I realise Sou has already covered this but, since I haven’t done a Watt about post for some time, I thought I would also comment. The post I’ll be discussing is a guest post on Watts Up With That (WUWT) by David Whitehouse, who is an Academic Advisor to the Global Warming Policy Foundation and who also happens to have a Ph.D. in astrophysics.

Before I discuss his guest post, I’ll point out that he recently suggested that

Remember when some analysts used 1998 as a start point for global temperature trend analysis they were rightly criticised for it. It now seems that some are using a strong El Nino year – 2015 – as the endpoint for their analysis!

while failing to mention his report from 2014, which starts with

What is the reason for the lack of warming observed at the surface of the Earth since about 1997?

Not only is this somewhat ironic, I don’t think that including the most recent data point in your analysis would typically regarded as a cherry-pick; it’s not as if we’re simply choosing to not use the data for the future.

Now back to his WUWT guest post (archived here). In this post, David Whitehouse claims that, with respect to 2015 being the warmest year on record, some scientists deliberately mistook weather for climate. His argument is essentially that

the large increase over 2014 is far too great and swift to be due to a resurgence of forced global warming. It must be due to short-term natural variability, and you don’t have to look far to find it. 2015 was the year of the El Nino which boosted the year’s temperature.

Not only is this silly (does he really think that forced warming somehow stopped, rather than simply being masked by variability?) but it would probably still have been a record year even without the El Nino:

Even though 2015 is only a single year, it is still the warmest in a record going back more than 100 years; is warmer than previous El Nino years, and – what is more – in the past decade we’ve had La Nina years that are warmer than previous El Nino years. There is a clear warming trend, that indicates that we continue to warm, largely because of our emissions of greenhouse gases.

David Whitehouse then goes on to say

The IPCC says that just over half of the warming since the fifties is forced so most of the contribution to 2015′s temperature is natural variability.

Well, this is utter nonsense. What the IPCC actually says is

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.

Surely even David Whitehouse understands that more than half is not the same as just over half, especially as it goes on to say

The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.

In other words, anthropogenic influences probably contributed to most of the observed warming since 1950, possibly even more than all of it.

Given that David Whitehouse has a PhD in astrophysics, it’s really hard to understand how he can’t get this basic point. It’s almost as if he deliberately mistook just over half for more than half. You might think that someone with his credentials would be willing to correct such a mis-representation. However, given that he seems to think WUWT is a site worth posting on, I’d be very surprised if he did.

This entry was posted in Anthony Watts, Climate change, ClimateBall, ENSO, Gavin Schmidt, Global warming, IPCC and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

### 89 Responses to Watt about David Whitehouse

1. A point that I was hoping to get to in the post, but couldn’t quite work it in (without making it even longer and more convoluted) is this issue of weather versus climate. Typically we regard climate as some suitable average of the weather. Typically we can associate weather events with properties of the climate system. For example, if we see an extreme precipitation event, we might be able to associate that with particularly high sea surface temperatures. That 2015 was so warm was partly due to the El Nino event. Therefore, we will typically always be able to find some association between some weather event and the properties of the climate system; climate change is not some kind of magical process that produces events that appear to have no association with the physical properties of the system.

Therefore, I expect we’ll see more of this; arguments that it wasn’t climate change, it was because of “x” (with “x” being whatever physical property can be associated with the event). However, this is rather silly because we can always make such association; climate change isn’t going to produce a system that violates the basic laws of physics. What we’re interested in is trends in these events, whether or not the underlying properties are consistent with what we’d expect due to anthropogenic global warming, and what certain events might tell us about what we might expect in future. That, however, is unlikely to stop people from continuing to make such arguments.

2. ‘Cherry-picking’ is selecting, for you needs, a part of what’s available.
Selecting graphs that don’t come right up to date is the province of those who deny.

3. JCH says:

What is the mechanism for El Nino warming that leaves out the anthropogenic carbon dioxide component of the atmosphere? How does that work. ACO2 takes long recess? ACO2 turns itself off? El Nino only employs ocean water that was not warmed by the earth system?

How does this miracle, non-ACO2 warming take place? Where?

