Hypocrisy alert: Don't make us pay for Harvey floods sez Eric Worrall at WUWT. We paid for his, though.

Credit: Trudy Lampson

I made a comment the other day about paying for floods. I was remarking about how Roger Pielke Jr likes to view the cost of disasters as a function of GDP. He says that GDP is going up faster worldwide than the big spike in the cost of weather disasters and implies that therefore the world can afford to pay for them.

There are flaws in Roger's GDP argument. One I didn't mention was that the cost of the clean up and restoration is part of GDP. The other is that I think a lot of wealthy people will object to their money being paid to recover from disasters unless they themselves are the victims. Remember how many Republicans voted against aid after Sandy.

Eric Worrall denounces criticism of Trump, who he knows little about

I just noticed an article at WUWT by Eric "eugenics" Worrall (archived here). This is someone who for years likened climate scientists to eugenicists. He's a bit upset at Jeffrey D. Sachs, who wrote a strongly worded piece denouncing Trump for pulling out of the Paris agreement. Eric, who is a Brit now living in Australia, was quite irate and keen to show off his double standards.

What I think upset Eric the most was when Sachs wrote that Trump's actions were anti-society. I think it was the word "sociopathic" that he regarded as "hate speech", not so much the "willfully inflicting harm" part:

President Donald Trump’s withdrawal of the United States from the Paris climate agreement is not just dangerous for the world; it is also sociopathic. Without remorse, Trump is willfully inflicting harm on others. 

(It's telling that climate science disinformers regard their audience as being so illiterate that they don't come up with any alternative to "hate" as a word to describe opposition to their efforts to ruin the world.)

Leopards and spots - a warning to climate scientists

A short while ago, Reginal Perrin commented about Anthony Watts moderating out a fairly ordinary conspiracy theory as far as WUWT goes. The theory put forward by WUWT regular Charles Nelson, and embellished by dbstealey (aka ex-WUWT moderator Smokey, dbs, DBoehm etc) was that scientists are fraudulently changing data to suit some agenda of the US government. That's a theory that Anthony Watts has posited in the past himself, so it raises the question of why he decided to moderate out and delete these comments.

There are three possibilities I can think of. One is that Anthony is getting a bit twitchy because denier antics are under the spotlight. Anthony Watts might be afraid of repercussions from the war he's been waging against science and scientists for the past several years. On the one hand he is posting a lot of "breaking news" about CEI and the preliminary investigation in ExxonMobil and how CEI is being prevented from speaking freely (as if). At the same time he is posting "breaking news" about CEI's FOI campaigns against scientists, trying to stop them from "speaking freely". Anthony might be worried that he'll get hauled into court himself.

What astounds Anthony Watts: that anyone other than he would send "hate mail"

Anthony Watts, owner of the climate conspiracy blog WUWT, doesn't get much mail from people who like science. I doubt he gets too many from researchers at universities, for example. Over the past few weeks he's posted a couple of emails and comments that he calls "hate mail". (Never mind that Anthony himself sends hate mail.) He was going to do it more often, but he probably doesn't get enough to make an article worthwhile. This latest one he's posted (archived here) is very mild. It's asking Anthony how he sleeps at night. If that's the worst he gets, then he gets off very lightly, compared to climate scientists.

Today he wrote:

You know what astounds me in this world? That there are people with so little moral character that they have to hurl insults about scientific integrity from behind faux names.

Not Anthony. He hurls insults about scientific integrity in public and in private. Though he only does it when he's safely ensconced behind his computer screen.

WUWT's unethical use of the most vulnerable, denying them clean energy

One thing few would accuse Anthony Watts (or any science disinformer) of is applying ethics. Today is no exception. Unethical Anthony has a hypocrisy posing as "care" in an article with a headline:"The Ethics of Climate Change" (archived here).

He's using an article by someone called Bob Lyman** to pretend that letting poorer nations sink under rising seas is good for them. Once again he is hosting someone arguing that letting people starve from drought-caused famine, die from heat exhaustion or thirst, or suffocate under heavy smog, will be better than helping them modernise, survive and thrive with lots of clean energy.

Anthony Watts, most blessed and ethical professional hero @wattsupwiththat, rides gallantly to the Antarctic rescue

Update  - I've added the result of an enquiry by a HotWhopper reader - Thanks, Rattus Norvegicus.  You will need to read the rest of the article to see the context. (3 January 2014)

Rattus Norvegicus January 2, 2014 at 1:05 PM

At the suggestion of a poster above I emailed Dr. McGillivary. Here are the bullet points.

