Anthony, WattsUpWithThat Censoring of Comments?

Another irritating part of Anthony's blog is how he tries to come across like some fair minded person, yet his site constantly censors and bars folks who bring civil yet actually challenges.

Case in point being a rejected post by TC:

"The repeated attacks on Hansen's 1988 scenario blow the cover on most so called "skeptics". The fact of the matter is that it is very easy to check the gas concentrations used in Hansen's three scenarios: 
http://www.realclimate.org/data/H88_scenarios.dat

It is equally easy to check the current (2011) gas concentrations:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html



If you do so, and compare values you find that 2011 concentrations are less than Hansen's scenario B prediction in all cases, and less than scenario C in many. It is that simple to check. Therefore anybody who claims Scenario A is "what happened" (David Evans) or undershoots what happened (Varenholt) has either not bothered to check, or has checked but does not care to be truthful. It really is that simple. That such people are then given a voice here by Anthony Watts shows that he has not bothered checking the veracity of their claims, thereby showing he "skepticism" to be entirely one sided, ie, to not be skepticism at all.

Of course, I hope that Watts will now check, and having done so will learn that some so-called "skeptics" simply cannot be trusted. Hopefully, having learnt that he will state it quite clearly, and stop providing a platform for purveyors of deliberate untruths.

Of course, it seems to be an axiom among so-called "skeptics" that Gavin Schmidt always lies, so I suspect some of you will simply retort that the recorded GHG values for the various scenarios have been faked after the prediction to make this defense possible. (I have difficulty believing people are that paranoid, but the conspiracy theories of many so-called "skeptics" prove me wrong.) Regardless, if you are inclined to that view, you need only consider the description of the scenarios from Hansen 1988:

"Scenario A assumes the growth rate of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely; the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially. Scenario B has decreasing trace gas growth rates, such that the annual increase if the greenhouse climate forcing remains approximately constant at the present level."

That is clear. With Scenario A, forcings increase exponentially, while with Scenario B, forcings increase linearly.

It is, again, easy to check the increase in GHG forcings: 
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
Indeed, we can check this visually: 
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi_2011.fig4_med.png
If we do so, we see that GHG forcings post 1990 have increased at less than the linear trend rate from 1979 to 1990. That is, they have increased at less than the rate specified for scenario B. They have certainly not increased exponentially over that period.

There is a lot of detail missed in this analysis. CO2 emission levels grew very slowly in the 1990s because of the collapse of the former Soviet Union, and the unification of the Germanies, and has increased much faster post 2000 because of the rapid economic growth in China. But 2000-2011 is not 1988-2011, and taking just the figures for the period after 2000 as being representative of the whole is dishonest.

Anyway you look at it, claims that actual forcings since 1988 have followed or exceeded Hansen's scenario A are simply false, and can only be made by people who have not bothered checking, thereby demonstrating they do not care what the actual truth of the matter is; or by people who checked, and chose to deliberately deceive. No true skeptic would say otherwise."

==================================================================

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

 reply to comments

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Still haven’t figured out why, but I can’t seem to be able to comment on my own blog from my own computer.  So I'm going to have to reply to the 2nd and 3rd comments this way.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Ano,  All I ask is you keep your comments on topic and civil.
Constructive discussion intent on learning is most welcome.
And, I appreciate that though I try to teach a lot,  I'll always have much to learn myself.

~ ~ ~

Kirt, can you share the sources you base your comments on?

Your sentence: “it (CO2) just sucks up the rest in foliage, Clathrates and other ocean processes.”
Can you explain that?
For instance the Clathrates, how are atmospheric GHGs being converted into Clathrates?  Or did I misunderstand?  Can you explain?
~ ~ ~

Kirt, you write: “Hansen said that emissions increasing would cause the aforementioned issues. They haven't happened.” 
A forementioned issues?  How about offering some details?


Kirt we have an unfolding situation here.  It isn't like you're going to see all outcomes tomorrow. Besides a review of the evidence clearly shows that global patterns are changing and disruption is occurring.  This isn't a hoax:

State of the Climate - Global Analysis, June 2012
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/6

It clearly shows that there are significant alterations to historic weather patterns, and most of those changes will reek havoc on a global society dependent on fairly benign weather patterns. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Kirt, you write: “Seems that Mothernature doesn't really care how much we spew.”  
Don’t you understand the problem isn’t with mother Nature, 
sure our planet can handle anything humans can toss at it.  

The problem is it's us! Our society depends on a narrow band of benign weather patterns.
Can't get around that.
And to me it seems most AGW "skeptic" are oblivious of those truths.
That's the tragedy in all of this. 

Kirt what do you think of this Earth Observation information?

NOAA   ~  "TEN SIGNS OF A WARMING WORLD"
http://www.cpo.noaa.gov/warmingworld/