4. possibly even more than all of it.

More likely than not more than all of it.

More likely than not more than all of the warming is man-made and we would have seen a slight cooling between 1950 and now due to natural factors.

5. It’s long past time that the use of words like ‘deliberately’, etc became a conversation stopper. Not only have these clowns not demonstrated any mistake in the first place, ‘deliberately’ is beyond the pale.

Any time someone stands up to insinuate that hundreds of scientists around the world are engaged in fraud or some idiotic scam (especially one that thermometers, ice, glaciers, lakes, oceans and much of the plant and animal kingdom seem to be going along with), then they should not be treated as if they are engaged in some kind of serious argument in need of some kind of point by point rebuttal. Instead they should be mocked as the swivel eyed loons that they are.

(Indeed denialists own mistakes are so basic and so regularly in the same direction that one would be forgiven for wondering if those are ‘deliberate’, were it not for the fact that so many of them exhibit the verbal reasoning skills of someone who has recently sustained serious head injuries.)

6. MartinM says:

Therefore, I expect we’ll see more of this; arguments that it wasn’t climate change, it was because of “x” (with “x” being whatever physical property can be associated with the event). However, this is rather silly because we can always make such association; climate change isn’t going to produce a system that violates the basic laws of physics.

Yup. It’s just a blatant false dichotomy. Either global warming is the sole explanation for last year’s record temperature, or it played no part. Of course, that’s not how it works, and anybody capable of getting a PhD in astrophysics knows that damn well.

7. Joshua says:

The concept of a “deliberate mistake” is an amusing one. If it’s deliberate, how is it a mistake? If it is a mistake, then how is it deliberate?

It reminds me of when you read someone accusing someone else of being “intellectually dishonest.”

——————————————————

I recently thought about a new way of understanding the convoluted nature of how many “skeptics” approach temperature records.

They want to truncate the longer term trend to say that there has been a “‘pause” in “global warming” since 1997-8.

Well, looking past the important and fundamental problem of SATs does not equal “global warming,” it is only one metric of global warming…

It seems to me that you can’t speak of a “pause” w/o referring to a longer-term time frame. Trying to do so is incoherent.

The period since 1997-8 isn’t a “pause,” it’s a trend. So you can say that “The trend since 1997-8 is X.”

But if you want to consider that period with reference to the longer-term period, then you need to consider the trend over the entire period. In that sense, the trend since 1997-8 can certainly influence your calculation of the longer term trend, but the very notion of isolating the period since 1997-8, and cutting it off from the loner time period, and calling it a “pause,” seems to me to be invalid (and tend to think not deliberately so…just the product of un-deliberate motivated reasoning)..

Not sure if that makes sense to anyone else. Probably doesn’t. But if I were only going to write stuff that made sense to other people I’d have stopped posting comments long ago.

8. John Hartz says:

ATTP: Tread carefully — Tol probably reviewed and approved Whitehorse’s draft prior to its posting. 🙂

9. Magma says:

I think the lines have been drawn clearly enough over the years that writing a post for WUWT almost automatically lumps its author in with the scientifically-challenged denialati and all that that entails.

The same isn’t true for Climate Etc. (yet) but it’s quickly heading in that direction.

To be fair to Whitehouse, remember that even the eminent Dr. Curry had difficulty with the concept of ‘most’, ‘more than half’ and ‘>50%’ being equivalent. As I recall that was the subject of some amused discussion here a year ago.

10. Magma,
I agree. I don’t think you get to associate positively with WUWT and not be regarded as promoting science denial. Same is true for Bishop Hill, as far as I’m concerned. Climate Etc. is a bit better. Interesting to see Judith’s state of the blog post, where she listed the main referrers:

WUWT
climateaudit
BishopHill
Climate Depot
Steyn Online
pj media
Real Clear Energy

Speaks volumes, really.

11. Proverbs 13:20 comes to mind.

12. BBD says:

Or simply:

Lie with dogs, walk with fleas.

13. If Whitehouse doesn’t like using the most recent data point as the end point, he should note that GISS’s 30-year trend has been a consistent 0.15-0.2 C/decade since about 1990. The last data point barely changes that at all, but it also does continues the trend.

