DuKE-ing it out...

The Battle of the DuKEs*

Anthony Watts of  WUWT is DuKE-ing it out with the Dragon Slayers** from Principia Scientific International.  A quote from the Slayers on WUWT:

“All of us on our side have researched and deeply pondered the actual principles of radiative heat transfer. On the other side, however, the “experts” we argue with, like Spencer, Lindzen, Monckton, Watts, just insist that a body’s radiant energy can be doubled by directing that energy back to it — even though the simplest of experiments will shows that this is false.

Anthony Watts is arguing with the Slayers that the greenhouse effect is real.  Meanwhile Anthony's top sticky post is that global warming isn't real.

---

*DuKE - a collective noun eg A DuKE of deniers TM Lotharsson.
** Dragon Slayers - refer: The Uncertainty Monster Swallows the Sky Dragon

Duke it out:

1. To fight, especially with the fists. A large crowd came to watch the boxers duke it out. 
2. (idiomatic) To argue heavily or at length. The candidates duked it out on the proposal for hours.

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!

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.