BPSDBIf Climate change Deniers actually were from Mars they would know better than to claim that warming on Mars or any other planets was evidence that solar variability had anything to do with climate change on Earth. Given that warming has been detected on only 6 out of the over 100 bodies in the solar system, they’d have been smarter not to mention it at all.
Naturally the claim that “the other planets are warming” is just another Denier fable that contradicts the facts, but what makes the Mars fable interesting is the number of ways in which it contradicts many other Denier claims. It really serves to underscore the incoherence of many Deniers, and the extent to which they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
It’s a fable, of course
This particular post has been ‘in the queue for a while, but has been brought forward because Peter Sinclair has done a remix of his Mars Attack video
Apparently Sinclair will be reworking a number of his videos, and it is worth noting that he is now going to include references and resources with each video. Here are the resources he includes with the Mars Attack remix:
Mars “global warming”:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news…
Pluto “global warming”:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy…
supposed warming on other planets:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/globa…
Uranus cooling:
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/%7Elayoun…related vid, solar activity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UI…discussion here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/globa…
http://www.newscientist.com/article/d…
http://www.newscientist.com/article/d…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/…
Sinclair gets the main elements of the Mars fable, and the resources at bottom more than adequately cover all there is to say about it, so this summary will be very brief, then the fun stuff 🙂 .
The belief that Mars may be experiencing warming is based on observed changes in albedo as published by Fenton et al Global warming and climate forcing by recent albedo changes on Mars. It was a hypothesis based on observed changes in albedo, not even on changes in temperature data over time. Fair enough, it’s what was known at the time and a not unreasonable hypothesis given that.
With more information we now know that Mar probably isn’t even warming at all. If it is (unlikely), then it is due to changes in albedo caused by dust storms coupled with other climate drivers such as orbital peculiarities. All factors particular to Mars and which have absolutely nothing to do with Earth. For the other bodies in the solar system that are warming Skeptical Science does a good summary.
So the Mars Fable tells us almost nothing about the other planets, and absolutely nothing about climate change on Earth. What does it tell us about climate change Deniers?
It’s not just reality that the Deniers contradict, they often contradict themselves and each other. The Mars myth is particularly rich in examples of these contradictions, so let’s look at some of them.
Deniers contradict themselves
Denier Fable: The temperature record is inadequate
In the video Sinclair points out this contradiction. This fable has a number of variations such as: the temperature record of 130 years is not long enough, the equipment is unreliable, proxies are not valid, and so on.
In fact the temperature record for Mars is much, much shorter than what we have for Earth, involves far fewer measurements, kinds of measurements, types of equipment, etc. Nonetheless the Deniers consider this comparatively miniscule data as indisputable.
Further, the Mars record is far too short to allow for determining actual climate trends (see here and here). As Andrew Dessler stated (emphasis added “There are no actual long-term measurements of Mars’ surface temperature. Thus, we have no idea if Mars is actually warming.”
Of course the records for the other objects in the solar system are even more inadequate. eg for Pluto:
“…a cursory glance at Pluto’s orbit and atmosphere reveals how ridiculous it is to draw any conclusions about climate, much less climate change, from two occultation observations 14 years apart way out there in the ice cold and lonely Kuiper Belt!
Answers to the Most Frequently Stated Concerns PDF
Denier logic: many decades of data from tens of thousands of monitoring stations globally is hopelessly inadequate. Two observations within a single season for a planet is definitely accurate.
Denier Fable: Computer models are unreliable/useless
Andrew Dessler points out that the belief that Mars must be warming is from a study that is entirely based on a computer model. This is a recurring contradiction/hypocrisy by Deniers ie chosing to accept as gospel the results from computer models that they believe support their claims while simultaneously dismissing all computer modeling as junk science.
Denier Fable: It’s all just the Sun (which is warming all the other planets too).
The Deniers cite Mars and Pluto as evidence that all of the planets are warming and this therefore proves that Earth’s warming is solar driven. As noted above, they neglect to mention that warming has been detected on only 6 out of the over 100 bodies in the solar system, and as far as we know Uranus is cooling (and Pluto almost certainly soon will be).
If the state of the other planets is the indicator of what Earth should be experiencing, why not pick the 94% rather than the 6 that suit the Deniers political agenda seem to suggest the Sun? Surely the Deniers are not such craven liars that they would deliberately cherry pick data that seem to support their predetermined conclusion?
Regardless, as I recently posted, the evidence that it is not the Sun is overwhelming.
Denier Fable: The Earth is Cooling/Climate change stopped in 1998/2002/other
Youtube user MTGandP pointed this one out. In a nutshell the logic is: Earth is cooling therefore Earth’s climate is driven by the Sun which is in a cool phase. Mars is warming which is caused by the (cooling) Sun, therefore climate on both planets is driven by the Sun; quod erat ignoratum as they say.
Denier Fable: Correlation is not causation
The statement is true enough, it’s the claim that anthropogenic climate change science is based on correlation is not.
So what is the basis of the Denier claim that warming on other planets explains warming on Earth? They are allegedly correlated, and therefor have the same causation. That’s their logic. According to them, in this instance correlation is causation.
Denier Fable: Global Warming is just a theory
Denier logic: Tens of thousands of studies and an unbelievable mountain of evidence across many disciplines is “just a theory.” A supposition from two data points and a computer model is God’s own truth.
