Another climate scientist responds to Rep. Joe Barton's false claims

By Phil Plait | October 18, 2010 11:49 am

The story so far:

Climate scientist Michael Mann is under constant attack by global warming denialists in the government. He writes an editorial for the Washington Post pointing out why these demagogues are wrong. Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) writes a fallacy-laden "rebuttal" in the Post misrepresenting quite a bit of what Dr. Mann has done. The Post declines Mann’s request to followup, so he sends his letter to me, which I posted here on this blog. As usual, in the comments, noise-machine hilarity ensued.

OK, so now that you’re caught up…

In his OpEd hit piece, Rep. Barton mentions a National Research Council report that he claims contradicts Mann’s climate change research. This is utter nonsense. Jerry North — the chair of the NRC committee that wrote that report — makes this clear in this OpEd he wrote in the Post:

While we did find some of the methods used in Michael E. Mann’s original papers to be less cautious than some of our members might have used, we have not found any evidence that his results were incorrect or even out of line with other works published since his original papers.

Mr. Barton’s reference to “Mr. Mann’s global warming projections” is incorrect and quite misleading. Mr. Mann’s work does not make projections about global warming. His work, and that of our committee, was concerned with the reconstruction of temperatures in the past. As stated in the report, this area of research does not attempt to make any inference about future temperatures.

Shorter version: Barton was wrong, and worse, doesn’t appear to even understand what the report he was quoting was about.

Have I mentioned that the Honorable Joe Barton is the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce? You’d think a person in a position of that much authority would know better.

Mind you, when BP executive Tony Hayward was being raked over the coals this summer — deservedly — for the Gulf oil leak, it was Representative Barton who apologized to him for the treatment.

So, I await Representative Barton’s public apology to Dr. Mann with bated breath.

<…crickets…>

Comments (84)

  1. Zetetic

    [sarc]
    An AGW denialist (especially one getting paid lots of oil dollars) getting something wrong, and not understanding the science?!?!

    I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you!
    [/sarc]

    Que the same denialists, making the same arguments, we just refuted in the last thread.

    In 4… 3… 2…

  2. That is pretty amazing. I love the bizarre lengths that many will go to as long as they get to attack “the other side.”

    I mean, I hate it because it hurts us as a society, a species, and a biosphere. But I love it because it’s just so stunningly bizarre it becomes kinda funny.

    In a macabre sort of way.

  3. So much of public policy seems to be so deeply rooted in willful ignorance that it makes you suspect deeper motives.

  4. DrFlimmer

    One or two years ago, Phil posted a video of a professor welcoming new students to the university (Sorry! I forgot the name of both the professor and the university). In his speech, in which he explained why the students are about to become geeks and nerds, he said:

    Nerds run this planet!

    Sadly, I have the impression that he was wrong: IDIOTS run this planet!
    If more nerds would do it, maybe a little less idiocy would prevail!

  5. It ain’t just a river in Egypt.

  6. truthspeaker

    rgdaniel – I would hope you would do more than suspect. You can look up who donated to Barton’s campaigns on commoncause.org, and see if any of the entities that are funding climate-change-denial public relations campaigns have also donated to his campaign.

  7. Allen

    I wouldn’t hold my breath, Phil. With the amount that he’s received from the oil industry over the last 20 years, they have his support for life. He’ll take his anti-AGW stance to the grave, unfortunately, future generations will suffer for his greed.

  8. HvP

    It is with a note of irony that I would like to apologize on behalf of my home state of Texas for electing Joe Barton.

    Although, he doesn’t represent my district so I didn’t have the opportunity to vote against him.

    – HvP

  9. reidh

    Really, this is how “Science” is conducted today? Through politics on an OpEd page? The facts should and must speak for themselves, not the otherway around. This article vs article, oped vs oped is NOT science. If it isn’t enough to present the bare facts of the data as such, then the “scientist’s” opinions are no more cogent than a “politician’s”. I think.

  10. Zetetic

    @ truthspeaker and Allen:
    Oh but guys/gals, in the last thread Paul in Sweden informed us that the oil companies aren’t funding denialists, but the AGW side! (Yes, he/she actually claimed that!)
    Of course I provided links showing that claim was wrong.

    [sarc]
    Surely the honorable politician Barton couldn’t be either corrupted by the money that P.i.S assures us he never got, or be influenced by a lack of scientific knowledge!
    [/sarc]

    ———————————————————————————————————————————————————
    reidh @ #8

    Really, this is how “Science” is conducted today? Through politics on an OpEd page? The facts should and must speak for themselves, not the otherway around.

    True, but respectfully I think that you may be missing the point.

    The fact of the matter is that the science is being done through research and peer reviewed papers, but the AGW denialists don’t really have any thing to offer there. So just like the YECs and anti-vacationists they are instead running a public PR campaign to try and politically stifle any further research or proposals. That is why scientists are having to respond to deliberate misinformation from the denialists in the public arena.

    It’s trying to cancel out lies with truth in the public arena, it doesn’t mean that the science has stopped.

    What is the alternative?
    To just let the deliberate misrepresentation of the science by denialists continue to be shoveled out to a public that doesn’t know any better continue? Or, do you try and counter it so that there is at least some balance in the media?

  11. Venture Free

    DrFlimmer

    Unfortunately I think you kinda hafta be an idiot to want to run the planet.

  12. magetoo

    reidh:

    No, this is more like debating policy, or science advocacy. (And there’s nothing wrong with that, even if your day job is climate research.)

  13. Chief

    Good one Phil. I swear I could hear the crickets and knew it would be a long wait for anything proper in the way of a correction to their La, La, La… (cue otter pic).

  14. Glaisne

    “the Honorable Joe Barton”
    That should read as the dis-Honorable, lying, stupid, ignorant corporate whore Joe Barton.

  15. DrFlimmer

    @ #11 Venture Free

    I guess, you are right. I could counter that point, however, by noting that the German Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel has a doctorate in physics (which I, as a physicist, somehow regret ;) ). So, she cannot be as dumb as one normally needs to be to run “the planet” — although, I am not quite sure if her career somehow influenced her in a particular way…….

  16. It’s also worth mentioning that Joe Barton also commissioned the Wegman report, which faulted the climate scientists for their statistical methods. Of course, that same report has now shown to contain epic amounts of plagiarism:

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/10/08/wegman-under-investigation-by-george-mason-university/#more-2679

  17. Zetetic

    I almost forgot….

    I know I already mentioned this in in the last AGW thread, but it was pretty far down at the time, so I thought I’d do so again.

    Just like in the last thread I wanted to recommend the Skeptical Science Phone App to anyone that doesn’t already have it and has interest in the actual scientific positions and evidence concerning AGW.

    Even if you’re not decided yet on the subject, the site and the app provides argument for and against AGW and provided links to the actual scientific research papers.

    It’s free and supports Android, iPhone, and Nokia. And no…I have no connection to them, I’m just a fan of using the app to help educate the general public.

    Skeptical Science
    Just look to the links in the right hand bar for links and info about each of the three app versions.

  18. Ryan

    Maybe I’m giving Rep. Barton too much credit, but I believe that he does understand the material he is misquoting, and is misquoting it intentionall to his own ends. There’s money to be made by denying global warming for certain sectors that contribute HEAVILY to his (and many others) campains. Please don’t make the mistake that these people (senators, congressmen, lobbyists, etc.)are ignorant. They aren’t. They are corporate shills.

