# Climate change deniers like Anthony Watts and the Republican leadership got a boot to the head. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 28, 2011, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041 "2011-10-28T05:00:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/81 "2011-11-02T17:15:24Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > By the way, I don’t engage with **GigoBuster** anymore because of his persistent failure to respond to reasonable questions about his position. It takes the better part of a month, but he’ll do it eventually. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/82 "2011-11-02T17:42:21Z")
> [@neuroman](#): > > The OP is a canard. While GIGO assails Anthony Watts for being a hypocrite and a slinger of mud and arrows, he and his ilk are happy to resort to ad-hominem attacks in attempting to discredit skeptics, who by and large _agree_ the earth has warmed in the last 100 years, but disagree there is irrefutable proof man has caused most or all of this warming. I recommend that you go back, do a search, and re-read all the prior threads on the subject before you start shooting your mouth off about this ‘ad hominem’ bullcrap again. [And note the forum this thread is in, too.] You might also want to make a clear distinction between a skeptic and a denier, if you have the intellectual honesty to do so (which I doubt). And go see a shrink about your projection complex while you’re at it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/83 "2011-11-02T17:54:54Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > It takes the better part of a month, but he’ll do it eventually. Actually the link to the video has the sources that support it, it is a very good reply to what he is saying, but it seems that you are reverting to the old “I do not like the answer” so well spend a month ignoring the citations that were in the end a proper and quick answer. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/84 "2011-11-02T18:04:29Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Actually the link to the video has the sources that support it, it is a very good reply to what he is saying, but it seems that you are reverting to the old “I do not like the answer” so well spend a month ignoring the citations that were in the end a proper and quick answer. Pardon? I was replying to **brazil84** stating that he no longer engages with you because of your “persistent failure to respond to reasonable questions”. He’s asked you no questions here – yes, presumably because he anticipates you’d fail to respond, but you’re glossing over that he’s _ **not asking you a question** _ at this point. Allow me to rephrase, if it helps: I’m sticking up for you by saying that – if **brazil84** ever decides to ask you a question – he shouldn’t assume you won’t respond; I’ve never seen you take longer than a matter of weeks of hemming and hawing before supplying the requested answer. (And I’m certainly not going to spend a month ignoring the citations; why would I? I adore your all-new all-different benchmark; it was worth the wait.) ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/85 "2011-11-02T18:23:22Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Allow me to rephrase, if it helps: I’m sticking up for you by saying that – if **brazil84** ever decides to ask you a question – he shouldn’t assume you won’t respond; I’ve never seen you take longer than a matter of weeks of hemming and hawing before supplying the requested answer. I usually only give people a couple chances before disengaging. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/86 "2011-11-02T18:26:36Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I usually only give people a couple chances before disengaging. Can’t say I blame you. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/87 "2011-11-02T18:34:53Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > That one’s not loading up for me, but [SAKURA188: Situs Live Casino Online Terbaik Indonesia 2025](http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/1/scientific-heresy.html) is. And here I go for the Feynman example, Feynman looked at the letters or cites to check if there were any 10:20:30 Items in it and then it would be safe to ignore, sure enough this was already dealt with, even on the video linked early by the Professor talking about the tree of science metaphor: the professor does make the point that the Himalayan glacier issue was not an error that affected the science at all, for an article that deals with confirmation bias he trows it up with gusto (and he is ignoring that most of the items were corrected, once again, the bad twigs are removed, the tree stands) It is when noticing those basic errors of ignoring what was done with the issue and continue to talking about it like if nothing was done to correct them that then one looks at how reliable this writer is, as it turns out not very. > **[Matt Ridley's Rational Optimist is telling the rich what they want to hear |...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/jun/18/matt-ridley-rational-optimist-errors)** > > George Monbiot: The ex-Northern Rock man is in denial about his book's mistakes > [@](#): > > 1. Ridley hilariously maintained that “no significant error has come to light” in Bjørn Lomborg’s book The Sceptical Environmentalist. I pointed out that it contains so many significant errors that an entire book – The Lomborg Deception by Howard Friel – was required to document them. Now, without having read Friel’s book, Ridley accepts that it is all nonsense on the word of … Bjørn Lomborg! Quite right too: what more objective reviewer of a book about Bjørn Lomborg’s errors could there be than, er, Bjørn Lomborg? Ridley then has the blazing chutzpah to state that “Monbiot should be embarrassed to be relying on a source of this quality”. No, he doesn’t mean Lomborg’s rebuttal, he means Friel’s book. > > 2. In his book, Ridley asserts that “11 of 13 populations” of polar bears are “growing or steady”. I pointed out that there are in fact 19 populations of polar bears, and cited the most comprehensive and widely-respected research, collated by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, which suggests that of those whose fluctuations have been measured, one is increasing, three are stable and eight are declining. Forgetting that he made a definitive statement about the bears’ status in his book, Ridley now says that “nobody really knows the truth and lots of different claims are out there.” Yes, but some are more credible than others. Ridley chose to ignore the most credible studies, while