Denier weirdness from an Australian weather discussion board

SEE ALSO:  Just to be clear about Weatherzone

UPDATE 2: The Misandrist Replies

UPDATE: It gets even weirder.

Deniers are a funny lot

I've been getting around the traps and came across this.  CeeBee likes my articles and enjoys ragging the deniers on an Australian weather forum where a few of them congregate to mutter in their beards.  Following a suggestion he made in the comments over there, I've decided to give a poster called Anthony a bit of a thrill with some attention he doesn't deserve. (As usual, click any image to enlarge it.)

Anthony (not Watts) apparently doesn't accept the HadCRUT4 record but it seems he isn't capable of doing any research of his own.  It's enough for him to imply that the data I plotted isn't "fact".  We'll come back to that shortly.  I notice he's also one of those conspiracy nutters who thinks that people who accept science and say so must be "paid trolls", whereas he does his denying for free.

Wonder what he thinks of Christopher Monckton and his tiny little bit of data.

Data Source: UK Met Office Hadley Centre

Which brings me to another poster who goes by the name of Locke.  Locke was a bit weird.  He copied a copy (from CeeBee's copy) of an excerpt from my recent Monckton article.  That copy included the chart shown above.  In fact it was directly (like 1¹/2 lines) below the above chart, which he himself pasted that Locke wrote this:

What one cannot help but notice is Locke apparently didn't see the chart he pasted, which went back 162 years to 1850, whereas Monckton's only went back to 2001.  And he didn't bother to read my comment about Monckton's chart and my response (relating to the chart below), which was:

If he'd got rid of the noise from seasonal effects and monthly data, and started just one year earlier than 2001, you would have seen something quite different. If he'd started his chart ten years earlier, you'd have noticed the trend starting to show up.

Anthony and Locke add to the evidence supporting my growing opinion of deniers.  But never mind that, let's deal with the cherry picking accusation (which was a bit silly when he should have seen the chart going back 162 years) and see what Monckton would have found if he had gone back still another ten years. 

Data Source: UK Met Office Hadley Centre

The linear trend is even stronger (R² =0.74 compared to 0.55) and the slope is steeper.  Compare that to the trend of Monckton's cherry pick - R² =0.021.  Not worth a cracker! 

Getting back to the point I raised earlier on about Anthony thinking HadCRUT4 isn't fact.  I wonder if Anthony and Locke will try to argue again that the HadCRUT4 data is dodgy.  If they do they'd better tell Christopher Monckton to stop using 'dodgy' data, because his source was HadCRUT4 too.  He just used a lot less of it and didn't bother to filter out the seasonal fluctuations or the noise of the monthly weather.

OMG bloody barmy is right

Hang on, you'll need to use this before you read any further:

If you arrived from the home page. click here to read the rest.  This article has lots of stuff deniers love to hate, like charts and numbers and I'm conscious that not everyone has a fast internet connection.  Don't forget to attach the vice to your head.

How Far and Fast Can a Denier Fall?

Roy Spencer gave an interview recently, which Dana critiqued very well on SkepticalScience.  Roy should know better than to try to hoodwink people.

It seems the poor old chap has no-one left to defend him except Lord Monckton, in an article on Anthony Watts' anti-science blog, WUWT.

One of Monkton's first defenses of Spencer is that:

The satellites reveal the inconvenient truth that there has been no global warming for approaching two decades.

"Approaching two decades"?  Approaching from how far away I wonder.  Monckton needs new glasses.  Here is what the satellite reveals, using the record from UAH as measured by the self same Spencer that Monckton is 'defending':

Do we need to go any further?  I mean if Monckton gets it so wrong from the start...

Alright, just to give him the benefit of the doubt.  Maybe he had a brief seniors moment.  Let's see what he says next.  Nah, we'll skip the next three paragraphs, which are nothing but insults leveled at John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli and see what he says after that:

Nuccitelli begins by condemning Roy Spencer for saying, “No one knows whether it is currently warming, because we only see warming in the rear-view mirror, after it has occurred.” This truism is characteristic of Roy, who gently nudges the language of climate science in the direction of greater rigor. One cannot measure that it is warming, only that it has warmed.

Yet Nuccitelli, in a fine illustration of that blind faith that TH Huxley denounced in 1860 as “the one unpardonable sin”, asserts that “We absolutely do know that the planet is currently warming”.

I guess if Spencer and Monckton were dropping out of the sky they'd comfort each other by gently nudging the language of physical science in the direction of greater rigour, saying: "Don't panic! No-one knows whether we're currently falling, because we only see us falling in the rear view mirror, after it has occurred."

To paraphrase Monckton some more:

One cannot measure that we are falling, only that we have fallen! 

Oh! And how the 'mighty' have fallen!

'Nuff said!

New Coal Conglomerate Bombshell Announcement

Several major coal companies have collaborated to develop a revolutionary new product.  Today the collaboration, known as the New Coal Conglomerate, announced they will be switching their mines to the manufacture of synthetic coal.

"The advantages are enormous", one executive said.  "Synthetic coal doesn't release CO2 when burnt, it releases oxygen.  That means that people will live longer and healthier lives and have an endless cheap supply of electricity."

