Sunday, June 25, 2017

                                     COMMENCEMENT  SPEECH


                                     CURRY  DOWN  UNDER

Judith Curry's defense of Trump's climate tweets on Australian public radio recalls Spicey's sound bites at a White House press conference. 

But the presenter sounds like NPR on steroids- his next program explaining this one features just John Church & Naomi Oreskes. 

Having listened for an hour to:

  • Don Aitkin
    Former Vice-Chancellor
    University of Canberra
  • Brian O’Brien
    Adjunct Professor of Physics
    University of Western Australia
    Perth WA
  • Judith Curry
    Former Professor and Chair
    School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences
    Georgia Institute of Technology
    Atlanta Georgia USA
  • Freeman Dyson
    Former Professor of Physics
    Institute for Advanced Study
    Princeton University
    Princeton New Jersey USA
  • Garth Paltridge
    Retired Atmospheric Physicist
    Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University
    Emeritus Professor and Honorary Research Fellow
    Institute of Antarctic and Southern Oceans Studies
    University of Tasmania
    Hobart Tasmania
  • Andy Pitman
    Professor and Director
    ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science
    The University of New South Wales
    Sydney NSW
  • Steven Sherwood
    Climate Change Research Centre
    University of New South Wales
    Sydney NSW
I really don't think so.
 Judge for yourself --


Saturday, June 24, 2017

                                 SNL  MAY  BE  IN  RERUNS,

                                      Merchants  Of  Clout

Scores of foundations, NGO's and the United Nations Environmental Program have backed a multi-million dollar global effort to establish programs in  environmental journalism  and  climate  communication.
After TV Tobacco Ads Were  Banned  In 1969 Some
 Anti-Tobacco  PR Firms Turned  To  Planeteering

Yet  those PC  programs tend to be historically selective.  Few dare recall how some founders of Cold War era anti-nuclear movements transformed   themselves into postmodern  environmental activists and climate policy strategists. Those who do  invite denunciation by climate activists on the left, who resort to terms like 'anti- science' or ' this  is not  history  of  science', the words  authors Naomi  Oreskes and  Eric  Conway apply to political opponents who cannot sensibly be called "climate deniers" having always embraced CO2 driven anthropocene   global  warming as a 
 scientific paradigm, and  contributed to its progress with  peer-reviewed research  in such emblematic journals as Climatic Change

That  journal's founder,  the late  Steve Schneider  famously  observed that  climate science  is a contact sport,  but  what really brings out the brass knuckles  all the way from The Nation Institute, to the right hand side of K-Street is taking both sides to task when they indulge dubious historiography,  or try to  revive and renormalize  the bald propaganda of the Cold War era for the internet age.

The  irony is compounded  when those doing the denouncing forget what colleagues in high-profile  climate commmunications programs may say when they wander off-script and into reminiscence elsewhere on TV:

An  Aeon essay  by former University of London social psychologist Alexandra Stein, whose ‘Terror, Love and  Brainwashing: Attachment in Cults and Totalitarian Systems’,  published  last year  by Routledge, focuses  on  the  seminal  work of  psychohistorian  Robert Jay Lifton, who knows a thing or two about communicating to the masses, having published  Thought  Reform and the Psychology of Totalism   in 1961. After  becoming   Carl Sagan's  sidekick on the Nuclear Winter lecture circuit, Lifton segued into a career of   global warming advocacy, most recently with  Mind and habitat:  Nuclear and climate threats, and the possibility of hope.

Stein digs deeper into history than Oreskes & Conway's Merchants Of Doubt , which  constructs a  narative  in  which  Republican  publicist Frank Luntz  takes  his  cues  on  climate denial from the  the tobacco industry's success in sowing doubt about smoking risks by hiring well credentialed shills  to  shift  opinion by calling  science  into question. The reality behind  this  haute vugarization  of  cultural  history  is far stranger :  Merchants Of Doubt  glides  across  thin  analytic ice  with barely a glance into the archival depths below.

