Paul Hudon of BPSDB

• The BBC asks “What happened to global warming?” during the hottest decade in recorded history!
• What happened to global warming?
• The BBC should report climate change facts rather than political spin
• Hudson’s choice

says: “I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October.”

Oh really? before 24 of them were even written?

1255477545.txt / 13 Oct 2009, 1255496484.txt / 14 Oct 2009, 1255523796.txt / 14 Oct 2009, 1255530325.txt / 14 Oct 2009, 1255532032.txt / 14 Oct 2009, 1255538481.txt / 14 Oct 2009, 1255550975.txt / 14 Oct 2009, 1255553034.txt / 14 Oct 2009, 1255558867.txt / 14 Oct 2009, 1256214796.txt / 22 Oct 2009. 1256302524.txt / 23 Oct 2009, 1256353124.txt / 23 Oct 2009, 1256735067.txt / 28 Oct 2009, 1256747199.txt / 28 Oct 2009, 1256760240.txt / 28 Oct 2009, 1256765544.txt / 28 Oct 2009, 1257532857.txt / 06 Nov 2009, 1257546975.txt / 06 Nov 2009, 1257847147.txt / 10 Nov 2009, 1257874826.txt / 10 Nov 2009, 1257881012.txt / 10 Nov 2009, 1257888920.txt / 10 Nov 2009, 1258039134.txt / 12 Nov 2009, 1258053464.txt / 12 Nov 2009

“More later.”

No doubt, I’m looking forward to hearing it, as are others I am sure  …

“Scotland Yard on line 2, they’d like a word with you!“

“Over the 20th century, ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic main development region warmed during peak hurricane season, with the most pronounced warming occurring over the last four decades.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

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.

The story so far: BPSDB

1. CRU research computer hacked, many emails copied, claims are made that they reveal broad scientific fraud;
2. Emails released, much sound and fury told by idiots, claims seem to be all innuendo and speculation;
3. More and more nothing as people search for something, anything of substance in the emails.

“I’m going to make sure he goes to jail!“

Does this statement reveal:

1. a corrupt prosecutor determined to subvert the legal system?
2. a prosecutor who has absolutely damning evidence against the accused?
3. a dedicated prosecutor talking about her commitment to successfully prosecute someone she sincerely believes to be guilty?

You decide for yourself, but I’d say there is no way to tell. In the first place there is nothing about the statement that gives any clues about which it might be.  It matters very much which it is because the statement in and of itself could easily be any of the three. As is and out of context it’s not anything you could call a good or bad thing.

Further, it matters what is actually done, not what was said. If the statement was 1), but the next morning he sobered up and went on to prosecute the case fairly and properly, then the statement was just bluster. Intemperate and stupid perhaps, but not a crime.

If it was 2) or 3), but the case subsequently went badly and the prosecutor began to tamper with and withhold evidence etc to try and get the conviction, then that is a crime and should be treated as such.

To determine whether the statement is referring to committing a crime or not requires that a crime actually needs to be committed or at least seriously planned (which actually is a crime).  Not only that, the statement could actually be referring to doing the right thing and doing it well (ie not simply neutral). The premise that it is necessarily referring to doing something illegal, wrong and/or unethical is just false.

Before we move on to the actual CRU emails, let’s consider a couple more hypothetical situation to examine the ethical questions. Let’s begin by noting that peer review is a process that helps ensure the quality of science, however it is not a perfect process

• and here,
• good discussion wrt climate science here and here,
• recent climate example here)

and inaccurate/flawed/fraudulent studies do get published. No system is perfect and it happens.

How science generally reacts to flawed studies varies. If the topic is important then others may rush to publish refutations. If the research is well known to flawed or the subject is relatively trivial and/or marginal then everyone simply ignores it. However, it may be a different matter if the stakes are significantly higher.

Suppose a medical researcher or group of researchers have good cause to believe that a particular study:

1. is incorrect/false/flawed, and
2. it’s publication will lead to practices that endangers peoples health and/or lives, and
3. there is a real risk the peer review process will miss the problems, and hence it will be published,

should they:

1. shrug and ignore it?
2. take every reasonable, ethical step to prevent publication, such as drawing journal editors attention to errors and problems with the research?
3. alert the medical community immediately through emails, non-peer reviewed publications etc?
4. let it be published and publish refutations of the research later (typically 3 to 6 months gap IF the refutation is ready to be submitted, otherwise much longer)?
5. do anything they can to subvert the process and prevent publication.?

I think most would agree that the researcher(s) is morally and ethically bound to attempt to do something. Whether you think they should do one of 2), 3) or 4), or some combination of them, is another matter. Some might even argue that the ethical situation cf the Nuremburg Principles would even justify 5).

In our second situation, if a medical researcher or group of researchers have good cause to believe that a particular journal regularly publishes studies of the sort described above, should they:

1. shrug and ignore it?
2. take every reasonable, ethical step to alert the community to problems with that journal, such as drawing publishers and policy makers attention to errors and problems with the research?
3. alert the medical community immediately through emails, non-peer reviewed publications etc?
4. let it be them publish whatever they do and each time publish refutations of the research later (typically 3 to 6 months gap IF the refutation is ready to be submitted, otherwise much longer)?
5. do anything they can to subvert the process and prevent publication?

As with the first example, I think most would agree that they are morally obligated to do something, although there may be debate about exactly what.

With that in mind, let’s look at some more of the “daming emails” that has everyone in a tizzy, specifically those that purport show evidence of attempts to subvert peer reviewed research.

• • Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489) Climate Cuttings 33
  • Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. (1051190249) Climate Cuttings 33
  • Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. (1106322460) Climate Cuttings 33

“…The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what t he peer-review literature is!” 1089318616.txt

and so on.

As discussed, the researchers have a moral obligation to take any reasonable and legal action to prevent publication or use of research that they sincerely believe to be flawed/false. Not only is it not wrong to attempt to address the situation, it is morally wrong not to.

What is important is what they actually do. If they alert editors to specific problems with the research (editors are not idiots, they will make their own judgment about the validity of such claims), or use other media to openly alert the community to the problems, that is all well and good.

