Anthony Watts has found another insignificant paper on climate sensitivity

Anthony Watts has found an insignificant and wrong paper on climate sensitivity. He thinks it's significant because it claims that climate sensitivity is only 0.43°C. But what would he know?

It wasn't really Anthony Watts who found the paper. It was one of Anthony's blogging denier mates, "hockeyschtick", who he turns to when he needs to fill a space at WUWT. (WUWT article is archived here.)

This insignificant and wrong paper is in some new (insignificant?) journal that calls itself "Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change" and so far (since May 2014) has published two issues with a total of eleven papers. It has one "paper in press", which is the one that Anthony Watts likes.

Broken promise: And how Anthony Watts is rattled

Update - see below. Anthony doesn't have the support he probably hoped for.

---

The science and other stuff posted at HotWhopper and from Eli Rabett of Rabett Run are really getting to Anthony Watts. For the third time in as many days, he's expressed some concern (a bit of an understatement :D) at HotWhopper pointing out the ridiculous at WUWT.  This time he's decided to complain in an article about internet trolling (archived here).

What Anthony Watts has always believed

With no hint that he sees the irony, under a cartoon taunting ATTP by anonymous cartooner, "Josh", Anthony Watts shows his vast command of vocabulary:

I've always believed that people who taunt others while hiding behind fake names aren't really contributing anything except their own bile and hatred. 

Disinformers are Disgusting: Anthony Watts makes up stuff and arguably moves into libelous polar bear territory

Update - see below for a comment from an unlikely and dubious ally, Christopher Monckton.

Update 2 - here is the summary of the complaint that I believe was the subject of the settlement.

---

Today Anthony Watts moves right into libelous territory in my opinion (archived here and updated here).  He is known for skirting close to the edge when he picks on individual scientists.  This time IMO he goes over the edge.

Today Anthony Watts falsely impugns the integrity of Charles Monnett, who suffered appalling treatment from his employer, BOEM, and from the Office of the Inspector General after he published a paper about sightings of dead polar bears.  Eli Rabett has written quite a few articles keeping people appraised of the saga.  Michael Tobis wrote about it too. It was suggested that the investigation, which focused on other matters - not polar bear sightings, was a payback witchhunt for Monnett writing a paper about the dead polar bears he saw, presumed drowned.  This article in Nature News describes some of the fiasco and there is a followup article here in Nature News.

The news item that Anthony Watts referred to describes the outcome of a complaint brought by Monnett against his employer.  As described in the news report, Monnett brought the complaint after Monnett's employer BOEM found no evidence of scientific misconduct but issued a reprimand for something else they reckoned he'd done.  This and the whole horrible saga prompted Monnett to lodge the complaint against his employer.  The complaint that Monnett brought against his employer was settled and as close to a win for Monnett as you'd be likely get outside of court, with BOEM paying a sum to Monnett:

Under the settlement, signed in October but released by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility on Wednesday, Monnett will receive $100,000 but cannot seek Interior Department work for five years. His retirement was effective Nov. 15, at which point the agency agreed to withdraw the letter of reprimand and issue Monnett a certificate for his work on the tracking project.

The settlement makes clear that it does not constitute any admission of liability, including any admission that federal employees "treated Monnett in a discriminatory or retaliatory manner." A BOEM spokeswoman reached by email Wednesday said she would offer a reply later.

Despite the fact that Monnett was exonerated and vindicated, and that this was a settlement in a case Monnett took against the agency, not the other way around, Anthony Watts twisted the situation and with an implied big fat lie wrote:

So the message is: be a dimwit, make stuff up, and get paid for it. 

Charles Monnett didn't make up stuff.  Anthony is the one making stuff up.  But that's par for the course at WUWT.  This time he's making up stuff about a scientist who's devoted his career to the pursuit of knowledge.  His main "sin" seems to have been that Al Gore apparently referred to his paper in An Inconvenient Truth.

I'm utterly disgusted.  If Anthony Watts lived in Canada he wouldn't have dared write that.  Anthony has shown that he himself is ready to run to the courts on the flimsiest of pretexts, such as someone having a go at him about his scientific illiteracy, when Anthony Watts posts nonsense pseudoscience again and again.

