Biomass research is a dead giveaway of the politics at WUWT, with Agenda 21 conspiracy theories

Anthony Watts has an article (archived here) about a new paper in Nature. The paper was about how humans have altered the land surface so that the biomass is a net emitter of greenhouse gases, which was a surprise to them. The scientists looked at the net emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide from every region of land.

Source: Carnegie Science

From the mundane to the ridiculous - varieties in denial at wattsupwiththat

I've been following Anthony Watts' denier blog wattsupwiththat for several months now.  Over that time it's gone from the ridiculous to mundane denialism.  Today there is an article that typifies the mundane as well as an article that typifies the ridiculous.

The mundane denial at WUWT

Anthony Watts (archived here) copied and pasted another press release at WUWT. For a change he decided to link to the press release from the University of Missouri. The science is about the development of a "sophisticated statistical model".  It's not just any statistical model though.  From the press release:

“The ocean really is the most important part of the world’s environmental system because of its potential to store carbon and heat, but also because of its ability to influence major atmospheric weather events such as droughts, hurricanes and tornados,” said Chris Wikle, professor of statistics in the MU College of Arts and Science. “At the same time, it is essential in producing a food chain that is a critical part of the world’s fisheries.”

...“Nate Silver of The New York Times combined various sources of information to understand and better predict the uncertainty associated with elections,” Wikle said. “So much like that, we developed more sophisticated statistical methods to combine various sources of data—satellite images, data from ocean buoys and ships, and scientific experience—to better understand the atmosphere over the ocean and the ocean itself. This led to models that help to better predict the state of the Mediterranean Sea, and the long-lead time prediction of El Nińo and La Nińa. 

I'm not sure why the press release only came out in the past week. And the press release doesn't seem to reflect the papers it refers to very well.  The work was published in Oceanography last December and in Statistical Science in the November 2013 issue.

From the Oceanography paper, it looks to be a novel if complex approach, probably suiting the nature of what they are modeling. However that's not for me to judge.  I am ill-equipped to follow the discussion in the Oceanography paper, having no experience and little understanding of the intricacies of the lower trophic level ocean ecosystem or the methods they discuss.

Not so the science deniers at WUWT.  They are right on top of this one.  Anthony starts by poo-pooing the paper because the press release headline contains the word "could", as in "New Statistical Models Could Lead to Better Predictions of Ocean Patterns and the Impacts on Weather, Climate and Ecosystem, MU Scientist Finds".  Anthony's dog whistle (and only) comment was:

...note the operative word “could”.

I think that Anthony would be even less well-equipped than I to judge the merits of the approach.  In any case he makes no other comment of his own.  His visitors were less reluctant.  They must know all about science of the lower trophic level (LTL) ocean ecosystem and how to make the necessary "approximations to reduce complexity and represent essential ecosystem processes in an aggregate sense".  And they know all about the "underdetermination problem in parameter specification" but I expect they disagree with the scientists that it is "an inherent issue in ocean ecosystem model development and interpretation".

On what do I base this conclusion?  Well, here is a sample of the erudite comments from the knowledgeable folk at WUWT:


David, UK says:

March 22, 2014 at 1:12 pm
More self-serving modelled bullshit.

Doug Huffman says that probability and uncertainty have no place in science:

March 22, 2014 at 1:18 pm
Normative and prescriptive statements, characterized by would, should & could, have no inherent or essential truth value.

Stephen Richards is so certain of his position that one might be tempted to surmise he occupies the lower trophic level in the biological strata and speaks from personal experience, because he shouts:

March 22, 2014 at 1:20 pm
New Statistical Models Could Lead to Better Predictions of Ocean Patterns and the Impacts on Weather, Climate and Ecosystems
NO THEY CANNOT !!!!!!!!!!!

Dr Burns has got as far as knowing that all models are wrong, though it's not clear that he understands what a "model" is or how it can help understanding, because he says:

March 22, 2014 at 3:28 pm
When models can forecast with any accuracy whether it will rain in two days time, I may start to have some faith in them.

Bob Tisdale isn't interested in the published papers, or maybe he didn't get that far, or maybe he did get that far and his eyes glazed.  In any case he asks a profound question, or what he thinks is a profound question:

March 22, 2014 at 5:26 pm
“Wikle and his fellow researchers feel that, through better statistical methods and models currently in development…”
Why are they wasting everyone’s time with a press release about something in development?

