01 July - 01 August: [Premium Shop] Pz.Kpfw. III Ausf. K | Special and In-Game Events | News | World of Tanks | World of Tanks
Just because tanks in scouting roles don't do the heavy damage doesn't mean they're inferior. As a scout, you'll be the eyes of the team. And it is your job to keep as many enemy locations visible as you can. All of this while wiping out enemy scouts too.
The Pz.Kpfw. III Ausf. K is our new German Premium vehicle. And it makes an awesome scout. Have a look at the Pz.Kpfw. III Ausf. K packages below!
Halloween, also known as All Hallows' Eve, is an annual holiday observed around the world on October 31. Its origins can be traced back to the ancient Celtic festival known as Samhain, a celebration of the end of the harvest season in Gaelic culture. It was a time when ancient pagans prepare for the winter by stocking up on supplies. It was believed that on 31 October, the boundaries between the worlds of the living and dead would overlap and the deceased would return to wreck havoc on eartth. Therefore during Halloween, masks and costumes were worn in an attempt to mimic the evil spirits or appease them. From traditional activities like carving jack-o'-lanterns, lighting bonfires, trick or treating and apple bobbing, Halloween has evolved over the times to include modern elements like costume dance parties and even cosplay.
In World of Tanks this Halloween, we usher in this holiday by treating (no tricks!) you to increased profits and discounts on selected tanks and premium shells. Your garage will also be given a makeover in theme with the holiday so be sure to log into World of Tanks during this time to enjoy these benefits and revel in the festivities with your fellow Tank Commanders.
Let the "Throwdown" begin! With the popularity of our weekly Saturday Throwdown's, we have decided to double the fun! Each Thursday there will be a 1v1 Throwdown at 5 pm PT / 8 pm ET. However, these tournaments will focus on specific tiers. This week focuses on tier I tanks so it's never been easier to join in the competition!
It is important to Texas Children’s Health Plan to keep your child healthy. Clearly, this attitude from the state health department is going to discourage many quit attempts and therefore promote continued smoking by many. An expert at Penn Medicine – the University of Pennsylvania’s health care system – is telling the public that smoking cigarettes, like Marlboros, Camels, and Newports, may be no more hazardous to your health than vaping a tobacco-free e-liquid.
Your CHP+ Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) can help you get medical bills paid. I didn’t want Clay to see me. I mean, my kids knew I was meeting someone for coffee, and they’re cool with me dating, but I don’t need to be introducing them to anyone when I’m meeting them for the first time!
Dr. Siegel is a Professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health. In between classes, …
DPU is replacing 850 linear feet of a combined sewer on E. Franklin Street between Ambler Street and N. 19th. In return, the health center hopes to provide quality primary care with patients’ needs in mind. In 2002, the North Carolina Division of Public Health and the North Carolina Association of Local Health Directors worked to develop a system for accrediting local public health departments throughout the state.
Further research involving larger, independent samples and stronger research designs is needed to verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children’s health. It is what we do with our community partners to …
In the past year and a half, California has fined the five largest insurers in its state almost $19 million for cancelling the policies of individuals who became sick. This is what time you need a trustworthy insurance agent, referred to you by someone you trust. Like with the majority insurance, the paramount travel insurance bargains are to be found on the Internet. This feature of a health insurance policy takes care of both pre and post hospitalisation fee over a time of 30 to 60 days, depending on the plan purchased.
It is New York State’s Official Health Plan Marketplace and was created under the Affordable Care Act. With all of the health risks, and the cost of care, the importance of individual and family health insurance should not be overlooked. Insurance companies are reluctant to cover such diseases as it is a costlier affair for them.
The Alternative Medicine Foundation is no longer operating as a nonprofit organization. The ads used compelling language: Thyroid cancer doesn’t care how healthy you are. My son did his business management degree as well as courses in biology/physics/chemistry, all required courses to get admission in us medical schools. Traditional use in Indian Ayurvedic medicine prescribes it for promotion of physical and mental health, improved immunity, and extended longevity.