14. Andrew dodds says:

JCH –

Simples. Good, loyal fossil fuel industry derived CO2 molecules know to let the IR photons through, but the eastern pacific is influenced by the Marxist ideologies leaching out from South America and is trying to raise temperatures as part of The Plot To Destroy All Good Godfearin’ Civilisation By Slightly Raising Energy Prices.

15. Vinny Burgoo says:

Simpler: Badg(er)ers dog dogs with fleas.

16. christian says:

The Show must going on, its not so hard to predict some parts of future, one part of it:

Whitehouse in 2017: Global Warming is a Hoax, since 2015 the Global Temperature decline

Thats all i have to say to that topic

17. David,

The last data point barely changes that at all, but it also does continues the trend.

Indeed, but it also rather destroys the whole “pause” meme, which is probably why he doesn’t like it.

Vinny,
?

Christian,

Thats all i have to say to that topic

Probably wise 🙂

18. Eli Rabett says:

19. Joshua says:

If you extend forward, the trend continues, no pause. If you extend the trend backward, the trend continues, no pause.

In other words, there is no “pause” unless there is a mechanistic explanation. What paused? A physical process could “pause.” A trend can’t “pause.” Did the GHE “pause.” Did the addition of ACO2 to the atmosphere “pause?”

A trend can exist within a specific time period, but again, if you’re talking about a “pause,” then you have to be referencing a longer time period. If you reference a longer time period, then the “pause” disappears within the longer term trend.

20. JohnL says:

Tamino updated the Foster and Rahmstorf temperature graph which removes the natural variation though 2015.

The result is:

There are other fluctuations, quite natural, in addition to el Niño and volcanoes and solar variations. We can’t pin down their precise origin, but their influence is small. This can be seen by taking the observed temperature and removing our best estimate of the fluctuations we can estimate, to create “adjusted” data. Here are yearly averages:

All of which serves to emphasize what I said at the outset, that natural variation is the only reason anybody thought there was a “pause” in the first place.

Emphasis in the original

21. JohnL says:
22. Pierre-Normand Houle says:

Magma wrote: “To be fair to Whitehouse, remember that even the eminent Dr. Curry had difficulty with the concept of ‘most’, ‘more than half’ and ‘>50%’ being equivalent. As I recall that was the subject of some amused discussion here a year ago.”

Yes, there was a fascinating exchange between Judith Curry (on her blog) and Gavin Schmidt (on RealClimate) regarding the interpretation of the IPCC AR5 statement on attribution. Schmidt’s comment was enlightening, and Curry’s response was a real head scratcher. The gist of her argument could be paraphrased thus (from memory):

“The IPCC only claims that more than half the warming that occurred since the 1950s is likely anthropogenic. So, for all we know, it could be close to half. It’s probably too close to tell for sure. So, let us be more precise and use terciles instead of halves. The first tercile (0-33%) means less than half, the second tercile (34%-66%) means half, and the third tercile (67%-100%) means more than half. There is no possible attribution higher than 100% since, as common folks who are expected to read the IPCC report ought to know, one can’t eat more than 100% of a pie. So, since the IPCC attribution just is “more than 50%”, and likely not much more than that (because of my own expert gut feeling assessment, which is consistent with the weak IPCC claim), then it must fall within the second tercile. But the seconde tercile isn’t more than half. Therefore, since it isn’t more than half, it must be less than half. I win!”

23. Marco says:

Pierre-Normand, let’s not forget her hilarious Italian flag analogy:
http://initforthegold.blogspot.dk/2010/10/judith-curry-born-beyond-shark.html

24. Judith’s 50% argument was genuinely bizarre. The whole point of the IPCC statement was essentially that it was extremely unlikely to be less than 50%, which Judith then somehow transformed into a reasonable chance that it’s less than 50%. I find it hard to criticise the Italian flag analogy, but that’s mainly because it didn’t make any sens to me whatsoever.