  19. Number 6

    RE: Some people’s belief in the misinformation of the Denialists….Whatever happened to what most everyone learned in basic science classes in middle school, high school and college? Where did that knowledge go? Did they ever receive it?

    Did they forget everything they ever learned about basic science, and how it is conducted?…Were these people snoozing in class?…or…Does the new knowledge of the denialists somehow wipe out their knowledge of science?….Is there only enough brain space for one view or the other?..

    …or…..Is this some type of science knowledge amnesia on a huge scale?

  20. @Number 6 – it’s like a religion to them to disavow all real science.

    If it ain’t in their Bible – it ain’t real.

    Which is really odd since it should be apparent the Bible is metaphore, allegory and parables, with just a hint of historical fact laced into the threads to give it context. Of course, as a person that actually studied a little about the history and historicity of that particular collection of books, I’m obviously not qualified to comment.

    jbs

  21. @2 “That is pretty amazing. I love the bizarre lengths that many will go to as long as they get to attack “the other side.” ”

    Welcome to Phil’s political blog.

    @19 “There’s money to be made by denying global warming for certain sectors that contribute HEAVILY to his (and many others) campains. ”

    Likewise the massive redistribution of wealth and shell games the environmentalists play must be okay… both sides make the issue a sham that reeks of empire building and pocket lining.

  22. MattF

    Of course he didn’t understand it. That’s patently obvious. He accused Mann of faulty global warming projections.

    Mann’s work was purely paleoclimatic. In other words, he only published his reconstructions of past temperatures. There were no projections, faulty or otherwise.

    He didn’t seem to understand that climatology isn’t about scientists looking into the future and guessing. Epic fail, Joe Barton.

  23. On a side note, Dr. North is pretty awesome. He’s a prof in my department, and even though I’m not going into climate science, I chat with him on a regular basis. Anyone who doubts his academic integrity clearly hasn’t spent 2 minutes talking to Dr. North. :)

  24. @22: I was talking about Mr. Barton’s claims.

    Also, I keep hearing about how Global Warming proponents and enviromentalists are just doing it to make a lot of money. Could someone tell me in what way they stand to make a lot of money?

    I’m sure that there’s some money to be made. But the way I hear it claimed, it’s like these scientists must stand to make gigadollars by talking about global warming.

  25. Number 6

    @John Sandlin

    Good point!….A fundamentalist view of the Bible may block the enlightenment of science.

  26. Itzac

    Well said, Jacob. I work in the energy industry. I know plenty of people who are environmentalists. If there were really so much money to be made in environmentalism, I would be working there.

  27. Zetetic

    The Arquette Sisters @ #22:

    Likewise the massive redistribution of wealth and shell games the environmentalists play must be okay… both sides make the issue a sham that reeks of empire building and pocket lining.

    That’s a false equivalence…

    The difference being that one side (AGW) is backed up by evidence and the consensus of scientific experts in the related fields, and is evaluated by peer-reviewed channels. Experts who have little or nothing to gain from promoting AGW if it wasn’t true (and in fact would be hurting their own careers).

    While the other side (AGW denialism) has no credible evidence, is not backed up by the majority of experts in the relevant fields, systematically distorts what others report in the peer-reviewed papers, and most of the scientists that support it are in other non-related fields and so have little to loose professionally for being wrong in spite of being in the minority over AGW.

    Now if you want to debate what should be done then that’s one thing, but arguing over what should be done to stop AGW doesn’t change the evidence that it has been occurring. Denialists want to deny the reality of the situation and do nothing except maintain the economic status quo for fossil fuels (for the most part).

    As for it being Phil’s political blog…
    Is it Phil’s fault that too many people think the dogma, ideology, and politics should trump science?

  28. Luis Dias

    Yep, the evidence is clear: mr Barton is a lobotomized human.

  29. Luis Dias

    The difference being that one side (AGW) is backed up by evidence and the consensus of scientific experts in the related fields

    While this is true, to say that “one side” has the best evidence can well be irrelevant. It may be the best we got, it doesn’t mean it’s *good* evidence. Which it isn’t.

  30. Ryan

    @22 I think you miss my point and are trying to sidetrack away from it — my point being that Rep. Barton is not stupid, knows full well what he is saying based on Mann’s report is fabrication and still says it to further his agenda. The reasons behind it are not the issue. That he is doing it at all is.

  31. ad

    Ironically Barton is actually technically correct and North wrong. The proxies used by Mann are truncated in 1960 because they don’t go ‘up’ as expected like the temperature, but rather go ‘down’ (remember the proxies by themselves say nothing of actual temperature itself, they are just interpretations). The blade of the hockey-stick is caused by Mann grafting on thermometer temperature records, and thus represent a ‘projection’ of the proxy record up to the present from 1960.

  32. Zetetic

    Luis Dias @ #30:

    While this is true, to say that “one side” has the best evidence can well be irrelevant. It may be the best we got, it doesn’t mean it’s *good* evidence. Which it isn’t.

    On the contrary, it’s good enough and well founded enough to convince the vast majority (97%) of the experts in the relevant fields.

    Meanwhile the other (AGW denying) side has zero credible evidence that actually support their position, in spite of having had decades to do so. Surely it can’t be that hard to find something credible that either truely contradicts AGW as being caused by human activity or shows that the planet isn’t really warming.

    The only science that is really in doubt by the experts at this time are the models of just how bad it may, or may not be, since the current rate of change is unprecedented for the past periods that we have evidence for. Even then the current models have been good enough to accurately predict the current, and recent past conditions, from the 1900’s to today (within their margin of error of course).

    To argue otherwise is to be like Young Earth Creationist going… “Sure we YECs have no evidence, but all the fossils and genetic evidence isn’t convincing enough”.

  33. noen

    The concern trolls…. they are concerned.

  34. noen

    Jacob Says:
    “Could someone tell me in what way they stand to make a lot of money?”

    You mistakenly think that this conflict is taking place on the issues and that a rational examination of the facts is what is called for. It isn’t. The object is to influence public opinion enough so that the energy companies are not hurt by unfavorable legislation.

    The best propaganda appeals to people’s emotions, not to their intellect. So when denialists talk about how much money scientists or “liberal elites” make they are not making a rational argument about how well paid scientists are or should be. They are making a populist appeal based along class lines. They are playing on the resentment that many people have for academics simply because they have succeeded intellectually.

    This is the same for many other issues. Abortion isn’t really about abortion. Gay marriage isn’t really about gays being allowed to marry. What it all boils down to is using emotional triggers in order to divide and confuse people so that the ruling class can continue to rob us all blind. Seems to work just fine.

    If the American people were to set aside their differences on these issues then you would really see the Oligarchy crap their collective pants.

  35. Zetetic

    ad @ #32:

    Ironically Barton is actually technically correct and North wrong.

    Perhaps in “bizzaro-world” that might be accurate.

    The proxies used by Mann are truncated in 1960 because they don’t go ‘up’ as expected like the temperature, but rather go ‘down’ (remember the proxies by themselves say nothing of actual temperature itself, they are just interpretations).

    Here you are obviously referring to the Tree-Ring proxies used, until the 60’s when due to the warming climate, acid rain, and other factors (due largely to human influence) that they stopped being accurate.
    Tree-ring proxies and the divergence problem
    BTW I especially love how you mention that the temp trends would have gone down using tree-ring data as an excuse to bash Mann when clearly the temperature measurements for that time show a rise in temperature. Hint: That’s not a problem with Mann’s work, it’s a problem with the proxies being effected by other factors.

