Real Sceptic

Leaving a Comment on WattsUpWithThat

After writing my article How BBC Warmists Abuse The Science – A Response I thought what the heck lets join the conversation on Watts Up With That. And I posted the following comment:

Seriously? You post an excerpt from a column where one of the arguments is “Even the weather has turned against them, showing that all the computer models based on the assumption that rising CO2 means rising temperatures have got it wrong.”. Which can be paraphrased as it’s snowing outside so global warming is not happening… Cold spells can happen, even when the planet is warming up.

However, it’s again someone who’s work is being used which also says that second hand smoking and asbestos don’t cause cancer. And even has been critical on the theory of evolution saying “rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions”.

I’ve written a more in depth response on my blog:
http://www.realsceptic.com/2011/01/30/how-bbc-warmists-abuse-the-science-a-response/

But suffice to say this is not someone that helps your argument.

To be honest my annoyance shows in that comment. Caused by who they are citing and the arguments Booker is using. But so often the sceptics rely on people that are just not the type you want to rely on to help make your point. Especially with someone who defends Intelligent Design with the phrase “rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions”. That just doesn’t sound like someone who has any right to talk on any scientific subject.

All comments on WUWT are approval only and in the end my comment wasn’t approved, and replaced with the following:

[snip. Insulting and mischarachterising WUWT on your blog is your business. But don't expect to get free advertising here. ~dbs, mod.]

Now what they objected to was the article I wrote on my blog, which was the reason they removed the entirety of my comment. The offending part being the opening of it:

I probably shouldn’t for the sake of my blood pressure, but I do keep taps on what people on the other side of the debate are saying, especially the more vocal ones. I use it to keep myself appraised of any contrary evidence and queues me on possible cases where a critical look at evidence might be needed.

But I have to say this, most of the time what is being put out by the sceptics is severely lacking. Errors and misrepresentation galore, a lot of it being unintentional as climatology is a difficult subject. But often it has it’s root in what, to me, looks like intentional misdirection and butchering of the science.

And the latest butchering was promoted in a post on the blog Watts Up With That, a website that has a reputation of misdirection and scientific errors:

Watts Up with Sea Ice?

But why they didn’t remove the offending paragraph and link is beyond me… And to be honest in my opinion I wasn’t insulting WUWT. However I was harsh with how they treat the subject of Global Warming and the people who accept the mainstream view.

But the thing that struck me the most was that they removed the comment as it’s insulting. But not that long ago Watts himself called people who attend 350.org events “filthy eco hippies artists”, and the people from the organisation “kooks”. Insults and defamation is a recurring theme on WUWT and he has even gone as far as filing false DMCA claims

To me this looks like a case of someone who can’t take criticism that shows how wrong he is.

How BBC Warmists Abuse The Science – A Response

I probably shouldn’t for the sake of my blood pressure, but I do keep taps on what people on the other side of the debate are saying, especially the more vocal ones. I use it to keep myself appraised of any contrary evidence and queues me on possible cases where a critical look at evidence might be needed.

But I have to say this, most of the time what is being put out by the “sceptics” is severely lacking. Errors and misrepresentation galore, a lot of it being unintentional as climatology is a difficult subject. But often it has its root in what, to me, looks like intentional misdirection and butchering of the science.

And the latest butchering was promoted in a post on the blog Watts Up With That, a website that has a reputation of misdirection and scientific errors:

On the website they posted a short excerpt of a Telegraph column written by Christopher Booker. In it Booker tries to cast doubt on the BCC Horizon episode Science Under Attack. Where Sir Paul Nurse examines why science appears to be under attack, specifically Global Warming.

Considering the limited time in a Horizon episode it’s simplistic and leaves out a considerable amount of detail and information. But it does give a very good representation on what currently is going on with climate change and the debate surrounding it. Of course, Booker doesn’t see it that way.

And he starts of great with some nice rethoric that tries to cast doubt on the people involved. However a claim in the second paragraph truly rubbed me the wrong way:

Even the weather has turned against them, showing that all the computer models based on the assumption that rising CO2 means rising temperatures have got it wrong.

I’ve said it before and I’m going to say it again: Weather is not climate.

He’s trying to cast doubt on global warming as we’ve had a very cold period with a lot of snow in certain regions in the northern hemisphere. But the thing is that heavy snow fall, depending on the circumstances, can be consistent with global warming. And even in a warming world, cold spells still happen, despite any underlying climate trend. I’ve talked about this very phenomenon in great detail:

And Booker’s attempts at casting doubt on the Horizon episode continues:

The formula the BBC uses in its forlorn attempts to counterattack has been familiar ever since its 2008 series Climate Wars. First, a presenter with some scientific credentials comes on, apparently to look impartially at the evidence. Supporters of the cause are allowed to put their case without challenge. Hours of film of climate-change “deniers” are cherrypicked for soundbites that can be shown, out of context, to make them look ridiculous. The presenter can then conclude that the “deniers” are a tiny handful of eccentrics standing out against an overwhelming scientific “consensus”.

Now what he’s referring to is the following clip from the horizon episode:

Delingpole actually says that he hasn’t got the time or the expertise to read the scientific literature on climate change and global warming. That’s not cherrypicking, that’s showing an underlying problem with this critic. It shows candidly that he doesn’t have the knowledge and expertise to critique anything on climate change. Not to mention that it is true that it is just a minority that’s sceptical about global warming.

But the most damning part in the whole column was when Booker criticized Paul Nurse, an expert in cell biology, for commenting on climate change.

The fact that someone is an expert in one particular field – even if he is President of the Royal Society – gives him little more authority to pronounce on issues with which he is unfamiliar than a man holding forth in a pub.

Considering booker is a journalist, and has no scientific training whatsoever, would by his own logic have absolutely no right to comment on, or criticise, the science behind Global Warming.

These are the arguments used by the self proclaimed “sceptics”. Often people with no real training or in-depth knowledge on the subject. Yet they are paraded around with glee as the “sceptics” who disprove, or give valid criticism, on Global Warming.

And people wonder why I lose my patience now and then…