The Extra Terrestrial Tamperers are Coming - by Christopher Monckton @wattsupwiththat

The Aliens are Coming. Christopher Monckton knows who "They" are, but won't give any details.  All I can glean from his WUWT article is that "They" are (Extra) Terrestrial Tamperers and Dictators who are about to strike and take over the world, grabbing Supreme Global Power. Today on his second favourite conspiracy blog (after Infowars), Christopher Monckton, the potty peer of Brenchley, wrote:

 I expect that we’ll hear a great deal less about climate change once the world government is safely installed. As the divergence between prediction and reality continues to widen, the new dictators will not want anyone to be reminded of the great lie by which they took supreme and – for the first time – global power.

Anthony Watts is probably on the phone now to his favourite Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, getting tips, and stocking up on lentils and rice.

About that divergence from reality...

The Institute of World Politics on unethical conduct, foreign propaganda, deception and covert political influence

Anthony Watts has posted an article on his blog announcing the existence of yet another secret UN organisation (archived here) called the "UN Climate Change Commission". David "funny sunny" Archibald claims this previously unheard of UN entity is "on a path to rule the world ".  (David is a science denier who, like many deniers, is prone to paranoid conspiracy theories of this type.) I'm guessing this UN entity is known only to a select few at the Institute of World Politics. Maybe only to one person - David "funny sunny" Archibald.  The "UN Climate Change Commission" is not listed on the United Nations list of UN Climate Change Organizations and Programs.

The Institute of World Politics

David Archibald promotes himself at WUWT as a Visiting Fellow, Strategic Energy Policy at the Institute of World Politics. He is described on the Institute's website as:

a Perth, Australia-based scientist working in the fields of oil exploration, climate science, energy and geostrategy

Now I don't know much about the Institute of World Politics or its agenda. Here is what I do know. The Institute states on its website that it encourages "a free and open atmosphere to support the search for truth, the heart of the academic enterprise".

Paranoid Anthony Watts seeks attention from the IPCC

What a stupid man.

Today Anthony Watts has posted a pdf file of the draft report of the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC.  I won't link to the draft - it ain't ethical and besides that the final version will be out in three days.

This draft is currently undergoing an intensive line by line review at a Panel Session of the IPCC.  The final version will be made available on the 27 September.  That's only three days away where I live, but probably four days away given the Panel is meeting in Europe.

Anthony's Excuse

Here is Anthony's excuse for posting the draft:

For weeks, this document has been put in the hands of most every journalist that writes about climate issues, and many articles have been written about its contents. Given that much of the work done in it was publicly funded at universities, and because the discussion in the media has placed the issue in the public domain of discussion, plus with the IPCC Stockholm meeting to hammer out the final version convening this week, and with the announcement today that IPCC chair Rajenda Pachauri willl step down in 2015, (translation here) I feel it is time to make this document available so that the public also has the opportunity for (as the IPCC put it in their press release) line-by-line scrutiny....

...Further, the IPCC has made it clear in their Principles and Procedures statement that they embrace transparency.

... Given the keen worldwide interest, and the many articles written about the AR5 draft SPM in media with access to it, there’s no reason anymore for the public to be left out of the process. It will also be interesting to compare to the final SPM to see what the politicians have morphed the document into. Reportedly, there are some 1800 changes that have already been requested by government representatives.

So why did Anthony put up the draft report?  Heck, everyone will have it in three or four days.  He claims it's for transparency and so that the public can be part of the process.  But those can't be the reasons because:

a) if anyone wanted to be part of the process they had their chance back a couple of years ago, when they could have signed up to be an expert reviewer.  They can't be "part of the process" now.  Only onlookers.

b) as far as "transparency" goes, the draft will be made public anyway "as soon as possible" after the report has been approved at the current session of the Panel.  From the IPCC - Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports (top of page 5):

The drafts of IPCC Reports and Technical Papers which have been submitted for formal expert and/or government review, the expert and government review comments, and the author responses to those comments will be made available on the IPCC website as soon as possible after the acceptance by the Panel and the finalisation of the Report or Technical Paper. The IPCC considers its draft reports, prior to acceptance, to be pre-decisional, provided in confidence to reviewers, and not for public distribution, quotation or citation. 

