Lamar Smith and denier scientists were outwitted and outperformed by Michael Mann

I'll keep this short - and it's sweet :)

Anthony Watts' pet uber-conspiracy theorists both thought Michael Mann performed best at the recent committee hearing that Lamar Smith and his cronies orchestrated.

Tim Ball, who promotes the nuttiest climate conspiracy theories, wrote (emphasis mine):

My challenge to skeptics is to view the hearing as an uninformed citizen. From that perspective, I would argue that Mann was the most effective and persuasive. He was assertive, apparently provided hard evidence, had the backing of most scientists and scientific societies. He turned the minority status role the organizers gave him into the base for his victimization role. It wasn’t a debate, but he turned it into one and clearly believed, as would most uninformed observers, that he won.

Leo Goldstein (aka Ari Halperin), who is also as nutty as they come, (see here in particular) wrote (emphasis Leo's):

If it had been my first time hearing about this subject I would have concluded that the climate alarmists were right.

Good for you, Professor Mann.

Why Silicon Valley accepts science, with an utter nutter - Leo Goldstein at WUWT

Anthony Watts has embraced a very dotty conspiracy theorist called Leonid Goldstein, now known as Leo Goldstein at WUWT. Leo used to write under the name of Ari Halperin. He's been featured here before a few times. One of these days I'll write more about him. He's seriously delusional, more so than most of Anthony's freeby writers, which explains why he features on Anthony's blog, wattsupwiththat. (Anthony has been shifting further to the nutty end of nuttery lately.)

So you don't think I'm going overboard, here is the first sentence on the home page of Leonid's blog. You can see why Anthony Watts values his input at WUWT:

Climate alarmism is a gigantic fraud: it only survives by suppressing dissent and by spending tens of billions of dollars of public money every year on pseudo-scientific propaganda. 

Mentally underdeveloped and emotionally unstable

Leo's the chap who is suing umpteen zillion organisations under RICO, for the crime of promoting mainstream science and urging action to protect humanity from dangerous global warming. Here's a link to the Civil Docket containing the wacky conspiracies floating around in Leo's brain. As an example of his delusion, he alleges of the defendants that "Notably, many of the Defendants' websites are intended for audiences with a large percentage of mentally underdeveloped and emotionally unstable persons." and he thinks that urging companies to stop donating to disinformers is a crime (note the emotive language): "Defendants ran a perfectly orchestrated public campaign, that falsely accused ALEC of"climate change denial", threatened its corporate members and donors, and caused many of them to leave or to stop donating to the organization". One day I'll write more about this. The case hasn't got very far yet.

Leo Goldstein goes to Silicon Valley to learn about climate science (not really)

Today I'm writing about one of Leo's saner contributions, if you can believe that. (I didn't say it was sane. It's relative.) Leo has decided to list 14 reasons for people in Silicon Valley accepting climate science (archived here). Do they? I expect most of them do since most educated, rational people accept it. Leo broadened his definition of Silicon Valley to Silicon Valley Insiders. No, I don't think that's a narrowing of the definition - wait for it. This is what he wrote;

Silicon Valley insiders are smart and successful people. By “Silicon Valley insiders,” I mean the founders, owners, venture capitalists, executives, and software professionals of the so-called tech companies located not only in the Silicon Valley, but elsewhere in the U.S.

I think he means everyone but the cleaning staff and front desk personnel, who work at tech companies anywhere in the USA.

