The world domination ultra-paranoid conspiracy theory at WUWT

Anthony Watts has posted another "world domination" conspiracy theory at WUWT (archived here, latest here). This time it's not been written by the uber-conspiracy nutter Tim Ball or the paranoid conspiracy theorist Alec Rawls. This one is by the potty peer and birther conspiracy theorist, Christopher Monckton.

Christopher Monckton is attacking Prince Charles for suggesting that, in preparation for the UN climate summit in Paris to be held in December 2015:

"Over the next 18 months, and bearing in mind the urgency of the situation confronting us, the world faces what is probably the last effective window of opportunity to vacate the insidious lure of the 'last chance saloon' in order to agree an ambitious, equitable and far-sighted multilateral settlement in the context of the post-2015 sustainable development goals and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change," he said.

Notice Charles' words - agreement, multi-lateral and sustainable development. He isn't talking about anyone taking over the world. He is saying that all 193 UN member nations have to work together to resolve a global problem. They have to put aside political differences and come up with a workable solution to mitigate global warming.

Christopher probably thinks he's on a winner attacking Prince Charles, who has some nutty ideas of his own. Which is nuttier - Christopher's "cure for AIDS" or Charles' homeopathy? Christopher's "birtherism" and "hitler" accusations or Charles' proposing we act on scientific advice?

If you're on the home page, click here to read on...

WUWT and the headless chooks

Deniers are enraged at Prince Charles for referring to them as "the headless chicken brigade" (see here).  First Jo Nova and now Anthony Watts (archived here).

At least Anthony Watts made a half-hearted attempt to justify his rejection of science - if only by quoting a pair of science deniers, Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels!

Anthony put up a chart of climate sensitivity estimates which were up the spout.  For starters, it reversed IPCC AR4 and IPCC AR5 and had numerous other errors.

Then he put up this chart (click to enlarge).  Just look at the scale on the y axis.

Does Anthony Watts really think it quite reasonable for temperatures to have shot up by more than 1 degree Celsius since 2001? Does he also not realise that climate changes over multiple decades?  Of course he shows monthly data to try to hide the fact that 2010 was the hottest year on record (equal to 2005) - but he can't quite hide that fact even using his denier tricks.

I can't imagine Anthony Watts ever showing these charts. Can you?

The other really weird thing Anthony wrote was this.

Compare that to climate sensitivity predictions, which center around .2°C

That after putting up a diagram showing that climate sensitivity is estimated (by most studies) as lying between 1.5 and 6 degrees Celsius, most probably around 3 degrees Celsius. What he was trying to say, but didn't, was that since 1998, global surface temperatures haven't risen as much as some people expected. Tamino has written a terrific article about that - it's a "must read".

Then Anthony tries to argue (again) that the "response of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is nearing saturation".  Yet even his charts show that a doubling of CO2 could lead to a rise of 3 degrees Celsius or more.  And that's just a doubling.  A quadrupling could lead to a rise of six degrees or more in global surface temperature. (At the rate we're going and if WUWT-ers had their way, CO2 could double before 2050!)

There's a linear relationship between carbon emissions and surface temperature, which is shown by this chart from the IPCC AR5 WG1 report.

After reading his protest, about the only thing that Anthony got almost right was this sentence.  If you strike out the middle bit like I have he's not far wrong:

By making an emotional label about climate skeptics, instead of dealing with facts, Prince Charles demonstrates that’s he’s no different than Bill McKibben and Al Gore. 

Prince Charles has a reputation for being a tad nutty.  But this time he's making sense when he says it's...

"baffling ... that in our modern world we have such blind trust in science and technology that we all accept what science tells us about everything — until, that is, it comes to climate science."

And the headless chooks at WUWT and Jo Nova's don't like it.  I expect what is particularly irksome is that WUWT-ers just adore royalty - or at least the ones who live on the other side of the pond do.  They bow and scrape to Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.  But he's not a real royal.  His title is only a generation old.  They'd love to have a proper "royal" on their side.  It won't be the bonny prince.

Deniers running around like headless chooks!

Have a geek at the "bunch of headless chooks" at Jo Nova's blog

In my last blog article I was slinging off at someone who complained that a scientist referred to the work of other scientists when discussing climate science and evolution.  This led to some comments about appealing to authority.  So I thought I'd look around to see just who the fake sceptics appeal to when they reject the science.