25. Pierre-Normand Houle says:

Thanks to Marco for that link. I hadn’t bookmarked Tobis’ blog before. It’s quite instructive. It also prompted me to read the original post on Climate Etc, where the Italian flag was first waved. I have been impressed with Curry’s resourceful response to Tobis’ criticism. She simply morphed the Italian flag into duck soup.

26. dikranmarsupial says:

We could always follow the WMO guidelines and use 30 year trends ;o)

27. verytallguy says:

Your characterisation of Judith’s as “a bit better” than other denial blogs is, as Judith might put it, “interesting”

This is a blog, run by a climate scientist who

– gives misleading evidence to congress – several examples but just for instance https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/true-lies/
– provides a platform for denial of all sorts, and defends even the most egregious in the face of the most obvious facts eg
http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/quantifying-the-anthropogenic-contribution-to-atmospheric-co2/
– says her opponents are “the equivalent of racists and anti-semites” and compares supporters of Mike Mann to the Charlie Hebdo killers. http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/11/charlie-challenging-free-speech/
– provides a comments section where accusations of fraud on scientists are not merely condoned, but are almost required
– appears unable to do basic arithmetic
http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/19/most-versus-more-than-half-versus-50/

Today she gives a platform to “it’s undersea volcanoes”. Honestly, I’m not kidding.

Most denial sites are obviously run by obsessive conspiracy theorists. Judith promotes the *same material*, but with an all-important veneer of scientific credibility.

You are way over generous. Children are expected to misbehave. Teachers are not expected to encourage them.

28. vtg,
On top of all your other examples, this:

Today she gives a platform to “it’s undersea volcanoes”. Honestly, I’m not kidding.

did make me think I’d been a bit hasty. I really do not understand how Judith could have posted that.

You are way over generous. Children are expected to misbehave. Teachers are not expected to encourage them.

Yes, I probably am.

29. verytallguy says:

I really do not understand how Judith could have posted that.

Oh, she’s not endorsing it,obviously not. It’s just interesting. And a game changer, like Salby, wow.

30. verytallguy says:

Victor nailed it, great post that. You should get him to guest blog an update.

31. He’s welcome to if he’d like to.

32. > Teachers are not expected to encourage them.

33. anoilman says:

verytallguy: Judith Curry works for oil and gas interests. She’s providing short term hurricane forecasts for them.
http://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry

Of course she must be awesome at it since she’s competing hundred man teams working on data and calculations at NOAA.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/

Yup.. a real super scientist. We should just get rid of NOAA.

34. Chris says:

Speaking of what some folks find interesting, here’s something I find interesting:

I haven’t seen anyone remark on the fact that as the Earth’s surface undergoes a warming spurt, this will in fact associate with a period of reduced global warming…the accumulation of energy into the Earth system will slow down while this surface warming spurt continues.

And during the so-called “hiatus” (sadly departed) with rather modest surface warming, the Earth system was accumulating energy (global warming) at a prodigious rate because the more efficient uptake of thermal energy into the deeper ocean layers was suppressing the tendency of the Earth surface to warm and “close” the radiative imbalance due to enhanced greenhouse forcing…

It’s worth being aware of the extent to which we surface-dwellers are subject to the vagaries of the oceans in terms of the efficiency of their heat uptake…perhaps a developing denialist meme might be an observation of reduced ocean heat uptake which should be recorded during the current surface warming spurt.. 🙂

35. Chris,

I haven’t seen anyone remark on the fact that as the Earth’s surface undergoes a warming spurt, this will in fact associate with a period of reduced global warming…the accumulation of energy into the Earth system will slow down while this surface warming spurt continues.

Yes, this is a good point and it will be interesting to see what the OHC does in the next few years. There is a possibility that internal variability has been suppressing the feedback response and that we won’t see as much of a slowdown in overall warming as we might expect if everything was nice and linear.

36. JCH says:

To me there are either a lot of misconceptions here or I am completely confused.

Prodigious rate of heat uptake by the oceans cannot end. Typically it will be slightly less during an El Nino, but still prodigious.