"Freedom Water" plus: Anthony Watts at WUWT promotes a whole mob of conspiracy nutters

Anthony Watts, owner of anti-science website WUWT, has done it again. You know how he sponsors weird conspiracy nutters. Well today he's promoting an entire paranoid conspiracy group (archived here). I don't mean just climate conspiracy - this mob have the lot. They call themselves "We are Change Victoria" and they even have their own television show called, wait for it:

Freedom for All TV

Here are some of the conspiracy theories that they indulge in. It's like a list of the weirdest and wackiest:

• Smart meters cause harmful radiation - not only that but "Corix and BC Hydro use fear, lies and scare tactics to make you comply"
• Freedom water is apparently "safe" and "common water" not - for some reason I didn't bother trying to find out. 
• Anti-vax - yep, if freedom water isn't enough, this group are anti-vaxxers who talk about "Vaccine propaganda produced by the collusion of the state and the pharmaceutical companies in order to control profits and public opinion".
• The "climate hoax" plus the 911 "conspiracy" and the evil UN!

Vincent Gray is back with more nuttery at the WUWTery

Anthony Watts is recycling his utter nutters.  This past week he's recycled, among others:

• Tim Ball - conspiracy theorist of the UN/Agenda21/NWO anti-semitic type
• Denier Don Easterbrook still trying to claim his 1999 global cooling prophecy has legs, with his dismal denier mate David Deming
• Coal company director, Viv Forbes telling lies about temperatures in Australia

Now he's recycling Vincent Gray and his greenhouse effect denial. (Archived here.)

Credit: Vincent Gray 
Source: Wikipedia

For someone who only this week got up on his high horse and advocated for "peer review" not "pal review", Anthony sure knows how to pick 'em.  All the above are utter nutters and if any of them tried to put together a "hypothesis" about climate and submit it to a journal, it would land in the waste paper bin or junk mail folder within a split second of the electrons hitting the journal editor's screen.

What does Vincent Gray write about today?  Well, he's decided to wax philosophical about scientific method.  (If his science were as bad as his fuzzy drawings, he wouldn't have had much success.  But he gave up science long ago to become a science denier.)

I won't bother with his long section on the various scientific methods.  I'll write instead about Vincent's strange notions of climate science.

"Climate Change Science"

Here is what Vincent thinks is the basis of what he calls "climate change science" - which is about the silliest concept I've ever heard.  He doesn't say how his notion of "climate change science" differs from "climate science".  Let's look at how he describes it:

Climate Change Science claims that any change in the climate is caused by human emissions of minor trace (“greenhouse”) gases in the atmosphere, notably carbon dioxide. The theory is in complete contrast to the assumptions behind the climate models used by weather forecasters. 

How many "wrongs" can you count in those two sentences?  The first one is plain silly.  You just need to look at a basic description of climate to know that there are any number of things that will bring about changes in climate - at the local as well as global level.  Anything from a slight shift in the orientation of earth to the sun to a volcanic eruption on the surface of Earth - and lots of other things besides - like changes in ocean circulation.

As for the second sentence, if Vincent did his homework he'd have known that the same physics applies to weather as climate.  In fact climate is just a description of expected weather at any location.  Many of the models that weather forecasters use are climate models, although some are designed for the purpose of short term weather forecasts.  One big difference is that weather forecasters continually update the models with observations (via data assimilation) for short term forecasts in particular, whereas models for climate analysis are initialised but thereafter most of them don't get updated with observations. (There are exceptions.)  Here is a good short description from Gavin Schmidt of NASA of the difference between modeling climate and forecasting weather:

Climate modeling is also fundamentally different from weather forecasting. Weather concerns an initial value problem: Given today's situation, what will tomorrow bring? Weather is chaotic; imperceptible differences in the initial state of the atmosphere lead to radically different conditions in a week or so. Climate is instead a boundary value problem — a statistical description of the mean state and variability of a system, not an individual path through phase space. Current climate models yield stable and nonchaotic climates, which implies that questions regarding the sensitivity of climate to, say, an increase in greenhouse gases are well posed and can be justifiably asked of the models. Conceivably, though, as more components — complicated biological systems and fully dynamic ice-sheets, for example — are incorporated, the range of possible feedbacks will increase, and chaotic climates might ensue.

Vincent goes on to describe what he thinks "climate change science" assumes.  I'll take them in turn.  Vincent's notion is in italics - I guess you'll be able to tell that much.