If, on the other hand, they subvert the process by using means that are not based on the scientific facts, whether by using influence (“Hey Ed, you owe me, kill this paper and don’t ask why”), bribes (these ‘Spice Girls’ tickets could be yours if …), lying etc, then it is wrong. I will leave it to others to debate whether the latter instance would be morally wrong in an ultimate sense cf Nuremburg; for my purposes here I am willing to call it wrong at least in the immediate sense.

So the CRU crew discussed preventing publication of certain research and trying to bring about changes in certain journals that they sincerely believed to be publishing false/incorrect information. So far, good for them, but what did they actually do?

For the most part the emails do not actually tell us. One exception is documented by Rabett and Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub where they show that in at least one instance the researchers simply published refutations (ie acted correctly in all respects under any possible interpretation).

So let’s state that very clearly:

Whether they are right or wrong about the science, a researcher has a moral obligation to use ethical and legal means to try and prevent the publication or use of work that they sincerely believe to be false and endangers human well being.

That is not a crime, it is actually a moral duty. Further, there is no evidence that the CRU Crew did anything unethical or illegal in seeking to do this.

Remember that to this point we are simply discussing whether there is any evidence of wrong doing, not whether the they were right or wrong. What about that? Well, at least with respect to the examples given in the emails, they were right (odd how that doesn’t get discussed).

With respect to the journal Climate Research see “Climate Research” controversy, also here and

Climate Research and peer-review: You should read about the issuesClaire Goodess, Hans von Storch) who resigned because of a breakdown of the peer review process at that journal, that came to light with the particularly egregious (and well-publicised) paper by Soon and Baliunas (2003). The publisher’s assessment is here.

The CRU hack: Context

Equally, the journal Energy & Environment is peer reviewed only in the most facile and meaningless sense, and it looks like even EBSCO is going to stop pretending that they are a peer reviewed journal.

As for the research discussed in the emails, we now know they were right about them too (ie they have all since been refuted by peer reviewed science which has since stood up to scrutiny).

Despite Denier and Earthsucker claims to the contrary, the issue is NOT suppressing contrary views and debate, but rather keeping corrupt and bad science out of the debate. Or does someone want to step forward and argue that false claims and bogus studies should be part of the debate? Certainly they act as if they do, but are they willing to come right out and  say it in so many words?

Unless anyone can show that Spice Girls tickets were offered as bribes, or that any other form of unethical behaviour was engaged in with respect to this aspect of the controversy, then all these emails show is that the authors did the right thing.

One email and the commentary deserves particular mention though:

Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired. (1256765544) Climate Cuttings 33

What’s interesting about this one is that it is actually Sonia Boehmer Christiansen (editor of Energy and Environment, one of the journals in contention above). who is attempting to prevent  peer reviewed literature from influencing policy, something which the Denialosphere alleges is a heinous and actionable crime. By contrast Jones is merely responding to Christiansen’s allegations about his work.

According to the Denialosphere, which of the two is at fault here? Just in case you were curious whether the Deniers were championing openness and integrity in science, or are on a witch hunt after specific individuals regardless of the facts.

And for the record, “ even if we have to redefine what t he peer-review literature is!” ranks right up there with “even if I have to warp space and time to do it.” It’s a ludicrous suggestion meant to indicate serious intent, but read literally it is just silly. Anyone treating it as a serious statement is only parading their ignorance.

“Over the 20th century, ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic main development region warmed during peak hurricane season, with the most pronounced warming occurring over the last four decades.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

IMAGE CREDITS:

Justice by mindgutter

Justice, 50 Fleet Street, London by mira66

Chambers County’s Lady of Justice by jimmywayne

Justice delayed by prodigaldog

Fathers 4 Justice by minifig

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.

BPSDB

So Solid CRU

- ride wid us

• The Frame
• Sun Tzu
• Habeas corpus

The story so far:

1. CRU research computer hacked, many emails copied, claims are made that they reveal broad scientific fraud;
2. Emails released, much sound and fury told by idiots, claims seem to be all innuendo and speculation;
3. More and more nothing as people search for something, anything of substance in the emails.

The climate change science community was caught off guard by this for obvious reasons. Initially most were quite understandably not willing to comment until they had at least seen the evidence. Now we have seen the evidence, or all that we know exists.

Aside: apparently what has been released is about 1/2 of the total copied from CRU. We do not know if what has been released is cherry picked and the remaining material fills in the blanks exhonorating everyone of any wrong doing, or if there is more to come. According to RealClimate, whatever is there, it will not be evidence of scientific malpractice such as tampering with data, and that’s good enough for me.*

*[UPDATE: some freepers are using this statement as evidence that I am "Accepting unsubstantiated statements, on faith and faith alone." Yup, and clear about it too ... not pretending that unsubstantiated statements are fact.

I could turn out to be wrong, but at least I am not lying to anyone else about what the basis for my position is. And if there is a subsequent release and it contains actual credible evidence of data tampering, I will say so]

The frame

Since seeing the emails we have been responding by:

1. pointing out that while some (and only a few) of them sound dubious, there’s no actual evidence of anything;
2. attempting to point out that in every case there are also perfectly innocuous interpretations;
3. putting these sorts of discussions in context*

*Carbonfixated’s Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Renaissance and Enlightenment ‘thinking’” is a brilliant example of this. Many climate bloggers have impressed me, surprised me, delighted me, but this is the first time I have felt actual envy … I wish I’d done that piece.

Sun Tzu

Four problems with this strategy:

1)  It’s not a strategy, it’s a tactic, and not even a good one. “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” Sun Tzu

2) It assumes that “the problem” is a scientific one. Pretty natural concern for the science community, but it is increasingly clear that the science is in no way affected. The battle going on now is political, not scientific, and we have to fight it as a political battle.

3) To date the Deniers are annotating the emails with “helpful explanations” ie total fictions making outrageous claims about the context. As such they are dictating the narrative and we are responding to them within that frame.