relying instead on: “(a) a source that doesn’t mention polar bears, (b) an oil–industry funded source, and (c) a non–peer reviewed lecture at an undisclosed location in an undisclosed month and year”. > > The quote is from Howard Friel, who has been drawn into this debate by Ridley’s gross mischaracterisation of his book, and has done some digging of his own. > > So, given that Ridley has bothered to reply on this point, you’d imagine that he would come up with some powerful data to rebut the comprehensive study I cited. You’d be wrong. Instead he relies on an interview on CBC News with a local Canadian politician, who asserts that his impression, after talking to people who want to hunt polar bears or the animals which polar bears prey on, is that the Canadian Arctic population (not the total population you understand) isn’t declining. No numbers, no analysis, no cited sources, no scientific study at all. Yes, dear reader, this really is Ridley’s withering retort. And he calls himself a scientist. > > 1. I accused Ridley of blatant cherry-picking in the following passage in The Rational Optimist: “Well alight, says the pessimist, but at what cost? The environment is surely deteriorating. In somewhere like Beijing, maybe. But in many other places, no. In Europe and America rivers, lakes, seas and the air are getting cleaner all the time. The Thames has less sewage and more fish. Lake Erie’s water snakes, on the brink of extinction in the 1960s, are now abundant. Bald eagles have boomed. Pasadena has few smogs. Swedish birds’ eggs have 75% fewer pollutants in them than in the 1960s.” > > I pointed out – as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment shows – that of 65 global indicators of human impacts on biodiversity, only one – the extent of temperate forests – is improving. Eighteen are stable, in all the other cases the impacts are increasing. Ridley retorts that readers of the passage I’ve just cited "can judge if I am doing anything other than claiming that “in many places’ environmental trends are positive.” You certainly can. Take a look at these two sentences again: “The environment is surely deteriorating. In somewhere like Beijing, maybe.” > > Here Ridley makes an obvious attempt to suggest that environmental deterioration is confined to places like Beijing. Comparing these sentences to those that follow, any reader who didn’t know better would assume that improvement is more common than deterioration. > > If Ridley really believes that this passage isn’t designed to suggest that the general trend is positive, his intellectual dishonesty runs deeper than I had imagined. And if he can’t see that his selective treatment of the subject is blatant cherry-picking, it says more than he would care to about his standards of objectivity. > > The other two refutations he attempts are just as wrong, but I would need several hundred more words in each case to explain why, and I won’t try your patience any further. At the end of this farrago of nonsense, Ridley asserts that “Monbiot is entitled to his opinions but he has found precisely zero ‘excruciating errors’ in my book.” > > I’m sure he found himself very persuasive. > > But if no one else is prepared to call him out on this, he will continue to get away with both the disavowal of his own record and the denial of his glaring mistakes. And he will continue to deceive the growing band of people who are treating his book as the self-justification they have always sought. Paradoxically, many of them are the same people who, devoted to free market principles, have been denouncing both the evil bankers who trashed the economy and the governments who bailed them out. If they knew a little more about Dr Ridley’s interesting attempt to put his theories into practice, they might be less ready to believe his misleading assertions. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/88 "2011-11-02T18:37:30Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Can’t say I blame you. Lets be clear here **Waldo** , Brazil84 does not ever acknowledges any contradictory information, you are hundreds of times better than he is. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/89 "2011-11-04T15:31:38Z")
First some hard science data: [Greenhouse gases rise by record amount](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/04/greenhouse-gases-rise-record-levels?intcmp=122) “The world pumped about 564m more tons (512m metric tons) of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009, an increase of 6%. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries, China, the US and India, the world’s top producers of greenhouse gases.” And then some sociology: [Why Conservative White Males Are More Likely to Be Climate Skeptics](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-conservative-white-maes-are-more-likely-climate-skeptics) “Results showed, for instance, that 29.6 percent of conservative white males believe the effects of global warming will never happen, versus 7.4 percent of other adults.” [my emphasis] Never is a very long time-good luck with that. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/90 "2011-11-04T16:41:41Z")
Now, lets be fair, it’s not just white conservatives, black conservatives swallow the propaganda of the deniers also. > **[Climate Myths from Herman Cain](https://skepticalscience.com/skepticquotes.php?s=108)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... > [@](#): > > [QUOTE=Herman Cain] > > “we know that those scientists who tried to concoct the science to say we had a hockey stick global warming and they were busted because they manipulated the data.” [His problem is that:] ``` [A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm) ``` [/QUOTE] And this was established several times even before the BEST results were revealed showing that the accusations claiming that the scientists misinterpreted , or worse, faked the data, were false accusations. And this is one of the leading candidates for the Republicans! One would think that this would disqualify him in the eyes of many and lead to less support, but this is not the past were corporations were limited on their political efforts, thanks to the idiotic recent decision of the supreme court people like the Koch brothers via outfits like Americans for Prosperity have the organization and funding that in the past would had stopped a less able candidate, many critics did point out how feeble Cain’s efforts in the primary states are, but they are forgetting about groups like AFP that have the organization ready, so if in the past we heard about astroturf movements, get ready for an