Originally Posted by Tombo

Here is an interesting blog piece.

Anthony Watts is one of the most reviled people - reviled by Warmy Alarmists that is. He has been running his blog now for 5 years and wrote this retrospective to mark the anniversary:

It is an interesting read for those who aren't brain dead or simply a political ideologue like our resident nutters, as it documents the change in thinking of somone who was an early (and very successful) Warmy Alarmist Activist into someone who looked at the data and found this new age religion bereft of good science.


He identifies an epiphany:

Anthony Watts should be famous for this:

He made his name pouring scorn on the siting of US temperature stations - he being a former weatherman, and all. He announced (using Glenn Back or some such as his platform) a programme of Station Siting investigations that was going to show up those Warmy Alarmists once and for all.

Much ado, and many blog posts, later, Anthony's "investigations" made the light of peer reviewed publication. First irony is that a bona-fide climate scientist John Nielsen-Gammon had to be brought in to clean up the math.

Secondly, the paper proved the very opposite of what Anthony had proclaimed it would: station siting had NO effect on the overall temperature measurements, a result later confirmed by Richard Muller's BEST team.

So here's to Anthony Watts - a man with one peer-reviewed publication, and the only climate science denier to be his own debunker!!!

Fall, S., A. Watts, J. Nielsen-Gammon, E. Jones, D. Niyogi, J. Christy, and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2011: Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., in press. Copyright (2011) American Geophysical Union

Mean temperature trends are similar at poorer sites due to the contrasting biases of maximum and minimum trends

Chris Mooney on 3 occasions (at least) when Anthony Watts was shown to be wrong ... but refused to back down or admit it.

The most famous one:

The BEST Study. I just wrote about this one, and it is quite telling.

A while back, Anthony Watts wrote of the headline-grabbing Berkeley BEST study that “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.”

But when the study came out and he didn’t like its findings, Watts instead engaged in a phenomenon called goalpost shifting. Look at how he now talks about the BEST work: In a recent post, he referred to the “incomplete and rushed, non quality controlled, error riddled BEST science.”

Are we noting a common theme here?

Chris Mooney | Anthony Watts and Defensive Reasoning: Three Episodes

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Here are the last 20 years and their rank in the HADCRUT record of annual globral temperature anomalies.

1992:31
1993:26
1994:22
1995:15
1996:23
1997:12
1998:1
1999:14
2000:16
2001:9
2002:5
2003:4
2004:6
2005:2
2006:8
2007:10
2008:13
2009:7
2010:3
2011:11

Here they are again in order of rank.

1998:1
2005:2
2010:3
2003:4
2002:5
2004:6
2009:7
2006:8
2001:9
2007:10
2011:11
1997:12
2008:13
1999:14
1995:15
2000:16
1994:22
1996:23
1993:26
1992:31

So the decade 2000-2009 contained the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th warmest years in the record - the warmest decade every measured. 2010 was the 3rd warmest year, and 2011 is shaping up to be the 11th warmest. Note: 2005 and 2010 are tied for warmest year ever in the GISS record, with 1998 as 3rd warmest.

In fact, even only 2 years in, the 2010-2019 decade is already shaping up to be warmer than the previous one.

But, if anyone wants to keep up this "the planet is really cooling" malarkey, don't let me stop you ... except by rational argument.

Note: The last 20 years include the 16 warmest years ever measured, with the warmer ones in the last decade.

I recently noted that 2011 was shaping up to just outside the top 10 warmest years ... possibly 11th or 12th in the HADCRUT records.

GISS have just announced that the October just gone was the 8th warmest ever, in terms of the global average temperature anomaly.

Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog : October 2011 the globe's 8th warmest on record : Weather Underground

Very humorous animation on SolyndraGateApocalypse here .... worth watching ...

SolyndraGatePocalypse | Mark Fiore's Animated Cartoon Site

A new scientific paper find a trend for daily weather to be more erratic and extreme:

Princeton University researchers recently reported in the Journal of Climate that extremely sunny or cloudy days are more common than in the early 1980s, and that swings from thunderstorms to dry days rose considerably since the late 1990s. These swings could have consequences for ecosystem stability and the control of pests and diseases, as well as for industries such as agriculture and solar-energy production, all of which are vulnerable to inconsistent and extreme weather, the researchers noted.

Erratic, extreme day-to-day weather puts climate change in new light

Thos thread has become your own personal diary Owed.





I'll say a prayer for you tonight.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

A new scientific paper find a trend for daily weather to be more erratic and extreme:

I love this quote from the article

"We have not yet looked for direct ties between weather variability and increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, but I would not be surprised if they are connected in some way," Medvigy said.

Originally Posted by kront999

I love this quote from the article

"We have not yet looked for direct ties between weather variability and increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, but I would not be surprised if they are connected in some way," Medvigy said.

Clearly a master of understatement!

PS No one has yet looked for a direct relationship between sort term variation (a.k.a. weather) and CO2. Longer term variation and trends (a.k.a. climate) is what the study of anthropogenic climate change has been all about.

As an internal email revealed, ***'s Washington managing editor Bill Sammon directed *** journalists in December 2009 to cast doubt on the basic fact that the planet has warmed.

That same month, *** News was aggressively promoting the false claim that the so-called "Climategate" controversy showed scientists "doctoring" data — a claim that the network continues to repeat to this day.

*** has also tried to manufacture a number of pseudo-scandals by distorting climate science research, misrepresenting or disavowing the temperature record, and seizing on any opportunity to distract from what the National Research Council has called "a strong, credible body of evidence" supporting manmade climate change.

The study also found that ** hosted "a higher ratio of climate change doubters to believers as interview guests." These guests often don't know what they're talking about but are presented as climate experts. And ***, a network that has made an annual tradition out of mocking global warming during winter storms, reveals its bias through both what it chooses to cover, and what it chooses to ignore.

What organisation is being talked about here? Why, Fox! But I am sure you already guessed that!

Farron Cousins | Climate Change Spin A Growing Problem For Fox News

Originally Posted by kront999

I love this quote from the article

"We have not yet looked for direct ties between weather variability and increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, but I would not be surprised if they are connected in some way," Medvigy said.

Priceless. It is so comical.

All of the following will be muttered by these cretins:

"Weather events are becoming more extreme".
"We can't find a direct link between weather events and CO2"

"Weather isn't climate"
"Texas is suffering more severe drought because of human CO2 emissions"

"Snow is now a distant memory".
"The most severe snowfalls on record are just weathe rand not climate"

"Climate models predict continuing temperature increases of 2-4 degrees by the end of the century...blah blah blah"
"There is one or two climate models that suggest temperatures could stop rising for periods of up to 20 years"

and on and on and on.