    The blade of the hockey-stick is caused by Mann grafting on thermometer temperature records, and thus represent a ‘projection’ of the proxy record up to the present from 1960.

    So “ad” care to tell us how using actual temperature measurements is less accurate then using a proxy? Or how using actual historical recording of past temperature is a “projection”? I’d really like to know how that works.

    Is the hockey stick broken?

  36. Zetetic

    noen @ #35

    The best propaganda appeals to people’s emotions, not to their intellect. So when denialists talk about how much money scientists or “liberal elites” make they are not making a rational argument about how well paid scientists are or should be. They are making a populist appeal based along class lines. They are playing on the resentment that many people have for academics simply because they have succeeded intellectually.

    QFT

    :)

  37. MadScientist

    I guess Jim Inhofe has a new mouthpiece.

  38. Daniel J. Andrews

    heh. One side has the good evidence and huge piles of independent data from a diversity of sources that has remarkable coherence–it tells the same tale (it’s warming).

    And the other side-in addition to getting even the basics wrong–has a mass of contradictory opinions and don’t know if it is cooling, warming but natural cycle nobody else has discovered yet, or was warming but now cooling, or temp records are corrupt and you can’t tell if it is warming or cooling.

    Check out skepticalscience.com/resources.php for the list of talking points, many of them diametrically opposed to the other talking points. Spend more than 20 minutes talking to a denier and they’ll contradict themselves at least twice and not even realize it.

  39. Zetetic

    Daniel J. Andrews @ #39:

    Spend more than 20 minutes talking to a denier and they’ll contradict themselves at least twice and not even realize it.

    Quite true. That’s why in the last AGW thread I pointed out that AGW deniers are the Young Earth Creationists of the climate sciences. It’s not surprising that when much of the AGW denialist support comes from YECs that they use the same arguments and tactics.

    They even seem to think that by cherry picking to attack AGW rather than positively supporting the opposite position, that they are somehow making a case in favor of their side.

  40. Matt

    I made the mistake of watching the Glenn Beck show for more than the amount of time it takes to skip past it the other night, and they were discussing global warming. Being a masochist, I decided to see what nonsense Beck and his guests could come up with. I wasn’t disappointed!!! Beck’s first guest stated that we couldn’t possibly be experiencing catastrophic global warming, because Genesis stated that God created the world and saw that “it was good”. That was his whole argument! I was expecting the second guest to offer some sort of rebuttal, but no! He supported the first guest’s argument that Man is the highest form of being, according to the Bible, of course, so we should be able to do whatever we damn well please to the Earth. He even screwed up the animal kingdom by claiming that fish are more advanced than plants, birds are more advanced than fish, and, get this, ANIMALS are more advanced than birds! He said it several times, and even wrote it on Beck’s precious blackboard. Is it possible that Glenn Beck is actually the best satirist the world has ever seen?
    It it truly frightening that Fox passes this garbages off as “news” and that so many people seem to agree.

  41. gss_000

    People have been referencing statements like “don’t these people know science,” and I’ve been guilty of this myself, but the sad truth is many people do not know what science can or can’t do. In many people’s mind, science is a big black box: You take info, do something to it, and out comes results that are certain. It isn’t really until you get to college level science that you start seeing how much uncertainty is involved, especially in complex or cutting edge systems. How many people here, for instance, could describe the difference between a good theory and a correct theory?

    There’s a lot of misunderstanding with laymen and this can have a large effect on a wide range of areas. It’s why science degrees are beneficial even for people who do not go into the sciences.

    Again, I’ve been guilty of this myself assuming people have my level of knowledge when I’ve gotten multiple degrees. What we think is common knowledge about science is not common knowledge at all. Politicians have a hard time making policies that could last years or even decades when the science changes (see the history of the ozone hole debate), that we have to make sure they know what’s certain and what’s not, and defend any time science is abused like in the attacks against Mann.

  42. Zetetic

    @ Matt:
    And don’t forget the “Rapture Ready” crowd too! Talk about scary!

    —————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

    @ gss_000:
    I agree with you, that is why in one of my posts in the other thread I tried to make a distinction between those that are “denialists” and those that doubt AGW but are open to contrary info and therefore willing to change their minds.

    Some people are definitely open to changing any contrary evidence and revising their positions. Others though are not. That why I think that it’s important to be exposed to science based sites and why I brought up the Skeptical Science phone app as a useful tool, plus their site is just generally useful too.

    It’s why science degrees are beneficial even for people who do not go into the sciences.

    I don’t disagree that it’s helpful, but just consistently practicing critical thinking to the issue is enough to cut though most of the denialist arguments offered against AGW. Unfortunately, that is where I think that modern education tends to fall down (especially in the USA), and even if a person is acquainted with the principles it does take discipline to practice it consistently over a wide range of issues.

    Unfortuantely, it’s no coincidence that most of the “Climate Skeptic” groups gets much of their funding from fossil fuel companies. It’s called a FUD campaign and it’s an old tactic by special interest groups. In fact many of the same groups being sponsored for running FUD campaigns by big oil are the same groups that were being paid by tobacco companies to try and create public doubt about the science that determined the harmful effects of smoking. (Look up the Competitive Enterprise Institute for example.) These same groups have been the ones pushing the AGW denialist talking-points to confuse and mislead the public. It’s the standard M.O. for such groups. Create doubt about the evidence, make it look like it’s a minority of scientists supporting it, press emotional buttons based on buzz-words, and above all don’t point out the opposing side’s (be it pro-smoking or anti-AGW) lack of evidence. It’s the same song and dance all over again.

    Politicians have a hard time making policies that could last years or even decades when the science changes (see the history of the ozone hole debate), that we have to make sure they know what’s certain and what’s not, and defend any time science is abused like in the attacks against Mann.

    As to public policy…..even without AGW, oil is running out sooner or later, and there’s little that can be done to stop it. As supplies get lower it costs more and more for each barrel, creating diminishing returns. Then there is the Middle East, where trying to keep the price of gas down has resulted in shady political deals, several large wars, innumerable smaller conflicts and oil money has funded modern terrorism and radical Islamic fundamentalism. So even is AGW wasn’t true (in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it is) there are lots of good reasons to get off of oil as soon as possible. The same applies for coal unless it’s problems can be solved economically, which doesn’t look to likely.

    How much further along would the global society be if the lives and a fraction of the money wasted in Middle Eastern wars by the USA alone, not to mention other countries, had been spent on energy R&D instead? Not to mention other technologies like food and medicine?

    From a political standpoint trying to maintian the status quo in regards to fossil fuels for any of the industrialized nations is clearly only in the best interest of the major fuel companies, not the countries as a whole. So it’s no coincidence that most of the politicians attacking AGW get much of their campaign money from the fossil fuel companies.

    So no, with all due respect, I don’t think that Barton or Cuccinelli get a pass here. They have both already been given correcting information, but still insist on pursuing a “Witch Hunt” driven by ideology and big money.

  43. Zetetic

    BTW…out of curiosity I did a little research into Ken Cuccinelli’s campaign contributors, what I found was somewhat interesting.
    All Receipts Reported by Kenneth Cuccinelli

    Leaving out donations from one of several tobacco companies and a communications company, his top five donors were….
    Donor #1: Dominion, an electric utility company.