A relatively recent discovery in the field of alternative medicines, it involves the use of specific gems to treat specific ailments. Complementary and alternative medicine refers to a wide range of therapies and practices that are outside mainstream medicine.
The actual treatments they use vary, but what ties integrative doctors together is their focus on chronic disease and their effort to create an abstract condition called wellness. Having a collective in my backyard is very covient for me to obtain my medicine …
Explore our new search tool to find world-class specialists, as well as available primary care providers in your community. There lawmakers from both chambers would hammer out the differences between the two versions of the bill. Get the evidence on how innovative new care models and technologies are creating stronger, sustainable general practice and primary care at scale. Quartet’s CEO and chairman found early on that they shared a passion for solving some of the healthcare sector’s challenges involving behavioral health.
Primary care is often used as the term for the health care services which play a role in the local community. Opt for a health insurance plan that offers complete coverage for you and your family and allows you to customise your plan, premium and policy too.
Bill Whalen, a Hoover Institution research fellow since 1999, writes and comments on campaigns, elections and governance with an emphasis on California …
Congratulations, UA Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health Class of 2017! We have collated articles from the Journal of Public Health around the topic of obesity. Find out what distinguishes the Mel & Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, the first nationally accredited college of public health in the American Southwest. Let’s just remind ourselves, that as an arts and health community, we developed a shared Manifesto for Arts & Health in 2011.
The framework concentrates on two high-level outcomes to be achieved across the public health system, and groups further indicators into four ‘domains’ that cover the full spectrum of public health. This is Public Health promotes public health awareness through social media, which allows users to interact with the campaign via Facebook or Instagram.
Public Health major Naomi Fedna fosters conversations with communities in Haiti. A bachelor’s degree in public health, medicine, nutrition and other health …
Within the field of Healthcare Management and Administration are several areas of specialization, including Public Health Science. We strive to foster an educational community that values innovation and excellence in teaching, creation and dissemination of knowledge, practice-based research and research-based practice to address the health needs and interests of individuals and communities.
This interdisciplinary degree has a focus on the ecological model of public health that emphasises …
Our Baseline Clinic sits at the foot of South Mountain and represents the early days of Mountain Park Health Center. This is Richmond House where our Camosun clinic is open Thursdays 10-3:30pm on the Top Floor. We did not set out to test a specific hypothesis about the association between vaccination and health. Women over 21 years of age, without a health care provider may speak to a nurse about having her pap test at Elgin St. Thomas Public Health.
Holland Free Health Clinic is a privately funded organization relying on donations of time, talent and financial support. The opinions expressed herein are the views of the authors and do not reflect the official position of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), SAMHSA, CSAT or the ATTC Network.
Emergency IUDs are the most effective form of emergency contraception and can be fitted at our sexual health clinics (please …
Homeopathy is based on three principles: 1) The law of similars, a phenomenon first observed by Hippocrates; 2) The minimum dose, that sometimes includes ultra-dilute preparations; and 3) Individualized treatment, in which one patient’s experience of a condition takes precedence over the name of the disease. This is one of the biggest advantages of Homeopathy over any other system of medicine. Data from the survey were also used to determine whether vaccination was associated specifically with NDDs, a derived diagnostic category combining children with the diagnoses of learning disability, ASD and/or ADHD.
According to this theory there are three miasms which are responsible for all human disease, and homeopathic remedies are directed towards treating these offending miasms. As an adjunct to conventional medical treatment, professional homeopathic care is recommended for people who have been exposed (or think they have been exposed) to toxic substances.
“Earth itself is telling us there’s nothing to worry about in doubled, or even quadrupled, atmospheric CO2″ | Wott's Up With That?
This entry was posted in Anti-Science, I wouldn't have seen it if I didn't believe it, I'm not a Climatologist, Numbers are Tricky and tagged Dunning–Kruger by Ben. Bookmark the permalink.	
