Climate Denial Crock of the Week

It's been a while since I posted a climate crock video. This one is about the way the denialists deliberately misquoted the so called Climategate emails and misrepresented the meaning of the words to suggest corrupt practices by the scientists involved. The denialists lied, misrepresented and distorted. Repeatedly. The video goes on to investigate Dr Richard Muller, who was the subject of the following quote taken from my reply on behalf of J-CAN to Gerard Baudains’ last JEP letter, which was a piece of ludicrous fantasy, mixed up thinking and deceptive assertions. I simply don’t understand how someone can be so wrong, so confidently.

(click for link to post in which the letters – Baudains’ and mine - were quoted)

“Perhaps the timing of his letter (Friday 1^st April) is explicable because of the high hopes of the “sceptics” for the preliminary findings, announced the previous day, of a large new study (B.E.S.T) from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on the integrity of global temperature measurements which was led by a scientist who has been critical of aspects of the mainstream position in the past.”

Dr Muller, up until very recently, was a "darling of the denialists" because he was preparing a report into the temperature records that such luminaries of the denialosphere as Anthony Watts, who runs the execrable Wattsupwiththat anti-science site, were expecting to confirm their ridiculous and paranoid anti-science B.S. Muller's report in fact confirmed that the temperature records used by global warming scientists were valid and that Anthony Watts "big thing" that he based his whole website on - which is that the temperature records must be unreliable because some of the readings were taken near heat sources such as hot tarmac and air conditioner outlets - was wrong. Watts' belief, that poorly sited readings were significant evidence against the demonstrated warming that mainstream science accepts, was completely wrong. Muller is also caught on camera (more than once), when he was playing to receptive audiences, repeating the same very inaccurate propagandised distortion and lies, as to what was actually in the Climategate emails, as was promulgated by the denialosphere. Dr Muller (PhD) is far from being stupid so what should we think of his integrity for spreading deceit?

Forest Gump said “stupid is as stupid does”.  Not all denialists are thick or evil but it’s very hard to understand how those who are apparently intelligent people can be so confused about reality. Perhaps there is something in the idea that some people can be negatively intelligent whereby they use their intellectual abilities to fool themselves and only look at information that confirms their prejudices.

JERSEY’S CLIMATEGATE EMAILS!

Readers may be interested in an email exchange that occurred between me and a couple of our local politicians here in Jersey in the run up to the Cancun conference.  I have decided to leak a few…

A local “climate change friendly” politician, along with all other elected States members, had been sent  a piece of anti-global warning science propaganda about the so-called Climategate emails originally sourced from a far right wing American website (The American Thinker) and I had it passed along to me for comment. Click for link to original propaganda piece  Here’s a bit of the “debate” that ensued.

_________________________________________________________________________

Dear (name removed),

Here's a list of links to credible responses as to whether the  "Climategate" emails dent the case for AGW (short answer - not in a million years).
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/the-emerging-scientific-consensus-on-the-swifthack-emails-get-real-denialists/

Nick Palmer

On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it

Blogspot - Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer
http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Nick, my complaint is that the politicians are wanting to sacrifice the world economy on the basis of fraudulent science.  Adaptation not mitigation.  And please make a clear distinction between CO2, a useful gas, and pollution.

Regards

name removed

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Hi (name removed),
             Oh, don't be so silly. The science isn't fraudulent. You quote from Pielke who you describe as "another genuine scientist". I agree. There are very few credible "contrarian" scientists left who dispute the basic IPCC position. Pielke is one of them. Similar credible darlings-of-the-deniers are  Lindzen, Christy, Spencer and Pat Micheals. For the purposes of this argument, I will include S. Fred Singer in this list too - although he is no longer a credible voice.
Here is what Pielke said, in his own words, in the extract you sent in, in which you rather shoot your own position in the foot:

"The role of added carbon dioxide as a major contributor in climate change has been firmly established. However, as you know I have questioned its relative role and our ability to accurately predict its longer-term effects.  But that it has an effect is clear...

Policies focused on controlling the emissions of greenhouse gases are justified for many reasons beyond the climatic effect of CO2, so I want to be clear that the science questions are not necessarily directly translatable into policy implications.  But one implication of my own work and that of others is clear — however successful we are in reducing emissions, a significant problem of human-caused climate change will remain as the other equally or even more important major contributors to climate change are not addressed by emissions reductions.

So I am urging that we take this broader perspective.  It is not an argument against reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, but it is recognition that the human role in the climate system is much more than just the added CO2. I have no problem with well thought out policies focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  I do have a problem with equating such policies with a comprehensive approach to climate change."