1. They were discussing contingency plans should they be called up.
2. Needed long term forecast.
3. Usual sources all on vacation, so called Scott.
4. Forecast was provided (and misreported on KUSI piece).
5. Polar Star's mission is resupply of McMurdo.
6. They have not been asked to participate in rescue.
7. The Akademik Shokalskiy is in no immediate danger.
8. Polar Star just arrived in Sydney....

It would appear that more than a few things are messed up in the reporting by WUWT and KUSI. It appears as though he was looking for confirmation of his forecast that winds would turn around. This was confirmed by information from KUSI and a sea ice expert who got back to him (apparently). The forecast as reported by KUSI seemed to be far more dire.

BTW, from Sydney to the Mertz Glacier/Cape Dennison area is about two weeks sailing, so the situation would have had to go on for quite some time before they could be of any use.

To summarize, Scott provided a forecast (long term?) which was used for discussion of contingencies in case they were called to assist in the rescue efforts.

It can be tough reading stuff at WUWT.  One needs a very strong stomach at times.

I've just been alerted to a complete about face at WUWT.  Anthony Watts has girded his loins, put on his shining armour, saddled his white steed and ridden to the rescue of the stranded ship in the Antarctic.  In one fell swoop and swish of his cape, Anthony has decided to shift sides and can prove it, on television no less.  Now he's an "ethical" and "professional" hero, gallantly putting aside his science denial to rescue the idiot warmunistas brave men and women on the MV Akademik Shokalskiy. (Archived here)

What KUSI-TV reported

Actually, what happened was that Anthony got a call from a John Coleman of KUSI-TV who said he got a call from Dave Scott of KUSI-TV who got a call from someone on the Polar Star (a US coastguard ice breaker) asking for weather information. Then Anthony did a television interview via webcam for a TV station in San Diego without a hint of the mockery, derision or conspiracy theorising he wrote on his blog. (I've got to say the TV presenters at KUSI-TV are masters of overstatement, something that hasn't yet percolated here to quite the same degree, thank goodness.  For example, they claimed the Polar Star is "standing by".  But it's not.  The Polar Star said in a statement that it will consider any request by the Australian Government for assistance, but it hasn't promised anything and is not "standing by" in any normal sense of the phrase, according to its statement aired on KUSI-TV.)

Anthony Watts' Spin

Anthony's spin is different though.  He claims that he got a call from John Coleman (so far so good) but then diverges from what Dave Scott reported:

Then to my surprise, he relayed a conversation he had just had; a person on the Akademik Shokalskiy had reached out, because they didn’t have adequate weather data on-board. At first, I thought John was pulling my leg, but then as he gave more details, I realized he was serious.

Not according to Dave Scott of KUSI-TV, who said he received the original phone request from his friend on the Polar Star for the Polar Star.  There was no mention that anyone on the MV Akademik Shokalskiy asked for weather information.  They'd have access to Antarctic weather information from BoM and other sources closer at hand.

Publicity-seeking Anthony Watts

Anthony must have figured that getting deliberately stuck in ice was such a terrific "publicity stunt" that he wanted to be part of it. I doubt you'll see a better example of hypocrisy.

The new hero image doesn't mix well with the old anti-hero image, best change it

There is shift in the WUWT comments now.  Some of his followers are very well-trained monkeys. Let's see how the comments evolved over three articles.

First a few of the really nasty ones that Anthony allowed on his blog:

Stephen Richards says, after quoting another commenter who suggested "toning it down":

December 30, 2013 at 1:37 am
Can we all start jumping for joy after they die ?? then (archived here)

Gail Combs says (excerpt):

December 29, 2013 at 5:35 pm
I really do not care if people who wish me and others to live short, nasty brutal lives end up earning Darwin Awards. However I do care if those who went to the rescue of these idiots are hurt. (archived here)

Michael Ronayne says:

December 30, 2013 at 10:47 am
Question: What do you call a ship load of trapped Global Cooling Deniers who are in danger of freezing to death?
Answer: A good start! (Archived here)

Then some plain ordinary mockery WUWT-style.

albertalad says:

December 29, 2013 at 11:12 am
You can’t make this stuff up – the AGW dude stuck in ice along with the Australian Green Party senator and their ilk. Priceless! (Archived here.)