Anthony Watts is intent on hastening climate change.  He's not satisfied with feeding his ignoramuses nonsense about science, he attacks scientists themselves, even to the extent of falsely accuses individual scientists of wrong doing.  What a dismal, pitiful, pathetic little man.

From the WUWT comments

Lots of people are telling Anthony Watts that he's barking up the wrong tree (or surfing the wrong Arctic wave): - archived here.

brians356 says (replaced link with headline):

December 4, 2013 at 1:47 pm
The story I just read on Anchorage Daily News says he gets $100,000 plus his fully-vested federal retirement. He cannot seek Interior Department work for five years.

Alaska polar bear scientist reprimanded over emails settles with feds

“Frankie, when they give you the money, it means you won.”

NevenA says:

December 4, 2013 at 1:54 pm
Either this, or it was a failed witch hunt. Google is your friend.

Steve from Rockwood says:

December 4, 2013 at 2:56 pm
That’s as close to a win as you’re ever going to see.

But even though the newspaper reports were quite clear, Anthony lets his commenters continue with the scientist-bashing.

Mark and two Cats says:

December 4, 2013 at 2:51 pm
Comrade, you have served the Warmunist Party well and shall receive political rehabilitation. Take a five year vacation – here’s $100k spending money.

Peter Miller is a crazy nutter who thinks all the thousands of scientists in the world are making up stuff and says:

December 4, 2013 at 4:07 pm
As this proves and we all know, when it comes to anything esoteric and intangible, nobody can waste money like governments can.

So along came supposed global warming and the B2 and C3 scientists were falling over each other to get into the troughs of overflowing research funds. As there was almost nothing real in the global warming scare, stuff had to be made up, or there was a threat the troughs might dry up.

And so the scare stories started: polar bears dying out, surging sea levels, polar ice disappearing and ocean acidification to name but a few. Each, on a local basis, may contain a small whisper of truth, but on a global basis they are a grand distortion and a distortion that appeals to the weepy side of far too many, otherwise reasonable people. As for the politicians, they are only interested in new tax raising gimmicks, so they can be seen to be ‘saving the works’.

At least Layman doesn't dispute the sighting of the dead polar bears in the water and says:

December 4, 2013 at 5:00 pm
With ice sheet coverage increasing and thickening Polar bears would be hard pressed to survive this winter. Come next melt we might see a new height in body count and then talented scientists could claim evidence of unprecedented drowning …from empty bellies……

My question is that polar bears are mortal too so when one sees a dead bear in the water in summer how could we tell which is fresh and which is freshly defrosted? And which was drowned through hunger and exhaustion?

Anthony Watts might be malevolent and dishonest, but he isn't quite as crazy as his utter nutter fans.  Take fobdangerclose who says:

December 4, 2013 at 5:12 pm
Anthony,
You and your group need to be on high alert. Pres. Obama and his crew now seem to be betting their farm on the EPA/Climate Change re-distribution of wealth.
As you can see he is not handleing this fail of the Obama Care re-dristribution operation.
All of you have been in the real world enough to see how poorly some handle not being able to do the job and or being caught in real bad lies on the job. Take attorneys who get disbarred, or real estate title officers who go south with the loan funds in escrow. When confronted they throw things, cuss, rant, even worse. You stand in his way, you block his access to power. He will not take it lightly that your correct, he will not go easy into the night. You will be a target.
Be Prepared.

REPLY: I doubt Obama even knows my name – Anthony

Update

Monnett has found a dubious ally by the name of Christopher Monckton, who writes:

Monckton of Brenchley says (extract - you can read his full comment here, in which he sticks the boot into Al Gore):

December 4, 2013 at 4:41 pm
I’m uneasy at the tone of some of the comments here. The Monnett & Gleason paper described its methods with respectable precision, and made it very clear where it was reporting results, where it was extrapolating from those results, and where it was speculating. One might regard the extrapolations as being insufficiently justifiable in statistical terms, and the speculations as rather far-fetched (though they were actually quite cautiously expressed).