Deniers are not from Mars
Now this Denier fable is so mind bogglingly lame that the average person would be forgiven for thinking that surely it is only the most extreme nutbars who pass this one around. Surely the more mainstream Deniers are more sensible than to actually try and pass off this nonsense.
Not so. Solomon, Gunter, Heartland, Science and Public Policy Institute, Inhofe, just tour the Denialosphere and you will find that the Mars myth is one of the main pillars of the Denier Canon. Central, and every bit as scientifically robust as all of the rest of the Denier claims.
The fact is that the Mars myth really just underscores how fraudulent and incoherent the Denier Canon is, hence the Deniers would have done better not to mention it at all. But Deniers are from a magic place where the laws of physics, reason and logic do not apply, or at least are not considered relevant. It is a sweet and filling, happy place; however it does contain nuts.
Resources debunking the Mars fable
- Extraterrestrial Global Warming?
- Global warming on Mars?
- Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting
- Is global warming solar induced?
- Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Crackpot Scientist Says…
- Mars and Pluto are warming too
- ‘Mars and Pluto are warming too’—No they aren’t—and what if they were?
- Mars is warming
- Save the Martians!
- Solar Forcing and Global Warming: Here We Go Again
- There’s Global Warming on Mars Too
- What about Mars
“Many of America’s most important commercial crops require between 400 and 1800 hours each winter when the temperature is below 45 degrees Fahrenheit.” Earth Gauge
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 323 … still no evidence.
IMAGE CREDITS:
The Mars Bar NYC by marcus_jb1973
Desk Covered in Mini Mars Bars by redwolfoz
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Some links to useful research regarding the Sun (and hence Mars):
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/research/36581
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/1/014006
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511122425.htm
The Mars fable is one of the funniest ones out there, right after “Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by Al Gore who wants to take all your money and make America into a Communist dictatorship led by King Barack Obama who is Muslim and death panels and stuff!!”
—-
Notice how they never mention the moon… It is in the same orbit at the same distance from the sun… hmmm.
The moon does not have an atmosphere, hence no global warming.
As a “3/4 Denier” — Good Point.
…
To add to it — if the lack of Sunspots has us now in Global Cooling, [1] shouldn’t the “Denier” side have been wanting to show the other Planets as: COOLING ? [2]
—-
[…] is not just a rive in Egypt September 16, 2009 — Richard Climate change Deniers are NOT from Mars: [Via Greenfyre's] If Climate change Deniers actually were from Mars they would know better than […]
[…] Climate change Deniers are NOT from Mars […]
Er, some climate change denial may in fact be from Mars.
—-
Well, it’s probably a near-truism that all wingnut billionaires fund climate denial to some degree, although from the available evidence the Mars clan doesn’t seem to loom large in the field.
Your arguments are good, but the term “denier” seriously detracts from your credibility. Someone who uses the term “denier” in reference to a scientific and political debate is either very young (hence ignorant) or too partisan to be credible (because he sees everything thru a sharp partisan lens).
It isn’t a term used loosely – see here and here.
Mike certainly isn’t “very young” (sorry, Mike), “ignorant” or indeed “partisan”. Read a bit more before jumping to conclusions.
S2, your response is somewhat weak. The references you provide are to the same blog – big deal. Scott2009 is correct.
Using the silly term “Denier’ has a sophomore feel to it (some people never grow up). It seems to me that the facts – as Mike believes them – can and should stand by themselves.
After all, imagine if GW believers were called ‘gullibles’ in an article trying to be serious that GW does not exist. I can hear the snorts of derision already from the GW community.
IMO using the silly ‘denier’ term simply plays into the hands of the people opposing GW. It may impress those with a BA in politics or language (like Al Gore who failed his one science course), but a more reasoned objective argument is required by those with scientific training.
What term would you prefer?
Elleno,
You think “alarmist” is a term of endearment?
The problem is that ‘alarmist’ does not accurately reflect the situation, but ‘denier’ probably does.
>>The references you provide are to the same blog – big deal.
Elleno, it looks like you were provided with some explanation for the use of terms on this blog, since you are on this blog. Seems reasonable to me.
>>Scott2009 is correct.
Scott is not correct. Climate change is a nonpartisan issue and is presented as such on this blog. Scott’s comments are not interesting because he merely argues that the term ‘denier’ shouldn’t be used on the basis of attacking Greenfyre.
>>Using the silly term “Denier’ has a sophomore feel to it (some people never grow up). It seems to me that the facts … can and should stand by themselves.
The facts of the science are discussed on this science blog with numerous links to other current and competent science sites and research, both general and specific to a topic. Point and click. 🙂
Regarding the concept of ‘denial’, it is widely used. If you read the many posts and discussions on this blog that unpack the concept of denial, no one will have to rehash it all, just for you.
The ‘facts’ are that if you understand earth systems, the carbon cycle, and limits to carbon uptake, you will understand why there is also a C02 emissions crisis.
If you want to consider how such a widely-used and accurate term such as ‘denial’ has been co-opted by interests, observe the efforts of industry shills to insist on associating it with Holocaust denial.
Some people, like you, are personally resistant to change and influenced by ideological forces such as industry propaganda, so you deny the facts (and reality). This fictitious belief that there is no problem, when there is a problem, is called ‘denial’ in psychology. Denial tends to have bad consequences, since it leaves people unprepared to take steps to address a problem. This is true at a personal level, and historically.
Your type of points are already addressed and discussed thoughtfully and ad nauseum on posts and related discussion on this site.
So I’ll ask again: why should it all be repeated, just for you? 😦