The ridiculous denial at WUWT

Moving from the mundane "no, no, no - not science" response to a couple of scientific papers, and onto the reason that climate science is a hoax.  It's all to do with world view.  It seems that "rational" people (ie right wing extremists) regard all people as equal and don't look down on anyone no matter their race, social status or economic status.  (Ha ha - pull the other one!)  It also seems that "rational" people (ie the right wing extremist) view the world in terms of dominance and battles - which fits better with my understanding of right wing extremists than does the first point.

Anyway, do you want to more about the newest proof that climate science must be a hoax? This is the latest idea promoted by Anthony Watts in an article by someone who goes by the (shock, horror) anonymous name of Zombie (archived here):

Viewed globally, the real long-term consequence of all the “climate change”-related policy proposals is to transfer massive amounts of wealth from the First World developed nations to the Third World underdeveloped nations, while simultaneously crippling the ability of the developed world to maintain its economic dominance.

What could motivate this seemingly suicidal economic policy by First-World progressives? In a word: Guilt. Specifically, “white guilt” by Europeans (and those descended from Europeans) for having unfairly exploited backward regions and non-white peoples over the last few centuries to establish white economic hegemony over the rest of the world.

According to the article at WUWT, climate science is a hoax manufactured by liberals or progressives or whatever label you want to put on your despised world view.  It's a hoax manufactured to assuage guilt for making money at the expense of less developed nations. But that's not all:

If these modern progressives felt that their ancestors had achieved global dominance by defeating rivals of equal stature, then there’d be nothing to feel guilty about, and thus no need to pay reparations and hence no need to devise the “climate change” crisis and attendant suicidal economic policies.

The argument goes like this.

1. Rich nations got rich by exploiting poor nations.
2. Progressives in rich nations feel guilty about that so they made up a yarn about CO2 emissions and convinced the powers that be in the rich nations that it's necessary to cut CO2 emissions.
3. Cutting CO2 emissions means that wealth will shift from rich nations to poor nations. (I'm not sure how that one is supposed to work.)
4. The guilt means that progressives are racist. Otherwise they'd act like any "normal" victor and see the losers as equal to them except they are losers.

I'd say the only part of the above that might have some merit is point 1.  Even there it only applies in some situations.  The article finishes with this, with its embedded alarmism:

If these modern progressives felt that their ancestors had achieved global dominance by defeating rivals of equal stature, then there’d be nothing to feel guilty about, and thus no need to pay reparations and hence no need to devise the “climate change” crisis and attendant suicidal economic policies.

Now some people from less developed nations agree with some but not all of the "logic".  José Tomás says:

March 22, 2014 at 10:39 am
I believe there is a big component of this in the Climate (and other “Progressive” issues) discussion.

The real problem is that we in the “Thirld World” need that the “First World” succeeds. In a globalized economy, your success is our success. We need a strong US / Europe economy to import the goods we export. US / Europe failure will doom first under-developed countries like mine (Brazil). This guilt / shame thinking / behavior is infantile and the net result is more poverty to “non-western” populations.

aletho doesn't agree either, but is also an alarmist but for different reasons and says:

March 22, 2014 at 10:54 am
This is retarded. There never was any intent to transfer wealth to the third world.

There were only empty promises designed to allow domestic political space for corrupt third world despots so they could go along with the genocidal AGW agenda.

Carbon taxes, cap and trade, you name it, the proposals all result in rationing energy by price.

Eugenics in disguise.

Skeptics need to quit being so gullible as to fall for PJmedia’s ideologically driven disinformation.

Manny has still another take on why the climate hoax survives and says:

March 22, 2014 at 11:06 am
Simpler version of this thesis:

1. Ordinary atheist socialists (a.k.a. liberals) feel a spiritual void and fill it with pagan belief in mother nature. Like all religious beliefs, it requires penance to earn salvation. The penance is a carbon tax, the salvation is saving the goddess Earth from death by evil capitalists.

2. Smarter socialists collect the carbon tax from the naive masses and transfer it to African kleptocrats in order to pocket their 5% in a discreet bank account in Dubai.
And I entirely agree that conservatives do not understand the motivations behind this humongous fraud.