Not only will the final approved version of the Summary for Policy Makers be made available, so will the draft, the comments on the draft and the author responses to the comments.

Anthony can't provide that.  All he's got his sweaty little hands on is the draft that was floating around various places since probably around mid-August or earlier.  The draft went out to Panel members at least eight weeks before this current meeting - and I believe it's dated the end of June.  (I have no interest in reading it to find out.  Aside from ethical considerations, I'd rather wait a couple more days and get the lot together.) The IPCC reported around 1,800 comments, which is not a huge number given that there are 195 member countries.  That's less than 10 comments per country on average, which is around the same number in other years according to what I've read.

Since it obviously can't be to let the public be "part of the process", and since "transparency" is already covered by the IPCC itself, I'm left wondering what really made Anthony do such a thing.

Attention-seeker

Attention-seeking is probably his number one reason for posting the full draft.  I don't think anyone else has made the full draft available.  By now, most mainstream media outlets have written in general terms some of what is in the draft.  And a few shady journalists and bloggers have made up stuff that isn't in the draft and pretended that it is.  Anthony only got his hands on it a couple of days ago and I reckon he's feeling very left out.  This is his way of getting back at all the people who didn't send him his own personal copy of what was "provided in confidence to reviewers, and not for public distribution, quotation or citation".

I don't see any other rational reason (if you can call attention-seeking rational).  Why else would Anthony publish the draft when there are only three or four days to go before the final report is released, with the previous draft, comments and author responses?

There are a couple of irrational reasons that have occurred to me:

• Anthony is trying to control the message and/or
• Anthony is indulging in his own paranoid conspiracy theory.

Control freak

It could be that Anthony wants to control the message.  Thing is, he doesn't know what the message is and wouldn't understand it if he did.  Anthony doesn't understand climate science very well.  He can read English, but most of the science itself is beyond his abilities.  He doesn't even understand simple concepts like surface temperature anomalies; and he thinks that airport UHI disease can spontaneously erupt out of the blue.

Also working against him is that he's not even a two bit player in comparison with the worlds scientific organisations and climate scientists generally.  No-one serious takes him seriously.

And if Anthony once aspired to being taken seriously, he knows he lost any hope of that long ago.  He can't be trusted.  He does not have the same values or ethics that most earth system scientists have.  I don't know if he would understand what ethics means.

Paranoid conspiracy theorist

The third motivation might be that he has a paranoid conspiracy theory about the IPCC and the UN generally.  What he wrote on his blog supports this explanation.

(FYI In the interest of public discourse and scrutiny, I will be posting the full widely “leaked” draft SPM later today, so that there can be comparisons worldwide of what the politicians have morphed it to – Anthony)

Of course Anthony is probably unfamiliar with the IPCC processes.  He might think he's going to expose something or other.  He is prone to conspiracy ideation.  He has an excessive distrust of government, which goes with the territory for conspiracy theorists.  I doubt he'd have spent any time on the IPCC website - the IPCC is that nasty organisation that compiles climate science after all.  And you couldn't expect him to read things like procedures and policies - there aren't enough pictures in those documents.

Anthony doesn't understand protocol.  He thinks "transparency" means that he should see something almost before it's been written.  He has no sense of proper process, of scientific rigour, of accepted practice or intergovernmental relations.

What's good for the goose...

If we apply Anthony's "rules" to himself - then it's way past time that he put his money where his mouth is and gave the public the current version of his as yet unpublished paper on Stevenson screens or whatever his new paper is all about.

Why the secrecy?  What is he trying to hide?  Why is he keeping it from us? He said months ago that he's had someone re-(ghost)-writing his draft so where is it?  Hasn't he been able to tweak the paper to get the result he wants?  Is he hiding the true facts?