All the other darlings-of-the-deniers scientists hold similar views. Several of them are on film confirming this in this Climate Crock video

link to Smacking the Hack Attack

but it's also easy to find longer statements confirming their views online. As an obvious consequence, the vast majority of the thick, evil or politically blinded and deafened denialosphere's rhetoric and arguments and claims can be seen to be the complete garbage and lies and breath-taking stupidity that anyone who understands the basic physics of the radiative/absorptive transfer characteristics of gases knew they were all along.

Where the "Ds of the Ds" scientists differ from the overwhelming majority of credible climate scientists is that they believe the climate sensitivity (the figure by which global temperature is expected to rise for each doubling of CO2) is less than the IPCC estimate of about 3 degrees. If so, then the horror stories won't come to pass. If it is 3 degrees, then the predicted shock-horror stories are likely to come to pass. If it is greater than 3 degrees, then we face climate Armageddon and the almost certain extinction of large numbers of species with large areas of the globe becoming uninhabitable not to mention the elimination of most marine life, in a mass extinction event.

The thing about the figure for climate sensitivity is it is not known exactly. It is estimated from how past climate changes played out plus from the basic physics of greenhouse gases. How all the feedbacks work is also subject to a fair amount of uncertainty. We do know that the climate has changed catastrophically in the past under less "forcing" than we are currently applying.
Without the use of a time machine to go back and run different experiments on the planet's atmosphere it is not possible to definitively establish a figure until we have run the experiment through to the conclusion/bitter end, checking observations as we go. If we take no serious action then, if sensitivity is a lot less than 3 deg, happy days. If it is 3 deg, then we're in for increasing trouble that won't stop for thousands of years. If it is more than 3 deg, then our world as we have known it ends, along with civilisation and the death of most the population. It might end with a bang or a whimper but wouldn't it be fun if it ends with someone telling the (local politician’s name removed)s "I told you so"?

The point is (name removed), it comes down to whether you believe we will be lucky or not. The majority of scientists say we won't be - all the computer models (20+) say we won't be - none even hint that the opposite is probable. You have a perfect right to risk your own future neck and I will just about fight to the death to defend that right, however, you haven't got the right to risk everybody else's future that you may drag down to climate hell with you, if your "optimistic" view prevails. As complete certainty of the eventual outcome is not possible to know before it is far too late to reverse the accelerating bad stuff, deciding what to do is a matter of calculated risk assessment.

Do you feel certain enough of your views that you will risk billions of lives? Do you feel lucky, punk?

Oh, BTW. I think the person interviewing the "Ds of the Ds" scientists in the video may be Martin Durkin, the (edited) who put together the appallingly mendacious "Great Global Warming Swindle". As you can see they set him straight. I suppose he is even worse than Anthony Watts.

Nick Palmer

On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it

Blogspot - Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer
http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com

p.s  Adaptation is not possible to some of what is likely if nothing adequate is done. What hubris to imagine adaptation is a viable strategy!
CO2 in excess can be called a pollutant when its deleterious effects begin to overwhelm its positive effects. Obviously vital in the correct proportions, excess CO2, like excess water or cheeseburgers, can kill. I am surprised to see you stoop to that cheap Competitive Enterprise Institute piece of propaganda - watch their achingly funny but sinister video on Youtube  - Global Warming - "Energy" with the fantastically stupid end quote - "they call it pollution - we call it life". You couldn't make it up!

Oh finally, exactly what sort of economy do you think the world could support if the few left have been forced back to the mediaeval times? At least that would be a genuine mediaeval warm period...

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Nick, I am not going to indulge in a point scoring match – I am merely concerned with what is the best answer based on solid evidence.  If there had been a proper debate on the science instead of the political approach taken, then there could have been a much more constructive debate.  Instead we have ignoramuses like Al Gore prancing round making totally ignorant statements and making a great deal on money to boot.

You know perfectly well that the science is never settled – there are always improvements, better data and evidence and so forth.  The important thing is to look at new data objectively and not politically.

Regards

(name removed)

_________________________________________________________________________

 

The email “debate” fizzled out after that. It shows the sheer incorrigibility and imperviousness to argument of those who call themselves sceptics or contrarians. Whatever  evidence or logic one brings to bear is just shrugged off with a political shimmy. Some people really do seem to be convinced that what they believe, or want to believe outranks reality. Should we trust such people with positions of power no matter how much we ourselves may want to believe the things they are saying?

