Monday, March 16, 2015

Denier weird from the Global Warming Policy Foundation and WUWT

Sou | 8:34 PM Go to the first of 16 comments. Add a comment

I've been otherwise occupied the last couple of days and have missed a few items from denier land. I will make up - but not just yet.

In the meantime, here's a taster from WUWT.

Anthony Watts has an article (archived here) about how a bedraggled bunch of deniers has written a booklet for the denialist lobby group the Global Warming Policy Foundation. I didn't have to read any further than the first couple of sentences on page one to see that they are behaving like nutters. For example - the first chapter starts with the following quote from some Royal Society publication:
Royal Society: Yes. Earth’s average surface air temperature has increased by about 0.8◦C (1.4◦F) since 1900, with much of this increase taking place since the mid-1970s. A wide range of other observations such as sea-level rise, reduced Arctic sea ice extent and increased ocean heat content provide incontrovertible evidence of a warming Earth.
Underneath that quote, the GWPF's first sentence in the first chapter - on global warming and surface temperature:
A fuller picture: This is hardly an important question. The Earth’s surface is always warming or cooling, or on some occasions barely changing.

Profound, not! So global warming isn't an important question. Right.  WUWT and the Global Warming Policy Foundation can shut up shop.

Anthony or whoever penned the blurb from the GWPF wrote:
The paper was written and endorsed by the following experts:
  • Prof Robert Carter
  • Prof Vincent Courtillot
  • Prof Freeman Dyson
  • Prof Christopher Essex
  • Dr Indur Goklany
  • Prof Will Happer
  • Prof Richard Lindzen
  • Prof Ross McKitrick
  • Prof Ian Plimer
  • Dr Matt Ridley
  • Sir Alan Rudge
  • Prof Nir Shaviv
  • Prof Fritz Vahrenholt

The only thing this ragtag mob have any "expertise" in is in spouting various denialist memes. I bet that most of them wrote not a word of the booklet. They probably just lent their names to it, and as probably, sight unseen.


  1. Every year my accountant provides me with incontrovertible evidence that my bank accounts are decreasing. Whereupon, I provide him with the fuller picture. He gets this strange look when he's informed that decreasing bank accounts are hardly important. After all, my bank accounts are always increasing and decreasing, or on some occasions hardly changing at all. I didn't know it but, according to my accountant, it's called the Ridley Principle aka the Northern Rock Postulate. He's now taken to calling me an irRational Optimist, whatever that means.

  2. I note it avoided faking Screaming Lord Such of Wapping's moniker, so I'm awarding the GWPF 1/2 a point for that.

    1. Said Viscount is out stumping for MSLB (2015) today:

      We assumed ad argumentum that all warming since 1850 was anthropogenic, ran our model and found that the variance between its predicted warming to 2014 and the observed outturn was nil, implying – as explicitly stated in the paper, that there is no committed but unrealized global warming in the pipeline. See table 4 of our paper.

      Table 4 sets the transience fraction, rₜ, to 0.6. The math here is trivial, but his ability to mangle the Queen's English is not.

  3. I wonder why dyson continues to associate with this. He has repeatedly said he doesn't actually follow what is going on with climate change

    1. Heh, maybe his not actually following it is why he isn't bothered by the association.

  4. Dyson has formed an opinion about AGW but it's inconceivable that this giant's view was informed by science. It's probably some peccadillo that ageing sometimes brings . Maybe he just hated James Hanson's beard. Who didn't?

    1. This observer is of the opinion that certain classes of physicists have the same problem with climate that such an outsized proportion of engineers do -- it cannot be studied in the way they're accustomed, which translates to how it's being studied is flawed.

    2. OK. I also note that wandering through any Australian university campus , only those students studying Engineering are easily identified by their demeanour. Is this a thing elsewhere?

    3. Could be, but these days whenever I'm near campus I'm usually too distracted by what the fairer gendered kids aren't wearing to even think about what their major might be. I'd miss a pocket protector or a slide rule even if those were still standard equipment ... as if there would be place to hang one. Yes, I'm going to hell.

    4. Na, it's kind of a loud, confident, hungover, right wing and wrong kind of demeanour. Probably just an Australian thing

    5. So only Aussie engineers go on holiday to Bali then? :-)

      We've got the same thing here in the States. They're called NASCAR drivers.

    6. Na, it's kind of a loud, confident, hungover, right wing and wrong kind of demeanour.

      "Hungover" carries the implication that the subject has stopped drinking for some minimal period of time, long enough for the intoxication to start wearing off. That is not my experience with engineering students in Oz.

  5. As usual, the WUWT comments are entertaining. It appears that the 'correct' measure for global warming is now "Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice" anomaly.

    1. Only until the next big snowstorm.

    2. Of course. Southern sea ice extent is very important. So important that evidence of southern sea ice volume loss can be conveniently ignored.


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.