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.

Evil works behind the scenes

In the previous post, which was about a classic piece of denialist propaganda, sent to the JEP by Gerard Baudains, Gerard’s letter insinuated that J-CAN (Jersey Climate Action Network) are dupes for

GB: “push(ing) a theory scientifically proven to be untrue” … and “surely they must fall into the category I call 'useful idiots'—ie, used by others to promote an agenda without realising they are being used.”

This was a bit Alice through the looking glass as the actual dupes being misled by powerful, deceptive forces are Mr Baudains and the rest of the legions of climate science denialists. Unfortunately they are über-confident that the whole thing is just a gigantic hoax invented so that scientists can get more research money, or it’s a Trojan horse to bring in a world government or, at the very least,  a means of scaring people so that taxes can be raised.

The certainty of denialist dupes is often unshakeable – their arguments can be, and frequently have been, shot to pieces until there is virtually nothing left and yet they carry on regardless as if nothing had happened. Seemingly unscathed in their own minds, like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Tis but a scratch

 

Frequently they will use the same destroyed arguments again at a later date proving one of several things: 1) they are incorrigible 2)  they do not understand that when their argument was destroyed, it STAYS destroyed or 3) (and this does not apply to the sincere but gullible majority) they know they are spreading untrue propaganda and don’t care because all they want to achieve is the swaying of voters’ minds to promote their own special self interests, whether those are financial, political or ideological.

The following couple of videos show the more sinister aspect of the corporate propaganda being created which masquerades as being the natural views of “grassroots” citizens groups. The videos contain extracts from, and commentary on, a documentary called Astroturf wars – how corporate America is faking a grassroots revolution. The first one shows someone from Americans for Prosperity (click link for their website). Click here for the Wiki article on AFP. The “teacher” is basically showing Tea Party activists how to spread propaganda. AFP was founded/funded by the infamous Koch brothers.

Training Tea Party Activists In Guerilla Internet Tactics - BUSTED!

In the past, when I have touched on these subjects, I have attracted denialist trolls - some articulate and literate, others much less so – who have demanded that I back myself up with documentary proof of well established facts. This is one of the main tactics of denialists, and modern propagandists generally – to spread doubt and uncertainty in the minds of those reading the exchanges. It all wastes a colossal amount of time because it is rather like being told to produce proof if one had made a claim such as “don’t run around on the crumbly cliff edge or you might fall over and die” – a statement which is so blindingly obvious that video proof, or accident statistics, are not necessary to shine a light on the basic truth.

Try mentioning that the Koch brothers fund denialist/sceptic organisations and fundamentalist wing nut think tanks and you will get some troll turn up demanding proof. Here is some proof. Koch himself confirming, in his own words, what he has been accused of doing, and his company has denied he ever did. To be fair, they worded their denial in very slippery deceptive language so that they conveyed a certain meaning to the reader (to fool them) while actually stating something else.

Tea Party Astroturf Funders Caught On Tape

 

 

Response to Gerard Baudains’ Letter in the JEP 1/04/11

Ex-politician Gerard Baudains wrote a letter to the Jersey Evening Post  which was published on 1st April - it was not a joke but it was so far from the truth that it could quite easily have been one! It was basically an attempted hatchet job on Jersey Climate Action Network (J.C.A.N.) and global warming/climate change science generally. In a response I wrote to the JEP, I promised a detailed answer to his most misleading arguments because in order to show the falsity of his conclusions adequately, I needed more space than the paper would allow in a letter.
________________________________________________________
Firstly, here is the text of his letter
Those who urge action on climate change should get their facts right
1st April 2011


From Gerard Baudains.