    Donor #3: Richard Baxter Gilliam who “is founder Cumberland Resources Corp, a private coal mining company in Abingdon, VA.”

    Donor #5: Alpha Natural Resources, “a leading coal producer with significant operations in Northern Appalachia.”

    Money or ideologically driven abuse of power?
    You decide.

  44. ad

    @36 Zetetic you obviously have comprehension problems. I was merely pointing out facts of the so-called hockey-stick. I was not attacking Mann, far from it. Go Frakk yourself, after you stop frakking your mother that is.

  45. Barracoder

    I love reading the comments sections of sites like this. I think I’m going to take snapshots of all your snide, ill-informed insistence that global warming is coming and will kill us all, and then print them out for your families and friends when you turn 21.

    See you in 2014, when global cooling is going to kill us all.

    Sheep.

  46. Gunnar

    It is a complete mystery to me how anyone can fail to see that even if AGW were wrong or grossly exagerated (which I very seriously doubt), there are very compelling reasons to strive very hard to minimize our dependence on fossil fuels as much as possible, and maximize energy efficiency and resource conservation.

    I also find the contention that it is somehow more profitable to falsely claim that AGW is real than to falsely deny it is absolutely absurd! Does anyone seriously doubt that the fossil fuel corporations who make literally trillions of dollars promoting dependence on fossil fuels would be strongly motivated to try to discredit AGW by any means fair or foul, even if it is true? Does anyone seriously doubt that fossil fuel corporations who employ scientists willing to support their corporate interests have much deeper pockets and can afford to pay much more than what scientists can possibly earn by research efforts that confirm the reality of AGW? Is it really reasonable to believe that the 97% of climate scientists whose findings confirm AGW are all corrupt and dishonest and/or mistaken, or even that a majority of them are, and that the rapidly shrinking minority of scientists who still deny AGW are the only ones who could be right?

    Whatever may be true about the availability of fossil fuels and the climatological consequences of our exponentially increasing dependence on them, to argue against finding clean, practical alternatives to them, improving energy efficiency and minimizing needless waste of natural resources as some conservative pundits seem to be doing is irrational to the point of insanity!

  47. GWFanatic

    Ad hominem after ad hominem. Wait! I’ve got an idea, let’s move all the dirty. expensive, labour intensive manufacturing to third world countries where carbon emissions, pollution, safety and labour costs are unregulated. We’ll establish “free” trade zones, tax credits and build big distribution systems. Then, let’s get funding from the “rich” countries that will subsidize the move and build infrastructure where labor costs are cheap. We’ll crash the rich economies so investors will voluntarily move their money to “the developing world” too. Oh yea, we can consolidate the banking system and suck money out of the rich countries, and move it too. Let’s see, what to call it, “save the planet”, “carbon tax”, “cap and trade”, “U.N. Millennium Project”, “sub-prime crisis”. We’ll need some FIAT money too. We’ll call it a “bail-out”, an “injection of liquidity” and “quantitative easing” to prevent financial armageddon. We’ll use that money too. The environmental nuts are easy to fool and can be our useful idiots. Anyone who opposes us can be vilified and called denialists, unscientific, industry puppets, or worse. We’ll get filthy rich! Let’s do it. By the time anyone figures it out, it will be too late. It’s a big idea.

  48. Gunnar

    @Matt, #41

    I couldn’t agree with you more about Glenn Beck. That so many people seem to take him seriously is very frightening! Even Rush Limbaugh sometimes seems rational compared to him!

  49. Dave R

    ad, 45:
    >I was merely pointing out facts of the so-called hockey-stick.

    No you were not. You were making false claims about it, whether through ignorance or dishonesty. The latter now seems more likely given your response to being corrected.

    From your original #32:
    >The proxies used by Mann are truncated in 1960

    Anyone who has read the paper — as you should have done before making any definitive statements about what is in it — can see that your claim is absolutely false.

    >because they don’t go ‘up’ as expected like the temperature

    That happens for a subset of proxies as explained in the link provided by Zetetic.

    >The blade of the hockey-stick is caused by Mann grafting on thermometer temperature records

    Again if you look at the paper you can see that this is not true — although the instrumental record extends further than the proxy record, the hockey stick shape is clearly visible in the proxy record.

    >and thus represent a ‘projection’ of the proxy record

    And of course as Zetetic pointed out it’s absurd to claim that measured temperatures are a “projection”.

    >I was not attacking Mann, far from it.

    Actually, spreading lies about someone is indeed attacking them.

  50. Nigel Depledge

    Reidh (9) said:

    Really, this is how “Science” is conducted today? Through politics on an OpEd page? The facts should and must speak for themselves, not the otherway around. This article vs article, oped vs oped is NOT science. If it isn’t enough to present the bare facts of the data as such, then the “scientist’s” opinions are no more cogent than a “politician’s”. I think.

    The facts do speak for themselves.

    The trouble is, the AGW-deniers are confusing the public with misdirection, obfuscation and outright lies.

  51. Mike G

    @Ad
    You’re confusing what Phil Jones did for an illustration on the cover of a WMO report with what was done in Mann’s papers. They are not the same.

  52. Dave R

    Barracoder, 46:
    >I love reading the comments sections of sites like this. I think I’m going to take snapshots of all your snide, ill-informed insistence that global warming is coming and will kill us all

    If you’re not a liar, quote a single example where any of us has said that global warming “will kill us all”.

    GWFanatic, 48:
    >We’ll get filthy rich! Let’s do it. By the time anyone figures it out, it will be too late. It’s a big idea.

    This really isn’t the place for your infantile conspiracy theories. Maybe GLP would suit you.

  53. Nigel Depledge

    Luis Dias (30) said:

    While this is true, to say that “one side” has the best evidence can well be irrelevant. It may be the best we got, it doesn’t mean it’s *good* evidence. Which it isn’t.

    Rubbish!

    The evidence for AGW is sufficient to have convinced all of the climatologists who were sceptical of AGW 20 years ago.

    And, whether you believe this or not, it is a fact that convincing a scientist to change their mind takes real, hard, quality data.

  54. Nigel Depledge

    ad (32) said:

    The proxies used by Mann are truncated in 1960 because they don’t go ‘up’ as expected like the temperature, but rather go ‘down’ (remember the proxies by themselves say nothing of actual temperature itself, they are just interpretations). The blade of the hockey-stick is caused by Mann grafting on thermometer temperature records, and thus represent a ‘projection’ of the proxy record up to the present from 1960.

    To which Zetetic replied in extensive detail, backed up by links (comment 36), pointing out that this criticism is irrelevant and misleading.

    To which ad then replied (45):

    @36 Zetetic you obviously have comprehension problems. I was merely pointing out facts of the so-called hockey-stick. I was not attacking Mann, far from it. Go Frakk yourself, after you stop frakking your mother that is.

    Actually, ad, your first comment comes across as critical of Mann and his interpretation of the data. Giving you the most generous benefit of the doubt, your first comment was ambiguous.

    If someone misinterprets it (as you obviously feel Zetetic did), why the vitriol and abuse? It makes you look like a dick.

  55. @ 44 Zetetic,

    Don’t forget last year’s #2 individual donor to Cuccinelli, Bobby Thompson, who set up a fraudulent veterans charity that bilked people out of at least $20 million and is currently a fugitive from justice.

  56. Nigel Depledge

    Sometimes, they make it so easy…

    Barracoder (46) said:

    I love reading the comments sections of sites like this. I think I’m going to take snapshots of all your snide, ill-informed [my emphasis] insistence that global warming is coming and will kill us all,

    Actually, no-one has claimed that AGW will kill anyone.