The climate is unchanged without the effects of greenhouse gases - Not true.  The science of climate not only assumes that different forces act on climate, to a large extent these days it can distinguish which forces are acting when.  For example, satellites measure total solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere to determine how much the sun is affecting climate.  Even the effect of changes as small as the eleven year solar cycle can be measured.  Scientists can also work out how volcanic eruptions affect climate.  And they can work out how changes to the earth's surface, like changing snow, ice and vegetation, can affect reflection of short wave radiation and long wave radiation from the surface.  They can measure how changes in ocean circulation can bring about changes in atmospheric circulation - and work out the impact that has on climate.  Climate science is pretty good when you think about it.  Whereas Vincent Gray is a know-nothing denier.

The earth is flat - I think that most scientists realise that Earth isn't flat.  Perhaps some of Vincent Gray's chemistry colleagues believed Earth was flat, but climate scientists are cluey about such matters.

The Sun shines day and night with the same intensity - Actually, this is about right.  There are slight variations over an eleven year cycle.  But the sun does shine all the time at roughly the same intensity.  It hasn't stopped shining once since Earth was formed AFAIK. Vincent probably thinks that the sun goes out altogether at night time.  He'd be wrong.  It doesn't.  It's just that the bit of Earth that he's on doesn't always face the sun.  Who'd a thunk it?

Energy exchanges are almost all by radiation. Well I don't know what world Vincent inhabits but it's not the world of climate science and it's not WUWT either.  He's not seen this chart. HotWhopper readers have seen it more than once in the past week.  Even WUWT-ers have seen it or one similar.  I guess Vincent doesn't read WUWT.  Look at the chart and see all the different ways energy is exchanged.  And that's just the surface and the top and bottom of the atmosphere.  In addition to that there are exchanges of energy within the ocean that affect climate.  Let's see - radiation, convection, conduction, evaporation and condensation - all sorts of energy exchanges.

Figure 2.11: Global mean energy budget under present day climate conditions. Numbers state magnitudes of the individual energy fluxes in W/m2, adjusted within their uncertainty ranges to close the energy budgets. Numbers in parentheses attached to the energy fluxes cover the range of values in line with observational constraints. Figure adapted from Wild et al. (2013). Source: IPCC AR5 WG1 page 2-127

Energy exchanges are “balanced”. - I get the feeling that Vincent Gray doesn't accept the notion of the conservation of energy or the laws of thermodynamics.  Climate scientists do.

Energy exchanges are instantaneous. - I have no idea what is going on in that head of Vincent Gray's? If energy is exchanged it's exchanged in that same instant as it's exchanged.  Can someone help me out here? Perhaps he is talking about kinetic and potential energy.

No work is done on the system. - again - I have no idea what Vincent Gray is referring to here. Is he talking about forces acting on earth from space or work within the system like, say, wind or ocean currents?

“Natural” climate properties are not only merely “variable” but are also negligible. This is an odd one, too.  What does he mean by "climate properties"?  What does he mean by "natural"? Only then can we consider what is or is not negligible.  There would be lots of little things happening within the earth system that are not "negligible" but are "natural".  For example, the microphysics of clouds operates at a much smaller dimension than your typical climate model, but it's not negligible. If it were then climate scientists wouldn't bother factoring these effects in - but they do.


Now Vincent goes on to say:

There is no reason in principle why such an unlikely theory could not be correct. Planck’s Quantum theory was an example of a theory which was implausible and completely at odds with existing theories of energy transfer, which Planck himself could hardly believe. It has succeeded because it has been comprehensively validated.

I'm not surprised he regards his view of "climate change science" as being unlikely.  Climate scientists would laugh him out of the room if he put his notions to them.

Projections should be validated against future observations!