Mac the Knife says (excerpt):

December 29, 2013 at 11:53 am
At last – true Environmental Justice in action! In the most direct and immediately tangible terms, the expanding ice pack surrounds them with blunt and massive evidence that their beliefs are wrong. Yet, they continue to preach the AGW dogma, even as the antarctic climate tries to kill them. If that isn’t a hallmark of religious environmentalism, I don’t know what would be! (Archived here)

Now that Anthony is heroically rescuing the stricken vessel, he and some of his trained monkeys have done an about face, as per Anthony Watts' instructions (archived here):

Despite the irony and folly of the situation, I’m sure readers will join me in the hope that everyone makes it off the ship safely, whether it is by helicopter or by the ship being freed from the ice.

Janice Moore says:

December 31, 2013 at 11:42 pm
Good for you, An-thon-y! They went to the best.
That you have been given the opportunity to come to the aid of your “enemies” (v. a v. truth in science), can only be God’s providence. And, yes, I have been and will pray that God gets them out of there (they are certainly not going to get out without God’s help).
Your admiring fan,
Janice
P.S. Yet another resounding blow for free markets over socialism: During Hurricane (a real one) Katrina, it was privately owned Home Depot who got the supplies and equipment through; when 33 Chilean miners needed rescuing from the bowels of the earth, it was private companies in the U.S., Germany, and other capitalist countries (sorry, forgot all of them) who had the drill bit and cable and who flew in the supplies (U.P.S.); and now, it is you and Joe, two American free market entrepreneurs and genuine scientists’ turn. WAY TO GO!

Mark and two Cats says "warmunists! this is called ethics" - It's not my ethics, Mark

December 31, 2013 at 11:46 pm
“My first thought was that no matter how much we’ve been criticizing the expedition for its silliness, that if such a request had reached all the way from Antarctica to me, I’d do everything I could to help.”
————————————–
See all ye warmunists! This is called “ethics”.
Try to get some.

albertalad decides to join in the alleluia chorus and says:

January 1, 2014 at 12:17 am
The speed and professionalism of Anthony and friends was magnificent, indeed the best of humanity itself. Thank you to all involved! God speed to those in peril on the sea this night!

NikFromNYC says:

January 1, 2014 at 12:03 am
Civilized professionalism at its finest, and a PR coup too.

Mac the Knife changes his tune somewhat and says:

January 1, 2014 at 12:42 am
Anthony,
Serendipity makes for strange bed fellows, doesn’t it? May God bless you for doing the right thing. While we can laugh at the self-induced predicament of the ship of fools, we all should pray for their survival… and help, if it is in our power to do so.
MtK

dp says:

December 31, 2013 at 11:54 pm
Anthony – you are a person of extreme character and great industry. What an exemplary way to start off the new year, bridging the bitter divide between climate alarmism and skepticism in a time of uncommon and dire need. Hopefully this will lead to some bridge mending.

MrX doesn't read WUWT comments and says there should be no doubt (about the good intentions of Anthony and all at WUWT) - Huh?

January 1, 2014 at 12:23 am
Of course everyone wishes a safe return for all those out at sea. I don’t think there should ever be any doubt of that. Yet I’ve just had a discussion about this with my liberal friends and they don’t see the irony at all. In fact, they resent my suggesting it. This won’t change a thing. Those who believe the globe is warming due to human influence won’t let being surrounded by ice deter them.

Double standards or setting standards?

There's a "Friday Funny" on WUWT today in which Eric Worral pokes fun at some fracking protesters.  (Fracking is a slang term for hydraulic fracturing - injecting water into underground rock to break it up.  The process is becoming more common as sources of gas and oil become more scarce.)

The protesters are not ostensibly protesting the extraction of oil (or gas) in their neighbourhood so much as protesting the fracking process.  In this particular case the site is in Balcombe, a village in Sussex in England.  The site is apparently known as Lower Stumble.  All so very country English.

England has changed beyond all recognition in the last few decades.  Some things are probably the same.  England is still on a small green island in the North Atlantic.  There are probably still people who live in villages who've never been more than five miles from their place of birth and that of their forebears going back five hundred years or more.  Though they would be fewer and fewer.

There are English who love their countryside.  This fierce protective nature crosses boundaries of class and culture and can be traced back to feudal times and probably even earlier.

The English have a reputation for being understated, mannered, orderly and well-behaved.  If one person stops in a street for more than 30 seconds, as often as not a queue will form behind them :D  However when pushed too far the English have a tendency to push back.  You may recall Greenham Common, the poll tax riots, coal miner strikes, police strikes and other protests going way back in time.

Balcombe has a Parish Council, which conducted a poll of residents for their attitude towards fracking.  Of the 284 polling cards returned, 82% or 234 said that the Council should oppose fracking.  The top reasons  for objecting, after increased traffic, were all related to concern for the impact on the environment.  Balcombe has about 1700 residents.  So 17% of residents returned a card.  Allowing for the fact that a proportion of residents will be children, 17% is not a bad return but I've seen better - and much worse.

It's hard to imagine any mining activity in Sussex.  I don't think there are any coal mines there.  One thinks of green meadows, narrow roads and tiny villages when one thinks of Sussex.  Or maybe gaudy Brighton pier or the Battle of Hastings.

However there have been mines in Sussex.  I've discovered that way back in neolithic times, around 4,000 BC flint was mined for tools.  Much more recently, since the late nineteenth century, gypsum has been mined.  The largest gypsum deposit in the UK is located in Sussex.

I'm straying from the point.  Is it hypocritical to protest fracking for oil while using oil products, like plastics?  It is being argued on WUWT that it is.  One person commented that using that argument, a meat eater (or wool wearer, or leather owner) would be hypocritical if they expressed concern about animal welfare.

Kajajuk says:

August 23, 2013 at 8:29 pm  Consumers of plastics have their concerns with fracking mute by their consumption? Cool.  So as a meat eater i can have no objections to the way animals are grown and harvested for food. That’s brilliant! As i use electricity, likely generated by nuclear power stations, mum is the word…shhhh

I would argue that WUWT is applying double standards.  Many science deniers on WUWT strongly oppose wind power generation, making up all sorts of reasons such as "it kills birds".  Yet most of these same people don't oppose hunting, motor vehicles, electricity distribution or tall buildings, which kill many more birds than do wind turbines.  And that's not counting the complete destruction of habitat caused by open cut mines of coal and uranium.  (I expect their attitude towards cats varies.)


One prolific WUWT writer, wondering Willis Eschenbach, even wants to turn every less-developed nation into a Beijing - smog and all.  He reckons that only fossil fuel is any good for energy production and seems to oppose any form of clean energy.  He even proposes using up every bit of fossil fuel that can be mined as soon as possible, despite the fact that he calculates the world would run out in only 80 years or so if it did so.


Thing is, that if not for environmental movements and environmental activism in the sixties and early seventies, the world would probably have taken a lot longer to introduced clean air and other environmental protection legislation.  Los Angeles, Sydney and London would have suffered more extreme pollution days for many more years than they have.

Back to fracking.  Is it dangerous?  Does it pose a risk to ground water?  What about the stability of the land in the region or further afield?  Although it's not a new process, it does seem it's being used more often and in more places, because oil and gas in easy to get places is pretty well all extracted.  So we're going for the more difficult deposits - in the ocean and on land.  Fracking makes it easier to extract the oil.

Finally, I don't agree that there is any hypocrisy in objecting to a process used to get resources while still accepting the benefit of the resources themselves.

WUWT readers and others are free to object to the process by which energy is produced.  They can object to clean energy without objecting to energy as such.  They can even, as they do, object to clean energy because they favour dirty energy.  They can and do object to safer forms of energy while favouring less benign forms of energy.  It seems odd to the rational person and speaks to their values, but it's not necessarily hypocritical.

What is a display of double standards, to my way of thinking, is to object to people opposing fracking on the grounds they are being hypocritical (because they use oil products), while at the same time objecting to clean energy while being happy enough to use clean energy when it's available.

One last thought in this meandering article, some of the greatest conservationists have been conservative politicians.  In my own state, Victorian Premier Dick Hamer was a champion of the environment and conservation and remained so after he left politics.  In the USA, conservative President Theodore Roosevelt arguably did more to conserve areas of land as national parks than anyone before or since.  Philanthropists of conservative persuasion have similarly done much good work when it comes to protecting the earth.  So it does seem strange that so many conservatives argue against protecting the environment, argue against clean energy and argue for practices that pose known and unknown risks to our world.