When  Congress  banned  TV cigarette ads in 1969,  anti-tobacco Mad Men like Porter-Novelli principal William Novelli turned to Earth Day as the  Next Big Thing, and his firm's  Creative Department  was soon orchestrating ( and illustrating) environmental publicity campaigns for hot  tabloid science  topics like 'nuclear winter' and  acid rain, and this new  line  of  advertising expertise  prospered into the present century, and  branched  out  into  academe ,  witness  the  Green  Advertising Alliance  encompassing Ogilvy & Mather and Saatchi & Saatchi, or Edward Maibach  Ph.D,  former Porter-Novelli Worldwide  Director of  Social  Marketing, now directing The Center for Climate Change Communication at  George Mason  University,  and  coauthor  of the report  linked above.
It was  a  matter  of  entrepreneurial  survival.  K-Street  and  Madison Avenue's  greener denizens had a hard time persuading their corporate accounts  to bet  advertising  dollars on Captain Planet, and still had two decades  and  an  Energy Crisis  to kill before  The Climate Wars   began  in   earnest  as  an  advertising  cause celebre' , with  James Hansen's  warning   to  the  Congress that warming was on the way.

Oreskes is no stranger to TV, having long been an anchorwoman for Al  Gore's  annual  Climate Realty Project  telethon.  But  Stein  has discovered  that Merchants Of  Doubt  notwithstanding, the roots of Advertising 101 in  academic  psychology  reach  down  far  deeper than the Tobacco or the Climate Wars. She traces the idea that a single dissenter can create a debate to:
the  conformity experiments  of  the 1950s  by  the  social psychologist Solomon Asch, who demonstrated that, when faced with obviously incorrect information, 75 per cent of participants publicly denied clear evidence before their own eyes rather than buck the majority opinion. However, when just one other person disagreed with the majority and broke the unanimous bloc, the conformity effect almost entirely disappeared.
That is the central thesis of  both Luntz's infamous  memo, and Oreskes &  Conway's unoriginal book, and the made-for-TV movie of Merchants of Doubt   has  projected  it  into  the  realm of  cliche', alongside  black  and  white  images  of  cigarette selling  doctors anachonistically fast forwarded from the fifties, when they existed, into the Reagan era, when they did not. Stein arrives at a different conclusion without recourse to anachonism. One more resonant with the partisan selling and political discounting of global models by both postmodernist and Straussian polemicists that puts climate science's objectivity at risk today:
"Given the right circumstances, almost anyone is vulnerable to   the   psychological   and   situational   pressures  I  have discussed. The respected scholars in my field have repeated over  and over  again  that  the way  to  protect  ourselves is through knowledge. In 1952, Asch wrote:
‘The greater man’s ignorance of the principles of his social  surroundings, the more subject is he to their control;  and   the  greater  his  knowledge  of  their operations  and  of  their  necessary  consequences,     the  freer  he  can  become with  regard  to  them.'"

Friday, June 23, 2017



 "... It only takes one finding in science to refute consensus, no matter whether it’s 97%, 99%, or 100%.  Science is not infallible.
                                                              Anthony Watts
Note: about ten minutes after publication the article was updated to correct a spelling error, add an omitted phrase, and add references"

                           HANG  ON  TO  YOUR  SCALP

Rick Perry's DOE has named a new Director  of  Indian  Energy, former Chiricahua Apache Nation Attorney General Brute Bradford. One whose Tweeting  habits  recall  those of the Great White Chief:

The Washington Post says the former :
"faculty member... at the United  Arab Emirates  National  Defense  College , Bradford  has  been  at  the center of controversies  in the past, these missives sent from his now-deleted Twitter account have not been previously reported. In an email on Thursday, Bradford acknowledged the Twitter account and apologized for his comments.
“As a minority and member of the Jewish faith, I sincerely apologize for my disrespectful and offensive comments,” he wrote to The Post. “These comments are inexcusable and I do not stand by them... 
In 2015, he resigned from his post at West Point after writing an academic paper arguing  the United States  should  threaten  to destroy  Muslim  holy sites in war
 “even if it means great destruction, innumerable enemy casualties, and     civilian collateral damage.”
Bradford  also  called  for  legal  scholars  “sympathetic to  Islamist aims”  to  be imprisoned  or  “attacked.”  He dubbed  such  academics  “critical  law of armed conflict academy,” or  CLOACA,  which is also a term for  the orifice out of which some animals defecate... 
 “I stand by my article,"
 he  wrote  in an email to The Post at the time."