Vincent has written a lot more than the above, but I'll not waste my time on most of it for reasons that should by now be obvious.  I'll leave you with him bemoaning one aspect of climate science and let you ponder his complaint.

Climate Change models do not make forecasts but merely projections which depend on the plausibility of the model parameters and of the futures scenario details. These projections have never been validated by comparison with a full range of future observations. 

Huh? We wouldn't need models if we had future observations, now, would we!

Do I need to say more?

From the WUWT comments

Most of the fake sceptics don't have a problem with Vincent's twaddle. (Archived here.)


Bob Layson gets into the philosophical spirit of it all and says:

January 21, 2014 at 5:45 am
To be biased is to be. And to be human is to err. Yet bias and error do no harm if a free play of conjectures and open testing, maybe to destruction, of our conjectures is welcomed and facilitated.

A bigot is not someone forthright and wrong but someone who, even if correct, will not seek criticism and counter-argument and dismisses it when it is provided.

Jim Cripwell's mind is boggled by science and he says:

January 21, 2014 at 5:51 am
When I started looking into CAGW about 10 years ago, what Dr. Grey has written was blindingly obvious to me. The way I put it was that you cannot do controlled experiments on the earth’s atmosphere. This must have been obvious to people with names like Houghton and Watson, yet the FAR was still published, making it little more than a hoax. But even in 2013 we have a scientist of the calibre of Lord Reese going out in public and telling “porkies” about CAGW.

http://theconversation.com/astronomer-royal-on-science-environment-and-the-future-18162

The mind boggles.

mib8 is frustrated and mistakenly thinks that climate science hypotheses are not refutable.  In fact people have refuted some of the various hypotheses.  One could also refute the theories if one came up with sufficient evidence and a plausible explanation. mib8 says (extract):

January 21, 2014 at 6:19 am
...The trouble with the climate “scientists” and Freudians and neo-Keynesians, is that their hypotheses are not refutable. No matter what happens, no matter how much the results contradict their predictions, they disingenuously claim that the results support their predictions — at times by modifying and elaborating those predictions after the fact....

The Wager Part II

This follows from The Wager.


I do not want HotWhopper readers to miss out, so I've archived this WUWT thread (again).  I've written about this particular article already here, but this is a different topic.  You can consider it a sub-topic, or several sub-topics.  Here is a taste, but there's more in the thread if you're into utter nuttery:


Eli Rabett says to Christopher Monckton of Brenchley:

August 28, 2013 at 2:03 pm

Eli understands that there is some betting action to be had on your earlier claim that “A math geek with a track-record of getting stuff right tells me we are in for 0.5 Cº of global cooling. It could happen in two years, but is very likely by 2020.”. It is for two bets of $1000 each from John Abraham to Lord Monckton. Given your claims here, you must believe that this would be easy money. John has added a codicil that if you wish the bet can be for benefit of a charity chose by either side, but who knows, maybe you need the money?

Eli is looking perhaps for some smaller side bets on the proposition and what the good Lord’s reaction will be.

richardscourtney, the WUWT playground monitor says, in a comment that is unique from him because there is not a single word SHOUTED let alone SHOUTED EXTRA LOUDLY:

August 28, 2013 at 2:11 pm
Troll posing as Eli Rabett:
re your post at August 28, 2013 at 2:03 pm

Please be assured that nobody cares about the “betting action” of an idiot so deluded that he is unaware of his own name or his own person. Similarly, nobody cares about the “betting action” of even lesser men than the troll (yes, it is hard to believe, but they do exist).

So you need not waste space on WUWT with such nonsense again.

Richard

Monckton of Brenchley says - again, that he wants to sue somebody, and pikes on the bet (excerpt):

August 28, 2013 at 5:04 pm
...One Rabett says someone wants to take a bet with me about whether the world will cool by 0.5 K before 2020 is out. However, it was not I but another who forecast that. In an earlier posting I merely reported the forecast, which is one of a growing number that find cooling more likely than warming in the short to medium term. To make any such bet symmetrical, there would be no payout if the temperature fluctuated by less than 0.5 K in either direction by 2020 compared with today. The bedwetters would win if the temperature rose by 0.5 K; the army of light and truth would win if it fell by 0.5 K.