37. verytallguy says:

Chris, AT,

that sounds very plausible, but do you have a reference? The 1998 temperature spike, for instance, doesn’t seem to be associated with any reduction in ohc

https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index1.html

38. Chris says:

JCH, VTG,

I was speaking generally in terms of radiative heat transfer. The Earth’s surface will continue to warm until the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere is completely attenuated. If surface warming is suppressed in a warming world as a result of “burying” of heat in the oceans then the radiative imbalance is maintained or increased and the rate of accumulation of thermal energy in the Earth system (oceans mostly) will be maintained or will increase.

So (pretty much by definition) in El Nino years in which the surface warms significantly, the radiative imbalance will be decreased somewhat and the rate of increase of thermal energy into the climate system will decrease…the reverse is the case for La Nina years. The prodigious rate of heat uptake into the oceans isn’t going to stop (JCH) but the rate of ocean heat uptake will decrease while the surface is particularly warm.

Part of the reason this is interesting is that it allows another sanity check on our fundamental understanding of the climate system and its response to forcing. VTG very sensibly links to the NOAA web site where we can look at the actual data that bears on this. To be honest I’m not sure whether the measures of OHC are reliable to assess this over the short (one to two year) time periods relevant to ENSO variability. Presumably this is all amenable to modeling so that one might predict how ocean heat uptake should respond to ENSO variations….

39. JCH,
The basic idea is that the energy balance equation is

$dN = dF - \lambda dT,$

where $dN$ is the system heat uptake rate, $dF$ is the change in external forcing, $\lambda$ is the feedback response, and $dT$ is the change in temperature.

So, if we had a rapid change in temperature, so that $dF$ doesn’t change much, then we’d expect $dN$ to decrease. However, it is possible that internal variability can actually influence the feedback response so that we could have a sudden change in temperature without necessarily a corresponding change in system heat uptake.

40. toby52 says:

GWPF website now showing 0.12C warming in this century.

41. I still think they should do something like this 🙂

42. JCH says:

I should have added, prodigious ocean heat uptake cannot end in the presence of a positive energy imbalance. The surface warms. The only way to flatten surface warming in terms of ENSO, is for a period of La Nina dominance to keep a tiny amount in the oceans instead of releasing it to the atmosphere.

I think, on net, OHC shall continue its relentless upward climb:

43. Gator says:

JCH, you do realize that is a rate of change graph, right? Not OHC.

44. Bernard J. says:

Whitehouse should be able to grok that one can pull apart the effect on the temperature trajectory of cherry picks, by specifically looking at those charry picks. Brere Rabbett above pre-empted me on this, but just to provide an updated image:

No linear regression lines, but Whitehouse should be able to reconstruct the data himself and add such in order to see that Eli’s version remains effectively unchanged, and thus to be able to infer what this means…

Or if that’s beyond his skills, he could just look at this:

45. Bernard J. says:

[Erk. Mucked that up. I’ll try again…]

Whitehouse should be able to grok that one can pull apart the effect on the temperature trajectory of cherry picks, by specifically looking at those charry picks. Brere Rabbett above pre-empted me on this, but just to provide an updated image:

No linear regression lines, but Whitehouse should be able to reconstruct the data himself and add such in order to see that Eli’s version remains effectively unchanged, and thus to be able to infer what this means…

Or if that’s beyond his skills, he could just look at this:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/nov/18/2015-shatters-the-temperature-record-as-global-warming-speeds-back-up#img-2

And “charry picks” may be all that’s left if we continue on this trajectory…

46. Bernard J. says:

Pffft.

47. JCH says:

48. BBD says:

That’s so odd. I had someone called ‘Dave’ do this a couple of weeks ago – show the rate of change figure rather than the OHC figure from T13. JCH, where did you first come across this confusion? Was it something at JC’s? I’d like to check the back-story, as it were 😉

49. BBD says:

And let’s use actual data not reanalysis:

50. JCH says:

I was not purporting it was anything other than what it is. There are two links; only one came through as an image. It’s the first graph in my second attempt. It shows that from 2001 to 2007 there was a steep increase. The other graph shows the rate of change agrees. It’s a period dominated by El Nino… three El Nino events in a row. During the period of La Nina dominance and England’s wild winds, 2008 to 2014, OHC goes up slower.