They keep throwing punches and all we do s try to block them. No matter how good we are, some will land; hence Sun Tzu’s dictum.

4) The problem with offering reasonable interpretations is that they are always going to sound apologetic and never quite convincing. Particularly as most of us were not actually there. As certain as we can be that there are  perfectly innocent explanations, we do not know for certain that the explanations are innocent.

Take the example below: In the picture we see an Eco-fascist rally for world government. Pretty clear, isn’t it?

Eco-fascist rally for one world government.

Denier Version: Eco-fascists rally for World Dominance!

Of course given the context of this blog every reader knows that “Denier Version” is not what is actually happening here, but before moving on please decide what is really happening.

Seriously, what are they doing? Given this picture, what would a naive (ie uninformed person) think?  What would you tell them if they found this picture on a Denier site and asked you about it?

What if I tell you that it really is a climate change rally of “tree hugging greenies?” and that it’s not photo-shopped?  does that change anything? What do you think? Can you prove it?  When you suggest it, does it sound defensive? uncertain? apologetic?

Does it sound like we sound responding to the Deniers wrt to the CRU hack?

Reality Version: rather more mundane

Jump to 20 sec mark for answer

My point is that while everyone can see the video in this example, until they do that picture really is kind of creepy and disturbing.  (and btw, I fully expect some Troll to repost that picture as if it really were an actual Eco-fascist rally. The Deniers really are that pathetic.)

But of course with the edited email snippets no one is ever going to see the full story, because short of 24/7 videos of the last 20 years of the principle characters lives, the Deniers will always claim that the “crime” is just off screen.

As long as we go along with the Denier frame and narrative we are going to sound like defensive apologists. We need a strategy. We need to be the ones on the offensive, dictating the narrative and setting the frame. We need attitude.

Habeas corpus

One of the many holes in the Denier narrative is that they take it as a given that the climate science is false and that all that was left to do was to find the culprit. Their language is completely framed in terms of that assumption, hence the histrionics that the alleged “smoking gun” of the CRU emails seals the case.

Quite understandably the climate rationalist response has been to point out that the “gun” isn’t a “gun”, and it’s not smoking. Clearly Jones got hot under the collar at times, and different people were pretty steamed up about certain other people, but no smoking gun. That may be clear to us, but it’s not satisfying to the general public.

I suggest that we have change our response to “smoking gun? who cares? show us the “body!” Of course there is no “body”, or even “bullet holes” anywhere … ie no evidence that anything actually happened.

We need to switch from seeming to be defending the supposed culprit to demanding actual evidence of a crime, any crime. We need to be asking:

“Which studies were compromised, how? be specific. Cite papers and data sets. What is the evidence? where is it? what work is affected? how? show me the evidence that says so.

This supposed scandal involves perhaps a half dozen people, how does it affect the work of the 3,000+ others who’s work makes up climate science?

How does it affect the work that was done before the alleged culprits graduated from univeristy? the work from before they were born?

Of the 30,000(ish) studies that make up climate science, which ones are undone? where is the evidence? be specific … show us exactly how and why?” etc

because of course another hole in the Denier frame is thier certainty that the CRU hack topples climate science. Naturally they are taking advantage of the bobbhead credulity and the public naivete, which does work, but it also makes them vulnerable to it being challenged on it.

“You are certain it topples climate science? how? where? which studies? what evidence? You don’t know? then how are you certain?

Please run through a list of the studies you believe are affected? Hockey stick? what’s that? please refer to specific papers and studies.You don’t know? then how can you be certain?

Ahhh, Soandso 2004? so just how is it compromised? what part of the work? I thought you were certain?”

We need to hammer that and keep hammering it. Push hard, and not only the Deniers, but the media drones who brainlessly echo the Denier memes. Not hysterically or in anger, but with relentless defiant decency and certitude. Make it clear that they do not understand the science, and in fact have no idea what they think the emails actually mean.

We have to be the ones asking questions and demanding answers!

There’s a smoking gun? where’s the body?

Lyrics [Parental Advisory]

(ie kids already listen to this stuff all of the time, but be advised that parents will be offended &/or corrupted)

Related:

• ClimateGate reveals nefarious conspiracy!
• Climate contrarians spinning hard with stolen email files
• Climate Scientists’ Emails Hacked, Posted;
  So What Does it All Mean for the Climate?

“Over the 20th century, ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic main development region warmed during peak hurricane season, with the most pronounced warming occurring over the last four decades.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

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.

BPSDB One of the supposedly most damning quotes from the CRU Hack “scandal” is:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Phil Jones

which the Deneirs are citing as “proof positive” or data alteration , falsification, etc.

I suggested that, as with all of the other quotes, as they stood it didn’t actually say anything one way or another. Having worked in the sciences I said that to me it sounded like someone discussing a clever technique from the journal Nature for dealing with statistical noise or something of that sort.

Since then we learn that:

Mann said the “trick” Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. “It’s hardly anything you would call a trick,” Mann said, adding that both charts were differentiated and clearly marked.

Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center

and that (emphasis added)

The “decline” refers to the “divergence problem”. This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone’s email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.

What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?

UPDATE Nov 24th: see also “Hacked emails, tree-ring proxies and blogospheric confusion“

exactly as I speculated. Why did I think that? because that’s exactly how it sounds when scientists have that particular discussion. That, and there was no decline to hide from 1981 to 2000, so it made absolutely no sense the way the Deniers were trying to spin it.

Every profession evolves it’s own way of speaking as well as a specialised vocabulary. A soldier listening to soldiers speaking will understand much more about what is being said and meant than someone else, even if that other person knows all of the vocabulary. Ditto pizza cooks, day care workers, court clerks or brick layers.

Which is why scientists are spectacularly unimpressed with the emails being evidence of anything much at all. It’’s not that they are “circling the wagons” and “protecting their own” (as I have seen some suggest). They just “understand the language.” Not simply the words, but the structure and patterns that make up the “scientific dialect.” Even Denier Patrick Michaels said the emails were  “just the way scientists talk” (although he has apparently now gotten “on msg” with the rest of the Denier choir).