    It does, however, appear likely that its consequences will cause wars and famine in some parts of the world.

    and then print them out for your families and friends when you turn 21.

    See you in 2014, when global cooling is going to kill us all.

    Actually, will you really promise to go away until 2014?

    And, when you do come back in 2014, will you accept whatever the climatology experts are telling us? Even if it is contrary to the position you just rather inarticulately stated?

    Sheep.

    Projection much?

    Most of the pro-AGW arguments in threads like this one are backed up with evidence, or with references to the science as published by the people who study this stuff.

    The anti-AGW comments don’t really contain anything except snide allusions to the motivations of climatologists, outdated criticisms of data processing, or empty claims that the evidence doesn’t really exist. None of this anti-AGW rubbish is backed up by any data at all.

  57. Messier Tidy Upper

    @43. Zetetic Says:

    So no, with all due respect, I don’t think that Barton or Cuccinelli get a pass here. They have both already been given correcting information, but still insist on pursuing a “Witch Hunt” driven by ideology and big money.

    There’s a witch hunt against the scientists talking about Global Warming but yet they’re nominating self-confessed “witchcraft dabbler” Christine O’Donnell for Congress in Delaware?? Go figure. :roll:

  58. Messier Tidy Upper

    Because its become sort of a tradition and, more importantly, because there might be some folks coming here for the first time or whatever who still haven’t seen this; here’s the link to a great Youtube clip on Cuccinelli’s quixotic crusade and much more :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WvasALL-hw&p=029130BFDC78FA33

    Incl. a reptilian alien in very pleasant disguise swallowing guinea pigs.

    Also here’s the one on the history of the Hockey Sticks – ye sthat’s plural and there’s a whole hockey team of them (& they’re NOT based just on tree rings either) here plus much more :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU&p=029130BFDC78FA33

    Indeed, I urge everyone to check out the full list of these here :

    http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=029130BFDC78FA33

    Because chances are whatever argument a climate contrarian is using it’s already been debunked there. They’re all pretty entertaining, informative and well done. IMHON. :-)

    ***

    PS. Can anyone please kindly translate from the US measure to the metric for me what 128.3 Fahrenheit is in degrees Celcius? (@ the 7 min. 39 sec. mark on that first linked clip.)

  59. Paul in Sweden

    “17. Academical Freedom Says:
    October 18th, 2010 at 1:29 pm

    It’s also worth mentioning that Joe Barton also commissioned the Wegman report, which faulted the climate scientists for their statistical methods. Of course, that same report has now shown to contain epic amounts of plagiarism:”

    ROFLMAO, Wegman is being accused of plagiarizing(although citing Bradley) parts of a book in which Bradley himself may wind up facing charges of plagiarism himself. In the Bradley scandal there may even be copyright violations.

    BradleyGate: RealClimate.org Propagandist Raymond Bradley Accused of Copying 1976 Book — ‘Bradley’s copying is not just incidental’ — Accused of failing to use citations
    http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/18/bradley-copies-fritts/

    -As commentor Severian @ CA said…
    One should try and remember that if you’re going to shoot yourself in the foot, you should take it out of your mouth first.

  60. Messier Tidy Upper

    @ ^ Paul in Sweden :

    Do you really still consider the “Climategate” emails “scandal” is valid and represents any sort of tenable case against the scientific consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming?

    Have you not seen all the different sources and evidence showing “Climategate” doesn’t mean what those opposed to the AGW climatologists consensus think it does and that key sentences were cherry-picked and taken wa-aay out of context?

    I also used to think that “Climategate” was the smoking gun of scientific malpractice – but looking closer and arguing the case in various places incl. this blog has convinced me otherwise.

  61. Chris Winter

    RGDaniel wrote: “So much of public policy seems to be so deeply rooted in willful ignorance that it makes you suspect deeper motives.”

    I wish I could suspect deeper motives. In most cases, I can only hope for them. My experience suggests that whatever’s the matter with Kansas is also the matter with a major fraction of American citizens.

    Of course, in Barton’s case (as with Inhofe and other politicians), there is a deeper motive: oil money (as many have noted here.) But calling such venality “deep” seems a contradiction in terms.

  62. Zetetic

    Dave R @ #53 and Nigel Depledge @ #55 already did a great job at shooting down latest lies from “ad”, but just for my own input….

    ad @ #45:

    Zetetic you obviously have comprehension problems.

    ROFLMAO! You call using actual temperature measurements, instead of a less accurate proxy, to show temperatures in the past a “projection” and you accuse me of having comprehension problems! Here’s a hint for you “ad” a projection “predicts” things (or “projects” a trend into the future), it doesn’t record what already happened in the past except a basis to make a forecast bases on past trends.

    I was merely pointing out facts of the so-called hockey-stick.

    No. You were merely regurgitating the same old long discredited denialist talking points about the “hockey stick” without any regards to the truth, there’s a difference. The real facts about the “hockey stick” are what I linked to in reply. How odd that you don’t seem to have bothered to have read it.

    I was not attacking Mann, far from it.

    No, you were repeating a lie told to attack Mann in order to defend Barton’s dishonest comments attacking Mann. Yeah real big difference there “ad”.

    So out of four sentences you typed in your last post, two of them were lies, and you still haven’t been able to provide any supporting evidence.

    Go Frakk yourself, after you stop frakking your mother that is.

    My, my! Such an emotional reaction! It sounds rather like you’re not approaching the subject at hand rationally at all. Not that your emotional outburst surprises anyone that accepts the scientific position that AGW is real.

    It’s OK though, coming from such a systematically dishonest person as yourself (on the subject of AGW at least), I tend to take that as a compliment. :D

    BTW I’m still waiting for you to explain to us how using actual temperature readings is less accurate than using a proxy, or how recording the past is a projection. Not that I expect an honest answer from such a liar as yourself, but I’m sure it would be entertaining.

    —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

    Again already well covered by Dave R and Nigel Depledge, but just for my own input….

    Baracoder @ #46:

    I think I’m going to take snapshots of all your snide, ill-informed insistence that global warming is coming and will kill us all, and then print them out for your families and friends when you turn 21.

    Straw-man argument, and you accuse us of being “snide”? That’s rich.
    Care to cite where here anybody aside from denialists claimed that global warming will “kill us all”? BTW in case you haven’t notice global warming is already here, the temperature of the planet has already been increasing for the last few decades, it’s just building up.

    Personally I don’t think that global warming will “kill us all” but it might kill quite a few people and cause many other problems. It about trying to minimize the damage that might occur if things continue on the current path. It’s really not that hard to understand.

    The fact is that the evidence shows the increasing average temperatures globally, and that 97% of scientists in the related fields agree that AGW is real.

    All the “AGW isn’t real” crowd have to do is provide credible evidence that contradict the evidence that the Earth is warming, or that human activities are responsible. They have had decades to provide such evidence and have yet to do so. Have you ever asked why they can’t provide credible evidence that contradicts AGW?

    See you in 2014, when global cooling is going to kill us all.

    Sheep.

    LOL! I really hope that was a joke, and you think we’re sheep! Global Cooling that’s a nice one! ;)
    ————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
    Academical Freedom @ #56:

    Bobby Thompson, who set up a fraudulent veterans charity that bilked people out of at least $20 million and is currently a fugitive from justice.