Whereas urederra's point is that... well it's hard to know.  You're better than I am if you can figure it out:

March 22, 2014 at 11:43 am
Humanity’s misdeeds was what caused the biblical flood and our crimes against nature is what it is causing global warming, or climate change, or whatevah

Yep, It is gilt, It has been always gilt. That is the way occidental religions have been controlling us during the last 6000 years. Ecologism is just the new flavor. 

David, UK says - which is doubly ironic when you check this page and this page, where it is attributed to Anne Isabella Ritchie, whose grandfather worked in Calcutta for the British East India Company:

March 22, 2014 at 2:44 pm
Gary Pearse says: March 22, 2014 at 2:29 pm

I believe the UN, is: (something like) “You can give a hungry man a fish a day or you can teach him how to fish so he can feed himself each day.” Teach him how to fish!!! When I first heard that piece of hubris, I was amazed at its blatant racism. Yeah, it’s there.

You think that phrase is from the UN? WTF!

It’s actually an ancient Chinese proverb.

Still worked up over its “blatant racism”? Sheesh.

Manfred is a fairly ordinary conspiracy theorist and alarmist of the Agenda 21 type who talks of rabid dogs and says:

March 22, 2014 at 12:04 pm
‘Guilt’ – may be some in the mix. Then perhaps the Babylonian Syndrome – an arrogance and over estimation of not only our impact but our abilities, a delusion fed and pumped by the progressive Green left in the name of ‘save the planet’. The goal – the installation of global socialist governance in the hands of UN Agenda 21 funded by growing environmental taxes and levies. You’ll be deluded you have democratic influence, but this will be strictly limited to the election local community governance. Few will be privileged to even glimpse let alone be part of an unelected progressive bureaucratic monster at the centre of the world. No one will see the tiny handful of elite at the pinnacle.

Spurn this as you would a rabid dog. 

bobl is another Agenda 21 conspiracy theorising  alarmist who says (excerpt):

March 22, 2014 at 2:49 pm
Nice theory and all, but wrong. Just read Agenda 21, it’s all there in black and white. CC is just a tool of Agenda 21 designed to limit our energy supply and as a result of that push us together in high rise concentration camps. 

There are heaps more comments - as bad as the ones above but in keeping with Anthony's article.

You know from time to time Anthony acts as if he wants to come across as "reasonable" by denouncing people like Nicola Scafetta and some of the "sky dragon slayers" (while promoting others).  Then he puts up something like this.  This sort of nonsense I think shows that he's given up any hope of anyone serious taking him seriously so he's retreated and decided to focus on pleasing his ideological base.

---

Milliff, R.F., J. Fiechter, W.B. Leeds, R. Herbei, C.K. Wikle, M.B. Hooten, A.M. Moore, T.M. Powell, and J. Brown. 2013. Uncertainty management in coupled physical-biological lower trophic level ocean ecosystem models. Oceanography 26(4):98–115, http://dx.doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2013.78

Wikle, Christopher K.; Milliff, Ralph F.; Herbei, Radu; Leeds, William B. Modern Statistical Methods in Oceanography: A Hierarchical Perspective. Statistical Science 28 (2013), no. 4, 466--486. doi:10.1214/13-STS436. http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ss/1386078874.

HotWhoppers, Monckton and His Scaredy Cat Prey

Today an email was circulated inviting the recipient, as a "concerned and productive citizen of Western Australia", to attend one (or more) sessions with Lord Monckton.  

The Professional Clown Down Under

If you haven't heard of Monckton before, he is probably the only Viscount from England who earns his living as a professional clown (with apologies to honest clowns).  He appears in front of audiences in Australia and the USA promoting disinformation about climate and threatening to sue any scientist who crosses his path, particularly but not necessarily if they are a climate scientist.  

Most people regard Monckton as a rather unsavoury idiot or worse.  However, to a small (and shrinking) minority, he has been raised to God-like status.  

I present the email here so you can see for yourself the type of person Monckton and his promoters deliberately, and quite possibly with malice, prey upon and what that says about the 'leaders' of this anti-science movement.

