sears parts

I have spent quite a lot of time at that site, and they often distort the facts or outright lie. For example on the front page now is:

“I’ve always thought that the biggest issue with greens was not CO2 and AGW, but “progress in general”. This story seems to support that notion. Maybe they’ll get James Hansen to denounce it too. – Anthony”

In reference to this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/story/af.....YbUpiek3QF

It seems a fair enough argument to make IF the groups mentioned are actually complaining about that plant. They reality is, if you read the entire article you will find this:

“”Vattenfall managers talk a lot about supposedly environmentally friendly coal power stations but they are still planning and building conventional coal-fired power stations with high levels of CO2 emissions,” BUND’s energy spokesman Thorben Becker said.”

Building ONE such “clean” plant while still planning and building the “dirty” plants is what is known as “green washing” – doing or saying something to make yourself SEEM ecologically friendly while in fact not really SUBSTANTIVELY doing anything.

So Anthony Watts is supposedly pro-development, and this article shows that greens are actually anti-development. Of course coal fired power plants are relatively ancient technologies, even with this new method of sequestering the carbon output. Do a search on that site though and tell me if YOU can find ANY mention of the technological leap made by MIT that promises to do away with centralised power generation (itself an inherently inefficient process due to line loss). I tried and found NOTHING.

Not ONE mention of a true technological breakthrough that is the closest to free energy we’ve ever come (solar/hydrogen). Why is Anthony Watts interested only in the OLD technologies if he is so pro-development? The fact is, he is not. All he is interested in is distorting the truth or outright lying to further his pro-fossil fuel agenda.

Don’t take this to mean I automatically dismiss what he says, because at least he attempts to provide evidence and an argument, but when you study it closely it more often than not turns out to be misleading at best and outright false at worst.

As another example, look at the next story on that page regarding UAH satellite data. He creates a nifty graph showing the monthly temperature anomaly for lower troposphere temperatures, and kindly points out it is -0.01 Degrees Celsius for August. This is all well and good, but a monthly average is WEATHER, not CLIMATE, as he well knows. If he was trying to be accurate he would have graphed the 12 month running mean (the mean of the last 365 days, rather than the last 31) which would have shown an anomaly of +0.047 Degrees Celsius. In fact at no time since 2000 has the twelve month running mean been negative! That shows that for the last 8 years at least, the world has been warming!

This is what I mean about distortion. This year is clearly cooler than last because of El Nino, but it is still warmer than the baseline. Also he would have mentioned the decadal trend which is +0.129 Degrees Celsius.

All of this is in the same data he cherry picked to show cooling. In fact if we play by his rules this year is actually hotter than last because TODAY is 0.23 Degrees Fahrenheit WARMER than the same time last year according to UAH:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/a.....?amsutemps

See, when you cherry pick data you can get it to show just about anything you want.

But turn about is fair play, so I have a link to offer you in turn:

http://www.realclimate.org/

That site is RUN by climate scientists (unlike your link which is run by “a former television meteorologist”) although one of them is the hated Michael Mann. Here is the list of REAL working climate scientists who post there:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10

The list includes climate scientists from NASA, Penn State, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), University of Massachusetts, Potsdam University, University of Washington, Rutgers University, and University of Chicago. I’m sorry but to me that list is a little more impressive than a “former television meteorologist”!

Now maybe Anthony Watts has some climate scientists posting in his comment section, but that is NOT the same as the blog actually being RUN by climate scientists. Still, maybe you would care to enlighten me as to who these scientists are that comment at Anthony Watt’s blog?

Anyway, my point is not to say that Watts’ qualifications are inadequate, but that he clearly spins everything he posts to push a clear agenda: “fossil fuel is good”. Even his posts regarding possible mitigation strategies ALL revolve around how to combat the effects of raised CO2, rather than ways to REDUCE CO2!

—-

@Paul T

So, you’re a creationist AND a vegetarian AND a global warming denier? Basically you’re just anti-science, right Paul? Retard!

Go sell your bullshit spiritualism to someone retarded enough to believe it. What’s next, crystals and astrology? Idiot.

—-

@TheTruthIsOutThere

You are a retard!

—-

@THINK YOU IDIOTS!

“WHEN WIL THE MADNESS END?”

When natural selection finally rids us of morons like you, I suspect.

YOU ASSWIPE! HOW DARE YOU BE SO STUPID!

WHEN WIL THE MADNESS END?

Keep your mind opened and visit this site: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

The people there are not retarded. There are real scientist’s discussions in there and others learning.

Cheers!