And for context on how scientists talk and what they talk about, this essay is absolutely brilliant, an absolute MUST READ:

Manipulation of evidence:

I wrote to you on Tuesday that the last leafe of the papers you sent me should be altered because it refers to a manuscript in my private custody & not yet upon record.

Newton to Keill, May 15 1674

Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Renaissance and Enlightenment ‘thinking’

Which is not to say that there isn’t some grounds for humiliation and embarrassment in the emails. Nate Silver does a nice discussion of Jones talking about “sexing up” a slide for presentation, but as Silver summarizes:

“I don’t know how you get from some scientist having sexed up a graph in East Anglia ten years ago to The Final Nail In The Coffin of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Anyone who comes to that connection has more screws loose than the Space Shuttle Challenger.“

I Read Through 160,000,000 Bytes of Hacked Files And All I Got Was This Lousy E-Mail

And as previously noted, Silver is not the only one to come to that conclusion:

• ClimateGate: Hacked Emails Reveal Global Warming Deniers Are Crazed Conspiracy Theorists
• Climategate? Not likely.
• The hacked climate science email scandal that wasn’t
• ClimateGate reveals nefarious conspiracy? NOT!
• Viaduct? Vy not?

Now that more and more people outside of the Denier camp have had a chance to actually read the emails there is feeling of being hugely underwhelmed.

“This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke.”

“There is no smoking gun, but just a lot of smoke without fire.“

Which is not to say that this will not have political ramifications. It has certainly galvanized the Denialosphere and the Earthsuckers. It’s the same kind of vacuous garbage that the Deniers have been pushing for years, and they have found a market for it.

On the plus side, from what I have seen in the more public domain a lot of people are so jaded by the Denier lies that they are rejecting this one as well.  As such I think it is important for the rest of us to be open and honest about what is in the emails (ie not much) and give the lack of content a high profile. We mustn’t appear to be trying to suppress them, but rather encouraging people to look for themselves (here’s that link again).

” … a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.“ Macbeth, from Act 5, Scene 5

That being said, it’s just another Denier storm like Monckton’s APS article (ie lots of noise, no substance) and needs to be handled as such.

“When you read through the many global warming skeptic arguments, a pattern emerges. Each skeptic argument misleads by focusing on one small piece of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture. To focus on a few suggestive emails while ignoring the wealth of empirical evidence for manmade global warming is yet another repeat of this tactic.”

What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?

“Over the 20th century, ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic main development region warmed during peak hurricane season, with the most pronounced warming occurring over the last four decades.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

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.

BPSDB I’m going to go out on a short limb here, but frankly more and more it is sounding like the correct response to “Have you seen the emails?” is “Yeah, have you?“

I refer to the uproar about the hacked CRU site which I posted about a few hours ago.

For all the Sturm und Drang and Denier promises of “final coffin nails”, there doesn’t actually seem to be anything to the story.  Sure, some impolitic and not nice things got said, and it’s embarrassing for some, but that seems to be about it.

We have all been waiting for the boot, or a shoe, or even a slipper to drop, and so far not even a sock … there’s nothing there.  Nada, zilch, gar nichts, mei you. That’s it, there’s no story, go home … get a life.

But read on anyway.

I read the emails as someone who trained as a scientist, but has never had anything to do with climate as a research scientist. Thus I have a sense of the culture of the sciences, but without necessarily having any idea what specifics were being referred to with respect to particular papers and studies. Here is my take on it.

From what I have  actually seen it is just “shop talk” taken out of context and nothing more. Very much as if a store clerk said they were going to go “hunt down some customers” and then someone else tried to claim that they were planning a murder. Have you ever said you were going to go “rustle up some grub?” you cattle thief you! Hope you didn’t put it in an email.

Let’s look at a bunch of the “damning” quotes along with  climate change Denier Tony Hake’s  commentary, and the emphasis he added. Caution, I get frankly rude about the willful convoluted misinterpretations that Hake attempts to impose. It’s dishonest, unethical, and lame.

Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.

Hake: From Michael E. Mann (witholding of information / data):

1) Computer code is generally proprietary to the institution, NOT information/data;
2) Deniers are notorious for scarfing up drafts etc and releasing them with the claim that they are the final product. Not wanting to release code that is still in testing and potentially flawed (hint “test”) in case some moron doesn’t understand what “in testing” means (the name Hake comes to mind for some reason) is perfectly sensible.

The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?

Hake: From Nick McKay (modifying data):

To “reinterpret” is NOT “modifying data”, it’s analysis  (did Hake not even do 1st year college?) Repeating an analysis may be done for any number of reasons and is standard practice. As long as the final result accurately presents the results and describes what was done with them there is no issue whatsoever.

We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.

Hake: From Tom Wigley (acknowleding the urban effect):

He is NOT acknowleding (sic) the urban effect. He is acknowledging the
fact that land warms twice as much as ocean, and since there are some morons who understand climate science so poorly they might claim it is an urban effect (the name Hake comes to mind for some reason), there is a  need to explain it more fully.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Hake: From Phil Jones (modification of data to hide unwanted results):

1) “Nature trick” to me he is referring to a published technique, ie in the Journal Nature (hence capitalized) … or does Hake think they hide data and then publish the fact? Certainly “trick” is a common synonym for “(clever) technique” in the sciences, and everywhere else.

I do not know the literature well enough to suggest exactly which paper and what technique Jones may have been referring to, but maybe someone else does. Unless Hake is suggesting that maybe Jones meant using blades of grass and song birds for his Nature “trick.”

2) Hake wants us to believe that “hide the decline” refers to temperature … “last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards.” There was no decline in temperature from 1981 onwards, it was a period of steep warming. We know from other data sets! Why would Jones want to hide a non-existent decline?

3) Turns out the “adding in the real temps” refers to as opposed to the estimates. So what was Jones referring to? I don’t know, but there are many possible legitimate things such as various forms of statistical ‘noise.’

The answer is probably to be found when the full email exchange is reconstructed and/or the technique referred to is identified, but as read there is not necessarily anything nefarious here.