astroturf presidential run as the oil and coal men will support a candidate that is saying what they want, and will do what they want in the form of inaction regarding regulations of carbon emissions. [http://www.npr.org/2011/11/04/142006513/cain-has-long-ties-to-koch-brothers-linked-group?ft=1&f=1014](http://www.npr.org/2011/11/04/142006513/cain-has-long-ties-to-koch-brothers-linked-group?ft=1&f=1014) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/91 "2011-11-04T16:47:06Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > “Results showed, for instance, that 29.6 percent of conservative white males believe the effects of global warming will never happen, versus 7.4 percent of other adults.” [my emphasis] You may be cutting off that quote right before the most interesting part. _“Results showed, for instance, that 29.6 percent of conservative white males believe the effects of global warming will never happen, versus 7.4 percent of other adults. In holding for “confident” conservative white males, the study showed 48.4 percent believe global warming won’t happen, versus 8.6 percent of other adults.”_ ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/92 "2011-11-04T16:47:10Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > First some hard science data: So I take it you concede that the Kyoto Protocols have failed to accomplish anything? > [@](#): > > “Results showed, for instance, that 29.6 percent of conservative white males believe the effects of global warming will never happen, versus 7.4 percent of other adults.” [my emphasis] > > Never is a very long time-good luck with that. If the warmistas are simply predicting that global surface temperatures will go up a lot some time in the next 10 billion years, they need to make it clear. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/93 "2011-11-04T18:04:29Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > So I take it you concede that the Kyoto Protocols have failed to accomplish anything? If you had bothered to go and actually read the cite (which in your smug assurance you obviously did not), you might have noticed this little tidbit: “But Reilly and University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver found something good in recent emissions figures. The developed countries that ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas limiting treaty have reduced their emissions overall since then and have achieved their goals of cutting emissions to about 8% below 1990 levels. The US did not ratify the agreement.” So, then, you are in favor of the US and other industrialized countries signing off on Kyoto? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/94 "2011-11-04T18:17:24Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > If you had bothered to go and actually read the cite (which in your smug assurance you obviously did not) Of course I didn’t read the article. Why should I? I accept your claim that greenhouse gas emissions are up. > [@](#): > > “But Reilly and University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver found something good in recent emissions figures. The **developed** countries that ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas limiting treaty have reduced their emissions overall since then and have achieved their goals of cutting emissions to about 8% below 1990 levels. The US did not ratify the agreement.” (my bolding). So what? > [@](#): > > So, then, you are in favor of the US and other industrialized countries signing off on Kyoto? 😃 No, of course not. Why should I be? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/95 "2011-11-04T19:51:56Z")
Yep, brazil84 is a proud member of the coward brigade. Future solutions will be implemented then by the ones he and others are maligning now. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/96 "2011-11-07T20:34:34Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I usually only give people a couple chances before disengaging. You also intentionally ask questions that are designed to provoke, and then use the fact that people get upset as a reason not to reply. And then you rub it in their faces repeatedly, just as you did in this thread. And remember, if you reply to me, you’re breaking your own rules. You can’t engage with me because I engaged in an ad hominem attack. Despite the fact that you did so in this very thread. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/97 "2011-11-07T23:01:02Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > You also intentionally ask questions that are designed to provoke, That’s not true. My questions are either to make a point or to get clarification of a person’s position or both. It’s true that people sometimes get upset at my questioning, but I think it’s more a result of their own cognitive dissonance from being forced to confront a hole in their argument. > [@](#): > > . And then you rub it in their faces repeatedly, just as you did in this thread. Please identify the poster and the numbers of two posts in this thread where I rubbed “it in their faces.” > [@](#): > > And remember, if you reply to me, you’re breaking your own rules.You can’t engage with me because I engaged in an ad hominem attack. As best I can recall, I don’t have a rule against ad homenim attacks per se. I do have a rule about personal insults: > [@](#): > > Rule 5 Personal insults. No personal insults or intemperate language. However, if you insult me in a forum where flames are permitted, I may ignore it. Or throw something back at you. > [@](#): > > Despite the fact that you did so in this very thread. Can you show me where I did so? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/98 "2011-11-08T02:19:10Z")
Ah, brazil’s rules from his blog, a blog that is just catching cobwebs BTW. As pointed on other threads, he is incapable of looking at the evidence of the water vapor feedback and how idiotic his arguments are against using models in science, he is just a nowhere man as pointed before, being mostly useless as time passes by. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/99 "2011-11-08T17:02:50Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > Computer simulations (and basic thermodynamics) indicate that if this continues, it will jar the climate system quite significantly, possibly disastrously. Can you provide a reference for these basic thermodynamic calculations? As far as I know, thermodynamics predicts modest warming. Dangerous warming is predicted only by computer simulations which have not been subjected to (and passed) bona fide tests. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041.md?page=4)