His public deserves to know.  (Not really - no-one deserves to be inflicted with another tormented version of "all the thermometers are wrong" Watts-style!)

Hell Hath no Fury like a Denier Scorned or The Only People who Accept Science are Paid Trolls? WUWT?

Tell me your real name, occupation and source of income or I'll ban you!

Anthony Watts and his band of deniers are predictable.  Hell hath no fury like a denier faced with facts. In a recent thread you can see what happens.  Here is a rundown.

A commenter by the name of Jai has been reminding WUWT readers about numbers and science and the dearth of deniers in the world.  Anthony Watts is not about to let any nonsense such as facts get in the way of a good yarn.

Jai gets an avalanche of attention for saying scientists accept AGW

Jai writes a total of nine comments so far by my count.  The first comment of his got all the deniers very worked up.  This is what he wrote in response to an article that three members of the American Meteorological Society resigned because, unlike the society, they reject climate science.

June 21, 2013 at 1:32 pm Only 14,000 more members to go.
http://ametsoc.org/MEMB/

Apparently they had a problem with this:
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities.
———–
This happens to be the position of :

And then he listed all the scientific societies and professional associations that have endorsed the fact the humans are warming the earth.  So his post was quite long.  It's a long list.  (His comment wasn't nearly as long as William Astley's, who typically adds a zillion words every time he writes a comment.)

Well, you should have seen the reaction.  In total, jai's name is mentioned 97 times in that thread.  Now isn't that a familiar number!  Only nine of those times are comments from jai himself.

On "hassling" and conspiracy ideation

The onslaught gathered pace fairly quickly after John Tillman wrote about Anthony getting funds from the Heartland Institute.  This is what Anthony replied:

REPLY: Actually Heartland didn’t provide that money, they connected me with a donor who ran a technology company.  The work that was funded to make the NOAA data for the CRN easily viewable (since they NEVER mention this new state of the art network in the monthly state of the climate reports) is still in progress here http://climatereferencenetwork.org- Anthony

Jai then does some conspiracy theorising of his own and asks Anthony not for a name, not for a particular business, just for the industry the donor works in:

June 21, 2013 at 5:19 pm Hey Anthony!  Can you provide the industry that your “technology company” donor works in?

Anthony sez "no, people like you will just hassle those people".  Hassle an entire industry?  I suppose...

Anyway Anthony gives us all a lesson in "hassling". Plus conspiracy theorising. (my bold italics):

REPLY: Why not ask Peter Gleick, I’m sure he has plenty of stolen information yet to be revealed. I’m not going to share since the goal of him and people like you is to hassle those people....

You really need to stop with the regurgitated hate-talking points. All you are succeeding in doing is showing people how little you really know and how biased you are. – Anthony 

...Can we get a FAQs on “Jai Mitchell”? For example, is that your real name or a fake, what NGO’s do you belong to, and who pays you to spread this stuff here? - Anthony

Apparently writing a list of scientific organisations and asking for the industry Anthony's benefactor works in is "hate-talking points".  Crikey!  I'd hate to peer inside Anthony's head any more than I have already.  It's a weird paranoid place.

Anthony deletes the next comment from jai, somewhat mysteriously writing this.

[snip - questions upstream require your attention before going further, since you have been skipping them, I'm going to help you remember - Anthony]

Is this the first time a comment has been deleted because a reader hasn't answered a question they've been asked?  Like I said, jai's name is mentioned 97 times, 86 of those mentions are by others.  So that could be anything up to 86 questions that jai didn't answer.  Whew! that's a lot.

Anyway, Anthony lets jai's next one through, though not without another rejoinder and more conspiracy ideation:

jai says:
June 21, 2013 at 5:44 pm  Anthony, I didn’t ask for specifics, I don’t care who gives you money. It was only in the interest of the topic of discussion. If your donor in some way associated with the fossil fuel industry? That shouldn’t be too revealing to your sponsor.
Have a good weekend!

