For those that might not know this, @wottsupwiththat is the person who runs the WordPress blog WottsUpWithThat. A blog that has as goal to “address climate science claims made on Anthony Watts’s Watts Up With That (WUWT) site.” And so far Wotts has been very critical towards some of the nonsense that’s published on WUWT.
Which is probably part of the reason Wotts has garnered some attention from Watts. Attention in the form of a fishing expedition for his identity.
Continue reading Anonymous Opinion “Not Worth Bucket Of Warm Spit”
After I published the response I received from the KNMI I did a few pokes on Twitter towards Anthony Watts and Marcel Crok to see if they were willing to respond to it.
So far I haven’t received a response from Watts, but Marcel Crok was kind enough to engage me in his comment section. I’ll be going through his responses to me in this post and my take on them.
Before I do that though I have to compliment Crok for being respectful and civil towards me, despite me being quite critical towards him. It’s something that’s often severely lacking from any public exchanges that take place. Being able to engage someone while being quite critical and at the same time having a civil exchange was a breath of fresh air. It’s just sad that this is the exception.
Now lets start with his first response towards me, which I found a bit strange:
Continue reading Marcel Crok Responds To The KNMI Statement
On my “Climate Changes, But Facts Don’t: Debunking Monckton” videos this claim was popping up a lot. The reasoning is that because global surface temperatures haven’t risen for over 15 years this means that global warming has stopped and that the projections are wrong.
Unfortunately this ignores a lot of evidence that the planet is still accumulating heat. As I had to explain this constantly in my comment sections on YouTube it prompted me to push the script I was writing about this to the top of the queue:
Once every one or two months I do a little Google search to see where I, or anything I’m associated with, is mentioned on the internet. It’s a good way to find anything you haven’t noticed or wasn’t sent to you.
When initially investigating the climate change debate I found myself extremely disappointed and unconvinced by the most touted popular work on the subject, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. I felt his repeated use of emotional pleas (pathos) severely undermined his argument. Instead of sticking to the science he generally referenced it in passing between anecdotes. This blog post will be a review and analysis of the first part of the video Climate Changes, But Facts Don’t: Debunking Monckato (YouTube link) by Collin Maessen. I found it to be extremely compelling because in contrast to An Inconvenient Truth, Mr. Maessen immediately supports all his assertions with demonstrated evidence from scientific studies (and references those studies with quotations from them.) [sic]
Continue reading The Achilles’ Heel Of An Inconvenient Truth
In this section Monckton claims that CO2 acts as a fertiliser and will increase food production significantly. I’ll be looking into the basis for this claims and if this is supported by the scientific literature.
In this section Monckton talks about feedback loops and how they show that climate sensitivity is low. I show how these concepts are used and what this means for the argument Monckton is presenting.
In this section Monckton asserts that he can cite paper after paper showing that he’s correct that there’s a low climate sensitivity. And that there is no consensus on this subject.
During this part of the debate Monckton suggests that countries are dropping out of the Kyoto protocol as they don’t see the merit in taking action on a non-issue. But is this the case?
In this part of the debate Monckton cites a paper by Richard Lindzen and his colleague Yong-Sang Choi as evidence for a low climate sensitivity. What does this paper say and are these conclusions justified?
After I published 