If a reconstructed exchange shows intent to falsify data, fine, but as it appears here it is no more telling than overhearing a co-worker say “I’m going to kill him” without knowing anything about the context. Could be a fussball match or a Tetris wager.

As expected: Mann said the “trick” Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. “It’s hardly anything you would call a trick,” Mann said, adding that both charts were differentiated and clearly marked.

And as also expected: The “decline” refers to the “divergence problem”. This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone’s email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Hake: From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models):

Or an informal discussion of possible explanations for the data. And exactly who is Hake trying to fool suggesting that this is a secret discussion about trying to hide something that was “published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008″?

Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to  the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page–Gavin t?  As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we  actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ‘06 sensitivity test) in our  original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.

Hake: From Michael Mann (truth doesn’t matter):

What is unclear is who is Mann saying truth doesn’t matter to? I have made similar statements referring to Deniers like Inhofe, Morano, and Hake because thy lie constantly. Get us the rest of the email exchange and let’s see who Mann is referring to, and in what context.

Turns out the context (email 1256735067) is building a robust case for the data they are presenting. They have reason to believe that the putative accusers are not interested in truth, so they want as strong a case as possible … at least that is the most coherent reading to me.

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! …  The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

Hake: From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

As given it certainly doesn’t sound good, but what went in the “…”?

! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated ! Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series ! Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.

Ahhh, conversation indicating that other studies were confirming their findings … no wonder Hake didn’t want to include that.

But now I get confused as to what is to be deleted, and why it might be appropriate (or not)? raw data? incriminating messages? = VERY BAD

Trial runs? rejected analyses? inappropriate tests? = Normal practice.

So which was it? Does anyone know? What I do know is that Phil is obviously unconcerned enough to say “Leave it to you to delete as appropriate!” That does not sound like someone sweating about incriminating evidence. Sounds more like “Yeah, whatever. Do what you want.”

Jones does seem to have gotten quite reluctant to release data. I can understand why given the Denier habit of misinterpreting and misrepresenting it, whether through ignorance, incompetence, or malice. Even so, it probably would have been more helpful if he had done so.

Regardless, it is not clear to me that he was obliged to, so while he as clearly being not nice it is not necessarily indicative of anything beyond not wanting to be hassled by “those idiots.”

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website-Hake] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

Hake: From Michael E. Mann (using a website to control the message, hide dissent):

My God Hake is so desperate it’s pathetic (and I love the inserted editorializing  “A supposed neutral website” . No, it’s  not neutral, it’s pro-science. They are quite clear about that.

1) Using a website to control message? control? why “control” Hake? Is that why you use a website? To control the message?

2) Holy shit, why didn’t the Deniers think of using the Web? Climatologists are the only ones who did this! and planning it was obviously conspiring! /s

3) Try reading it. They are not “hiding dissent”, they are talking about holding certain comments back until a response  can be appended so that they are published together. Which is a hell of a lot more than most Denier sites do … they typically never post dissent, or just delete it.

4) And Mann controls the Web? Where is it written that all websites must post anything anyone posts? Personally I like a site to be clear what it’s policy is, but hey … at the end of the day it’s the owners site.

So how about we stop pretending that Mann doing exactly the same thing as every other person on the net  is somehow suspicious?

If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.

Hake: From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

As per above, dumb, but strictly speaking not “wrong” as far as I know (still dumb though).

Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Hake: From Phil Jones (destroying of emails / evidence):

Yup, it’s definitely about destroying emails. Evidence of what? Where is the context? Was it actually evidence? collusion to mislead? porn? a drinking problem? evidence of what?

I’ll throw one out there. Time and again I have had conversations with different people about matters which they were under confidentiality agreements not to talk to someone like me about. In no case was it ever unethical, nor was the information used for any purpose but to help them with a situation.

It still could have gotten them fired though. I could see why they might send me an email like Jones’. I’ll bet many readers have been in a similar situation too. Does that prove the email is innocent? Hell no. It proves absolutely nothing, just like the quoted text.

I am going to stop now because I am bored of this exercise and Hake’s desperation. Anyone who wants to read the rest of Hake’s slanderous innuendo may do so here. There is also a link to download the edited archive if you want it.

Is there really nothing to this?

I think so. The edited bits we are getting can sound bad, but the actually say absolutely nothing. Stripped of context they could suggest all kinds of unethical behaiour … or nothing at all.

Nothing we have seen so far actually says anything at all, but the Deniers swear this topples climate science (as mentioned, it couldn’t no matter what they found).

Ok, admittedly this deeply incriminating picture was found:

Clearly someone is using an office server for personal files, undoubtedly a violation of CRU regulations. Also the rubber duckie may not be a creative commons licensed image.

So what are we being asked to believe?

1)  Jones was so fiendishly clever that he went through all of the archives and meticulously removed everything that was definitely incriminating, while leaving all kinds of suggestive tidbits that would imply there was unethical, even illegal behaviour.

2) The 63 MB archive is just a teaser. The Deniers are holding back the real evidence for later. They have some damning stuff, but they don’t want to release it yet. Despite the fact that tens of thousands of people have downloaded it by now, they’re all holding the good stuff back.

3) There really is nothing here. Oh sure some nasty things got said, there’s evidence of being a little paranoid about releasing data, and it’s definitely embarrassing for some, but that seems to be about it. Actual incriminating anything? Nothing.  And even though they have nothing except bluster, the Deniers went ahead with all kinds of histrionic accusations and slander.

Which of those three do you believe?

Open Msg to Phil Jones ,  get a team of lawyers! … You may be able to get very, very rich from the lawsuits you file because of this. And if you can sue a few of Deniers right off the face of the Earth, well that would be nice too. 

“Over the 20th century, ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic main development region warmed during peak hurricane season, with the most pronounced warming occurring over the last four decades.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

IMAGE CREDITS:

pwned! by sota767

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.

BPSDB Yup, looks like it was yet another Denier dirigible … sure looked big, but once again it turns out that it’s just full of air. See this post for the basic story, and Climate change Deniers hoax themselves …again for the analysis.