REPLY: “Technology company” should be plainly evident as NOT being a fossil fuel company.
So no FAQs from you? Like if you are a fake name or employed by an NGO to be here? – Anthony

And jai replies politely, thanking Anthony (apparently easily dropping his conspiracy theory when faced with facts) - while Anthony tries once more to get all jai's personal information:

jai says:
June 21, 2013 at 5:48 pm  No Technology company does not in any way shape or form indicates they are involved with the fossil fuel industry, since you said they are not then that’s enough, thanks for answering my question!

REPLY: so why are you afraid to answer questions put to you? – Anthony

Finally Anthony sums up the questions he's been wanting jai to answer:

June 21, 2013 at 5:53 pm @Jai Mitchell, to be clear the questions are:
1. Is Jai Mitchell a fake name?
2. Are you a member of an NGO that has issues with WUWT?
3. Are you paid by an organization to be commenting on blogs? The reason I ask is that you don’t seem to be employed during the day, and you have a constant stream here.

Not having managed to get the FBI file on jai, Anthony Watts decides jai goes onto the first and probably last rung of the "ban" list:

Anthony Watts says:  June 21, 2013 at 6:01 pm @Caleb Since he is a disruption, and won’t engage, Jai is now on moderation, his comments will always get the attention of a moderator at this point.

"Won't engage" is Anthony's code for "he won't give me all his personal details"

It doesn't take much for WUWT-ers to form a lynch mob behind Anthony Watts

Jai made 9 comments with a total of 97 mentions, Janice Moore made 15 comments from a total of 19 mentions.  Being a denier like Janice doesn't rate highly on WUWT.  Goes to show if you want fame on WUWT you have to write something vaguely sciency and then the anti-science mafia will rise up as one in their paranoia and form a lynch mob, with cries of "troll", "hate" and all the rest.

Brings back memories...

I reckon Anthony must be worried his new moderation policy might wreck his audience demographics.

Cook et al Paper Confirms 97% Scientific Consensus - Prompting Silly Conspiracy Theories from Anthony Watts and WUWT

AGW Scientific Consensus: 97% and rising

Visit TheConsensusProject.com

A new peer-reviewed study in the open access journal, Environmental Research Letters** (ERL) confirms (again) the 97% scientific consensus on the causes of the current global warming.  Scientists have looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion. The evidence is so overwhelming now that the consensus has grown - from 90% in the literature twenty-two years ago in 1991 to 97% for the twenty year period to 2011.  Today 98.4% of scientists publishing papers relating to climate science and its impacts, agree that humans are causing global warming.

The finding (for anyone who's been sleeping under a cool rock for the past forty years or so) -  97% of published scientific papers taking a position on global warming all agree: 

We humans are causing global warming and climate change.

The paper is by Cook et al** and titled: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.  It is by far the largest of its kind in the peer-reviewed literature.  The authors analysed abstracts from 11,944 papers mentioning global warming or global climate change over the twenty year period between 1991 and 2011.  Of the nearly 12,000 papers only 0.7% disputed the fact that humans are causing global warming.  The papers represented the work of scientists from at least 91 countries throughout the world.

These findings are consistent with those of Naomi Oreskes - published in Science in 2004, and those of the recent unpublished work by James Lawrence Powell and other studies.  In the 928 peer-reviewed papers she examined spanning ten years (1993-2003), Oreskes did not find a single paper disputing the consensus that humans are causing global warming. Out of 13,950 peer-reviewed articles on global warming in the past twenty-one years, Powell found that only 24 rejected global warming.  There's more (click image to enlarge):

Cook et al (2013) and two other similar studies all show at least 97% scientific consensus.

