“Jennifer Marohasy‘s Denier1 Blog has published the climate change / global warming Deniers [Fanfare] “Ten of the Best Climate Research Papers (Nine Peer-Reviewed): A Note from Cohenite”
OK, I count only seven peer reviewed, so we see that the Deniers are up to their usual standard of accuracy (and I haven’t actually checked them all yet). Actually there are several fun things about the list, but let’s start with:
Eli Rabett blogged about the list in “Believing ten impossible things before breakfast.”
Eli explains it in more detail and it is definitely worth checking out, but the nutshell version is that a number of the papers are mutually exclusive.
Put simply, if paper A is true, then B cannot be. So by accepting some of the papers as valid the Deniers are necessarily saying that others on the list are false. If they are false, why are they on the “ten best” list?
The answer is naturally that Deniers embrace anything that purports to dispute anthropogenic climate change no matter how absurd or contrary to things they already claim are true. Denierism is not a coherent position that juxtaposes one set of hypotheses against anthropogenic climate change. Rather it is the irrational, knee jerk rejection of climate science.
They simply don’t think it through; not the science and not the things they embrace that allegedly refute the science. Apparently in their “sacred work to destroy the false creed of climate change” they will swallow anything.
Moving on, the whole preamble to the list deserves vivisection and I propose to do so in a later post, so we’ll leave it for now.
As for the list itself, the papers range from thoroughly discredited to at the very least contested. In presenting the list (below)I have included a link (in many cases leading to multiple links) that takes you to discussion of that paper that refutes, or at least disputes it. (additions welcome ie links to other reputable discussions).
Drumroll please ….
1. Steve McIntyre’s Ohio State University Address; How do we “know” that 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium? (May 16, 2008).
– The hockey stick is broken, Brand New Hockey Sticks, Sorry deniers, hockey stick gets longer, stronger: Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years
2. Craig Loehle’s paper; A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies, Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058. 2007
– Past reconstructions: problems, pitfalls and progress
Not a peer reviewed publication as far as I can tell
3. Douglass, Christy et al; this is the first of the GCM critiques; A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, 2007
– David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, et al
4.Koutsoyiannis et al; Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 2008.
– Hypothesis testing and long range memory
5.Stockwell; Tests of Regional Climate Model Validity in the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report. 2008
– If this is published anywhere other than on his personal web site I’d love to know of it. Frankly my first pass on this one is such that I may return to it in an upcoming blog.
Not peer reviewed as far as I can tell
6. Misckolczi; Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary Atmospheres.
7. Essex, McKitrick, Andresen; Does a Global Temperature Exist?
– Does a Global Temperature Exist?,
8. Spencer and Braswell; Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A simple Model Demonstration,
– How to cook a graph in three easy lessons
9. Chilingar; Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
– L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar, Khilyuk and Chilingar: the gift that keeps giving
Not a peer reviewed publication as far as I can tell
10. Pielke Sr et al; Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends.
I am having trouble finding any scientific discussion of this one … can anyone cite one or more credible sources that look at it?
Cohenite ends his presentation of the list with the challenge “Given the above, what 10 papers can AGW supporters produce to vindicate AGW?”;
apparently oblivious to the fact that a number of the papers do not actually purport to refute anthropogenic climate change, they merely attempt to cast aspects of it into doubt (if they were valid, which they’re not, or may not be).
UPDATES (to past blogs)
Somehow I missed Coby Becks response “Temperatures plummeted in 2008” to the “global cooling” meme when I posted “Deniers Prove Staircases are Level!“, so that is being added.
I also overlooked FrankBi’s important contribution to Denier Conspiritology “Surge, groupthink, petition” (see Secundo) and that is added to “Denier Conspiracy Theories: More Paranoid Than Thou”
——
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 23 … still no evidence.
1As I discuss here I do not use the term “Denier” to refer to all climate change doubters. Those who thoughtfully and intelligently address the facts I call ’skeptics’.
Those who irrationally deny the existence of the science and instead propagate the lies and distortions such as those discussed above and linked to the right under “Debunking Denier Nonsense” are “Deniers”.
The choice of the correct term is based on their actions, not their conclusions.
PHOTO CREDITS:
2008 Yongsan Dog Show by usag.yongsan
Re: Pielke, et al.:
It’s been cited 4 times in the peer-reviewed literature — and one was a self-reference. That is, it’s been largely ignored, I would guess because it’s a hodgepodge of whatever Dr. Pielke can find remotely wrong with the “AGW theory”. Not sure if you’ll have access to that URL , so I’ll copy the references here too.
—-
The Pielke paper was the first gun in the Watt Wars. There was a devastating response to it from Peterson
and, of course the Bunny was on the spot
goqdtjhuhcmcdxidwell, hi admin adn people nice forum indeed. how’s life? hope it’s introduce branch 😉
—-
“For a paper that purports to be a seminal work in an very active field of science that is an impressive feat of obscurity. I have seen dissections of flea genetalia get a lot more academic attention and acclaim.”
🙂
I guess the flea sex organ research has helped with the development of health care and other proactive strategies to help prevent e.g. Plague, and other human and animal health issues related to flea reproduction.
But one has to wonder what it will take for the real and potential health concerns related to food and water-borne illnesses associated with warming (that someone like Goklany somehow manages to completely overlook in his incompetent interpretation and risk analysis, discussed in one of your other articles) to be taken seriously.
The health issues are well-understood in the field of epidemiology, so it is hard to understand how it could be missed.
Something is terribly wrong with research literacy on Planet Denialism!
I guess the flea sex organ research has helped with the development of health care and other proactive strategies to help prevent e.g. Plague, and other human and animal health issues related to flea reproduction.
But one has to wonder what it will take for the real and potential health concerns related to food and water-borne illnesses associated with warming (that someone like Goklany somehow manages to completely overlook in his incompetent interpretation and risk analysis, discussed in one of your other articles) to be taken seriously.