    Wow! Nice call on that one!

    I didn’t know that about Thompson, I was just focusing on those that I could easily find had would create a Conflict of Interest in regards to AGW.

    —————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

    Messier Tidy Upper @ #58:

    There’s a witch hunt against the scientists talking about Global Warming but yet they’re nominating self-confessed “witchcraft dabbler” Christine O’Donnell for Congress in Delaware?? Go figure.

    LOL! Nice point! :D

    ————————————————————————————————————————————————–
    Paul in Sweden @ #60:

    ROFLMAO, Wegman is being accused of plagiarizing(although citing Bradley) parts of a book in which Bradley himself may wind up facing charges of plagiarism himself. In the Bradley scandal there may even be copyright violations.

    Even setting aside the fact that does nothing to contradict the science supporting AGW, I find it amusing coming from someone that siding with those that systematically misrepresent the research of others tom attack climate research.

    While were at it though lets look at Steve McIntyre and his interests, since after all P.i.S you’ve already assured us that Big Oil is the ones supporting AGW not funding the deniers.

    Source Watch listing for Steve McIntyre
    I found this part especially interesting….
    McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a “strategic advisor.” [4] He is the former President of Dumont Nickel Inc., and was President of Northwest Exploration Company Limited, the predecessor company to CGX Energy Inc. As of 2003, he was the strategic advisor of CGX Energy Inc. He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada.

    It seems a pattern for your sources P.i.S., I wonder why that should be?

    One should try and remember that if you’re going to shoot yourself in the foot, you should take it out of your mouth first.

    Good advise, perhaps you should heed it for a change….

  63. Chris Winter

    AD wrote: “Ironically Barton is actually technically correct and North wrong. The proxies used by Mann are truncated in 1960 because they don’t go ‘up’ as expected like the temperature, but rather go ‘down’ (remember the proxies by themselves say nothing of actual temperature itself, they are just interpretations). The blade of the hockey-stick is caused by Mann grafting on thermometer temperature records, and thus represent a ‘projection’ of the proxy record up to the present from 1960.”

    Be careful here. If Dr. Mann “truncated” the use of tree-ring proxies in 1960, he can’t be “grafting them on” to the plot of temperature after that date. And why should he need to, since measurements are available?

    [EDIT] RE: #45 — Stay classy, now…

  64. Chris Winter

    Matt wrote: “I made the mistake of watching the Glenn Beck show for more than the amount of time it takes to skip past it the other night, and they were discussing global warming. Being a masochist, I decided to see what nonsense Beck and his guests could come up with. I wasn’t disappointed!!!”

    I’m convinced that Beck doesn’t believe the stuff he spouts; he’s just playing to the crowd. Unfortunately the crowd he’s playing to is big enough and dumb enough that he’s worth about $32 million. It’s a good racket if you can stifle your conscience.

  65. Chris Winter

    Barracoder wrote (#46): “I love reading the comments sections of sites like this. I think I’m going to take snapshots of all your snide, ill-informed insistence that global warming is coming and will kill us all, and then print them out for your families and friends when you turn 21.”

    Five whooper-whoppers in one sentence! We have a winner!
    /sarcasm

    I won’t bore everyone else by bothering to refute them, troll. Take your snapshots. We’ll all have a good laugh when you try to make good on that “threat”.

    “See you in 2014, when global cooling is going to kill us all.”

    No one but you and equally deluded trolls claims that.

  66. Chris Winter

    Dave R,

    I’m 99 percent sure GWFanatic was writing tongue-in-cheek.

    It can be hard to tell. That’s why Poe’s Law was propounded.

  67. Zetetic

    Chris Winter @ #65:

    I’m convinced that Beck doesn’t believe the stuff he spouts; he’s just playing to the crowd.

    Respectfully, you may be right. In fact there are some things I’m confident that he doesn’t believe, but I’m not so sure that he doesn’t believe much of what he says.

    Beck is apparently a devout Mormon after all. If someone can take their beliefs about history (human migration patterns, Native American skin tone being the mark of a “curse”, ancient advanced cultures in the Americas far beyond what Native Americas accomplished, etc.) seriously, in spite of the contradicting evidence…well then that person can believe almost anything.

  68. Chris Winter

    Messier Tidy Upper wrote: “Incl. a reptilian alien in very pleasant disguise swallowing guinea pigs.”

    I’m going to guess that’s Jane Badler in V. (Haven’t watched the video clip yet.)

    “PS. Can anyone please kindly translate from the US measure to the metric for me what 128.3 Fahrenheit is in degrees Celcius? (@ the 7 min. 39 sec. mark on that first linked clip.)”

    That works out to 53.4°C.

    ^ Yep — Jane Badler as “Diana”

  69. Zetetic

    @ Messier Tidy Upper #59:
    If you just type in Google a search for “128.3 Fahrenheit into Celsius”, you’ll get 53.5 C.

    In fact you can use Google to convert all sorts of measurements.

  70. Dave R

    Chris Winter Says, 67:
    >I’m 99 percent sure GWFanatic was writing tongue-in-cheek.

    Oops. Poe’d again.

  71. JJ (the other one)

    There’s a shocking number of posters that only come out of the woodwork when Phil posts about climate change.

    Paul, for example, comes out swinging by claiming that either Wegman didn’t plagiarize or that it doesn’t matter because someone else did (Tu Quoque?).

    Which is doubly funny when you realize that…

    Not only has Wegman has been accused of plagiarism (as in, copying without direct citation), he has been accused of introducing errors / changing meaning while copying. And that multiple PhD students at the same university may have also done so.

    Not to mention that the person Paul accuses of also plagiarizing (Tu Quoque!) appears to have cited the wrong year/edition of another author’s work. While Wegman appears to have lifted without citation and just threw in a bibliography reference, which is against the plagiarism policies of his university.

    Of course, all this is much harder to say than Tu Quoque, and the deniers love their soundbites.

  72. Zetetic

    Dave R @ #71:

    Oops. Poe’d again.

    LOL! It happens to the best of us.

    If it doesn’t happen to you once in a while, then you’re not actually reading the forums!
    :D

  73. Nigel Depledge

    JJ (the other one) (72) said:

    Not to mention that the person Paul accuses of also plagiarizing (Tu Quoque!) appears to have cited the wrong year/edition of another author’s work.

    Errors in references are surprisingly common. When I was preparing the literature review for my thesis, I must have found at least a score. Some were just wrong page numbers; some were mis-spellings of an author’s name; some were wrong volume numbers. A few were errors perpetuated from a referenced paper, which suggests that, not only did an earlier author get a reference wrong, but a subsequent author referred to the same paper without looking it up. In my thesis, I only referred to papers that I had actually found and of which I had read at least the abstract (although, more commonly, I read the abstract, introduction and discussion, if not the entire paper).

  74. @Venture Free,

    Unfortunately I think you kinda hafta be an idiot to want to run the planet.

    Reminds me of this Evil Inc comic: http://evil-comic.com/archive/20050803.html

  75. Paul in Sweden

    “61. Messier Tidy Upper Says:
    October 19th, 2010 at 10:19 am

    @ ^ Paul in Sweden :

    Do you really still consider the “Climategate” emails “scandal” is valid and represents any sort of tenable case against the scientific consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming?”

