They just don't get it at WUWT. It's the pace of change that's the problem.

Deniers like to claim they aren't stupid and they aren't ignorant. I can't say what happens in the rest of their lives, but those who deny climate science, when it comes to climate science, are either stupid, or ignorant or knowingly telling lies. There is no middle ground.

There's an example again today at WUWT (archived here). Again it's from Eric Worrall. He wonders why, if global warming is threatening the food chain, it didn't threaten it during the Cretaceous period. You don't believe that anyone could be so foolish? It's true. Eric wrote:

The obvious question – why didn’t this hypothesised collapse occur during previous epochs with high CO2 levels, such as the Cretaceous Age? According to Wikipedia, the Cretaceous age enjoyed CO2 levels of around 1700ppm. Yet the Cretaceous was also the age of the Dinosaurs – the period was characterised by large tropical jungles, shallow warm seas, and a vast abundance of life, both marine and terrestrial. I suggest it takes a pretty robust food chain to support a predator like the Tyrannosaurus Rex.

It's as if he's never heard of any of the great extinction events, like the massive Permian Triassic events, which in part were the result of rapid greenhouse warming.

"Let's mess with Earth some more" Anthony Watts of WUWT implies. Does he want to hasten extinction?

Disclaimer: see below. Although I'm no expert on these topics, I've put together some of what I found interesting, including some agricultural snippets (buried in there somewhere).

---

While I was sleeping (or somewhere else) Anthony Watts put up a post headed up:

An illustration that CO2 won’t roast the Earth in a runaway tipping point…
…because the Earth has experienced massive CO2 pulses and recovered before.

He posted this drawing trying to prove his point:

Source: GeoCO2.png Photo by dhm1353 | Photobucket

And this chart:

Source: http://s90.photobucket.com/user/dhm1353/media/CO2_Decline.png.html

It looks like it was not till some time later, and only because one of his readers provided them, that he added a whole heap of links to source data. 

Does Anthony Watts comprehend or even bother to read what he posts?

Funny thing is that it was only last night that I made this observation:

I don't think Anthony Watts reads scientific papers and I very much doubt he would understand them if he tried. Notice he writes very little himself on his blog and almost nothing scientific. He relies on guest articles, press releases and other blogs. On the rare occasions he does try his hand at something he usually gets into real strife and gets it all horribly wrong.

(This is quite long.  If you're on the HotWhopper home page, to read more click here.) 

Jim Steele, climate change and the sixth major extinction event

Jim Steele writes on WUWT that he thinks the scenario of "catastrophic climate change" is false (my bold):

Why have so few scientists celebrated the good science like Jeremy Thomas’ when it empowers us with the critical understanding that allows us to locally build a more resilient environment? Why instead have thousands of scientists uncritically pushed false scenarios of catastrophic climate change? Although some skeptics have suggested a nefarious scientific conspiracy, I believe it demonstrates the ease with which the human mind embraces illusions. 

Jim Steele was ostensibly writing about the work of Jeremy Thomas, who he much admires, and how he figured out what was the cause for the extinction of a butterfly in Britain (which has subsequently been reintroduced by conservationists from populations in Europe).  I say "ostensibly", because Jim Steele used what would otherwise have been a fascinating story as a springboard for a rant against climate science and against a biologist, Professor Camille Parmesan, against whom he seems to hold a particular grudge (unexplained).

I looked up Jeremy Thomas and his work.  He's an entomologist, the Professor of Ecology and Professorial Fellow of New College working in the Department of Zoology at Oxford University.  He has published quite a few papers.  Clearly a top scientist in his field and held in high regard.

(This is kind of long - so if you're on the blog home page and want to read more, click here.)