28 thoughts on ““Earth itself is telling us there’s nothing to worry about in doubled, or even quadrupled, atmospheric CO2″”	
Oh sure Tamino might have gone through some of the reasons why this is a terrible analysis but let’s not forget the analysis of the analysis
“REPLY: Heh, he’s got what he thinks is a clever label, “mathurbation”, this kills any rebuttal integrity right there. The faux Tamino, as self appointed time series policeman, would complain about a straight line with two data points if it appeared here, so it’s just the usual MO for him. I’ll leave it up to Pat Frank to respond if he wishes, my advice would be to provide an updated post here rather than there, because as we all know and has been deomstrated repeatedly, Grant Foster can’t tolerate any dissenting analysis/comments there.
[Funny coming from the self-appointed policeman of thermometers. Of course, that’s exactly what Anthony tries to do: cherry-pick two points and connect them. – Ben]
“At the moment your May 24th version of Pat’s ‘analysis’ has 32 comments vs the 132 at Anthony’s June 2nd reposting. Not only are you part of the echo chamber, you’re dependent on Anthony’s megaphone for your audience.”
…meanwhile the count at your site is to, no that’s not it; too, oops wrong again; two (2); that’s it! From the way comments are attributed it may not even be two (2) it may be won; there I go again, one (1)!
I came here from the “echo chamber,” I suspect that your traffic count today will also reflect that fact. By the way, if you’ve ever taken the time to read tAV you’ll find it’s no echo chamber and everyone–on both sides of the issue–benefits from Anthony’s traffic.
[Nothing to say about Pat Frank’s revolutionary insights? Hmm. Just here to bluster then. Anthony plays the “shout them down” traffic game, I don’t. Jeff and Anthony are symbionts, the fact that they scratch at each other sometimes doesn’t change that. – Ben]
Wait, I thought science wasn’t a democracy of opinions. But somehow we’ve progressed from quoting opinion polls to counting blog comments as an indicator of who’s science is bigger?
[Anthony’s repost was what got the attention, Jeff depends on Anthony’s echo chamber for a large part of his audience. But what’s your opinion on Pat Frank’s science? – Ben]
Nice try. You’re the one who brought up the the traffic game. It was the weakest link in your weak chain of…oh, ok argument.
Pat Frank can speak for himself. He answers some interesting questions and raises even more interesting questions which should be considered regardless of what side you’re on. I don’t think what he’s saying is revolutionary…perhaps counter-revolutionary? at least from your perspective.
[Whatever. Pat is doing a pretty lousy job of defending his ideas elsewhere, but if you think they’re “interesting”… – Ben]
So taking out the warming trend means there is no warming trend, now that Global warming has been prevented perhaps they can get on to finding a way to cure cancer, not counting patients seems like a good start in bizarro world.
Let’s see, you have seven comments, that’s bigger than 6, and absolutely 0, butkuss, goosegg, nada. zilch, in the way of actual analysis of Pat Frank’s article. I guess the open mind has allowed all your thoughts to blow away!!
No, this value can’t be explained by crickets since their numbers have gone down with the invention of DDT.
“The target audience of denialism is the lay audience, not scientists. It’s made up to look like science, but it’s PR.”
So, Anthony allowed his guest writer “Pat Franks” to prank the rubes with fallacious mathturbations of utter nonsense.
The follow up by J Storrs-Hall under the impressive title “Earth, fire, air, and water” (the last airbender?) on June 6th, is equally as funny, or about one who is in total denial of real world laws of physics!
Consider the following definitions. Genuine skeptics consider all the evidence in their search for the truth. Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with their pre-determined views. (source Joe Romm’s Climate Progress:-http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/02/234774/skeptic-climate-science-denier/)
[I haven’t had time to return to Anthony’s blog, this sounds like a good one… Perhaps I’ll have to skip ahead. – Ben]
For some time now I’ve been wondering what kind of new evidence I could come up with to add support to my Thunderstorm Thermostat hypothesis (q.v.).”
I’ve submitted a few, as a counter to the ‘climategate’ email quotes, op-ed nonsense, selective, fabricated and mistranslated soundbites so far received, feel free to pop over there and add a few of your own … this could be fun, Anthony loves crowdsourcing….
“The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.”
The National Academies of Science of Japan, Russia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, the UK Royal Society and the US NAS.
“We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit”
“On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.”
“Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results.”
