2011-10-24 07:46:32Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

Reminding the fake skeptics that in addition to supporting the accuracy of the surface temp record, the scientific evidence also conclusively shows humans are causing the warming, and the consequences will be bad (and there are cost-effective solutions).  In response to a WUWT post claiming otherwise.

Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad

2011-10-24 09:30:44
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
2.33.129.113

I don't think we should make Morabito a famous "skeptic" by quoting him, at hte moment he's almost unknown and never quoted.

The quote from his "about" page are Eschenbachs' words. So I'd leave Morabito out but add that in another wuwt  post Eschenbach called Muller a "media whore". Talk about smear.

I didn't read the rest of the post yet, maybe more comments to come.

2011-10-24 09:42:13
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

Riccardo - if Watts is giving Morabito a guest post, then he's reasonably well-known, because WUWT has such a large readership.  But I can make Eschenbach more of the focus, since you're right that the quote actually comes from him.

2011-10-24 17:20:12
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.47.249

Looks fine.

2011-10-24 17:34:15
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.38.250

I don't think that you mean to say this here:

"... taking the risk that your optimism is misplaced is..."

It sounds like you're saying that they ought to take the risk that their optimism is *not* misplaced, which would imply that they are correct.  I think you mean to say "taking the risk that your optimism is not misplaced" - this would go along with the concept of them being overly confident.

 

"It's also why even conservative economists like Muller, Mendelsohn, and Nordhaus agree that we should put a price on carbon emissions..."

I get it now because of the link, but I was slightly confused for a second as to why you were calling Muller an economist.

 

"But denying the rest of the body of climate science research is still denial."

A bit redundant, I think.

2011-10-24 17:42:01
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.38.250

Good otherwise.

2011-10-25 04:28:30
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Hi Dana,

Just had a quick look.  Nice, calls them on their attempt to shift the goal posts and on their claims that they never really doubted that the planet was warming.

"And the IPCC has quantified how much future warming we can expect in various emissions scenarios - in the ballpark of 4°C above pre-industrial levels by 2011 if we continue on our business-as-usual path"

Is that 2100?

There is quite a bit of text, maybe consider actually showing the graphic of the fingerprints of anthro warming.  The media might like this more and might be more likely to repost it.

2011-10-25 10:50:42
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.183.239.208

A minor modification suggested:

The scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that human greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause of the current global warming,

Multiple lines of scientific evidence overwhelmingly show that human greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause of the current global warming,

 

Let's keep plugging the 'multiple lines of evidence idea.

 

Dana: I like the way you have run with this.  :thumb:

2011-10-25 12:46:45
skywatcher

andycasely@hotmail...
122.107.164.176

Looks very good to me, but I'd definitely go with adding the fingerprints graphic - highlighting that not only we know it's us, but here are the many reasons why it's us and not leprechauns.

2011-10-25 12:54:34
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.185.188

I wonder about the wisdom of engaging Morabito. He's a fool and a nasty one at that.

Look at these blogposts of his.

On the 22nd of September he wonders aloud why warmists are so "incredibly rude", while on the day before he had explicitly likened SkS to the worst of the Nazis. Read this, too.

On the other hand, this post will really wind him and the rest of the WUWT crowd up, with quotes like 

Morabito, Eschenbach, and the WUWT folks in general would clearly benefit from reading SkS, because we have answered all of these questions many times.

which may drive them right off the deep end. I have no problem with the content of the post, it's just the tactics. WUWT seem to be doing such a good job of self-destruction I wonder if we're not just better off buying some popcorn. The comments following MM's post are hilarious or pathetic, I'm not sure which. These guys are twisting like pretzels.

(Privately, after reading the opening lines of Muller's WSJ piece,  I'm not so sure that Willis is entirely wrong in his characterization of Muller, altough his language is excessive, which probably reflects his frustration.)

Anyway, I'm torn on this. Part of me wants to ignore jokers like MM altogether and part of me wants to call them out for the foul idiots they truly are.

2011-10-25 15:33:37
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

Morabito is an idiot, so if we tie him to Watts and Eschenbach and WUWT, he just pulls them down into the abyss with him.

But mostly he gives us the excuse to once again debunk the "it's not us" and "it's not bad" and "CO2 limits will hurt the economy" myths.  The fact that the myths were repeated at WUWT is just icing on the cake.  In the wake of the BEST results, the deniers are trying to revive these myths, so we need to nip them in the bud.

Good comments guys, I'll revise the post to incorporate them before publishing later this week.  I need to work on the intro to my book first tomorrow night, on the advice of a literary agent who had some good tips.

2011-10-25 16:33:14
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.185.188
Ok, you convinced me. Good point about guilt by association with Willis and co. By publishing jerks like MM Watts is damaging what's left of his sorry reputation.
2011-10-25 16:59:33
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55
It really highlights the difference between SkS and WUWT. We get people who know climate science to write posts. Watts gets guys like Goddard and Morabito and Eschenbach. Eschenbach called Muller et al. "media whores" for the second time today, by the way, which I noted in the post. Sadly, the fact that WUWT has so many readers just illustrates how many deniers there are out there.
2011-10-26 04:39:36
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.185.188

This is a little off topic but in 2009 Willis got a good spanking at The Economist for his "smoking gun" article on the temperature record at Darwin. The Economist article had a great couple of paragraphs:

So, after hours of research, I can dismiss Mr Eschenbach. But what am I supposed to do the next time I wake up and someone whose name I don't know has produced another plausible-seeming account of bias in the climate-change science? Am I supposed to invest another couple of hours in it? Do I have to waste the time of the readers of this blog with yet another long post on the subject? Why? Why do these people keep bugging us like this? Does the spirit of scientific scepticism really require that I remain forever open-minded to denialist humbug until it's shown to be wrong? At what point am I allowed to simply say, look, I've seen these kind of claims before, they always turn out to be wrong, and it's not worth my time to look into it?

Well, here's my solution to this problem: this is why we have peer review. Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things. One thing they cannot do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand. So for the time being, my response to any and all further "smoking gun" claims begins with: show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here. Otherwise, you're a crank and this is not a story.

As a commenter on a follow-up article said: Well, there's smoke coming from somewhere.