However, the creature seeking cheap publicity by offering the bet has, I discover, been part of an organized (and probably paid) campaign to prevent skeptics such as me from being allowed to speak at various universities around the world to which we are from time to time invited. Evidence is being gathered, since in Scotland tampering with the right of academic freedom in this characteristically furtive way, particularly with the wildly malicious claims the perpetrator and his little chums have apparently been making, would be held to constitute a grave libel.

I had hoped to sue the defalcating nitwit in the U.S for an earlier malicious attempt by him to assert that I take a skeptical line because I am paid to do so (if only …). However, the lawyers whom I consulted, after having a good look at the case, concluded that, though what this inconsequential little creep had said was unquestionably libelous, as well as displaying an exceptionally poor grasp of elementary science and even of arithmetic, I did not have title to sue because, in the US, I am counted at law as a “public figure” and the jerklet is not. If he were a public figure, I could sue him. If I were not a public figure, I could sue him. But, since I am a public figure and he is not, I cannot sue him. Not in the U.S., at any rate. I visited the Court of Session in Edinburgh yesterday …

Eli Rabett says:

August 28, 2013 at 11:32 pm
Now some, not Eli to be sure, thought that it would be most pleasing if the good Monckton of Brenchley made John Abraham put up, but Sadly No.

Instead, as the Bunny proposed but a few days ago, we are treated to an entertaining essay in avoidance. To watch Lord Monckton as his mind works at an astonishingly furious pace, whinging about the ills done to him, the difficulty of confronting his tormentors, and the cruel law which forbid him to pounce upon them, but, of course he could if he really wanted to and they should be more cautious, when shunning a chance to do same, is indeed a show Eli feels privileged to have played a minor part in. 

Such humor is found only in our pale memories except for YouTube. We have Chris.

John Whitman says:

August 29, 2013 at 7:18 am
Christopher Monckton,
Have you considered attending the AGU’s annual fall meeting in San Francisco this December?
John

Eli Rabett says:

August 29, 2013 at 7:48 am
JPeden says: @Monckton But, since I am a public figure and he is not, I cannot sue him. Not in the U.S., at any rate. I visited the Court of Session in Edinburgh yesterday …
“Run Rabett Run” — 1970′s James Cann movie

Yes, more droppings along the bunny trail.

Monckton of Brenchley says he's changed his mind about suing in the space of a few comments and is now going to sue after all.  If I only had a dollar for every time Monckton threatened to sue someone for catching him out in a lie I could buy those nice italian leather shoes:

August 29, 2013 at 8:17 am
To answer a few questions from commenters: yes, the World Federation of Scientists exists (it has existed for half a century); yes, its climate monitoring panel consists of a dozen eminent scientists from all parts of the globe; and yes, the chairman of that panel announced to the closing plenary that global warming is not, in itself, a planetary emergency; and no, the world’s mainstream media will do their utmost not to report that conclusion, because it does not accord with the Party Line.

The troll named “Rabett” is snide about my not taking an asymmetric bet. Well, I’m not going to give the joke figure who offered the bet any publicity: indeed, it would be improper for me to have a bet with him at present, given the likelihood that he will face court action once the trail of evidence is complete. Interesting how the trolls will talk about just about everything except the science, on which events are proving them to have been so spectacularly wrong.

Monckton of Brenchley says:

August 29, 2013 at 12:58 pm
I am not confident of what temperatures will do, because they are stochastic. A fair bet (if I were a betting man, which I am not) would take zero change as the baseline.

What did I say about denier weirdness and cranks and utter nutters?


Here is a link to the archived thread again.

Read more at Rabett Run.