I NOTICE (JEP, 24 March) a letter from a group calling themselves Jersey Climate Action Network.
While it is right that people are allowed to hold and express their own views (and the opportunity to express them), I do believe that when it comes to pressurising government to take a particular course of action (as this group does), those people have a duty to ensure that their message is both accurate and genuine.
Sadly the message proffered by this group is anything but accurate.
They appear, as far as I understand, to be asking the States to take action on climate change/global warming (one is never sure which, as groups such as these appear to think the two are interchangeable). If that is so, I am left wondering how our States – who can’t even sort out a workable machinery of government - can possibly reduce the effect of the sun on the earth.
Because that is what this group are effectively asking them to do.
I’m aware they will say that it is man’s actions - chiefly the burning of fossil fuels - that is the culprit, but that is not true and therefore falls foul of the accuracy requirement above.
There is no scientific evidence linking global warming to anthropogenic action.
In fact, quite the contrary - it has been scientifically proven that rises in carbon dioxide follow global warming by thousands of years. Rises in carbon dioxide cannot therefore be the cause.
Also, mans' contribution is two per cent or less - so what about the other 98 per cent? Are this group saying mans' two per cent causes warming while the other 98 per cent is inactive?
These are just a couple of many facts that disprove the theory.
Whichever way you look at it, the theory of anthropogenic global warming has long been proven to be a hoax. That the inter-governmental panel on climate change pushed the idea (although it has since retreated considerably) should come as no surprise - the title says it all. That some 'scientists' supported them is no surprise either - many relied on government grants and consequently told governments what they wanted to hear.
Conversely, there are thousands of genuine scientists who have signed their opposition to the theory.
So why does this modern-day equivalent of the Flat Earth Society continue to push a theory scientifically proven to be untrue? This is what worries me the most. If the people involved are ignorant of the fact that science has at last caught up with the mischief of the global warming theory, surely they must fall into the category I call 'useful idiots' - ie, used by others to promote an agenda without realising they are being used.
If, however, they are fully aware of the sinister agenda behind the whole global warming/climate change nonsense, they should come clean and tell us what their aims really are.
Climate change and global warming have occurred on earth for millions of years. What we are experiencing now is quite normal in that cycle, and it is caused by the sun.
That does not mean we should continue to squander the earth's resources. The rate we are using fossil fuel is almost beyond imagination, and we must find alternatives. Unfortunately, by amalgamating this message into a long-disproved theory, these groups only succeed in undermining an important argument.