51. BBD says:

JCH

Okay, I see what you are saying. Thank you.

52. Steven Mosher says:

It’s like I dropped into a slightly more literate albeit inverse version of WUWT.

53. verytallguy says:

Steven,

c’mon, you can do better than just stir the hornets nest for the sake of it. If you’re going to bother, at least have the decency to do so with a semblance of style or intellectual purpose.

54. anoilman says:

verytallguy: I could use a good stirring. Its kinda boring, what with being right and all.
http://www.desmog.uk/2016/01/25/climate-science-denier-feels-bit-stupid-after-losing-1k-bet-world-would-be-cooling-2015

55. vtg,
I think it’s just Steven’s regular, “you can behave like WUWT sometimes” comment.

56. BBD says:

I know I’ve said this before, Steven, but if you have nothing to say, then say it.

57. verytallguy says:

Sorry, I obviously wasn’t  clear enough with my last post.  What I meant was

“Steven, You stinking billy-goat, you horned monster, you malevolent vituperator, father of lies and author of chaos… May Divine vengeance destroy you as an enemy of virtue, a parricide who tries to ruin wives and decency by mendacity, slanders, and most foul, false imputations. If you must be so scornfully arrogant, write your satires against those who debauch your wife.”

Hope that’s cleared up any misunderstanding.

58. John Hartz says:

I’m not sure why, but when I saw the title of this article, I immediately thought of Steve Mosher and others like him…

You Don’t Know as Much as You Think: False Expertise by Jessica Schmerler, Scientific American Mind, Jan 1, 2016

The article’s lede:

New research suggests that people who think they are experts tend to fall into the trap of overclaiming

59. jsam says:

On Tuesday the environment secretary, Liz Truss, told MPs that extreme floods were becoming more frequent and government scientists were assessing whether they had underestimated the impact of global warming on flooding.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/26/weather-warnings-storm-jonas-cumbria-flooded-glenridding

60. jsam,
I fully expect this to be followed by government ministers complaining that they weren’t warned.

61. Joshua says:

BBD –

==> …”but if you have nothing to say, then say it.
.

So you’re saying that Steve should continue doing what he’s been doing???

62. dikranmarsupial says:

JH, to be fair SM does have more relevant expertise behind him than many discussing climate on blogs (although Dunning-Kruger is potentially a pitfall for us all).

63. John Hartz says:

Dikran: Expertise is one thing, attitude is another.

64. BBD says:

Joshua

So you’re saying that Steve should continue doing what he’s been doing???

Yes, but using fewer words.

65. dikranmarsupial says:

JH that was my point. It would be reasonable to suggest that SM can be somewhat, shall we say “robust”, but not that he is conspicuously lacking in expertise (relative to what he suggests). Unfair criticism is likely to make the discussion more “robust” rather than productive, fair criticism is more likely to be taken on board (which SM seems more capable of than most).

66. verytallguy says:

Fair Dikran?

To an eater of roast frogs and drinker of the crowd’s urine?

Pah!

67. Okay, maybe we can stop this. Comparing this site to WUWT is pretty insulting, but I’ve certainly had worse.

68. verytallguy says:

Merely celebrating the literature of the Renaissance Italian humanists AT, but as high culture appears to be beyond the reach of an artisanal surveyor of the celestial void such as yourself, so be it, I shall meekly comply.

69. but as high culture appears to be beyond the reach of an artisanal surveyor of the celestial void such as yourself

Ahh, this may indeed be true. I’m guessing I missed some subtleties?

70. Hmm, a quick Google search tells me that I am indeed ignorant of Renaissance Italian humanist insults. Fascinating. I’ve learned something today, which I don’t every day 😉

71. dikranmarsupial says:

VTG, many thanks for providing me (via google scholar) with some interesting reading for this evening ;o)

72. anoilman says:

But Anders! They are no where near as bad as us! 🙂

73. verytallguy says:

ATTP, your ignorance is as nothing to the insult of being compared to the readers of Anthony Watts, a knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, super-serviceable finical rogue; one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd, in way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pandar, and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch.