    MTU, many of the dyed-in-the-wool alarmists were disgusted by the climategate whitewashes. As I stated in previous posts the UK Parliament’s Science & Technology committee was infuriated by the various climategate whitewashes and decided to call each climategate whitewash committee individually for followup questioning. Needless to say, things haven’t been going well for the Global Warming Industry. Lord Oxburgh during the Science & Technology committee September 8th hearings seemed to really piss off the PM’s. However, from what I have read the global warming alarmists in the UK media were even more PO’ed :)

    The next hearings of the UK Parliament Science & Technology Committee on the climategate follow up will be on October 27th and the subjects of the inquiry will be Sir Muir Russell, Head of the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor, University of East Anglia & Professor Trevor Davies, Pro Vice Chancellor for Research, University of East Anglia. At this point in time it would be far fetched to believe that more shame and scorn will not be brought upon the Global Warming Industry just in time for the disappointment of COP16 Global Warming(end of the earth) conference in Mexico this November.

    MTU as I stated in previous threads, only the willfully blind on the matters of climategate were content with the various climategate whitewashes.

    Faithful followers of the Global Warming movement have to face reality; fewer than one out of every three democrats in the United States consider CAGW an issue. Seriously, if you can’t even convince a democrat in the United States that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is even an issue what chance do the faithful in the CAGW movement have of bamboozling the majority of the world’s population that thinks?

    Climategate will continue to be investigated by the UK parliament(as Global Warming initiatives are hitting the economy in the UK particularly strong now, I suspect there will be increased interest).

    Climategate hearings in the US congress will be headed by Rep. Barton in 2011.

    The climategate/Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act case(VFATA) may proceed under the information gathered by Virginia AG Cuccinelli’s CID’s which may clear court appeals by year end.

    With 90+ legal actions in the USA against the EPA GHG restrictions and the EPA basing much of their findings on the discredited UN IPCC forth Assessment report the chances of the embarrassment and shame of climategate fading is down to about zero.

    Let us not forget MTU what is happening in the courts in New Zealand and your own infamous BoM.

    The High Court has been asked to invalidate the New Zealand official temperature record (NZTR) as promoted by the Crown Research Institute, NIWA. These records are the historical base of NIWA’s scientific advice to central and local government on issues relating to climate change. NIWA maintains temperature archives for the past century, and also projects them forward for the next century.

    In a shocking move NIWA instead of standing behind the official climate records NZTR, 7SS & 11SS which New Zealand’s controversial ETS carbon program is based, NIWA washed it’s hands. NIWA actually claimed in court filings that the NZTR, 7SS & 11SS temperature records which artificially turned a declining trend in average temperatures to a rising trend are not in fact Official New Zealand Climate Records. This is just about unbelievable. NIWA creates, maintains(on the NIWA website), publishes and sells the NZTR, 7SS & 11SS temperature records but when pushed in court they washed their hands.

    NIWA states in the court filings that there is now official New Zealand Temperature database.

    Well, that is one way of going about the problem. There is certainly no way NIWA could defend an actual decline in Temps when the product that NIWA sells commercially which shows an increasing trend in temps…

    NIWA now says that they have a yet unseen database that is going to be buddy-reviewed by Australia’s BoM. It is my hope that BoM performs it’s usual due diligence and the strong New Zealand case against NIWA drags Austrailia’s BoM into the forefront of Australia’s Climate fiasco still battered from the insulation scandal & desal expenditures.

    Of course I mentioned Rep. Barton will be holding climate hearings in the US house of Representatives but there may very well be hearings in the Senate also.

    So MTU, getting back to your original question…

    The idea that a case needs to be made against a “consensus” regarding Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming which is supported only by beliefs in the absence of evidence seems ridiculous to me.

    Climategate put a finer line on the non-sense that the rest of us all knew was going on prior to November of last year.

    MTU, produce the Wahl AR4 email attachment from 2006 that was legally requested which Ken Jones asked to be deleted and Mann said that he would pass on the request to delete which has not been produced to date because it no longer exists.

    Then we can talk about other data that may or may not have been deleted by the climategate co-conspirators.

    BTW: JJ I am a regular at BA, I come here for the astronomy but have been drawn in on some of Phil’s other subject matter charms. Phil! WTF is going on with caturday? Two weeks in a row by my count, MTU am I right? Did your brother-in-law run out of material Phil?(Phil j/k love the caturday stuff but your other astronomy material keeps me coming back).

    JJ, I see no need to say, ooo and ahhh at the majority of Phil’s posts. The CAGW posts are something that I have a disagreement. Hence, you only see me in the CAGW threads. The typical Daily Kos crap threads I don’t think I read past the first paragraph.

    JJ it would be nice if everyone recognized that individuals view issues from different perspectives. I ask for no mercy and I know your lord GAIA would not grant me any even if I joined your cult of Global Warming anyway. I don’t take anything personal in these threads and I hope you don’t either. That said you mis-characterized my previous comment regarding the case where Bradley by proxy is claiming that Wegman plagiarized his book(which Bradley seems to have bulk copied/plagiarized/violated copyright material of a competing text book by Fritts) in a report to the US Congress. This whole case seems silly to me but in the land of unicorns and pixie dust citations are something that can kill a career. I honestly do not know the process for fair use and debate regarding the presentation of a report to congress. I somehow doubt that for readabilities sake the citations requirements of the world of unicorns and pixie dust would come into play with a report to the US congress. I do however suspect that what Bradley did with his wholesale copy of Fritts published textbook if copyright permission was not given it would matter little if he gave a credit in the acceptable manner which it seems Bradley failed to do also. Honestly I doubt any malice with any of this.

    It is however ironic that by making a stink regarding an old report to congress that Bradley and not Wegman may suffer a career ending blow both in the academic world of Unicorns and pixie dust as well as a hearty financial blow in the copyright courts.

    It seems that broken hockey sticks are the cross that the religion of global warming must bear.

  76. Zetetic

    @ Paul in Sweden:

    Oh goody! Another visit from the fundamentalist disciple of The Church of the Divine AGW Denialism. (Brought to you by ExxonMobil™!)

    So tell us P.i.S., have you found any sources of information yet that aren’t funded by, or tied to the fossil fuel industry yet?

    How about that credible positively supporting evidence you’ve been repeatedly asked for, but never seem to provide? I know you don’t want to look for such evidence since it would disrupt your devout faith in denialism, but I’d really like to know what it is.

    Funny how you confuse finding nothing in the emails (unless you deliberately take the comments out of context) and a few politicos trying to cover their asses in a massive PR smear campaign by the denialists a “whitewash”.

    Is that still all you have? Just cut and pasting from websites funded by the fossil fuel industry? You still have no credible evidence and are still acting just like any other fundamentalist, where if anybody associated with AGW did anything wrong (or made any mistakes) then all of the other evidence and all of the other scientists are automatically wrong. A page straight out of the Young Earth Creationist playbook. Truly you are a mountain of faith P.i.S., and I don’t mean it as a compliment.

    As to your broken hockey stick that was already refuted up thread, do try and keep up with reality P.i.S.

    Also please try to find that credible supporting evidence for the denialist position. We’d really like you to find any credible supporting evidence that comes even close to what the 97% of scientists that accept AGW as real have offered.

  77. Zetetic

    (For the sake of efficiency I’m going to post this in both of the recent AGW threads.)

    @ Paul in Sweden (again):
    Frankly you’re inability to provide credible supporting evidence of your position would be laughably pathetic if it wasn’t beginning to bore me.