Gerard Baudains
_____________________________________________________________

Here is the response I wrote to the JEP
Dear Sir,
Your correspondent Mr Gerard Baudains makes many wild assertions in his letter (JEP 1^st April) which was headlined “Those who urge action on climate change should get their facts right”. He implies he has superior knowledge and that Jersey Climate Action Network’s “message is anything but accurate”. J.C.A.N. totally refutes this. We stand by what we say because we work with, and disseminate, up to date, accurate and widely accepted scientific wisdom.
He states "there is no scientific evidence linking global warming to anthropogenic action” yet every major scientific organisation in the world actually accepts that humans are altering the climate. Even those few legitimate “sceptical” scientists, such as Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, and Singer, who are regularly quoted by those who would deny the science, accept it - they only differ from the consensus inasmuch as they believe the warming will be a lot less than the mainstream position. And yet Mr Baudains claims to know better. He insinuates scientific corruption –“many scientists relied on government grants and consequently told governments what they wanted to hear” - and claims that “science has at last caught up with the mischief of the global warming theory” and then states that the IPCC who “pushed the idea” have “since retreated considerably”. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the science is getting ever stronger and, worryingly, since the last IPCC reports, the predicted dangers (as reported from the scientific front lines) are now worse than before. Mr Baudains should realise it is vital to check the credibility of one’s sources,
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. They were anticipating it confirming their belief of systematic bias and unreliability in the temperature records. In fact, it did exactly the opposite and confirmed the accuracy of mainstream science. Perhaps Mr Baudains was expecting to ride the coat tails of a “smoking gun” hole having being blown in the science.
Mr Baudains presents several highly selected "facts" – rises in CO2 follow warming in the historical record - man's CO2 contribution is a fraction of natural emissions - thousands of genuine scientists have signed their opposition to the theory. He asserts that these "disprove the theory". Like a magician creating a convincing illusion by only allowing the audience to see what he wants them to, these cherry-picked isolated ideas will lead the unwary to jump to false conclusions. An adequate refutation of these points in this letter would be too long for publication so I invite people to look at our website www.j-can.org.je where they will find a full reply to these misleading ideas. Simply, his conclusions are diametrically opposed to the truth.
There are at least 150 disinformation arguments such as those he used. No doubt he is sincere in his beliefs but they have all been fully debunked many times. An easy source for people to check the truth about all these misleading ideas is to look at www.skepticalscience.com which covers all of the major errors and misdirections used by those who attempt to deny the science. There are basic, intermediate and advanced levels that debunk each falsity.
Readers need to be aware that there are very powerful political and economic forces abroad that seek to deny the science of anthropogenic climate change, the basic physics of which has been established for around 150 years. Like King Canute on the beach, these propagandists seek to persuade us, if we just believe in their politically driven fictions enough, that the seas will not rise and the globe will not warm up if we just believe strongly enough. Who should people trust? Those who promote politically biased pseudo-science or the overwhelming majority of global scientific organisations?
Sincerely,
Nick Palmer
Media spokesman for Jersey Climate Action Network
__________________________________________________________
Below are our responses to the false arguments, used in Mr Baudains’ letter, which we put on the JCAN website on Tuesday 5th April.
__________________________________________________________
The arguments used in Mr Baudains’ letter sound very plausible to a non specialist and that is why they are repeatedly used by those who wish to spread doubt and confusion about the science and the necessary actions we need to take to protect ourselves.
Here are the main fallacious arguments used by Mr Baudains followed by our responses:
1) Rises in carbon dioxide follow global warming by thousands of years so rises in carbon dioxide cannot therefore be the cause
This is highly illogical. The pre-historic records of CO2 and temperatures show they are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, changes in CO2 mostly follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years. This does not mean that Mr Baudains’ conclusion is correct. If levels of CO2 rise, such as we are making them do now (we are thereby creating a force acting on the climate), then the planet will warm.
In prehistory, when the planet was made to warm for another reason, such as the changes in Earth’s orbit that are associated with ice ages (the Milankovitch cycles), the oceans warmed up and CO2 was emitted from them (as a feedback) over the next 600-1000 years - which is the delay seen in the paleo-climatological record . It is this delay that Mr Baudains purports to be evidence that CO2 cannot cause warming. What he appears not to know is that once the CO2 is emitted from the oceans, it then goes on to accelerate the warming from the orbital changes. If increased CO2 did not cause global warming, the planet would never escape from the ice ages. Apart from in the very distant past when massive volcanic activity over 10's of thousands of years increased CO2 levels, there would be no record of CO2 initiating warming, only records of the increased CO2 emitted from the oceans after natural events initiated warming. This particular "argument" of Mr Baudains is one of the all time classic pieces of deceit used to fool the public by the global warming science denialists.
2) Man’s contribution is two per cent or less - are J-CAN saying man’s two per cent causes warming while the other 98 per cent is inactive?
No. This is a strawman argument. All the CO2 is an active greenhouse gas but our emissions are increasing the total amount of CO2 faster than the natural processes can absorb them, so the greenhouse effect is increasing. Whilst true that mankind's emissions of fossil carbon derived CO2 (think of them like a deposit account) are dwarfed by natural emissions (think of them like a current account), the vital information that the denialist propaganda "accidentally" does not mention is that natural CO2 sinks (processes which absorb CO2) are slightly larger than the natural emissions.
Analogously, if you had a bath tub without a plug and the tap was putting in 20 litres a minute (natural emissions) and the plug hole was draining 20.1 litres a minute (natural sinks), the bath would never fill up. If you stuck a hose in with only 0.15 litres a minute flow (mankind's fossil fuel emissions) the bath would fill up. Although the hose flow is a small fraction of the tap's flow it is additional input to a virtually balanced system, so it accumulates. In the same way, CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere because of our actions. We know that the extra CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere is down to us because of the measured ratio of C12 to C13 which shows that our fossil fuel derived CO2 is building up.
3) The IPCC pushed the theory of anthropogenic global warming - it has since retreated considerably
This is simply wrong. The IPCC has not “retreated” at all. No scientific body of national or international standing is currently disputing that mankind is affecting, and will continue to affect, the climate because of our fossil fuel emissions; the last was (surprise!) the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which, however, in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Here is a link to the Wikipedia article  which shows how badly Mr Baudains is in error.
4) Climate change and global warming have occurred on Earth for millions of years. What we are experiencing now is quite normal and is caused by the Sun
More illogic. A common sceptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before 4x4s and coal-fired power plants, so how therefore can humans be causing global warming now? First you have to know that climate doesn’t just change at random. Climate changes when it’s forced to change. When our planet suffers an energy imbalance and gains or loses heat, global temperature changes.
There are a number of different forces which can influence the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. These effects are referred to as external “forcings” because by changing the planet's energy balance, they force climate to change.
It is obvious that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, arguing that it shows we can’t be causing the current warming is like arguing that because people can get struck by lightning that there can’t be any danger from working on your house wiring without turning the power off! Unfortunately the “forcing” that we are applying to the climate with our emissions is stronger than past natural forcings – analogously, the voltage of the house wiring in our example would be many times that of the lightning!
Mr Baudains claims that global warming (that no credible source disputes is happening) is all down to the Sun. Until about 1960, measurements by scientists showed that the brightness and warmth of the sun, as seen from the Earth, was increasing. Over the same period temperature measurements of the air and sea showed that the Earth was gradually warming. However, between the 1960s and the present day the same solar measurements have shown that the energy from the sun is now decreasing. At the same time temperature measurements of the air and sea have shown that the Earth has continued to become warmer and warmer. This proves that it cannot be the sun; something else must be causing the Earth's temperature to rise. So, while there is no credible science indicating that the sun is causing the observed increase in global temperature, it's the known physical properties of greenhouse gases that provide us with the only real and measurable explanation of global warming.