I can’t see anything that could possibly constitute serious enough scientific misconduct to justify three years’ hounding of Dr. Monnett by the Inspectorate-General. Two things stand out from the transcript: first, that Dr. Monnett had not been clearly told at the outset exactly what scientific misconduct he was being accused of, contrary to the audiatur et altera pars principle of natural justice; and that he was exhausted and terrified.

orion sums it up nicely and says, quoting Anthony Watts (archived here):

December 4, 2013 at 7:32 pm
“……So the message is: be a dimwit, make stuff up, and get paid for it……”

It’s a lesson you have appeared to have learned well Anthony.

The Wager Part II

This follows from The Wager.


I do not want HotWhopper readers to miss out, so I've archived this WUWT thread (again).  I've written about this particular article already here, but this is a different topic.  You can consider it a sub-topic, or several sub-topics.  Here is a taste, but there's more in the thread if you're into utter nuttery:


Eli Rabett says to Christopher Monckton of Brenchley:

August 28, 2013 at 2:03 pm

Eli understands that there is some betting action to be had on your earlier claim that “A math geek with a track-record of getting stuff right tells me we are in for 0.5 Cº of global cooling. It could happen in two years, but is very likely by 2020.”. It is for two bets of $1000 each from John Abraham to Lord Monckton. Given your claims here, you must believe that this would be easy money. John has added a codicil that if you wish the bet can be for benefit of a charity chose by either side, but who knows, maybe you need the money?

Eli is looking perhaps for some smaller side bets on the proposition and what the good Lord’s reaction will be.

richardscourtney, the WUWT playground monitor says, in a comment that is unique from him because there is not a single word SHOUTED let alone SHOUTED EXTRA LOUDLY:

August 28, 2013 at 2:11 pm
Troll posing as Eli Rabett:
re your post at August 28, 2013 at 2:03 pm

Please be assured that nobody cares about the “betting action” of an idiot so deluded that he is unaware of his own name or his own person. Similarly, nobody cares about the “betting action” of even lesser men than the troll (yes, it is hard to believe, but they do exist).

So you need not waste space on WUWT with such nonsense again.

Richard

Monckton of Brenchley says - again, that he wants to sue somebody, and pikes on the bet (excerpt):

August 28, 2013 at 5:04 pm
...One Rabett says someone wants to take a bet with me about whether the world will cool by 0.5 K before 2020 is out. However, it was not I but another who forecast that. In an earlier posting I merely reported the forecast, which is one of a growing number that find cooling more likely than warming in the short to medium term. To make any such bet symmetrical, there would be no payout if the temperature fluctuated by less than 0.5 K in either direction by 2020 compared with today. The bedwetters would win if the temperature rose by 0.5 K; the army of light and truth would win if it fell by 0.5 K.

However, the creature seeking cheap publicity by offering the bet has, I discover, been part of an organized (and probably paid) campaign to prevent skeptics such as me from being allowed to speak at various universities around the world to which we are from time to time invited. Evidence is being gathered, since in Scotland tampering with the right of academic freedom in this characteristically furtive way, particularly with the wildly malicious claims the perpetrator and his little chums have apparently been making, would be held to constitute a grave libel.

I had hoped to sue the defalcating nitwit in the U.S for an earlier malicious attempt by him to assert that I take a skeptical line because I am paid to do so (if only …). However, the lawyers whom I consulted, after having a good look at the case, concluded that, though what this inconsequential little creep had said was unquestionably libelous, as well as displaying an exceptionally poor grasp of elementary science and even of arithmetic, I did not have title to sue because, in the US, I am counted at law as a “public figure” and the jerklet is not. If he were a public figure, I could sue him. If I were not a public figure, I could sue him. But, since I am a public figure and he is not, I cannot sue him. Not in the U.S., at any rate. I visited the Court of Session in Edinburgh yesterday …

Eli Rabett says:

August 28, 2013 at 11:32 pm
Now some, not Eli to be sure, thought that it would be most pleasing if the good Monckton of Brenchley made John Abraham put up, but Sadly No.