“The existence of a strong and positive water-vapor feedback means that projected business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius. The only way that will not happen is if a strong, negative, and currently unknown feedback is discovered somewhere in our climate system.”
The water vapour feedback has been observed, measured, is in line with the model predictions, and is dangerous.
[This got caught in the spam filter (too many URLs?) and seems truncated. Nice reality dose though! – Ben]
you and folks like Tamino and the bunny helped me to realize that there is a lot of propaganda and spin in climate world !
[I get the feeling you’re disparaging the “conventional” climate world, but it puzzles me why Anthony and his partners are so eager to repeat their misrepresentations. You’d think they’d move on but I guess when you only have two tactics you have to recycle… – Ben]
The sheeple down under, will get a revised version of this head in the sand nonsense in July, 2011, when Lord (don’t mention my carbon footprint, Al’s yes, mine no!) Monckton, returns for a profitable low tax paid working holiday.
The schedule shows eleven tour engagements, all expenses paid, not exceeding two hours per event (or so it would seem) at a cost of $25-00 per head minimum! Way back in 2009, it was a mere $10-00 per head, to listen to the similar debunked bunkum (John Abraham rocks)! This 150% conflation, is truly rough!
The unfortunate Sydney head in the sand luddites, will be receiving a triple enema dose of complete bull dust, with David ‘debunked heat spot’ Evans and Jo ‘not a skeptic’ Nova listed as supporting speakers. Strangely, Ticketek shows several lectures of climate misinformation nonsense are total sell outs in old Sydney “Gullible” Town.
Nice, short monthly working hours for a very small minority, in this carbon pollution denial propaganda dispensing business, I really must be in the wrong business, but I can sleep well at night with a clear conscience.
[My take on these “tours” is that they’re fleecing the same rubes over and over again. They really should consider the efficiencies of touring with Andrew Wakefield. Of course, there’s nothing Monckton likes better than the sound of his own voice. – Ben]
These rubes have powerful friends, his Lordship is speaking at the Association of Mining and Exploration conference 2011, along with Tony Rabbet (leader of opposition) and talks sponsored by the CSIRO and Geoscience Australia, how such a quak can be in the same room is beyond me, if the CSIRO and Geo Australia had any ethics they would dump their sessions in protest at the legitimisation of the fraudster. I don’t expect it though, Australia is the miner’s bitch.
I would like to ask a few questions which some deniers asked me in the pub a few days ago. Embarrassingly, I did not have the figures at hand. They claimed that they did. Perhaps you could tell us the correct answer?
1. If human emissions were to completely cease (impossible of course) then how much would the planet cool by over the next 50 years? They claimed something ridiculous like 1 degree, perhaps, maybe. Then they claimed that “natural variations” could very probably swamp that and the planet could turn out to be warmer anyway. [You They are trying to misrepresent our biosphere’s chemistry. CO2 impacts have long latency, while temperature variation responds to more than just CO2.]
2. What is the percentage decrease in the atmospheric CO2 that will occur due to the new Carbon Pricing scheme in Australia? They claimed it was less that a hundredth of a percent! I told them that was nonsense, but I did not have a source to cite. [You They are simply repeating a numerical deception. In 2008 Australia contributed 1.32% of global anthropogenic CO2, how much do you they think initial reduction efforts should achieve?]
3. Will the Carbon Pricing be applied to Chinese imports to Australia, to put a price on the CO2 emitted by the Chinese as they manufacture goods which will no longer be manufactured in Australia due to the Carbon Pricing? I.e. what is being done to stop the Carbon Pricing from resulting in loss of jobs in Australia with no actual decrease in CO2 output (since China will be doing the emissions on behalf of Australia)? They were very concerned about this. [Sorry, not really interested in your their economic policy angst.]
Thank you, I tried to write as concisely as possible. In some aspects I failed, but thank you for recognising my efforts.
[You They are trying to misrepresent our biosphere’s chemistry. CO2 impacts have long latency, while temperature variation responds to more than just CO2.]
