Wednesday, December 4, 2013

It's all too hard says veteran piker Anthony Watts at WUWT: on Hansen et al

Sou | 1:42 PM Go to the first of 7 comments. Add a comment

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 headline, Anthony Watts doesn't know the difference between being alarmed and being an alarmist.

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!

DesertYote says:
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.


  1. Thanks for stating WUWT is an anti-science blog, like it is. Also thanks for noting that when dealing with anti-scientists and deniers, it's always wise to take a snapshot for the archives since they may change their writings and blogs and may sue people. The sad thing of course is the anti-science snapshots take room on the hard drive. It's also sad these people aren't so stupid they do not understand science, but do their thing to confuse people, and profit from the confusion. Please, people, do not read anti-science. It's crap, and makes you feel worse, you may even get sick of it, like some scientists or science students. If you have a person you love who does maths, engineering, physics, chemistry, transportation, teaching, insurance or is in the military or in the energy sector, do not offend them by reading and reciting crap made by anti-scientists.

  2. To fill in for Sou a bit on commenters ..

    Excerpted from a comment by davidmhoffer:

    But the absence of any of the real heavy weights from the alarmist side is also interesting.

    If Jim Hansen isn't one of the heaviest heavyweights in climate science I don't know who is.

    1. Of course, you could also draw an opposite conclusion: now even several usually less vocal voices make themselves heard.

      Of course, Konrad Steffen, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, David Beerling, and Johan Rockström are not small fish, and definitely not in their own region. Johan Rockström is a very well known name in Sweden for his work on the environment, French people can hardly get around Valerie Masson-Delmotte when it comes to education about climate change, and Konrad Steffen has been throwing out heavy-weight research on Greenland for a very long time already.


    2. Did Hoffer really say that? What an idiotic remark.

      The list is full of luminaries. Jim Zachos' reconstruction of Cenozoic temperatures is so iconic it has been named after him: the Zachos curve. Getting something named after you is a rather big deal in science. Doubtless this Hoffer cretin has never heard of the Zachos curve.

    3. David M. Hoffer is absolutely adorable. On November 19 in one of my last WUWT "conversations", Hoffer suggested at 3:16pm that I should be referred to as "it". His suggestion obviously appealed to ATheoK, who agreed at 7:44pm that I don't deserve a human pronoun. My response at 8:36pm was a tweet that I'd sent less than 24 hours before that (by sheer coincidence).

  3. I'm going to send a copy of this paper to various federal politicians, with a letter posing a number of direct questions intended to ascertain that they have read the paper, and that they understand the significance of the paper, and what their intended response is to the paper.

    I'd urge others to do the same thing - I want to know what our politicians think about the path to destruction that they've steered the world toward.

    Bernard J.

  4. Further to my previous comment, this is exactly the paper that I've been waiting for for several years. I expect that Hansen+17(2013) will become a seminal paper for the decade - and as such that it will attract some of the most vehemently vituperative and venomous vitriol* ever that MBH98 will come a distant second.

    The Denialati can spit and spray as much as they are able, but it won't change the laws of nature.

    Bernard J.

    [*That's the second time today that I've trotted out a variant of that alliteration!]


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.