ClimateGate: Hacked Emails Reveal Global Warming Deniers Are Crazed Conspiracy Theorists

Evidently due to this e-mail conspiracy, Arctic sea ice is at historically low levels, Australia is on fire, the northern United Kingdom is underwater, and the world’s glaciers are disappearing. Oh yeah, and it’s the hottest decade in history.

Wonk Room

Climategate? Not likely.

“So, do these emails and documents represent proof of a “conspiracy” and “scandal”? At this point it seems highly unlikely, and the more that people look at the illegally-obtained emails and documents, the less likely it will become. Here’s why.”

Scholars and Rogues

Viaduct? Vy not?

But the purportedly damning quote is obviously being misused.

“I don’t think anybody is hiding any evidence or tricking any audience. The word “trick” is to be understood as a programmer would understand “hack”; a clever shortcut. And the word “hide” is almost surely meant as “filter” meaning “the thing we want to do with this data is hard because there is another signal there hiding the one we are looking for, but we can subtract it out for the purpose at hand”. It would seem to be about the minutiae of data processing, not about hiding data for publication or subverting a published result.“

InitfortheGold?

And the Russian server hosting e-mails cracked from the Climatic Research Unit was…?

“So I thought to myself, “which Russian server was it, and which obscure blog was it exactly?” After chasing down web links for a while, I landed up on Andrew Bolt’s blog entry [cached] which gave a link to a Russian-sounding web page: http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip. (The link is broken however, and changing the protocol from http:// to ftp:// gives a “Connection refused” error.) Then again, I’m not sure Bolt’s blog counts as an “obscure” blog, so perhaps Schiermeier was referring to some other web site(s).

Meanwhile, the climate inactivists’ conspiracy-laden interpretations of the e-mails clearly pale in comparison to the things that inactivists have said in public.”

International Journal of Inactivism

Leading British climate centre hacked

“One of Britain’s leading climate-research centres has had more than 1,000 files stolen from its computers and republished on the Internet. The cyber-attack is apparently aimed at damaging the reputations of prominent climate scientists.

The University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Norwich confirmed today that e-mails and documents dating from 1991 to 2009 were illegally copied and subsequently published on an anonymous Russian server.“

Nature (H/T Climate Feedback)

CRU Hacked

“...secret lives of climate scientists spilled! And they really are as boring as you thought!

The story so far: Russian hackers have recently broken into the computers at University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) and posted files containing private emails between any number of well-known climate researchers. The usual suspects are claiming that the emails show massive malfeasance! the scientific fraud of the millennium! a Marxist conspiracy! and so on and so forth.“

BigCityLib Strikes Back

The CRU hack

“As many of you will be aware, a large number of emails from the University of East Anglia webmail server were hacked recently (Despite some confusion generated by Anthony Watts, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Hadley Centre which is a completely separate institution).

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.“

RealClimate

CRU Emails

“I’m withholding judgment until all of the facts come to light, but so far the “evidence” of conspiracy, wrongdoing, data fudging, etc. is pretty thin gruel. So far the claims seemed to based upon (willful?) equivocation on word meaning, excising of context, and so on. [UPDATE: See RC for more on that.] It’s also apparent that even if the worst possible spin on the allegations ended up being true, the net impact on the state of climate science would be small- certainly relative to the scope that is being claimed.”

The Way Things Break

That CRU data hack

“Love it or hate it, it’s going to be a pretty big story. I was mildly amused to see that Wattatwat doesn’t even know the difference between the Hadley Centre and CRU – the answer is about 300 miles, according to Google. And also, it seems that only one of them has an adequate firewall…“

James’ Empty Blog

Here’s what we know so far:

“CRU’s emails were hacked, the 2000s will easily be the hottest decade on record, and the planet keeps warming thanks to us!”

ClimateProgress

ClimateGate reveals nefarious conspiracy? NOT!

“What do we see in these emails? There seem to be some strong anger at those who work hard to distort information in their work and distort science when speaking to non-scientific communities. There is (passionate) frustration with self-proclaimed ’skeptics’ collaborating to create ‘peer reviewed’ journal space where non-scientifically sound work can be published. There is discussion of how to do analysis and how to account for confusing anomalies. There is plenty of material to cherry pick from and scream about in efforts to foster confusion about and disdain for actual science.”

GetEnergySmartNow!!!

The hacked climate science email scandal that wasn’t

“Much is being made by those who really, really believe that there’s a global conspiracy among climatologists of the emails and other documents stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. According to such bloggers, thousands of “embarrassing” pieces of correspondence between some of the leading climate researchers in the world now lay bare the scheme to mislead humanity about the nature of climate change.

I downloaded the 62 MB file and took a quick look at a random selection of what are mostly dull little missives bereft of the context required to understand them in any meaningful way. Just as you’d expect from bits and piece of correspondence never intended for public consumption. Next.”

Island of Doubt

Sigh

I’m with The Way Things Break and Climate Progress on this one:

1. as yet we don’t really know what the full story is here, and we sure can’t accept the Denialosphere’s version;
2. regardless of 1., climate change is a crisis of epic proportions.

From what I can gather there does seem to have been at least some very questionable behaviour, but even if the worst case scenario is true, the significance for the actual science is trivial.

Insomuch as the Denialosphere and the Earthsuckers will do all they can to convince the public that this discredits all climate science (not even possible, and hence not true), the potential political consequences are substantial.

As if Copenhagen wasn’t already a mess ….

UPDATE: 16:30

What’s to be done?

1) As fast as possible, identify exactly what science is compromised (if any), how, and to what extent. It would be particularly important to spell out the implications (if any), because if we don’t someone else will;

2) Full disclosure on anything else that may pop up. Better CRU tells the media in context than the Denialosphere cherry picks the worst possible interpretation;

3) Everybody soul search. Is there any more like this around? If so, don’t “burn the tapes”, but rather make the appropriate corrections (if any) to the science so that it is squeaky clean.

I find it hard to believe that there actually is much in the way of scientific consequences given what intense scrutiny it has been under for so long, but even so.