They might be. Could you elaborate? In any case, can you answer the question? How much cooler do you believe the planet would be 50 years from now if we did cease all CO2 emissions today compared to the case where we do not? Do the IPCC have predictions of that?
That’s a pity, because “economic policy angst” is very important to working families. People who used to have jobs, will no longer have jobs. They are told it is in order to reduce CO2 output – but if Australia imports from China the things it refuses to produce for itself, then the same amount of CO2 is still released. Those people, the majority of people actually, are very concerned about losing their jobs. Fortunately for you, as a software engineer, this will not be a concern. I guess that nobody is asking software engineers to make that sacrifice.
[Not interested in tunnel-vision word games. Best of luck convincing yourself ‘the denialists you spoke to in the pub’. I suggest you stay away from explaining economics though, you seem to have an extremely poor grasp of it. – Ben]
This dialogue with you has shown me that those guys in the pub had a good point about the attitude of those who they call the “bed wetters”. I asked you a simple question and received abuse in return.
[“Chris”, you’re lousy at role-playing. You need to understand where your character came from, what really motivates him. Draw out the conflict, explore it. Don’t flip into pedestrian bitterness so fast, give your audience time to sympathize with you before the reveal. – Ben]
You refused to answer a simple question- how much cooler do you believe the planet would be in 50 years time if we cease all emissions today compared to the case where we do not?
You claim that if we continue to emit CO2 then the planet will be warmer 50 years from now. When you are asked how much warmer that is, what figure is in your mind – you refuse to answer and claim the Climate System is too complex.
So you have no idea how much the policies you support will cost the economy and you have no idea how much they will reduce CO2 output and you have no idea, or you refuse to say, how much that reduction will cool the planet by. But you insist that you are rational and hurl abuse at me for politely asking you those simple questions.
[Why don’t you Google these questions that trouble you so? Your rhetorical questions have been thoroughly answered many times over, as you know. Why should I waste my time on them? – Ben]
The Carbon Pricing plan will not reduce global output at all – because the emissions are just being shipped to China via imports. Australia will output less CO2, but they will increase imports, whose manufacture and transport will result in increased CO2. All in all it will either balance out, or increase the rate of global emission.
Of course, after a few decades of the policy in action the economy will sink as more jobs go abroad and imports will become too expensive. The poorer future Australians will no longer import so much or manufacture so much, and that probably will reduce their global contribution to CO2. But then again, so would shooting them all!
[See above. (Try shaking your head more. If either of your brain cells bump into the other your thought processes may restart.) – Ben]
Thanks Ben. You have been very helpful. People can read your (non-)responses to simple questions and make up their own minds.
[I wonder why someone who claimed to be an impartial inquiring mind looking for AGW support in an argument would post a call-to-arms on Anthony’s website? I think this conversation will prove more educational than you expected.
You are right, you should not “waste your time” typing in a single solitary number which is the answer to the question. It would take ages to do that, after all! Best to spend your time instead hurling abuse at anybody who asks you any questions.
PS I took your advice and used “Google” to try to locate an answer. It said 0.001C. This may or may not be correct and if you have a more correct estimate, say from peer reviewed sources, then feel free to post it. Otherwise let’s assume you tacitly agree with this tiny number since it comes from the source you referred us to.
What will we learn from it? That I asked for help from people on the website you berate to wade into a discussion where you have given an unsatisfactory answer? Don’t you want people to ask questions and leave comments on your website? Isn’t that the point of your creating a website with a comments section?
[We’ve learned that you’re a run-of-the-mill denialist pretending, badly, to be a naive newcomer. With a clear love of his own voice and a sense of his own importance. Sort of a Monckton-in-training. Perhaps you are this Chris Smith, right-wing talk radio agitator. I remain uninterested in your attempts to twist the debate toward topics that you enjoy posturing about or your attempts to bog down discussion with out-dated denialist talking points. – Ben]
My understanding is that you are pushing the argument that the planet will be dangerously warmer in the future due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Some deniers in a pub asked me some questions about the impacts of CO2 reductions. I did not have any figures at hand. Who better to ask than yourself? Should I have asked Anthony instead?
