.

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Who to believe - wattsupwiththat or WUWT?

Sou | 5:31 PM Go to the first of 15 comments. Add a comment

It was only yesterday that Anthony Watts commented about the IPCC WGII report that it signalled:
Ouch. Game over for climate alarm.
That comment from Anthony was based on an article by Matt Ridley, which Anthony liked so much he made it a "top sticky post".  Matt Ridley wrote about the WGII report (that should be out tomorrow) that "Even while it exaggerates the amount of warming, the IPCC is becoming more cautious about its effects."

How opinions can turn in an instant.  Today Anthony is urging his readers (archived here):
The Working Group II IPCC report from the big shindig in Japan this week will be making headlines shortly, but take those headlines with a grain of salt.

Anthony copied the article in which Richard Tol said: "The drafts became too alarmist,".  Richard has a different reaction to Matt Ridley when faced with reality. Matt denies, Richard hides.

The dumbo's at WUWT will be more confused than ever.  Which is it? "Too alarmist" or "game over for climate alarm"? The GWPF will be in a tizz, too.  Both Richard Tol and Matt Ridley are "academically advising" them!

If you want to read more about these contrarian contradictions, I wrote about them yesterday.


From the WUWT comments


There aren't many comments yet.  I'll post one which probably referred to this excerpt from the WUWT copy and paste:
He [Richard Tol] said, for instance, farmers could grow new and different crops to offset any negative impacts from climate change that impacted food supplies.
“They will adapt,” Mr. Tol said, Reuters reported. “Farmers are not stupid.”

bushbunny, who is probably from Australia, says:
March 29, 2014 at 10:59 pm
Oh, yes, like the suggestion Australians should dump sheep and cattle, and farm kangaroos.
By at
Labels: , , , ,

15 comments:

  1. MillicentMarch 31, 2014 at 2:28 AM

    It was game over with the turkey that was Climategate. It was game over with Lindzen's Iris hypothesis. Wattses own paper was a 'game changer' too. In fact, I have lost count of the number of times the 'game' has been over.

    And, at both poles, still the ice melts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 15, 2014 at 3:46 AM

      You better do your home work on ice melt at the poles.

      Delete
    2. PLApril 15, 2014 at 4:40 AM

      Sea ice:

      Arctic: area going down rapidly; volume going down very rapidly

      Antarctic: area rising, very slowly; volume change unknown

      Ice sheets (sea level contributions)

      Greenland: accelerating mass loss

      Antarctica: mass loss

      The only one going up (Antarctic sea ice) can be understood in terms of increased freshwater flow off the Antarctic continent.

      Delete
    3. Jammy DodgerApril 15, 2014 at 7:20 AM

      Are you the same Anonymous who posted about sea-ice recently? I think it is you who has not done their homework.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousApril 15, 2014 at 11:33 PM

      This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousApril 15, 2014 at 11:40 PM

      This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousApril 16, 2014 at 12:11 AM

      This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    7. Bernard J.April 16, 2014 at 12:12 AM

      Paging Stephan Lewandowsky - one of your monkeys has escaped...

      Delete
    8. Bernard J.April 16, 2014 at 12:18 AM

      "...Burt Rutan..."

      Oh, you mean this Burt Rutan:

      http://scholarsandrogues.com/2012/01/27/open-letter-to-burt-rutan/

      http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/some-questions-for-rutan/

      When it comes to climatology and Burt Rutan, one wheel's off and the axle's dragging...

      Delete
    9. Bernard J.April 16, 2014 at 12:23 AM

      "There is now a law that has declared the Co2 we exhale as a poisonous gas...."

      Which law?

      And is it the case that you really are so thick that you don't know the difference between "poisonous" and "pollutant"?!

      Delete
    10. SouApril 16, 2014 at 12:35 AM

      Jason, thanks for visiting. You seem to sincerely hold your beliefs, er, thoughts. I haven't deleted your comments altogether, just moved them. If you would like to see them in print, visit the HotWhoppery.

      (Also read the comment policy. Posting links to pseudo-science and conspiracy theory websites is frowned upon here.)

      Delete
    11. AnonymousApril 28, 2017 at 11:35 PM

      The Ice Age is still retreating, just as it did when that breathless twaddle of Noah got written. What is more, it is all about to go into reverse. We shall freeze in winter and roast in Summer for a while yet just as we have for the past coupl of decades.

      Delete
    12. MillicentApril 28, 2017 at 11:45 PM

      And the mechanism for that reversal is what: pixie dust?

      Delete
  2. dhogazaMarch 31, 2014 at 3:24 AM

    The best was the original announcement of the UAH satellite lower troposphere temperature reconstruction, showing cooling rather than warming.

    According to the WSJ at the time, that was not just a "game changer" …

    That was a "wooden stake through the heart of global warming".

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownMarch 31, 2014 at 5:54 AM

    "it sounds like they have done something different this time, and are moving in what I regard as the right direction."

    I wonder if JC will keep with this line of thought.

    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. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)