Instead, as the Bunny proposed but a few days ago, we are treated to an entertaining essay in avoidance. To watch Lord Monckton as his mind works at an astonishingly furious pace, whinging about the ills done to him, the difficulty of confronting his tormentors, and the cruel law which forbid him to pounce upon them, but, of course he could if he really wanted to and they should be more cautious, when shunning a chance to do same, is indeed a show Eli feels privileged to have played a minor part in. 

Such humor is found only in our pale memories except for YouTube. We have Chris.

John Whitman says:

August 29, 2013 at 7:18 am
Christopher Monckton,
Have you considered attending the AGU’s annual fall meeting in San Francisco this December?
John

Eli Rabett says:

August 29, 2013 at 7:48 am
JPeden says: @Monckton But, since I am a public figure and he is not, I cannot sue him. Not in the U.S., at any rate. I visited the Court of Session in Edinburgh yesterday …
“Run Rabett Run” — 1970′s James Cann movie

Yes, more droppings along the bunny trail.

Monckton of Brenchley says he's changed his mind about suing in the space of a few comments and is now going to sue after all.  If I only had a dollar for every time Monckton threatened to sue someone for catching him out in a lie I could buy those nice italian leather shoes:

August 29, 2013 at 8:17 am
To answer a few questions from commenters: yes, the World Federation of Scientists exists (it has existed for half a century); yes, its climate monitoring panel consists of a dozen eminent scientists from all parts of the globe; and yes, the chairman of that panel announced to the closing plenary that global warming is not, in itself, a planetary emergency; and no, the world’s mainstream media will do their utmost not to report that conclusion, because it does not accord with the Party Line.

The troll named “Rabett” is snide about my not taking an asymmetric bet. Well, I’m not going to give the joke figure who offered the bet any publicity: indeed, it would be improper for me to have a bet with him at present, given the likelihood that he will face court action once the trail of evidence is complete. Interesting how the trolls will talk about just about everything except the science, on which events are proving them to have been so spectacularly wrong.

Monckton of Brenchley says:

August 29, 2013 at 12:58 pm
I am not confident of what temperatures will do, because they are stochastic. A fair bet (if I were a betting man, which I am not) would take zero change as the baseline.

What did I say about denier weirdness and cranks and utter nutters?


Here is a link to the archived thread again.

Read more at Rabett Run.

Dr James E Hansen: A Whopper of a Man - moving from great to greater

I've read a few articles about James Hansen since he announced his resignation from NASA. The ones that have had the most impact have been those touching on the personal.

Eli Rabett has written an article, saying quietly: Eli Appreciates Hansen.

A man of worth, who is shifting societies towards a clean future

Eli's post is well worth a read.  It includes a brief bio plus a couple of lovely anecdotes that help put the blogosphere  and we piddly bloggers in perspective.  (The blogosphere does not shape the world, it's people like James Hansen who shift societies.)

A man of science and courage

350.org has posted a photo tribute to Dr Hansen:

A climate maverick and best-known public figure in climate research

Justin Gillis has written a nuanced article in the New York Times.  He describes how Dr Hansen emerged into the public spotlight when "on a blistering June day in 1988 he was called before a Congressional committee and testified that human-induced global warming had begun."

The Gillis article also gives a thumbnail sketch of Hansen's life and career.

More about James E Hansen

For a biography, I suppose Wikipedia is a general source, but to appreciate the essence of the man, I think Eli's post and Justin Gillis' article are better.

For some of Hansen's writings, go to his personal website at Columbia University.  There is a heap of material to read there.  And if you haven't already done so, get a copy of his most well-known book:

from Amazon or Google or other source.

Thank you Dr Hansen

Thank you, Dr Hansen for your courage, science and ongoing efforts to help all of us shift to a cleaner world and give hope for a bright future to generations not yet born.

Climate science denier (knee) jerks

Stephan Lewandowsky does research in one of the more fascinating areas of science - human cognition.  In this article on independentaustralia.net, he writes about two different modes of reasoning: rapid reasoning and deliberative reasoning.