In this latest study, abstracts of the 11,944 papers were analysed by 24 volunteers led by John Cook of the University of Queensland and owner of the award-winning website SkepticalScience.com. They cross-checked their work by having at least two people independently rate each paper's abstract.  The people rating the abstracts didn't see the names of the papers' authors.  They further cross-checked by asking the papers' authors.

The research team was just a teeny bit (0.1%)  more conservative in their categorisations than the authors of the scientific papers themselves, showing the paper's findings to be rock solid.  Here's John Cook describing the study and its findings.

Spread the word - visit the new website: TheConsensusProject.com

To find out how to help the public become aware of the consensus, visit this new website: The Consensus Project.

You can also read reports of the study in this article on SkepticalScience.  It's also getting good mainstream and niche press coverage - click here for a multitude of choices:

• UK Guardian
• Australia's ABC News
• Australia's ABC - Environment
• Huffington Post
• The Australian
• Sydney Morning Herald
• Reuters
• RenewEconomy
• The Conversation
• Phys.Org news
•  and probably elsewhere.

And on various high profile blogs:

• ClimateProgress
• Scholars and Rogues
• David Appell's Quark Soup
• Rabett Run
• DeSmogBlog
• Watching the Deniers

As I said up front, the paper was published in the open access journal ERL.  Instead of reader pays, the journal requires an up front payment.  To their credit, SkepticalScience raised the fee from its readers in less than half a day - so it's all there for you to read.  No paywall.  Lots of other good papers from top scientists there as well.

That's about all from me on the research itself for now.  The rest of this article is mainly for denier watchers.  If you want to skip the bulk of it (it's fairly standard denier weirdness, some of it funny) but consider yourself WUWT-literate, you might enjoy the little bonus at the end :D

The paranoid conspiracy theory of Anthony Watts and his motley crew of science deniers

Despite all these confirmations of consensus or more likely because of them, Anthony Watts (reckons he) has uncovered yet another giant conspiracy.  According to him, umpteen editors from one thousand nine hundred and eighty (1,980) journals colluded in one of the biggest scientific scams of two centuries - not!.  (Just how gullible does Tony think his readers are?  See below to find out.)

Let's say for argument's sake that on average there are two editors per journal with 3% a year retiring or quitting editing. (Some journals might only have one editor, others ten or more and the bigger journals have dozens.)  Even using that very conservative estimate, it would mean in aggregate there were more than 6,000 people from all around the world who have been secretly colluding for more than twenty years.  And no-one's found out or provided a single skerrick of evidence for this imaginary collusion. What an achievement!  If you believe that then I've got a bridge to sell you.

I wish someone would ask Anthony: where are all the tens of thousands of "skeptics" whingeing that their paper got rejected?  Not Watts himself - even he managed to get a paper published.

Denier Anthony breaks embargo to feebly protest the 97% consensus

Yesterday Anthony leaked the embargoed press release after Steve Milloy (yeah, another science denier) first broke it.  About time Milloy was dropped from all news distribution lists since he can't be trusted to keep to embargoes.  Anthony thought he'd get in early and try to frame the finding his way - dork!

Anthony can't face the fact that from 11,944 papers mentioning global warming or global climate change since 1991 only 0.7 per cent rejected AGW.  Of all the papers from this 12,000 or so that attribute a cause to the recent warming, 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming.  Anthony splutters:

And from that (97%) he gets a consensus?

From 97% he gets a consensus?  Wouldn't you?  Not Anthony, though.  He feebly tries to tell his readers to "Ignore the 97%.  Just look at the 1.9%!!!"  I wonder how he'd go if 97 doctors examined his rash and fever, analysed a blood sample and then told him he had measles, while two drongos said it was just mosquito bites.

How many science deniers like Anthony Watts can fit in the teeny weeny denier pit?

From the paper, of the 11,944 papers published between 1991 and 2011 there were 4014 that expressed a position on global warming.  Of these 4014, 3896 papers or 97.1% endorsed human-caused global warming, 78 or 1.9% disputed it and 40 or 1.0% indicated the cause was 'uncertain'. The remaining 7,930 took no position on current anthropogenic climate change. (I expect this proportion to rise dramatically over time.  After all, how many  papers on atomic physics today would explicitly state "we believe atoms exist"?)

