I can't hold back from taking the piss any longer, although Sou has done it already. WUWT has had not one but two ridiculously stupid articles about the rise in CO2 not being human-caused just recently. You don't even need to read the details to know they are stupid, because that the CO2 rise is indeed from human activities is well known. People have been writing down patient explanations for some time; see, e.g., RC from 2004. Or even Willis Eschenbach from 2010. And Moyhu has just had another go. But it will do not good; if people haven't managed to read and realise the bleedin' obvious by now, there's no hope for them.
Of the two posts, the first is most stupid, because it was based on an erroneous post by Hockeyschtick that had already been retracted when the WUWT post was made (the history of the Schtick post is tricksy, because it popped into and out of existence; see Moyhu for the story).
But the second one is also the most stupid, because its written by Tim Ball and its hard to imagine anything stupider than it. It would be possible to take it apart in detail, but also pointless, like taking apart a turd. Better to quote the indefatigable Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Sorry Dr. Ball, this is such a bunch of nonsense and misinterpretations that I don’t even know where to start... CO2 emissions inventories are not done by the IPCC... this is just nonsense... Callendar was right, Beck was wrong... Completely irrelevant... Thus sorry Dr. Ball, too many misinterpretations and non-factual remarks not based on actual information
Its vaguely odd that WE doesn't show up in the comments to tell Tim Ball, and AW, that they're talking drivel. Errm, or perhaps it isn't odd after all :-).
There. I feel better now.
[Update: there's more dorkiness from JoNova pushing Salby-is-a-hero drivel.
Probably the most interesting thing to come out of that is someone pointing out that Lennart Bengtsson (remember him?) also thinks its drivel:
Pehr You'll have to excuse me but I have great difficulty in taking this very seriously. Firstly, as has largely CO2 increase in the atmosphere have been monotonous and as a result the increase of emissions, where basically about half of the emissions accumulated in the atmosphere. Measurements of CO2 concentration since 1957 when they began at Mauna Loa until today's 3-dimensional measurement system including the Japanese Ibuki satellite, shows this clearly. No one questions the longer these data as well as the CO2 emissions reported by the IEA. Secondly , we have now had a period in over 15 years when, according to measurements, no increase occurred in mean sea temperature, although we had areas where temperatures have risen slightly but also areas where the temperature dropped. During these 15 years, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased by 30 ppm (v) corresponding to approximately 60 billion tons of coal, or 220 billion tons of CO2. , I have therefore extremely difficult to understand the reasoning that both Murray Salby and Gosta Pettersson defends. Now, if the carbon dioxide of some odd reason wanders back and forth between the ocean and atmosphere that is of course quite uninteresting as it is the actual net increase in the atmosphere, which is what is important. Thirdly , we have good reason to believe that CO2 increases in sea by the slow acidification and addition, we have good reason to believe that CO2 is also a net increase in the biosphere. Here the course of the many proposals put healthy fertilization of CO2 a role. It seems to be more or less unanimous among the experts involved in these estimates Although there are several relevant questions regarding I have a hard time understanding all of this reasoning but it could be due to my lack of ability. Greets Lennart B [source]
Refs
* Dumb America.
* Colo(u)r blind with Eli.
- Log in to post comments
Well, that barely needs refuting, but as he often does, Nick Stokes has been doing nice graphs a Moyhu on this, That CO2 added to the air is ours, and CO2 accumulation accounted for by emission and land use.
Anyone who has damaged brain cells by looking at WUWT might get some repaired at Nick's place.
Ahem.
You are, of course, warning against blog crap.
its written by Tim Ball and its hard to imagine anything stupider than it.
Tim Ball has powers we can only BEGIN to imagine!
Right, Hank, although that tart looks suspiciously chocolatey. Timmy B., OTOH...
Angry Willy is angry because "they" noticed a mistake. Angry Willy makes ad-hominen attacks because he is not longer allowed to edit wiki articles.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/William_M._Connolley -W]
Christ trolls are morons.
Even poor Monkers now confesses to 2/3rds believing in what the IPCC minimally professes
Nice continuing work at WP, William. This is my favorite from that list.
BTW, the Milankovitch page is pretty desperately out of date. AFAICT Abe-Ouchi et al. (2012) nailed the post-MPT timing problem.
[Better viewed as this, if I've got you right. I'm fairly irregular there, now, but I'll look at the M page too -W]
[Spammed -W]
I think it speaks volumes that the repeated resurrection of this old canard has driven the admirable Ferdinand to such an exasperated tone. The evidence that the increase is man made is unequivocal and simple enough for anybody to understand (CO2 levels are rsining more slowly than the rate at which we are emitting them, so the natural environment must be a net carbon sink and hence is opposing the rise). The funny thing is that WUWT also publishes articles saying that the consensus on climate change is 100% (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/11/the-climate-consensus-is-not-97-i…). Do they not see the contradiction there?
Dikran Marsupial: The funny thing is that WUWT also publishes articles saying that the consensus on climate change is 100% [URL snipped]. Do they not see the contradiction there?
That post by TVMOB is funny in itself. As always, the Denialist illogic holds that the overwhelming numbers of the consensus for the reality of AGW don't matter, because "consensus is not a good way to do science" — and then trots out drivel like this, in which unanimous agreement of 600 people on the other side is supposed to mean something.
Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia's article on the Flat Earth Society:
(References removed; emphasis added.)
Wow, three thousand five hundred people. That's even bigger than six hundred! What if we got that many to all agree that Lord Monckton is a loony?
(Answer: It wouldn't change a thing. Denialists gotta deny.)
William, I was trying to point to your pithy editorial comment about where the edit might better be placed ("you want the unscientific opinion page").
Dikran, let's not forget that the typical denizen of WUWT and such is an older male with memory issues, bad physical intuition and a strong tendency toward bloviation, so spotting their own contradictions isn't going to be their strong suit..
re: #10
Cheers!
For years I have advocated that blogging software support:
a) Either moving a comment elsewhere, linking to it, but leaving the name and date there, OR using the feature some software does, of leaving the comment in place, but requiring a click to see it.
b) And ideally, this would just be a menu select of:
accept (possibly with edit)
delete
move/hide, possibly with a "reason" code, since I don't think there are that many distinct reasons
In any case, even when done manually, this provides useful data not only on unfamiliar commenters, but calibration of moderators. In this case, of course, NikFromNYC is already familiar, but it still makes a good illustration,
[Spammed -W]
Yes, Bengtsson has said similar things before on that blog.