Monckton targets people who are naturally inclined to be scared shitless about nearly everything in the world, under-educated, extremely gullible, willing to believe anything even completely contradictory ideas as long as it fits their world view, prone to conspiracy theories, believing 'they' are out to get them, and looking for a new 'saviour'.

Scared shitless

The first sentence in the body of the email is:

The end is NOT nigh.

From this attempt at reassurance and comfort, we can deduce that Monckton's prey is by nature very scared (about almost everything in the world outside its own tiny habitat).   It fears the "end", the object of which the writer leaves to the imagination of the reader.  It could be the end of the world, its own death (with or without the end of the world) or the end of a way of life.

Whatever the "end" refers to, it is undoubtedly ominous.

Gullible and lacking education

The next sentence indicates Monckton's prey is extremely gullible.  It will accept any statement, no matter how big the lie, as long as it comforts them and fits with what they want to believe.

It’s official; according to the Head of the UN Climate Change Panel (UN IPCC) there has been NO GLOBAL WARMING for 17 YEARS.

Conspiracy theorists

Monckton's prey is also susceptible to trigger words evoking evil conspiracies. "UN" and "IPCC" feature prominently in the paranoid conspiracy that climate scientists and governments all around the world have been secretly engaged in a gigantic hoax with the aim of taking over the world.

Scared, gullible, under-educated conspiracy theorists

The next two sentences (plus the overall email) show Monckton's prey is of limited intelligence and low education.  There is a lot of repetition, large typeface, capitalization, bolding and exclamation points.

When people hear this wonderful news there will be dancing in the streets.

The climate models were wrong and THE WORLD IS NOT GOING TO END!

According to official UN IPCC global temperature datasets, the length of time WITHOUT ANY MEASURABLE WARMING has been 16 Years, 18 Years, 19 Years or in the case of the most accurate satellite dataset, 23 Years (depending which official UN IPCC dataset is used).

The imagery of 'dancing in the streets' to the tune of a potty peer would seem way over the top to all but a very few.  The following sentence, presented in bold font and using capital letters, is to make sure that, despite the reader's limited cognitive ability, the prey gets the message that they are not about to die/see the world end/lose their way of life tomorrow.  It aims once again to comfort them.

The third sentence suggests that the writer accepts that the dreaded "UN/IPCC" is accurate about global warming and that his prey is gullible enough to accept the lies about 'measurable warming'.

Here is a chart of global surface temperatures from the Bureau of Meteorology, with arrows marking the surface temperature between 16 and 23 years ago.  Which cherry picked date will Monckton end up settling upon to decide his 'measurable warming'? (Click image to enlarge.)

Monckton's mob can have a free lesson from Tamino on how to cherry pick dates to show the trend you want.  Then they might be able to pick a date and stick to it.  The easiest one is "it's been cooling since 2010!" which was the most recent 'hottest year on record' according to NASA, as illustrated here - with arrows pointing to when Monckton apparently thinks it stopped warming.

Then more paranoid conspiracy ideation - the government is hiding the real facts, "economic shackles", "loss of property and other rights", "Climate Scam" and "UN Agenda 21 program", more "economic costs" and "loss of rights".

Fear not, I am your Saviour

Lord Monckton comes riding in to rescue us from our evil governments (especially the UN):

Lord Monckton will present the Due Diligence on Global Warming for the people of Perth because our governments won’t.

Learn how the latest Climate Commission report was produced, and why.

He is here to inform the people of Perth on the economic shackles and loss of property and other rights occurring under the Carbon Tax; the Climate Scam and the UN Agenda 21 program and how it is so much less in terms of economic costs and loss of rights, to adapt than to try to stop any global warming.

Immune to inconsistencies

A quick diversion to point out the inconsistency, to which Monckton's prey will be completely oblivious (see attributes of the 'prey' below).

First, the false claim that warming has stopped.  The (evil UN/IPCC) climate models were wrong but the evil UN/IPCC is right (that warming has stopped).  It's not warming and it is better to adapt to the warming that is happening at the same time as it is not happening than try to stop the warming that both is and is not happening.