Rapid reasoning "relies on relatively shallow analysis of stimuli, which allows us to respond in situations in which time is at a premium".

Deliberative reasoning "requires slow deliberation but is guided by more complex rules".

Lewandowsky writes that: "Arguably, the former may be triggered by emotive stimuli, because emotion may serve as a “stopping rule” for reasoning — in a nutshell, the more emotion, the less deliberation."

Now that's not to say that emotion can't play a useful role in reasoning.  What Lewandowsky was writing about was the tricks some people play to confuse.  For example by triggering an emotion using some word or phrase quite unrelated to the subject at hand in proximity to the topic.  (Many deniers will say they don't accept climate science because of taxation!)

An example of 'rapid reasoning'

I'll stick my neck out here and say that when it comes to some topics, like climate science, there are people whose emotional triggers are so sensitive that they don't get to exercise their 'deliberate reasoning' capability. Here's an example of an emotive reaction - Hanrahan confuses a critique of a book with the 'assassination' of a character. 

Source: HotCopper.com S&M forum

(Tin - or tinnitus, is one of the mildest-mannered most polite contributors to the S&M forum.  He rarely lets the trolls rattle him.  To deniers he's a bad guy because of his science background - and to make things worse, he has an economics degree as well.)

Rapid reasoning vs no reasoning

Using 'rapid reasoning' seems to me to be different to having limited reasoning.  For example, Moondoong in a recent comment here uses the argument that human species survived the last glacial maximum therefore humans will survive global warming.  That's not an uncommon argument from science deniers.  Moondoong goes further than most and talks blithely about humans surviving constant 47C without plants and animals and almost no rain, as if all humankind could still be fed, clothed and housed!

Moondoong is probably right that the human species would survive - albeit in small refuges on the planet - even if the average global surface temperature goes above 4 degrees of warming.  Humans as a species are very adaptable.  But although our species may survive as it survived climate change in the past, most of the world's population probably wouldn't just as it didn't in the past.  (That becomes a 'definitely wouldn't' if we let the earth warm six degrees or more.) 

The argument of 'we'll adapt' is neither rapid reasoning nor deliberate reasoning.  Maybe it's self-deception - trying to rationalise the irrational.

Deliberative reasoning

The average science denier who comments on websites generally leaves their deliberative reasoning behind.  Some professional deniers use it to great effect.  Anthony Watts uses deliberative reasoning, though often too transparently, to tweak his readers' emotional response and get a knee jerk reaction to his latest 'bombshell'.  Many of his readers are so well trained their emotional response acts as a block preventing deliberative reasoning whenever Watts mentions leading climate scientists by name. 

Believe it or not, I didn't even have to search the site.  The latest WUWT article is in response to a post by Greg Laden who listed the top climate stories of 2012.  (Eli Rabett has a poll going on this.) 

The WUWT article is a guest post by Joe Bast of the Heartland Institute in which he tries to justify his equating serial killers with acceptance of climate science, among other things. The article is headed with an image of Peter Gleick's name and uses Gleick's name in the title. (Peter Gleick exposed some of the shenanigans of the Heartland Institute.)  To make sure he gets the 'right' response, Anthony adds a postscript, interpreting Greg Laden's 'about' page as illustrative of a "strange and hateful mind". (If you read Greg's page you'll see Anthony's comment is more an indictment on WUWT readership than on Greg Laden. Greg doesn't pull his punches and his dry humour is lost on climate science deniers.) 

Back to knee jerks.  Here is the second comment to Bast's article - classic WUWT.  Exactly the sort of emotional response Anthony and Joe were hoping for:

The article, the title, the image at the top and Anthony's post script are an example of deliberative reasoning aimed at evoking an emotional response.  In this instance my guess is that it would only work with true denialists.

Further reading

If you want to read more on the subject of emotion and its role in reason, this paper by Muramatsu and Hanoch to which Stephan Lewandowsky linked looks interesting. Neat title: Emotions as a mechanism for boundedly rational agents: The fast and frugal way.

PS Happy 2013 - the millennium has hit its tumultuous teens!