So I asked you, on your website, which you created, in the comments section, which you enabled, presumably for people to leave comments, ask questions and make suggestions, by how much you think the planet will be cooler in 50 years time if we hypothetically cease all anthropogenic emissions globally today and forever more, compared to the case where we do not.
“[You They are trying to misrepresent our biosphere’s chemistry. CO2 impacts have long latency, while temperature variation responds to more than just CO2.]”
Are you saying that we would not observe any effects after 50 years due to the long latency? If we would, then what is the temperature difference?
What about 100 years? 200 years? 1,000 years? 10,000 years? 100,000 years? What is the latency after which we would observe the effects of ceasing to output CO2 and what would those effects be on the global temperature?
It is a simple question. You claim that the planet would be cooler in the future were it not for our CO2 output. Is that true? Do you claim that? I am simply asking you by how much and by when. Is it unreasonable to expect you to have an answer to that question?
You directed me to Google, so I looked. The response did not appear to be anything to worry about. Are those numbers incorrect? What numbers are in your head when you think about CO2 reductions? That is the question. Do you have any numbers in your head concerning the impact of CO2 reductions? If so, what are they?
Rational readers can only conclude that you feel the deniers have a solid argument here and that perhaps the number is very low and the latency is very long and that is why you do not want to answer the simple question.
Perhaps the answer to that question does show, as they claim, that there is no need to panic, no need to reduce Carbon output and no need to transfer jobs to China via Carbon Taxation any time soon – if ever. Well, that is what they are saying, and you have not said anything different.
If the answer is different, and there is a need for such mitigations then perhaps you might have told us what the correct answer is.
[If you want to pretend that you’re an unbiased newcomer to the climate change debate you’ve really got to fight the urge to regurgitate “triumphant” denialist assertions. Say hi to the unicorns for me. – Ben]
You first evaded by claiming the chemistry was complex. Then you evaded by claiming that the latency had to be taken account of. Now you evade by claiming the question is a “setup”.
It is nice of you to state that you refuse to answer the question, on the grounds that you consider that very simple question a “lame denialist setup”. Very interesting response. Thanks Ben.
[I apologize for failing to understand that I have to plod along the path of your arguments, but you provide so little intellectual illumination that I didn’t realise there was a little one-way trail laid out for me. – Ben]
I haven’t offered you any “intellectual illumination”. I just asked you a simple question. You are the one who offered no “intellectual illumination”, if you must express things that way, by hurling abuse at me and evading the question.
Thank you for providing a website which challenges WUWT. It is a good idea. I hope it takes off and you get more people to contribute critiques so that every posting there is challenged and a real debate is stimulated. But you ought to consider being prepared to answer simple questions and to enter into a discussion. Anyhow, it’s your website so its all up to you. Good Luck.
The science is scuttled: Abraham, Gleick, and Trenberth resort to libeling Spencer and Christy | Wott's Up With That?
“The science is scuttled: Abraham, Gleick, and Trenberth resort to libeling Spencer and Christy“ (2011-09-07). Did you know that pointing out the repetitively flawed science of denialist scientists like Roy Spencer and John Christy is “libelous”? Anthony thinks so, and so does Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
Opinion: The damaging impact of Roy Spencer’s science, recently published in The Daily Climate, is apparently a nasty example of this criminal. How dare they point out that “Over the years, Spencer and Christy developed a reputation for making serial mistakes that other scientists have been forced to uncover”? Well, maybe it’s not actually libelous because it’s kind of true. But surely it’s mean! That alone is proof that AGW is a lie.
The reliable Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. has consulted his friends and they all think Roy and John are swell, so there.
It seems that the denialist defenses have fallen all the way back to complaining about “tone”? Maybe Anthony’s cartoon sinking ship is falsely labeled just like the false science he touts.
16 thoughts on “The science is scuttled: Abraham, Gleick, and Trenberth resort to libeling Spencer and Christy”	
Well, Anthony needs all the fake diversion outrage he can muster to hide his other boastful shame, the one about the ever-declining Arctic Ocean sea ice by both area and volume.
“Let me stress that these volume numbers aren’t observed data, but are calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS, Zhang and Rothrock, 2003).”