As of today, it is expected that two hundred coal-fired power stations will switch to synthetic coal with another 1000 worldwide expected to convert to synthetic coal within the next 12 months.  The power plants need no adaptation.  The synthetic product works in exactly the same way as old-fashioned coal did, except that it has no waste products.

The companies have recruited Viscount Lord Sir Monckton of Bencham to promote the new product.  He will tour the USA and Canada before going to Australia and New Zealand to meet with their Prime Ministers.

On hearing the news, several bloggers closed their blogs.  "We don't have anything to write about any more", said one blogger whose website is devoted to blog-peer-reviewed science.  Visibly upset he continued: "With the switch to synthetic coal, the supply of blog-peer-reviewed science has dried up instantaneously."

When asked what he would do next he said, "I'm thinking of heading up to Alberta.  There is talk of synthetic tar sands and it's time to put a stop to all this synthetic material.  We're hiring a fleet of buses to head up there and protest.  We need natural fossil fuels, not synthetic ones.  The synthetic ones pose all sorts of risks to human health but particularly to taxes."

Walkers, wheelchairs and nebulisers will be made available to everyone who takes part in the anti-synthetic protest.

Source: AAAAP

Watt a whopper of religious fervour

Anthony Watts criticises Michael Mann for refusing to 'debate' Roy Spencer because not only is Spencer a climate science denier, he is an evolution denier.

Anthony Watts can't tell the difference between science and religion as evidenced by the fact that he thinks this tweet, which is about science, is a comment on religion:

No @foxnews, I'm not interested in "debating" #climatechange & #evolution denier Roy Spencer (sourcewatch.org/index.php?titl…) on your "news" network
— Michael E. Mann (@MichaelEMann) March 25, 2013

Prof Mann mentions only science and expresses the normal reaction from any scientist when asked to 'debate' a science denier.  (Nowhere does Mann mention religion.)

Real Scientists Don't Debate Creationists or Climate Science Deniers

You can just as easily substitute climate science denier for creationist in the following excerpt from an article by Richard Dawkins: (my paragraph breaks and emphasis)

Some time in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice.

He was friendly and decisive: "Don't do it."

The point is not, he said, whether or not you would 'win' the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all.

They need the publicity. We don't.

To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. "There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms."

Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.

Does Anthony Watts deny evolution?

Anthony's knee-jerk reaction to Mann's tweet raises some interesting questions.  It is well known that Anthony Watts denies climate science.  Now we can legitimately ask if he also denies biological science?  I guess so, based on his reaction to the tweet.

Mixed Reaction from the Deniosaurs

There are some quaint comments on Anthony's shock horror article, including quite a few from people who said they can see the point that Mann is making, and others who wonder why Anthony jumped straight to religion when Mann didn't mention religion. (Good question.)

There are, of course, lots of comments from people who didn't bother to evaluate the article and just saw it as an excuse for more Mann-bashing.  One of the weirdest comments came from the 'Good Lord!' Monckton who wants to find some scientific papers on 'intelligent design':

My one question about intelligent design is why there seem to be no scientific papers about it in the reviewed literature. I should be grateful if anyone can help here.

233 comments later, Anthony decided to close the thread because it exposed too many seriously warped ideas held by the members of his nutty fan club.

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]

HotCopper deniers in full swing (trading) - 'hot'!

Are most share traders members of the scientific illiterati or is it just the ones who post on 'Australia's most popular share discussion board' HotCopper?  Could be worth some research (on another day).

The following examples show that anything posted on HotCopper should be read with supreme scepticism if you must read it at all.

Monckton gets it wrong again

Source: HotCopper.com S&M forum

My buddy Daruma is a good bloke, but he mistakenly thinks it's cooling.  He's been hoodwinked by 'evidence' provided as a rambling error-filled non-science article from climate science denier, birther and professional entertainer of the elderly, Christopher Monckton.

Deniers 'need their heads read'

Not only that, but there are five more HotCopper-ites who agree with him than disagree (+5 thumbs up).  This is despite the chart that butcherboy (Physics Honours graduate currently doing a Masters in climate studies) posted and got thumbed down for his efforts:

Source: HotCopper.com S&M forum

adding a copy of struggler's chart from SkepticalScience.com (saving HotCopperites a mouse click).  The chart is a gif animation.  If the animation doesn't show up*, click on the chart to open it in a new window.

HotCopper favours dumbing down and denialism (in line with its unwritten policies /s)

Science is an elite leftist scam - what?

In another thread, this post from Denmor sums up the average HotCopperites view of science in general:

Source: HotCopper.com S&M forum

HotCopper science deniers don't know the difference between science and politics, and any science they don't like must be a 'scam' by the 'elite left of politics'.

It really is getting hotter and hotter

Finally, let's look at some real science showing how temperatures are trending with and without the influence of ENSO, solar and volcanoes (derived from Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) by SkepticalScience).  It clearly shows that this global warming is from greenhouse gases, not from ENSO, volcanoes or the sun:

(This is a gif animation.)

* If the animations don't show up, set you browser to display web animations.  In IE open Internet Options and go to the multimedia section of advanced settings and select 'play animations in web pages', then restart your browser.