Coincidentally, in Joanne Nova's latest article, she was rousing at Prince Charles for saying "baffling ... that in our modern world we have such blind trust in science and technology that we all accept what science tells us about everything — until, that is, it comes to climate science".  He is quoted by AP as calling calling climate science deniers the "headless chicken brigade".

Jo Nova wrote:

This is the same old argument: authorities want us to believe authority, while stupid punters ask for data instead.

So just who do the headless chooks at Jo Nova's place appeal to?  Well, Jo Nova doesn't call on any authority.  There were 87 comments to Jo Nova's article so I looked through them all to see what authorities the members of her fan club prefer. (Archived here.)

I've listed nearly every name mentioned in the comments to Jo Nova's article.

Kevin Lohse complained that David Bellamy was uninvited to some do at "Buck House" (presumably Buckingham Palace).  So maybe Kevin regards David Bellamy as the ultimate authority on all things climate. David Bellamy made it into George Monbiot's top ten list of climate science deniers back in 2009.  He's been woefully wrong on things climate so not much of an authority, sad to say.

Tom Harley referred to a Richard Lindzen comment that climate scientists aren't the cleverest people on the planet, or something.  Such a comment presumably meant that Tom doesn't regard Richard Lindzen as an authority, if he's that dumb.

Another commenter referred to Robin Warren and Barry J. Marshall.  I wasn't aware they were climate scientists, but I guess that discovering H pylori is an achievement.  Maybe on par with John Tyndall's experiments but then again, probably not.

There were several disparaging comments about Greens Senator, Sarah Hanson-Young.  I don't think the commenters were touting her as an authority on climate science though.

Quite a number of people decided Prince Charles didn't know what he was talking about when he said that people should trust the science, because he's a fan of homeopathy.  One would think that argument would have led to support for the idea that it pays to take note of science.  On the contrary. That chain of logic didn't follow.  Jo Nova's blog is devoid of logic.  The critical reader will recognise their comments as the "ad hominem" fallacy, which is arguably the reverse of the "appeal to authority".

I might have missed a couple of names, but I covered it fairly well.  No name stood out as an authority that the fake sceptics would defer to.  I'll keep my eyes and ears open.  If you come across an authority on climate science that all fake sceptics support, do let me know.

Looking through the 87 comments, the term "headless chicken brigade" was as good a description of Jo Nova's flock as any you're likely to find.  It reminded me of why I almost never visit her blog.

Here are some typical comments, in case you thought I was understating the insight and wit of the Jo Nova crowd:

Skitz

February 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm · Reply
Always thought he was a complete Bozo ! This just confirms emphatically what I believed.

David

February 1, 2014 at 6:35 pm · Reply
At least for a couple of weeks after Charles goes to meet his Anglican Maker.
I’m an unashamed Constitutional Monarchist and sincerely trust that William is the next Sovereign.

John F. Hultquist

February 1, 2014 at 4:24 pm · Reply
What a nitwit. No wonder his mom won’t let him play king.
I suppose he has never heard of Helicobacter pylori and the Australian scientists, Robin Warren and Barry J. Marshall. To name one instance.

Pointman

February 1, 2014 at 3:59 pm · Reply
25% of his future “subjects” now live in fuel poverty. Youth unemployment is rife. Because of sky high energy costs, manufacturing is moving abroad. The list goes on but all the result of inbreeding can talk about is saving the planet.
Pointman

Turtle of WA

February 1, 2014 at 8:34 pm · Reply
Charles I believed in the divine right of kings – the notion that the king is chosen by god to rule with absolute Authority. It’s similar to the Divine right of Alarmists, whereby the representatives of absolute scientific Authority are chosen by Gaia

JLC

February 1, 2014 at 4:36 pm · Reply
He’s a nitwit.

RoHa

February 1, 2014 at 4:59 pm · Reply
Bother! I’ve been ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence. Could you show me where it is, please, so that I can stop ignoring it?

Reed Coray mentioned a couple of people I missed, but I get the impression he doesn't regard them as authorities on climate science

February 1, 2014 at 3:23 pm · Reply
Australia has Tim Flannery. The US had Al Gore. It’s nice to hear from England’s entry in the my-idiot-can-beat-your-idiot race. I wonder what the odds are on each contestant?