 

Information just wants to be free - if it's treated right by the recipients

The denialosphere is wallowing in an ecstacy of misinforming at the moment. Ever since the hacked/stolen/leaked emails of so-called Climategate were "liberated" they have been endlessly and deliberately misinterpreted for propaganda purposes, whilst the unfortunate scientists involved have been ruthlessly traduced. A common insinuation that the propagandists make is that the scientists were refusing to share data because they had something to hide. Here's a link to a page on RealClimate which has links to more data, methodology, computer code etc than you could shake a stick at - freely available. Hopefully, the demanding screams from the denialosphere will STFU now moderate.
realclimate.org - data-sources - raw climate data

Most of the data that the denialosphere was harassing them for was already available in the public domain and what little wasn't was subject to confidentiality agreements that demanded permission be sought before it was released. The hundreds of FOIA requests that the U. of E. Anglia climate unit received were not entirely innocent requests for the data, simply to enable replication in a spirit of genuine scientific endeavour. They were crafted nuisance requests - like a "denial of service" hacker attack.

As mentioned before, one of McIntyre's little helpers involved in the massive "FOIA attack" was a senior local politician here in good ol' Jersey. The requests were to facilitate a no doubt inevitably biased attempt by such as Steve McIntyre and his merry minions to look for an angle to destroy the science. McIntyre has a bit of a record of attempting this sort of thing. He is a legitimate and talented statistician. He has made mistakes, as one would expect any analyst to do, but more significantly he tends to over-hype his assessment and presentation (and so, massively more so, do his followers) of the importance, or even relevance, of what he "discovers".

Meanwhile globally, we've had the warmest January on record and, so far, it looks like February is heading the same way...

Rational scientist vs shouting moron Morano

This Youtube video clip of Professor Andrew Watson versus arch US motor-mouth denier Marc Morano, on a December 4, 2009 live broadcast of BBC’s Newsnight program, is worth watching for the last few seconds when the rational academic gets irritated. Do not for one second think that what Morano says is of any value whatsoever, although it must be said that the explanations offered by the academic aren't that great at clearing things up for the general audience. People familiar with the material, of course, can see the denier getting demolished. No-one ever said that great scientists were always great communicators...

Gravity is a Hoax!!!

Here’s a link to an irresistible cartoon from Mark Fiore. It shows that it isn’t just the Climategate emails that show scientists in a human light. Using the same sort of logic as a lot of the denier maroons who are trumpeting the Climategate emails as some sort of proof of conspiracy, cover up and fraud, Fiore “proves” that gravity, matter, Earth and our solar system are hoaxes too.

Edit - originally I couldn't embed this Flash animation – it's really worth going to the website as a bonus. Look at the rest of Mark’s cartoons too.

http://www.markfiore.com/political/watch-climate-gate-science-animation

Climate Crock of the week vs Climategate

Somewhat more restrained in tone, Peter Sinclair’s latest Climate Crock video socks it to sniggering denialist “Climategate” idiots by comparing them to Beavis and Butthead. Now, I consider this very unfair to B&B because they were only ever going to affect a few people around them with their moronic, uber-selfish outlook, but climate denialists, if any more people give then houseroom, could do for the whole planet and all the people – no contest really is it? Denialists are WAAAY worse than Beavis and Butthead!

 

Climategate almost meets Crock of the week

Here's a masterfully sarcastic takedown by Potholer54 of the idiotically deceitful mania of the PR blitz currently being mounted by denialists, over the Climategate hacked emails. It clearly shows that these obstructive characters will say anything, or distort anything, to bolster their irrational blinkered views.

They are not "sceptics" as they like to portray themselves - sceptics look at all sides of the evidence and draw a balanced conclusion. They are deniers, plain and simple - they deny science - they deny evidence - they embrace and regurgitate fallacious logic and will only accept anything if it can be twisted to support the conclusion that they want to come to! Anything else gets ignored. Mad, bad and dangerous to know, if these astonishingly irresponsible types get their way, they will eventually be guilty of the deaths of countless millions. They hate being called deniers because they think they are being compared with Holocaust deniers - they are not - they are being compared with the type of person one may see on the Jeremy Kyle show who is in denial about their drinking or their partner's infidelity etc - a psychological state of avoiding confronting reality. However, come to think of it, climate science denial could end up killing more people than Adolf ever did...

Climategate

A storm in a tea cup being ruthlessly exploited by the denialists - or obstructionists if that makes them feel happier, because they really can't seem to see that they're like the man who "hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" (from"The Boxer" written by Paul Simon).

Here’s a link to the Climate progess blog which features an audio link of a press call yesterday featuring three major climate scientists taking questions from such as Newsweek, Revkin of the New YorkTimes etc about the “Climategate” emails. It’s about 50 minutes long.

Exclusive audio of press call today with Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, and Michael Oppenheimer on “Climate Science: Setting the Record Straight”

December 4, 2009