Scum-bucket to the Rescue

Seems a classic example of a "dirt-bag" (see below) preying on the gullible and fearful.  Unlikeable and rather ugly prey to be sure.  IMO the bigger crooks are the "scum-buckets" who deliberately set out to get the gullible 'riled up' enough to arm themselves with their walking frames and form a mindless lynch mob.

Monckton's Prey

I've been reading Dr Altemeyer's The Authoritarians.  A simplified description of attributes of 'right wing authoritarians' (high RWAs) is: under-educated, extremely fearful, gullible, bigoted,  largely incapable of using logic and dogmatic (their is nothing, no amount of facts, that will shake their 'belief' and they will often say so out loud).   Their minds are highly compartmentalised ("authoritarians can stupify you with the inconsistency of their ideas").  They rarely move beyond their tiny zone of comfort.  They are completely blind to themselves and any of their failings.  Despite being only a small minority of the general population, they believe the majority of people think and acts as they do.

Looks just like the target audience of that email, don't you think?

The Scum-buckets

Thinking about who is behind the email, seems like a text book case of figures of authority (a Viscount, almost Royalty, from Mother England, no less) deliberately setting out to scam the 'right wing authoritarians' (high RWA's as defined by Bob Altemeyer in his book).  Of the scammers, Altemeyer writes (on page 90):

...suppose you are a completely unethical, dishonest, power-hungry, dirt-bag, scum-bucket politician entertainer who will say whatever he has to say to get elected get people to his gigs. Whom are you going to try to lead, high RWAs or low RWAs? Isn’t it obvious? The easy-sell high RWAs will open up their arms and wallets to you if you just sing their song, however poor your credibility.

I substituted "entertainer" for politician and "get people to his gigs" for "get elected".

Is Monckton a deliberate "scum-bucket" or just a right wing nutter who has found his niche?  I honestly don't know.  I wonder if Monckton himself even knows.

Note: If you are a high RWA or are otherwise uninformed about the state of the climate, welcome.  (I'd love to know how you happened to stray here.)

Be aware that all evidence shows the earth is warming, and dangerously so.

Monckton is telling big fibs.

[Added links to email. Sou 28 July 2014]

Crikey - it's the sun (not really)

Too much time in the sun, poor things...

The deniers on HotCopper have worked themselves in a tizzy over someone posting an early draft of the IPCC report online.  They are under an illusion that the denialist blogger (who got the draft by registering himself as an 'expert reviewer', which anyone can do - even Monckton registered himself as such) has found the one sentence in that mammoth document that in his mind shows 'it's the sun' or 'it's cosmic rays' that's causing global warming.  (He ignores the surrounding sentences in true denier fashion.)

Suddenly deniers are touting the IPCC as the reliable source of information on climate science!

(Mind you, yesterday HotCopperites were saying the earth isn't warming, and some have been arguing that an ice age cometh!)

Ridiculous

However one of the lead authors of the chapter in question, Professor Steve Sherwood (who wrote the paper on heat stress), said the claims were 'ridiculous'.  From the ABC report:

Professor Steve Sherwood, the director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW, was the lead author of the chapter in question. He says the idea that the chapter he authored confirms a greater role for solar and other cosmic rays in global warming is "ridiculous"....

..."Even the sentence doesn't say what they say and certainly if you look at the context, we're really saying the opposite."

Truly ridiculous

Not a single one of the HotCopper deniers has shown that they understand what the denialist blogger was talking about. Here's a link to the thread (subs req'd).  They've just made the usual cut and paste posts from denier blogs, or made comments like this one from one of the resident paranoid conspiracy junkies:

UN Agenda 21 plan for enslavement of us all? What has Ben been smoking?

And another for good measure, from poor little laddie Hanrahan who has a 'thing' for the shape of the global surface temperature record.  (Can some please tell him that making up stuff won't win him admiration from any quarter?)

Finally, an angry comment from Mr Misogynist himself, thalweg:

(HotCopper's share discussion board is really classy - Not!)

Denialist reading score - Fail!

For the back story, see John Byatt's post here, a report on ABC PM here, an article in the Guardian and an article from Graham Readfearn.  Graham's closing para says it all:

What this leak also shows is the tendency by some to dishonestly engage in an open process and to cherry-pick “facts” about climate change to suit their own arguments, while failing to consider the full body of evidence. Or in this case, failing to bother to read the very next paragraph.