Anyway, thought it was worth showing Anthony's position in a chart and compare it to reality:

How Anthony disproves his conspiracy theory

A stubby short of a six pack

Anthony tries hard to find something to support his paranoid conspiracy theory.  His attempt brings to mind 'roos loose in the top paddock, two bob watches, thick planks and stubbies...

Anthony decides to quote a snippet from a stolen email, in which a couple of scientists are arguing that wrong papers should be kept out of the IPCC report.  Trouble is, Anthony's quote doesn't support his argument at all.  On the contrary, it flat out contradicts it.  Not only were those papers published in scientific journals (obviously, or there'd have been no argument), they were also included in the IPCC report!

From the USC:

Yet, the papers in question made it into the IPCC report, indicating that no restrictions on their incorporation were made. The IPCC process contains hundreds of authors and reviewers, with an exacting and transparent review process.

How Brandon Shollenberger Defends Consensus

Here's a tidbit of denier weirdness from a site called "The Blackboard".  Most deniers are weakly protesting that although thousands of experts all agree on AGW, it doesn't matter squat.  'Consensus is for the birds', they mumble.  Brandon Shollenberger (yes, that one) is taking a different tack, probably doing an Anthony Watts (see above) when he writes:

How many people currently believe Columbus set off to prove the Earth is round even though it is completely untrue? I’d say there’s even a consensus on it

One can only conclude that Brandon believes consensus is only of value if it's a consensus among experts, like scientists in the case of science.  Consensus among a motley mob of ideologically-driven deniers, conspiracy theorists and scientific illiterati from WUWT or The Blackboard is not only rare but meaningless. About the only thing deniers ever agree on is that it must be a giant conspiracy.  They can't even agree on what the conspiracy is.

More denier weirdness

Here are some choice excerpts from the comments to Anthony's article - so you can spend your valuable time on the paper itself and not have to wallow in the mud at WUWT:

Ron House ignores any findings from the 11,994 papers proffered by the authors, the numerous IPCC reports, the millions of papers to date mentioning climate change, and says that's not enough.  Instead he puts his two hands over his ears and shuts his eyes as he shouts that he wants not scientific evidence, but just evidence:

May 14, 2013 at 8:56 pm  I am sick of being told “97% agree…”  I want to be told THE EVIDENCE (yes, I am SHOUTING because no warmist ever, anywhere, any time, answers this question) – WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE. 

davidmhoffer says confidently, at least seventeen hours before he can possible have seen the paper itself:

May 14, 2013 at 9:49 pm  This paper is so bad that mocking it may improve its credibility.

And later, davidmhoffer gives some insight into the way his mind works.  He brings up a completely unrelated thought held by a Greek philospher two and a half thousand years ago.  (Empedocles was pretty close to the mark, he just got it back to front.)

May 14, 2013 at 10:59 pm  In 5th century BC, the Greek philosopher Empedocles postulated we could see things due to rays coming out of our eyes.

Has David created a paradox for himself? Does that mean all the thousands of scientists creating knowledge today are wrong?  If so, how does David know that Empedocles was wrong?

A.D. Everard apparently prefers to listen to people who don't know and says:

May 14, 2013 at 10:01 pm  So, they are trying to herd the population back into fear by reinforcing the idea of consensus amongst “scientists” who “know”. 

RockyRoad is a back-to-front arithmetician.  He thinks that a rise from 90% in 1991 to 97% over the whole twenty years is a decline, saying:

May 14, 2013 at 10:37 pm  Hmmmm…..It appears their “concensus” (sic) is declining…. significantly….(and as a reminder to himself, adds) ...Never let a touch of reality ruin your cause, right?