“A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. Winston Churchill”
“LIBEL” (Law): Any statement or representation, published without just cause or excuse… tending to expose another to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule (Webster)
The ‘just cause’………. is clearly expressed in the last paragaraph of the Trenberth, Gleick, and Abraham opinion piece.
“We only wish the media would cover these scientific discoveries [Santer’s Christy paper, Dessler’s Spencer paper] with similar vigor and enthusiasm that they displayed in tackling Spencer’s now-discredited findings.”
The Poe is strong with this one. By Anthony’s standards for calculating these things, that would be the final nail in the coffin of denialism. And possibly the penultimate nail to boot.
[Every time a denialist opens their mouths it’s “the final nail” it seems. It must be exhausting pretending to to show so much enthusiasm for so little consequence. – Ben]
Well, you can only double down for so long. Deniers have been claiming for at least five years that global warming alarmism is losing credibility and about to fade away, and yet, here it still is.
“Like most of us, I’ve been a bit taken aback by the ritual seppuku of young academic Wolfgang Wagner, formerly editor of Remote Sensing, for the temerity of casting a shadow across the path of climate capo Kevin Trenberth.” – Said McIntyre, here.
That’s where the denialists are coming to. The good news? When one encounters such, one knows one does not have to read any further!
[McIntyre has been dining out on one trivial contribution for the better part of a decade now, always reflecting his wounded ego. – Ben]
I was also left to wonder if Pielke Sr.’s initial comment about being present in the key discussion about one of Spencer’s errors, and minimizing it, if he was actually referencing the specific remote sensing error that others were alluding to?
Thing is, if other scientists have an error pointed out to them they either correct it or retract the paper. Spencer seems to make a habit of ignoring errors until enough people make enough noise that he has to do something about it.
He also has a bad habit of trumpeting nonsense in the media. Like in the case of this badly flawed paper (and his flawed satellite data).
You’re spot on, that deniers obviously ran out of coffins and nails ages ago. They keep trying the recycling thingy – but it’s getting very old.
Actually, plenty do not correct or retract. I’m currently trying to weed out textbook errors in a small field of science, but several authors I contacted just don’t see they are wrong. Outright incompetence. But unlike Spencer, they don’t get any media attention.
So much work to do for Watts, there’s no time yet for the news of last week [on Neven’s website]: Historical Minimum in Sea Ice Extent.
Scroll down to the fifth graph, Cryosphere Today. Says Watts: “Cryosphere Today has an anomaly plot that shows so far, 2011 has not exceeded the 2007 record minimum.”
Still, I expected Watts to hail the thin margin of the present record as ‘the total recovery of Arctic sea ice’.
The vigil begins. Will Anthony Watts admit to his embarrassing mistake, and thereby staunch the flow of unintended confusion? Or not?
See, “New peer reviewed paper: clouds have large negative-feedback cooling effect on Earth’s radiation budget“.
In an Update, Anthony Watts does respond to the criticisms: he removes the word ‘feedback’ from his title.
Since Anthony Watts didn’t acknowledge a misinterpretation, potential readers are still advised to read the correcting comments by Bart Verheggen and Roy Spencer, first.
Heh. It is to be hoped that Anthony Watts, doyen of the sceptical crowd, knows his bottom from his elbow.
Dunno what’s more amusing the – ‘we knew it all along!’ chorus, or Watts’ refusal to let the penny drop. Even after Roy Spencer and the paper’s author, Richard Allan (and me) drop by to tell him he’s grabbed hold of the wrong end of the stick, he insists that ‘I saw things differently’ and the believes the paper indicates that clouds can be both a forcing and a feedback, even after the author himself tells him ‘This is a basic error by the author of the post’.
“Show me where there’s positive feedback demonstrated there and the next time I’m in the UK I’ll look you up and buy you a beer. – Anthony”
Spectacular missing of the point there! The Allan paper simply is NOT ABOUT feedbacks, positive or negative. The entire comparison with the numbers from Dessler and Spencer is bogus, they don’t even have the same units, for Pete’s sake!