Stirred yet, oily?

74. verytallguy says:

(I wonder which part of that exactly put me in moderation. Anyway, enough, I promise to desist)

75. vtg,
I don’t know. It seems somewhat random at times.

76. izen says:

Despite the egregious obfustication that David Whitehouse employs in his article at WUWT, it implicitly acknowledges a much more accurate and complete version of climate science than is usually discussed at that site.

This is not a high bar when other contributions and contributors are of the caliber of the LIA ‘Natural recovery’ and Viscount Monckton. But in composing a counter to the mainstream science the Whitehouse posting is a significant improvement on the accuracy of climate science that a visitor would encounter there.

Given the sheer bulk and idiocy of most of the posts the David Whitehouse post has a miniscule effect on the overall scientific quality of WUWT.
The converse effect on the reputation of David Whitehouse is extremely asymmetrical.

77. Vinny Burgoo says:

Or, in short, bombast.

78. JCH says:

The HadCRUT4, NOAA and NASA datasets all showed that 2015 was the warmest year, as did the ECMWF reanalysis.

79. anoilman says:

verytallguy: Pfft! Tourist!

“I don’t want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!”

80. John Hartz says:

ATTP: Methinks its time for you to drive a stake through the heart of this thread. 🙂

81. Mak says:

[Mod: Given that this is your first attempt at commenting here (I think) and given that I’ve never had an occasion in which someone’s tone has improved with time, I shall take the advice you gave at the end of this comment.]

82. Mark says:

Another long bitter whinge. “denier” claims and usual environmentalist religious self delusion.

Fact of the matter is, when ATTP takes his disingenuous and often false claims to WUWT or Climate Ect comments, he gets mullered every time, so resides here in his own filter bubble.

ATTP’s only real worth is being Nick Stokes’ cheer leader “Go Nick” “go Nick” lol

ATTP doesn’t seem to understand climate science but he is well versed in c(lie)mate science. Recently chowed down some humble pie after his rants about John McLean’s discovery of an issue with CRU data, and how quick did ATTP try and shed his skin and claim he was not wrong..

Hilarious, there is a reason WUWT gets far more hits than ATTP, the majority are rational and dont scream “denier” at everyone who disagrees.

83. Mark says:

[Mod: Okay, I think you’ve ranted enough for the time being. Thanks anyway.]

84. Mark,
Thanks for the thoughtful and insightful comment.

ATTP’s only real worth is being Nick Stokes’ cheer leader “Go Nick” “go Nick” lol

No quite sure where this is coming from. I happen to think that Nick Stokes has an impressive ability to remain calm while being baited by idiots, and I wish I could emulate that, but I’m not sure where I’ve ever acted as his cheer leader.

Recently chowed down some humble pie after his rants about John McLean’s discovery of an issue with CRU data, and how quick did ATTP try and shed his skin and claim he was not wrong..

IIRC, all I did was to ask – on BH – if anyone had checked with the Met Office and that it wasn’t clear to me what the problem was. Tim Osborn then pointed out that the anomalies were correct but that the files had the incorrect percentage coverage. Not quite sure in what way my involvement was a rant, but – based on your comment here – it’s not clear that you quite know the difference between a rant and not a rant.

Hilarious, there is a reason WUWT gets far more hits than ATTP, the majority are rational and dont scream “denier” at everyone who disagrees.

Well obviously they don’t scream denier at everyone who disagrees, they scream “alarmist” instead. You may note that rarely does the term “denier” get applied to people who comment here and present alternative views, so quite where you “scream denier” is coming from is beyond me.

85. Marco says:

“the majority are rational”

ATTP, you astronomers really should do something with this. The existence of WUWT and someone claiming the majority of people there are “rational” surely must be prima facie evidence that at least one alternate universe exists, and that it can communicate with ours!

86. Marco,
Indeed, it’s also a universe in which I (aTTP) have apparently commented there. In that universe I clearly am much stupider than I am in this one.

87. John Hartz says:

ATTP: Perhaps you have “crossed over” one too many times. 🙂

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.