Peter Ward not only can't understand math, he can't read, looks as if he misread 12,000 as 2,000 - and says:

May 14, 2013 at 10:51 pm  So 97% of 4000 papers endorsed AGW but of the “over 2000″ papers surveyed only 32.6% did? I don’t understand that math.

Manfred, after two centuries of science and thousands of papers confirming the consensus, is still waiting hopefully  for his "one" paper, writing (with a touch of historical liberty and shades of the fake Oregon petition <--worth reading):

May 15, 2013 at 1:37 am  How tiresomely ignorant and devoid of science. If I recall correctly, after Einstein had fled from Germany and the Nazis, he was informed that a hundred ‘Nazi’ scientists had come forward to debunk his eminent work on relativity. His comment: “they only needed one paper.”

While poor old Fred would never believe the findings of any collection of experts.  He probably gets up every day wondering if this is the day when the sun doesn't rise or the day he'll float off earth and into space.  He says:

May 14, 2013 at 8:34 pm  And “consensus” is exactly what part of the scientific method? I wonder if Galileo was aware of this concept.

Sheesh.  What a weird, contradictory, conspiratorial world deniers inhabit.

An almost final word: Independent.  If a denier should stray here from WUWT or The Blackboard, maybe they will be kind to the folk there, and whisper to Anthony and Brandon (and Lucia) what Riki tried to tell them: "I do not think that word means what you think it means…."  Similar applies to words taken out of context.  You might also mention that stealing is not only immoral, in most places it's illegal. As is receiving stolen property.

A bonus for faithful readers

Here's a little bonus for everyone who's made it all the way to the end of this article.  A comment that slipped right by the eagle eyes of Watts and the WUWT moderators censors - so far (Please do Kevin and the world a favour.  If you follow the link to WUWT, don't just click from here - copy and paste it into a new browser tab.) (My formatting and inline hyperlink)

Kevin MacDonald says:
May 15, 2013 at 1:12 am  Fuzzy math: In a new soon to be published paper.  I thought you might be referring to that one that simply ignored the TOB’s adjustments, but then I realised that piece of junk is never getting published.

Now, time to shift back to the real world:

This is the Critical Decade.

---

**John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce 2013 Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Denier Memes: The 'communist-socialist-cultist' conspiracy ...

Among people who reject climate science there is a dominant sub-group who are also conspiracy theorists.  You can easily pick them because they pepper their articles with words like 'scam', 'cult' and 'fraud'.  And among the conspiracy theorists there is a sub-group specialising in 'communist plot' conspiracies.

The origin of the 'reds under the bed' denier meme as it's applied to climate science is unclear. The meme is not restricted to climate science but can be adapted for any topic, such as open source software and even education and art, in fact anything at all to which one objects.  It can also be substituted for or by a "new world order" / "one world government" plot or a "fascist" plot.

Parody or the 'real thing'?

It can be hard for the casual reader to know whether someone is writing a parody or the real thing (see Poe's Law).  Take our Ben for example.  Ben often posts on climate science threads although I don't recall him ever discussing science.  In a few paragraphs on the HotCopper science and medicine S&M forum he mixes well-worn paranoid conspiracy theories (AGW cult) with 'reds under the bed' buzz phrases from the McCarthy era.  If he is writing parody he's kept it up for years without blinking.

Here is a handy list of key words (including frequency) for anyone who wants to emulate him:

socialist/socialism (9), communist/communism (7), cult/cultist (6), USSR (4), AGW scam and cult (3), destruction (2), corrupt (2), children (2), Lysenkoism, soviet, leftist, political, puppet, Gillard, Obama, religious, infiltration, invasion, hoaxers, dictators, hitler*, stalin, lenin, mao, brainwashing, indoctrination, greenie, cesspit, corrupt and complicit UN

In this screenshot I've highlighted some of the 'important' words and phrases.  As you can see, the words can be used interchangeably and work equally well in any or no context :)

Source: HotCopper.com S&M forum 

*See Godwin's Law