    But, it occurred to me that even after explaining what should be obvious to you, yet again, that you may still not understand what credible “positively supporting evidence” might actually be. So assuming once again that you’re not trolling and actually are just blinded by faith in an ideology, I’ll explain further what it would take to convince anyone motivated by actual evidence that AGW is incorrect.

    In other words I’m telling you how to make a viable case for your position, since you don’t seem to understand what that entails….

    Do you think that the Earth isn’t warming?
    If so then what is the credible evidence that actually shows that the average global temperature has not been rising over the last several decades?
    Easy, right? So where is it?
    After all, several independent attempts at measuring the Earths temperature from scientific groups around the world, often using different techniques show that it is warming.
    So were is the evidence that it’s not? Where is the credible evidence that the long term average temperature of the planet has ether been stable or gone down? Please note, not short term drops in temperature, ignoring the previous and subsequent rise again, and not a local drop in temperature in one area, but average global temperature.

    ————————————————————————————————————-

    Maybe though P.i.S., you think that the Earth is warming,but that humans aren’t at fault? Since you never go into much detail about what your position is, just that you disagree with AGW (again very much like many YECs) but for the next few examples let us assume that is your position (“Earth is warming, but it’s not because of human activity”).

    Do you have credible evidence that shows that the Earth’s warming is contrary to what would be expected if the warming was due to greenhouse gasses? In other words warming that doesn’t fit that pattern?
    Again several independent groups all show a atmospheric warming pattern consistent with warming caused by GHGs.
    Were is the credible evidence that shows an long term atmospheric warming pattern inconsistent with GHGs causing warming?
    Were is the credible evidence that clearly shows increasing average global temperatures being caused by another source besides GHGs?

    Also satellite measurements of infrared radiation escaping the Earth has showed changes over the last few decades consistent with increasing GHGs causing global warming.
    Where is the credible evidence that shows that it’s not happening, that the Earth’s infrared emissions are not showing a change consistent with increases in GHGs?

    Maybe you think that the GHGs are caused by nature, and not by human activity.
    Multiple independent measurements of rising CO2 levels show changes over time of the isotopic ratios of C12 to C13, this indicates increased CO2 produced mainly by human activity.
    Where is the credible evidence that shows any increase in CO2 is coming from natural sources, and if so what natural sources?

    ———————————————————————————————————–

    Please note that in each of the above cases I’m not asking for you to try and nitpick at what ever flaws you imagine (or were told) are in a specific study that supports AGW (as a YEC would do), especially since each of the above items of evidence for AGW are backed by multiple sources (often using different techniques) arriving at the same conclusion. What I’m asking you for is what credible evidence do you have that actually shows each of the above as being contradicted by other and better credible evidence?

    Do you really have nothing more to offer than quoting Exxon sponsored sites that cry conspiracy, try to sling mud, and nit-pick some studies (while ignoring others) all while tap-dancing around the points the authors of the studies are trying to make?

    You probably won’t believe me (or if trolling you won’t care) but the fact of the matter is that I really don’t like the idea of global warming. Nor do I like the idea that it may take drastic measures to do anything about it. But, I also don’t like the fact that the longer we delay doing anything about AGW the more drastic such measures may have to be.

    But reality doesn’t care about what I like or dislike. What matters are the facts, and at this point the AGW side has the evidence to the point that 97% of the scientists in the relevant fields accept AGW as a fact. Unless the anti-AGW side can produce credible evidence that positively shows that the above conditions are not occurring, then there is no reason for the scientific community, or any objective individual to take your position seriously since ideology doesn’t overrule reality.

    I’m betting that you still will not provide any credible supporting evidence as mentioned above, nor will you admit any of the earlier errors I caught you in. This would be consistent for both a troll and someone wrapped up in denialism as a defense mechanism.

    Therefore my predictions for your response in order of ascending likelihood…
    1) You may decide to ignore the threads, and end the conversation. But I doubt that.

    2) You’ll continue to prattle on about how those that base their positions on evidence are acting on “faith”. Again, projecting just like a creationist.

    3) You’ll continue to post PR from fossil fuel sponsored sites that still make the futile effort of proving AGW denialism by trying to attack the evidence supporting AGW without doing anything to actually positively support the anti-AGW position through credible peer-reviewed evidence, again just like a Young Earth Creationist.

    4) A combination of #2 and #3. (Most likely, IMO.)

    I’m curious to see which of my predictions of your response will be accurate. :D

  78. Science Shinobi

    Nicely done Zetetic. You’ve owned Swedish Paul, and shown that when it comes to AGW he is the conspiracy loving ( “various climategate whitewashes”) faith head.
    Its a pity that Paul can’t understand that he “hasn’t got a leg to stand on” when it comes to evidence for his beloved faith of denialism.

  79. Zetetic

    @ Science Shinobi:
    Thank you very much!

    Odd isn’t it? How in spite of P.i.S.’s replies in the latest AGW thread he/she still hasn’t provided any credible supporting evidence yet?

    Maybe Paul is still waiting for a reply from Exxon. :D

  80. Messier Tidy Upper

    @69. Chris Winter & # 70. Zetetic :

    “PS. Can anyone please kindly translate from the US measure to the metric for me what 128.3 Fahrenheit is in degrees Celcius? (@ the 7 min. 39 sec. mark on that first linked clip.)”
    That works out to 53.4°C.

    &

    If you just type in Google a search for “128.3 Fahrenheit into Celsius”, you’ll get 53.5 C. In fact you can use Google to convert all sorts of measurements.

    Thanks. Much appreciated. :-)
    Sorry it’s taken me awhile to reply.

    Yegods that’s hot! :-o

    @76. Paul in Sweden : Thanks for your reply.

    Thing is, even if you assume the climategate emails are true and not just horribly taken out of context & blown out of proportion (& I do think that is the case), they do NOT refute all the other evidence (of which there are vast icesheets worth) demonstrating the reality of AGW.

  81. Zetetic

    @ Messier Tidy Upper:

    No problem! :D

    Yegods that’s hot!

    Especially with the limited Air Conditioning there. Frankly though, I don’t think that most AGW denialists care as long as it doesn’t effect them personally.

    they do NOT refute all the other evidence (of which there are vast icesheets worth) demonstrating the reality of AGW.

    Quite true, I’ve been trying to point that out to P.i.S. but as usual it doesn’t sink in (or he/she just doesn’t care).

    Most AGW denialist arguments can be directly traced back to the same logic employed among Young Earth Creationists, I kind of make a game out of “How would this translate into YEC?”.

    I’ve read the emails in question, it’s a classic example of quote-mining, another YEC favorite tactic. Paul’s “climategate” translates into YEC speak as quote-mining what Darwin said about the eye, or what Gould said about transitional fossils and therefore the Earth is only 6000 years old.
    Yeah, right….

    P.i.S.’s attempts at further scandal mongering translate into a Young Earth Creationist declaring that “Piltdown Man” and “Nebraska Man” invalidate all of the modern evolution, and therefore Genesis and Noah’s flood are correct.

  82. EarthSaver

    VOTE ALL DEMOCRATS BACK IN COME 2012!!!!!!!!

    WE CAN’T AFFORD THESE TEA PARTIERS WHO CAN’T TELL THEIR LEFT HAND FROM THEIR RIGHT!!!

    THEY’RE KILLING US AND THE PLANET WITH THEIR EFUSAL TO FACE THE TRUTH.

    GIVE US A BLUE U. S. FOR 2012!!!!!!

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »