WUWT hypocrisy?

[socold]

Both the media and WUWT sensationalize unremarkable events to make them more exciting. The media will use a record warm day in charlotte to "scare" everyone into thinking global warming. WUWT will use a record cold day to "scare" everyone into thinking global warming is a big fraud (wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/03/charlotte-smashes-123-year-record-low-temperature/)

This recent article is titled 'Are Record Temperature's abnormal'
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/27/are-record-temperatures-abnormal/

The article is good because it explains that record temperature events are not always remarkable. It points out that due to so many temperature stations a lot of daily records are broken every day and therefore this gives the media an opportunity to sensationalize unremarkable events:

"This provides the news media lots opportunity to get hysterical about global warming every single day - even in a completely stable temperature regime."

But I think this is also true:

"This also provides the WUWT blog lots of opportunity to get hysterical about "global warming fraud" every day - even in a completely stable temperature regime"

Eg:

wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/30/chill-in-the-air-part-2-us-breaks-or-ties-115-of-cold-and-sets-63-new-snowfall-records/

WUWT accuses the media of being sensationalist. But with titles including phrases like "Chill in the air" and "Smashes 123 record cold" my argument is that WUWT is simply using the same tactics of it's enemy.

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/

This WUWT article argues that the media and the NSIDC would misuse photos of submarines surfacing at the North Pole to paint a false picture.

Submarines surfacing at the north pole (however close) is not remarkable - the photos attest to that. But WUWT implies that these events would detract from the remarkable nature of the north pole becoming ice free:

"The point illustrated here: the North Pole is not static, ice varies significantly. The Arctic is not static either. Variance is the norm."

But this isn't what people mean by an ice free North Pole. This is unremarkable:


But this would be an ice free north pole and would be remarkable:


The second is an example of what ice free north pole in 2008 predictions were about. They weren't predicting a lake or polynya (the WUWT article even mentions this) would form at the North Pole. Such a thing is probably a regular occurance.

They were predicting that the vast area of arctic sea loss that occurs by each minimum would cover the North Pole. Ie that the North Pole would lie outside the minimum sea ice extent. Noone was arguing that no area in the arctic north pole has ever had thin ice or become open water.

So essentially the WUWT does the future-crime is accuses the media of committing. Ie misusing photos of submarines surfacing at the North Pole to paint a false picture.

The most ironic statement in the article was:
"sensationalism is all the rage these days. If it melts it makes headlines."

50s melt makes a WUWT headline.

[gettingchilly]

Why stop at 2007 socold, 2008 & 2009 give much better coverage and not much melt. Lets not forget that the AGW agenda is the one that has perverted science in the last couple of decades so let's not be too surprised that as the AGW models fail people view the whole AGW movement with ridicule.

In the UK Gorden Brown has the same problem. He is such an arrogant fool that he still believes he saved the world. The bulk of the population think he is a buffoon and he will get destroyed in the next election.

The AGW movement has had it's day and now people just ignore the silly headlines spouted by the movement because after 20 years nothing has changed except perhaps it's a bit chilly these last couple of years.

Today on the BBC "We have produced so much CO2 that the oceans are more acidic than any time in the last 65000 years (might have been 650,000 but my BS filter kicked in) and all the corals are going to die" (yawn).

Must be funding time again. (yawn)

[tacoman25]

I understand your points, socold, but part of the reason WUWT does what it does is because you pretty much only hear one side from the mass media. WUWT attempts to offer another side, the skeptic perspective, and I agree that sometimes they go too far.

[dopeydog]

WUWT also doesn't advocate for nuremburg trials for "agw promoters", revoking AMS certification for weatherman and climatologists who believe in all the agw religious tenants, tax scams on the public, trying executives who promote agw for their corporate bottom line for crimes against humanity, conferences to discuss the mental problems of agw proponents, muzzling by hook or by crook anyone who believes in agw, refuses to debate the subject, accuses agw'rs of being in the back pocket of the legion of people who stands to benefit from agw reseach grant money and governement pro agw legislation, the elimination of democracy because some people believe in agw, civil disobedience against pro agw companies, criminal tresspass and vandalism against agw'rs property, suggesting half baked terraforming attempts to add co2 into the atmosphere, putting a bubble around the planet to better hold the warmth in.

We don't advocate any of that, but you people promote the agw version of all the above all of the time. And it is not just Al Gore doing that. Jim Hansen recieves scientific award after award for that crap.

[woodstove]

I think your graphic and discussion are lucid and more or less fair, socold.

At the same time, it does seem that you are pretending not to know that the mainstream media is all over just about every anecdotal warming story and missing just about every anecdotal cooling story. Case in point: the Albertan pipe digger who visits this site and who reported that in 35 years on the job the ground frost was the deepest this winter that he has seen, breaking water mains in some cases.

Try getting CNN to cover a story like that!

If Anthony Watts chooses to show that not all the weather on Earth is indicative of warming, that is his prerogative. It is also a journalistically sound thing to do -- if only in the interest of balance.

p.s. Your map has in common with Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" the fact that it represents something that has never happened (e.g. flooding of Manhattan, Florida, etc.). As we discuss science, it is good to keep in mind what has actually happened.
p.p.s. 2007 will have been the maximum (measured) Arctic sea ice melt of any of our lifetimes.

[jtom]

Where you see hypocrisy, I see satire, irony, and ridicule. He is hoisting the MSM on their on petard.

[poitsplace]

Apr 29, 2009 1:22:34 GMT jtom said:

Where you see hypocrisy, I see satire, irony, and ridicule. He is hoisting the MSM on their on petard.

I agree...and with others here that have pointed out that they just provide a little context for the horribly skewed media coverage.

We're told of catastrophic collapse of ice shelves year after year. Some years we're told of the catastrophic collapses of an ice shelf that "catastrophically collapsed" in the past, sometimes it's catastrophically collapsed several times in the past and recovered completely. I mean honestly...watt's up with that?

My father actually remembered several times when the north pole was free of ice but the media treats THIS TIME as the apocalypse.

WUWT also provides truly useful corrections to OUTRIGHT LIES in the media...like the shrinking ANTARCTIC ice. Antarctic ice has been on the rise for most of the warming period.

Providing balance where little exists is NOT hypocrisy...it's more of a public service.

[jimg]

Reasonable questions socold.

I agree with the others that WUWT provides the alternative to what is not heard in the MSM.

For years now we have been hearing that we're all going to die, unless we invest in Al Gores carbon credit trading forum. Then we will be ok. Broke, but ok.

I believe I read that you are in the UK. No?

In the USA, we now have a senate that is one seat away from being able to do whatever they want. Filibuster proof. AGW is at the top of the agenda.

I know you don't agree, but the science isn't settled.
According to the German researchers, who used a plane instead of trying to hike to the pole, that first year ice is about 4 meters thick, not the typical one to two.

This would be indicative of a colder pole, transferring heat out more rapidly. Again, not consistent with the rhetoric about the arctic that is constantly being spewed.

[icefisher]

Apr 28, 2009 19:43:58 GMT socold said:

Both the media and WUWT sensationalize unremarkable events to make them more exciting. The media will use a record warm day in charlotte to "scare" everyone into thinking global warming. WUWT will use a record cold day to "scare" everyone into thinking global warming is a big fraud (wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/03/charlotte-smashes-123-year-record-low-temperature/)

This recent article is titled 'Are Record Temperature's abnormal'
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/27/are-record-temperatures-abnormal/

The article is good because it explains that record temperature events are not always remarkable. It points out that due to so many temperature stations a lot of daily records are broken every day and therefore this gives the media an opportunity to sensationalize unremarkable events:

"This provides the news media lots opportunity to get hysterical about global warming every single day - even in a completely stable temperature regime."

But I think this is also true:

"This also provides the WUWT blog lots of opportunity to get hysterical about "global warming fraud" every day - even in a completely stable temperature regime"

Eg:

wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/30/chill-in-the-air-part-2-us-breaks-or-ties-115-of-cold-and-sets-63-new-snowfall-records/

WUWT accuses the media of being sensationalist. But with titles including phrases like "Chill in the air" and "Smashes 123 record cold" my argument is that WUWT is simply using the same tactics of it's enemy.

Only problem with your complaint here Socold is the mainstream media reports these events right along with a full commentary on global warming.

Nothing wrong with reporting record warm or record cold. Where it gets out of line is when you start concluding what comes next.

I don't see any of that in any of the links you provided. Must be your imagination if you see it.

Apr 28, 2009 19:43:58 GMT socold said:

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/

This WUWT article argues that the media and the NSIDC would misuse photos of submarines surfacing at the North Pole to paint a false picture.

Submarines surfacing at the north pole (however close) is not remarkable - the photos attest to that. But WUWT implies that these events would detract from the remarkable nature of the north pole becoming ice free:

Remarkable? Looking at historical interglacials, and probably with this interglacial considering the beaches that got pounded out in northern Greenland. . . .what is probably remarkable is how much ice we have had in Arctic in the past couple of centuries.

Apr 28, 2009 19:43:58 GMT socold said:

"The point illustrated here: the North Pole is not static, ice varies significantly. The Arctic is not static either. Variance is the norm."

But this isn't what people mean by an ice free North Pole. This is unremarkable:

I think that is precisely the point WUWT is making Socold!

Apr 28, 2009 19:43:58 GMT socold said:

But this would be an ice free north pole and would be remarkable:


The second is an example of what ice free north pole in 2008 predictions were about. They weren't predicting a lake or polynya (the WUWT article even mentions this) would form at the North Pole. Such a thing is probably a regular occurance.

They were predicting that the vast area of arctic sea loss that occurs by each minimum would cover the North Pole. Ie that the North Pole would lie outside the minimum sea ice extent. Noone was arguing that no area in the arctic north pole has ever had thin ice or become open water.

So essentially the WUWT does the future-crime is accuses the media of committing. Ie misusing photos of submarines surfacing at the North Pole to paint a false picture.

The most ironic statement in the article was:
"sensationalism is all the rage these days. If it melts it makes headlines."

50s melt makes a WUWT headline.

LOL! I might be missing something here but it sure seems to me about the only evidence provided in the past few years for an ice free arctic has been thin one year ice at the north pole.

Either its unremarkable or not! Can't be both Socold!

In fact this year the prediction for an ice free arctic is purportedly being evidenced by two new even less remarkable facts, namely more 2 year ice and more "thick" one year ice. LOL!!! . . . .and double up on the laugher on that. . . .you have been doing that!!

[twawki]

Apr 28, 2009 19:43:58 GMT socold said:

WUWT accuses the media of being sensationalist. But with titles including phrases like "Chill in the air" and "Smashes 123 record cold" my argument is that WUWT is simply using the same tactics of it's enemy.

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/

The second is an example of what ice free north pole in 2008 predictions were about. They weren't predicting a lake or polynya (the WUWT article even mentions this) would form at the North Pole. Such a thing is probably a regular occurance.

Gee Socold I hardly think there is a comparison

So youre upset about a headline "chill in the air"but not about "were past the tipping point of no return".

Youre upset about a headline "smashes 123 record cold" but not about "the earth has a fever", "6m sea level rise by 2100", etc etc etc

Youre upset that "ice free arctic" is taken literally to mean that - but thats what is implicitly implied!

I really think the hypocrisy you are showing here is quite astounding. As Ive said before to you if you cant use the same grounds for criticism of both sides youre complaints only make you look stupid.

I think its also highly pertinent to note that WUWT doesnt ask the world to spend trillions on global cooling - but then you are OK with the global warming religion asking us to destroy our economies because of an unproven hypothesis at odds with reality.

Let me remind you of a few more of your associates quotes;

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen"
Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

What changed in the United States with Hurricane Katrina was a feeling that we have entered a period of consequences.
Al Gore - Environmental - Change - America (gee Katrina had NOTHING to do with global warming).

Today we're seeing that climate change is about more than a few unseasonably mild winters or hot summers. It's about the chain of natural catastrophes and devastating weather patterns that global warming is beginning to set off around the world.. the frequency and intensity of which are breaking records thousands of years old.
Barack Obama - Environmental - Global Warming - Climate Change - Failure - World

[jimcripwell]

I find this discussion to be very sad. Science has sunk to a new low of name calling. On April 1st Jennifer Marohasy published, as a joke, that a team of climate skeptics had been invited to attend the UNFCCC conference at Copenhagen this December. The team would be headed by William Kinninmonth. Would it not be fantastic if this report had been true, and we could have a proper scientific conference dedicated to discussing the science of AGW with no politics, no name calling; just science.

[rickj]

A lot of WAWT is about building traffic . He makes no bones about it, often publishing traffic records and so forth.
Look at every time a solar thread, or a global warming thread is published, and the comments after soon clock up and up and up.
It is a bit hypocritical to say 'we want an open discussion about this subject and we are fed up of being accused of not listening or being n denial' and then pepper the headlines with 'The world will end' type headlines. Some of the arguments are dubious and spurious, and the vast majority of scientific opinion agrees (or seems to agree) about AGW ( but they could be wrong, and the debate will continue).

In his 'how not to take temperature' series, he looks at places where the temperature records could be questioned. This is the weakness of any data set, one could always question the reliability of the data set.However, 'cherry picking' a few dodgy stephanson screens dotted about , whilst perhaps embarrasing a few weather bods and changing bad practice, fails to prove that agw is or indeed is not happening. At the moment the site is discussing the importance of climate and states that 'at present climate change is responsible for less than 0.3% of the global death toll. At least 12 other factors related to food, nutrition and the environment contribute more.' however, one could argue that those factors of food, nutrition and environment could all be caused by AGW, directly or indirectly. I think whilst it's a good thing to question science and dogma, one should also question the questioner.

From 'Knowledge or Certainty" an episode of 'the ascent of man' by Dr. J. Bronowski

"The Principle of Uncertainty is a bad name. In science--or outside of it--we are not uncertain; our knowledge is merely confined, within a certain tolerance. We should call it the Principle of Tolerance. And I propose that name in two senses: First, in the engineering sense--science has progressed, step by step, the most successful enterprise in the ascent of man, because it has understood that the exchange of information between man and nature, and man and man, can only take place with a certain tolerance.

But second, I also use the word, passionately, about the real world. All knowledge--all information between human beings--can only be exchanged within a play of tolerance. And that is true whether the exchange is in science, or in literature, or in religion, or in politics, or in *any* form of thought that aspires to dogma. It's a major tragedy of my lifetime and yours that scientists were refining, to the most exquisite precision, the Principle of Tolerance--and turning their backs on the fact that all around them, tolerance was crashing to the ground beyond repair.

The Principle of Uncertainty or, in my phrase, the Principle of Tolerance, fixed once for all the realization that all knowledge is limited. It is an irony of history that at the very time when this was being worked out there should rise, under Hitler in Germany and other tyrants elsewhere, a counter-conception: a principle of monstrous certainty. When the future looks back on the 1930s it will think of them as a crucial confrontation of culture as I have been expounding it, the ascent of man, against the throwback to the despots' belief that they have absolute certainty.

It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false: tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. *This* is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality--this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.

Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge or error, and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we *can* know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken."

We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order and the human act. We have to *touch people*."


from Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos'
'WE CANNOT HOPE to match the total complexity of nature any more precisely than a language matches the complexity of social life. The answer to the polite enquiry "How are you?" is not a medical bulletin. And the answer to the scientific enquiry "How are atoms of carbon made?" is not a full analysis of the mind of the Almighty. There is a tolerant give and take in the reply that we make to questions about our health; and there is the same give and take, an essential intolerance, in the sentences that we can frame to picture the improbable generation of the carbon atom. A single experiment can be described in a bulletin; but the grand processes of nature cannot be sketched without the ambiguity which dogs all language. Science would come to a standstill if every ambiguity were resolved, for there would be nothing left to discover. It is this which makes it more vivid and more enlightening to call science a language for the machinery of nature and not an engineering drawing.'




* Every one of us is precious in the cosmic perspective. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.

* History is full of people who out of fear, or ignorance, or lust for power have destroyed knowledge of immeasurable value which truly belongs to us all. We must not let it happen again.

Science is never 'the final discovery' as if we discover everything, there will be nothing left to discover. The debate over global warming shows the real dogma of people saying it's real or it's not; the fact is, both are right , the globe cools and warms, as ice ages and warm periods show from ice cores.

It isn't a question anymore of 'what is correct', just a question of 'what is probable'