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Tuesday, June 20, 2017


“It is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers because I simply haven't got the time..."
James Delingpole, BBC 2011

"Then, of course, there is the great Anthony Watts – founder of the most widely read and important sceptical website of the lot... I owe Wattsy an enormous amount..."
James Delingpole The Daily Telegraph 2013

"Willie Soon, Pat Michaels and Tim the Greenies apopleptic... I’m against Ocean Acidification theory because I’ve done loads and loads of background reading... about the lack of credible scientific evidence that it represents any kind of problem... in the eyes of all those undecideds who can’t make up their mind whether they agree with me on climate science or whether I’m talking bollocks..."

James Delingpole,   Breitbart   2017

As a matter of fact, Willie Soon,Pat Michaels & Tim Ball are no more oceanographers that Watts or Delingpole, and none of the above, the horse included, has published a peer-reviewed word on how the oceans  acidify as they dissolve ever more man made CO2.

                          IS  THIS  IS  THE  PAUSE  THAT  WAS?

Monday, June 19, 2017

                                         BUT  ON  REFLECTION...


                                             GREEN  FIRE ?

The Coroner's verdict may be Death By Energy Efficiency

Sunday, June 18, 2017

                           CLIMATE  JOURNALISM  TALENT

The article below was contributed by Istvan Marko, J. Scott Armstrong, William M. Briggs, Kesten Green, Hermann Harde, David R. Legates, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, and Willie Soon.

On June 2, 2017, in a Letter regarding US withdrawal from Paris climate agreement addressed to the MIT community, Professor Rafael Reif, president of MIT, criticized President Trump’s decision to exit the Paris Climate Accords. In this refutation, we propose to clarify the scientific understanding of the Earth’s climate and to dispel the expensively fostered popular delusion that man-made global warming will be dangerous and that, therefore, the Paris Agreement would be beneficial...
There is no science unambiguously establishing that CO2 is the chief cause of the warming observed since the end of the Little Ice Age. The opposite has been repeatedly demonstrated.
... Professor Reif writes, “The scientific consensus is overwhelming.”
The late author Michael Crichton, in his Caltech Michelin Lecture 2003, said, “In science consensus is irrelevant. … ” Doubt is the seedcorn of science. Consensus is a political notion which, when pleaded, indicates that the pleader is totalitarian. As Abu Ali ibn al-Haytham said in the eleventh century:
The seeker after truth [his splendid definition of the scientist] does not place his faith in any mere consensus, however venerable or widespread. Instead, he subjects what he has learned of it to his hard-won scientific knowledge, and to investigation, inspection, inquiry, checking, checking and checking again. The road to the truth is long and hard, but that is the road we must follow...

Saturday, June 17, 2017


In 2014  Watts decided to lengthen the shadow of his treehouse by founding  The  Open  Atmospheric  Society,  a  climate  contrarian organization with all the academic bells and whistles of the decidely un-contrarian American Meterological Society & AGU.  Trouble is that these rely on acumen for their gravitas, and boards top heavy with academic department heads and scientific medalists for their street cred and media clout.

Sou relates that  years of trying  failed to produce anybody with such credentials willing to join the OAS board, collected a grand total of $330 from prospective dues paying members, and produced no journal She reports its website fell silent as  a Norwegian Blue  two years ago.