4)  Try to keep people grounded in reality. No matter what may or may not have been done to a piece of paper at CRU, this is still real:

as is this:

and this:

unless Inhofe wants to claim that the CRU staff has been concealing giant heaters in Australia while also hauling away the ice off of Everest, etc.

5) Do NOT express interest in the hacker. Even if it eventually turns out to have been Morano & Watts, under the express orders of Inhofe and paid by the US Chamber of Commerce, the fact remains that any dwelling on the hacker will be seen as an attempt to distract with a red herring, as indeed it would be.

IF there was wrong doing at CRU, then how it came to light may be a legal question, but it is not a moral, ethical or scientific one. If there are any problems with the science (still unclear whether there is any at all), then that must be corrected, and it must be our primary interest.

Implications

This is going to be politically costly no matter what. No matter how trivial the actual ‘in context’ revelations turn out to be, the public will remember the initial Denier spin.  People like Inhofe and Morano will make sure that the most fraudulent version is constantly put forward as the “true, unspun” version.

It will definitely influence the undecideds of the general public. I suspect more than a few lay supporters will feel profoundly betrayed as well. This will be seen as a significant breach by the entire scientific community, and even misinterpreted as somehow discrediting the basic science itself.

Scientists are held to a very different standard than the Denialosphere. That every piece of the Denier Canon is propaganda bought and paid for is always immediately forgotten. This will be brought up with every climate story from now on …

… until the next killer heat wave.

Click to share

“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

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.

BPSDB

Digg.com is probably the largest social news sharing site on the web. As such it is an attractive target for the climate change Deniers to try and use it to reach a huge audience with their frauds. Their most recent success was the ‘Latif global cooling trend‘ hoax.

For the most part the Denier spam dies a quiet and well deserved death as the more scientifically literate Digg users are able to vote down the idiocy.

However, now and then one of the Denier frauds is picked up by an Earthsucker and makes it to the “front page.” At that point it gets seen by thousands of Digg users, many of whom seem only too eager to believe the most idiotic Denier claims despite the obvious flaws in the stories.

What is puzzling and disturbing about the comments that get made on the stories is the apparent inability of many users to distinguish the vacuous histrionics of the Deniers from rational, fact based points.

• Digg.com
• Earthsuckers
• Mojob Latif & Cooling
  
• Gullible much?
• New media & old ideologies

Digg.com

Digg.com is big. With over 40 million users it’s potential reach is huge. Even when you account for a majority being inactive, and a significant number being only rarely active, you are still left with a huge audience (and here). Alexa ranks it’s traffic at 43rd highest in the US, and 105th highest in the world.

Alexa reports that demographically digg is dominated by Americans, but with significant global traffic, particularly from Asia. Relative to the internet average, the digg user is a young male with slightly more education than average (and here). It is not without cause that some refer to Digg as having a frat boy culture.

While Digg may not have the usership of Facebook or Twitter, the format means that a story that makes it to the front page breaks out of a limited social network and accesses a huge and diverse audience, regardless of it’s accuracy. As noted at Wikipedia “Another criticism in this area has been how a faulty or misleading article can reach many users quickly, blowing out of proportion the unsupported claims or accusations …“

This is hardly Digg’s fault, but it is a format that invites abuse. For this reason the Deniers have made a particular effort to coordinate their efforts to promote Denier stories and kill real science. That is not to suggest any sort of global conspiracy, just effective organizing. The Digg users in question deny it, but i) many have noticed it, ii) it’s easy enough to use the various social media tracking tools to monitor it in action.

Earthsuckers

Starsuckers is a new documentary about the tabloid media, specifically the flagrant disregard for facts in reporting.

“ …  the film journeys through the dark underbelly of the modern media.  …  reveals the toxic effect the media is having on us all – and especially our children. It shows how truth has become a distant memory in the modern news  …  just how bad things can get when we let entertainment reach out into politics and charity.“

While Starsuckers focuses on tabloid media and their coverage of celebrities, the fact is that many more mainstream media outlets adopt the Starsucker disregard for facts and ethics when they believe a particular story will sell well or it suits an unstated political ideology of that particular institution.

For mainstream media that use the Starsucker approach with respect to climate change stories I am coining the term ‘Earthsuckers‘ as the fit is just too good.  That is to say, for the purpose of making money outrageous fabrications are fed to a gullible public eager to lap it up.

Granted some popular media seem to do it for ideological reasons without necessarily a strong profit motive; Fox News, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The National Post, The Spectator, The Australian, and The Telegraph come immediately to mind, although there are certainly more. Insomuch as they are just as desperate to publish drivel as the profit driven ones, and employ the same methods, I include them as ‘Earthsuckers.’

Indeed the Starsuckers’ description of “How to sell a fake news story” could well be Denier media strategy guide, while thier “How Tabloids Print Lies” is a fair description of how the Earthsuckers handle a climate story.

As noted, most Denier frauds die in obscurity at Digg, but when an Earthsucker picks up a story the alleged credibility of the recognizable media name seems to be enough to carry it over the top on to the front page. Spiegel Online choose to Earthsuck the Mojib Latif global cooling fable as “Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out.” Within hours it hit the front page at Digg.

Update: 16:30 Salon has echoed the story.

Mojib Latif

Of course there isn’t an exciting story in “Consensus continues, scientists more certain then ever, details being worked out.” The Earthsucker specialty is presenting something so out of context and distorted as to say the exact opposite of the truth. This is exactly what was done to Mojib Latif.

Peter Sinclair covers the basics of the story in his ever excellent “Climate Crock of the Week” series. Here is  “Birth of a Climate Crock“:

added to Climate Denial Crock of the Week archive.

Anatomy of a lie: How Marc Morano and Lorne Gunter spun Mojib Latif’s remarks out of control looks at how an initial garbled version of what Latif was saying about a hypothetical scenario got spun by the Denialosphere, and from there the Churnalists just ran with it.

Churnalists? Earthsuckers?

A bit harsh, no? Hardly.