Snippets from the Interwebs 5

Everything you need to know about the Real Bread campaign

http://www.sustainweb.org/realbread/

_______________________________________________

Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops may be encouraging the proliferation of a new pathogen – a viral sized microfungus. If so, then they should be outlawed. Click for a letter from the (emeritus) professor who discovered the pathogen to the US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack warning about the new problem.

______________________________________________

An article from “The Green Economy Post” - Wind Solar Water Alone Could Power the World by 2030 New Study Claims

Here’s a link to the paper that the article was based on

And here’s another similar claim

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

and a brand new article on Skepticalscience.com (which is mostly the best source on the Internet for skewering denialist disinformation) – A plan for 100% renewable energy by 2050

_______________________________________________

I remember the cost of the US space programme being compared to how much the US consumer spent on cosmetics or toothpaste or some such a long time ago. This was because there were people then claiming that spending on NASA was starving funds from those who would do good works for the poor and hungry etc.

Here is an interesting graphic (source : Wellhome) which truly puts into perspective how much US government spending is being invested in renewable energy compared with how much the US consumer spends on such vital expenditure as that on the weight loss, plastic surgery and tanning industries.

_______________________________________________

Oil from algae is a technology that has been mentioned for years. A lot of work was done in the Jimmy Carter years but was almost abandoned when the Reagan/Bush years happened. There are plenty of “algoil” start ups around nowadays and one of the most promising is Origin oil who are near commercialisation.

Link to Businesswire article about Origin Oil

_______________________________________________

Pepsi recently announced (March 15 - click for link to story) it has developed the world's first PET plastic bottle made entirely from plant-based, fully renewable resources, enabling the company to manufacture a beverage container with a significantly reduced carbon footprint. This  steals a march on Coca Cola’s Plantbottle which so has 30% plant based material in it.

_______________________________________________

Agave, the cactus that Tequila and Mezcal is made from, looks like it could have real potential as a biofuel. Link to paper. It is being investigated for use in Australia where its low rainfall requirement would be ideal.Reported dry biomass yields of various Agave species, when annualized, range from <1 to 34 Mg ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹ without irrigation, depending on species and location. A. salmiana and A. mapisaga can have high nocturnal net CO₂ uptake rates and high productivities averaging 40 tonnes dry weight ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹.

_______________________________________________

Build your own biogas system using 3 IDB tote tanks. These are widely used and available second hand Click for detailed instructions

 

_______________________________________________

Join the Cloud Appreciation Society! Have another look at my two recent posts featuring clouds - “Both sides now” and “Flytec 2010” - then head over to cloudappreciationsociety.org and celebrate finding that there are others who are a little deeper than those who only indulge in blue sky thinking.

 

Don’t be the only one…

Earth Hour 2011: 8.30pm, Saturday 26 March. Turn your lights off for just one hour. In addition to showing “solidarity” with actions to reduce energy use you just might prevent an attack by…?

Enjoy this Australian advert for Earth hour where some ordinary blokes can’t be bothered to turn off the light because “it’s only one light” and “every other light in Australia is off” .

