most of the people at WUWT really do think that the chart is of average global surface temperature. And those who see how silly it is and read the writing under the chart, nevertheless argue that the top of the ice sheet in Greenland is a valid proxy for global surface temperature. They are utter nutters.

      Oh - and to save me writing another comment - I see that the title did include the word "denier". So as usual, your comment was deleted for no reason other than you pointed out the "wrong" in the video. Can't have deniers getting the right info (another unwritten policy at WUWT).

      (I don't get why you are in their bad books Neven. On your blog you have a reputation among scientists and fake sceptics alike for fairness, civility and lack of bias.)

    2. I went over the edge a couple of times in the past on WUWT, with Watts doing the intimidation routine by revealing the place where I live, before I started the ASIB. Let's just say that my commenter-persona and blogger-persona differ somewhat, although there is some occasional snark on the ASIB as well.

    3. Anthony is a bully. The nonsense on his blog is just that. He keeps his fans by appealing to those whose baser instincts are not far below the surface. The WUWT lynch mob. It's all theatre to him. When someone gets targeted he'll plead that it wasn't his doing. But that's what he's dogwhistling for.

    4. For what it's worth Neven, you have real science-loving fans such as myself who learn a lot from your blog. Who thought ice could be that interesting?

  5. Wasn't this nonsense covered in "Easterbrook's wrong (again)" on Hotopic?


    Not just a poor proxy for global temperatures but very misleading in that the 'present' is actually the GISP2 data from 1855.

    Is this correct?

  6. I saw that video. Someone tried to post it to Wotts' blog. So Neven got moderated for questioning the accuracy of a graph? It's interesting to see how they choose to moderate comments at WUWT.

  7. In addition, the scales don't match. The red trend line goes over about 0.7 degrees, but when inserted into the Greenland graph, it seems to be only half of that.

  8. I will point out these are the same people who think Josh is funny.

    And, yep, that 'extended' graph is crap and the manipulators know it, even if the manipulated chose not to.

    How anyone can feel smug about such a shamefully hollow 'triumph' is beyond me...

  9. Sou, if splicing two sets of temperature data simply because one does not show the "desired result" upsets you so much, you're really going to crap yourself when you see what Michael Mann concocted to create the Hockey Stick graph.

    1. The least you could do, is try to be a good parrot.

    2. Paleo data is from all around the world. Michael Mann and his colleagues have researched more than one temperature series. I wonder which one Anonymous is thinking of.

      He's wrong of course.

      Blatant deniers have no qualms when it comes to libel and slander.

      I wonder what anonymous thinks of PAGES 2K and Marcott13 and the rest of the constant stream of research that's coming through, which all have the same hockey stick shape. (Anon could be a conspiracy theorist of the fantastic kind who thinks 70% of the world are members of a secret cult out to get deniers.)

      I wouldn't have believed there were so many people in the world like anonymous who are willing to lie through their teeth, if I hadn't come across them at HotCopper and then WUWT.

      I mean if they were simply ignorant on the subject of climate they'd say so. But they don't. Either they are lying about their ignorance or they are lying while knowing full well that multiple lines of evidence show that the temperature is on its way to rising ten times more quickly than it has in 65 million years.

    3. Anonymous must be one of those odd WUWT people who thinks the current surface temperature of Earth is minus 30 degrees. Just another nutter.

    4. are you so incredibly ignorant that you think greenland and the global average are the same?

      that's a "yes" or "no" question by the way.

    5. Sou has, on many occasions, pointed out what many deniers seem to think is true, that the Central England Temperature is not the whole globe. I don't think she'd make the mistake with Greenland. Read some of her previous posts.

    6. Not sure imsaidnthat properly. Deniers use the CET as a proxy for the globe. Sou points out out that it isn't. Often. That's because the deniers don't listen.

  10. @catmando: I think Anon2 (Dec 8, 2:35 am) was responding to Anon1 (Dec 7, 10:51 pm), not to Sou.


    1. Not again. I keep putting foot in mouth, so to speak by not reading things properly. Apologies to the relevant parties.

  11. OT, but you may want to change "Wotts up with that blog" to "And then there’s physics" in your blog roll.

  12. I'm putting in my 2p's worth on this thread at WU .... as TB

  13. I think you entirely missed the whole point. The information presented in a sarcastic manner was meant to demonstrate that the earth undergoes natural cyclical temperature changes and that CO2 is not the influential medium that Mann et al make it out to be.

    The main criticism of Michael Mann's work stems from his poor use of math. When statistical experts like Richard Wegman, Steve McIntrye, etc. state that Mann's erroneous use of statistical analysis invalidates his conclusions, one needs to take serious note.

    1. The climate is determined by radiative forcings, which is why scientists are concerned about releasing CO2 ten times faster than before the Great Dying. That point is actually reinforced by paleoclimate evidence.

      One needs to take serious note of Wegman's lies to Congress and McIntyre's crack cocaine accusations.

    2. CO2 is very influential. Depending on whether it's rising or falling it can precipitate a hothouse or an ice age.

      Chad obviously isn't au fait with climate science or with how Wegman's report was thoroughly discredited or with how so many of McIntyre's ramblings have been shown up as nonsense.

      I sometimes get the feeling that out of all the thousands of earth system scientists in the world over multiple decades, some deniers have only ever heard of one - Michael Mann. And maybe Phil Jones at a pinch.

      I'd say Chad has never read any climate science. He gets his ideas from malicious and wrong gossip on anti-science websites.

    3. Chad I think you entirely missed the whole point. If the information had been presented in an *accurate* manner rather than a sarcastic manner you would see a huge jump in temperature in the 20th century, rather than some piddling uptick.

    4. "When statistical experts like Richard Wegman, Steve McIntrye, etc. state that Mann's erroneous use of statistical analysis invalidates his conclusions, one needs to take serious note."

      Even if I would not use the term "statistical experts" to describe Wegman and McIntyre, there was some valid criticism regarding the statistical methods in MBH98, which were corrected in subsequent papers, notably MBH99, and the Hockey Stick itself was vindicated by a dozen more studies using different proxies and different methods.

      Nevertheless, the AGW theory would be robust all the same without Mann and the hockey stick. You know, physics and all these sorts of things...

    5. those criticisms have been looked at and determined they don't change the overall result of his work, which is why every large scale reconstruction agrees with his work.

  14. Just so people can see what a distortion of the truth is this nonsense from WUWT, I've updated the graphic from Wikipedia:


    Bernard J.

    1. Yep, that's a sobering chart. Let's all hope R.C.P. 8.5 does not come to pass!

    2. I might re-jig that graphic, because I had a bit of an issue with changing the dimensions of the RCP8.5 trajectory and in the end redrew it by hand. As it was around 2:30 am I was too tired to have another go at the time, but in the light of day it's apparent that RCP8.5 actually increases at a faster rate in the mid-21st century than I illustrated...

      Bernard J.

    3. Great job, Bernard. I suggest you delineate where the actual joins the projection in words, and write above RCP8.5 that it is a projection.

      Some idiots might claim it's what's "warmists" say has already happened!

    4. I polished the earlier version of the Wikipedia Temperature of Planet Earth image that I posted above - the new version is here:


      Feel free to comment, complain, and/or disseminate as desired!

      Bernard J.

    5. Thanks, Bernard. I've taken you up on your offer to disseminate and put it in my latest article. (Hope I got the credits and sources correct.)

      I'll be likely to use it a lot. It does put things into perspective, doesn't it.


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. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.