Thursday, June 15, 2017


Dealing with Climate Change: A Conversation with Paul N. Edwards and Oliver Geden


The technocratic character of the IPCC has tended to center the debate on technological solutions, especially renewable energy. I'm not against technocracy; in fact I think it's absolutely necessary, more now than ever. So long as the subject is breaking our addiction to fossil fuels, I think the technocratic approach is really the right one, and the IPCC has played a major role in promoting that.

Yet agricultural practices, meat-based diets, and deforestation are at least equally important causes of climate change. In many respects, those are much harder problems than energy, where real and successful solutions are well along. Mike Hulme's great book Why We Disagree about Climate Change points to the deep connections between climate and culture, from religion and housing to clothing and food.

Eco-modernist techno-solutionism barely touches the holistic kinds of social change that would really be needed for drastic emissions reductions. Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything does a better job of sketching those solutions than the IPCC, but as Oliver points out, her vision – like those of many others searching for ways to move us off the path of self-destruction we are currently walking – would require revolutionary and extremely widespread social change of a kind that seems depressingly unlikely at present.

The dilemma is clear. Scientists’ greatest asset is the high degree of trust invested in them by the public, at least in much of the developed world. To participate effectively in building climate solutions, they must maintain that. Yet this trust depends on the perception that science seeks truth, not power. To the degree that scientists advocate particular solutions over others, they may be seen as partisans. The challenge for scientists is to retain what Roger Pielke Jr. calls the “honest broker” position: proposing as many solution paths as they can find, evaluating their effects from a neutral point of view, while never advocating any particular path over others.

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

       WHY  WOULD  A  BLOG  WITH  300,000,000  AUTHENTIC

Disinformation doyen seeks  financial help  to 
lower  signal-to-noise ratio  of  climate  policy  debate :

WUWT at 10+ years – I need some help, please

UPDATE 6/14/17: Michael E. Mann just can’t stand this, see below.
Hello everyone,
I feel like many of you are family, you’ve been with me and this endeavor so long. I started in November of 2006, and I’m approaching my 11th year. In all that time, WUWT has been providing a daily service to readers with original research, commentary, and humor where appropriate.
During this time, we’ve witnessed many great things together: Climategate started here in 2009, and the implosion of the Copenhagen conference as a result. The unmasking of the IPCC, showing that many of the “voodoo science” claims against skeptics made by IPCC chairman Pachauri, were based on fake datashockingly bad science, and even grey literature
Now the tables are turned, and he’s out in disgrace
Then there was the time that I proved without a doubt that both Al Gore and Bill Nye were not just incompetent, but liars too, faking a science experiment. That finding by me was later backed up by a peer reviewed paper in the American Journal of Physics.
Then there was the leaking of the IPCC AR5 documents here, showing how corrupted their thinking is, and how the final product was sanitized. 
Then there’s the Paris Agreement, watching it unfold, shaking our heads at the inanity of it. Even Dr. James Hansen called it a “fraud”. Then, just two weeks ago, watching President Trump remove the U.S. from it. It was truly a great day, with the bonus of watching all those heads explode...
It’s been a great ride. But, to be honest, I’m facing burnout... 
I want to keep contributing, but I need a break to do it. I think I deserve one. Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit once told me in a face to face conversation that “You and I both have done the work of ten men. I think we’ve given them a good run” (he was referring to the “Hockey Team et al”). Steve has essentially retired [from] blogging, because he has other pursuits. He feels like he’s done his fair share. I’d say his contribution was monumental.
I still have more stories to tell, I still have more research to do, I still have more to contribute.
One of the great things about WUWT is that we’ve had so many guest authors. This keeps it fresh. But I still have to administer it all. I do it from my phone, my laptop, and my home and office PC. I’ve never really been out of touch from it
Here’s the stats over the past 10+ years.
  • 16,496 stories posted
  • 49 reference pages (some of which sorely need work...

It’s driving them all batshit crazy that:
1. I’ve survived 10 years, even though I’m apparently too stupid to have accomplished anything in that time.

2. People actually like me and want to help.

3. More people read WUWT than all of their blogs combined.
I’m very blessed. Thanks to everyone! – Anthony