 

Text below taken from earthhour.org:

 

ABOUT EARTH HOUR

---

Earth Hour started in 2007 in Sydney, Australia when 2.2 million individuals and more than 2,000 businesses turned their lights off for one hour to take a stand against climate change. Only a year later and Earth Hour had become a global sustainability movement with more than 50 million people across 35 countries/territories participating. Global landmarks such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge, CN Tower in Toronto, Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, and Rome’s Colosseum, all stood in darkness, as symbols of hope for a cause that grows more urgent by the hour.

In March 2009, hundreds of millions of people took part in the third Earth Hour. Over 4000 cities in 88 countries/territories officially switched off to pledge their support for the planet, making Earth Hour 2009 the world’s largest global climate change initiative.

On Saturday 27 March, Earth Hour 2010 became the biggest Earth Hour ever. A record 128 countries and territories joined the global display of climate action. Iconic buildings and landmarks from Asia Pacific to Europe and Africa to the Americas switched off. People across the world from all walks of life turned off their lights and came together in celebration and contemplation of the one thing we all have in common – our planet.

Earth Hour 2011 will take place on Saturday 26 March at 8.30PM (local time). This Earth Hour we want you to go beyond the hour, so after the lights go back on think about what else you can do to make a difference. Together our actions add up.

Visit our Beyond the Hour platform to share your stories and to get inspiration from the actions our supporters have shared with us already.

 

Flytec 2010

Another masterpiece from Bobby Bailey. Taken at the Flytec race and rally last autumn this again shows off the sheer joie de vivre when flyers get together. At around 2.27 there is one of the best videoed loops I have ever seen and it then smoothly goes into a textbook spin. As if that wasn’t enough, the glider does it in a perfect “amphitheatre” between the clouds that shows off the perspective superbly. Now, unless you have been there yourself, I cannot adequately describe how playing amongst the clouds like this can be a peak ecstatic experience. It can have the most pragmatic (on the ground) individuals going all spiritual on you when they attempt to recall what it is like to feel like this:

“Oh I Have Slipped
The Surly Bonds of Earth...
Put Out My Hand
And Touched the Face of God ”

The full poem  is called “High Flight” by John Gillespie Magee who was a pilot with the Royal Canadian Air Force in the Second World War. He came to Britain, flew in a Spitfire squadron, and was killed at the age of nineteen on 11 December 1941 during a training flight from the airfield near Scopwick.

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I’ve climbed and joined the tumbling mirth of sun-split clouds, – and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov’ring there,
I’ve chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless falls of air...
Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
I’ve topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
Where never lark, nor eer eagle flew –
And, while with silent lifting mind I’ve trod
The high, untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand and touched the face of God.

 

This is how it was. What’s next? Feeling lucky, punks?

Calculated from NASA’s (click for more info) “Five-Year Average Global Temperature Anomalies from 1880 to 2010” and animated. Even a trainee climate scientist has been surprised at how fast things speed up right near the last couple of decades.You need to be at least a little bit scientifically literate to realise why anomalies are way more important to show the trend rather than absolute temperatures – a distinction which many cherry picking denialists, with their “it’s really cold here, so we must be in a cooling trend” garbage thinking cannot get clear in their heads but still, even they must get it, surely?

Note how the warming anomalies are by far the greatest in the Arctic zone where all the permafrost and Northern sea ice is. This is happening far faster than the last full IPCC digest of the science delineated in 2007. Those models did not take this faster heating and consequently faster rate of shrinkage of the ice into account in their models. Neither did they consider the release of methane from the permafrost nor the entrained carbon.

To those complacent enough to comfort themselves with the belief that the models’ predictions are wrong I say – you were right! Sort of. The predictions of the models were wrong – they did not take enough into account – but they were wrong in a bad way. Things are worse than previously suspected. Read again my post of the 19th February entitled  We’re ***’ed (We’re hosed…) which is about melting permafrost. I quoted Greg Craven who spoke recently at the AGU (American Geophysical Union):

“AGU rattled me to the core because my worst-case fears were not just confirmed, but exceeded (I found four paleoclimatologists who admitted to making plans for survival retreats), and my last hope–for the scientific community to enter the public debate–was completely dashed.”

I’ve since found out directly from Greg that the full story is that, of those he spoke to, he found four who would admit to this but they also confirmed that “many” more that they knew were doing the same.