1)  The sources the Earthsuckers used are notorious disinformation sites pushing anti-science nonsense. Running with them is the equivalent to running an Intelligent Design story as science and pretending that real scientists were divided about evolution by natural selection.

2) They could have tried asking Latif himself … Interview the principle person involved in the story? WOW! what a concept … what Churnalist could possibly think of doing that?

Apparently the idea is so mind bogglingly difficult it takes a climate scientist to think of it: Interview with Dr. Mojib Latif, who points out that it is in fact an old story Nature article on ‘cooling’ confuses media, deniers: Next decade may see rapid warming

3) Climate scientists and reliable climate science writiers were putting the facts online (the links given above, and):

• • NYT’s Andy Revkin backtracks (but not nearly enough)
  • “Of Moles and Whacking: “Mojib Latif predicted two decades of cooling”“
  • “Of moles and whacking: “Climate models didn’t predict this lack of warming”
  • Deniers seize on climate cooling model
  • Listen to me (being vaguely alluded to) on the radio
  • Climate Denial Crock of the Week/Birth of a Crock

4) Assuming search engines baffle the Churnalist, they could have contacted a climate scientist to explain the science for them … or an 8 year old to explain the internet.

As with Starsuckers, Earthsuckers have no interest in getting the story right, but rather to get the ‘right’ story (to sell more ad revenue &/or push their agenda).

Of course the way an Earthsucker attempts to preserve it’s reputation as legitimate media is by presenting a somewhat more accurate version in the body of the story … well down in the article. In fact the formula looks something like this:

1. Headline: Sensationalist, outrageously misleading;
2. First third: Distortions, misrepresentations and fictions that fit the headline, although not quite as over the top;
3. Remaining two thirds:  Sufficient details and context to allow plausible deniability that the abuses in the first third are actually sort of based in fact, but without going so far as to expose them for the nonsense that they are;
4. Conclusion: Pretend to reconcile the two versions presented by suggesting that it is an unresolved question and that only time will tell.

Which is exactly what Spiegel does.

Gullible much?

Of course the real mystery is that age old question we used to ask in supermarket check out lines as we saw the headline “Elvi’s two-headed alien love child cures Oprah’s cancer with Shroud of Turin“,  What idiot believes this crap?

The sad fact is that people’s pre-existing condition of profound climate ignorance makes them highly vulnerable to even more of it. Spiegel was only too willing to deliver more climate ignorance. “The global temperature-monitoring network consists of 517 weather stations.” What? There’s more than that in Germany alone, with 10s of thousands covering the planet.

How does anyone who knows that you can get different weather reports (with temperature) for virtually every city, town and village on the planet imagine that this information comes from a mere 517 weather stations? How did that make sense to anyone?

I have no idea exactly what fact is being distorted/garbled here (assuming there was one). There are 7,280 fixed temperature stations alone, never mind all of the other temperature monitoring systems, so where did 517 come from? Regardless, the number should have caused any thinking adult to pause and question the story.

How about the premise that overnight, based on a single study, millions of scientists switched from a global consensus on warming to cooling? Spiegel covers the fact that some (ie all) scientists might not accept this new information (ie fiction) with “But a few scientists simply refuse to believe the British calculations.”

So the flawed story goes to the Digg front page and is now exposed to a much broader audience than just Spiegel readers and the Denialosphere.

Now Digg users regularly get hoaxed by the Earthsuckers (eg BBC’s “What happened to global warming?“), but what made the Spiegel story unusual is that this particular version of the “cooling” story was not a new one. As such there is already abundant debunking of the story easily accessible. A couple of observations about the ensuing, all too typical comment forum flame wars.

The ultimate irony is that we have an audience that self-identifies as far too worldly and sophisticated to mindlessly accept the global scientific consensus, even as they mindlessly swallow this single, obviously flawed media story.

Further, it obviously never occurred to the majority of these ‘critically thinking skeptics’ to actually fact check. Had they done something as hellishly complex and intellectually taxing as an internet search, they would have gotten (1st 10 links):

• 4 posts debunking the story
• 2 repeating it
• the original NewScientist story
• 3 not specifically relevant

Second, if you look through the Rationalist/Denier comments, it is quite clear that the Deniers overwhelmingly offer the usual collection of “Hoax/Al Gore/UN Conspiracy/Tax grab” slogans, whereas a significant number of the rationalists provide facts, links to relevant science, or at least a cogent comment.

Needless to say there is also the standard “haha computer models don’t work” comments, ignoring that fact that their evidence is a story about a prediction made with a computer model (logic/literacy much?).

One hopes that the adults who see this notice the difference and that it influences them, but as no one comments on it I have to wonder. Probably  the majority do not even bother with the comments. The unfortunate implication would be that they take the story itself more or less at face value. On the plus side, most of these stories die with a tenth of the votes that a truly popular story gets.

New media & old ideologies

The promise of the internet was that it would provide the public with access to a wealth of information. In theory this liberated populations from the lies of authoritarian governments and the distortions of media conglomerates.

In practice the internet fails to solve the age old problem of what you do when the public actually wants to be lied to. Rather than being consistently cynical &/or skeptical to all authorities, they use this self image to justify rejecting facts that they disagree with while mindlessly accepting lies consistent with their ideology.

The problem is not new, and certainly neither the internet broadly nor Digg in particular can be held responsible. Indeed, in theory Digg could be playing the vital role of getting important information to large numbers of people very rapidly. But not without their cooperation, and they are not cooperating.

The dominance of Digg by Americans is troubling in that it mirrors the dominance of global media by American perspectives. Thanks to the propaganda campaigns orchestrated by industry shills and phony think tanks the US has become a bastion of climate ignorance. Not that Denierism is unique to the US, far from it, but it is unusually widespread and zealous.

Here again, in theory the larger populations of world should be able to swamp Digg with information that overwhelms the parochial US Denialism. This even despite the obstacles of computer access and language. In practice it is the US based ideologies and disinformation that are getting fed to the rest of the world.

I doubt there is an easy answer. The solution is probably what it has always been, that those who care have to organize and work harder to counter the lies with facts.

“A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.”

probably Charles Haddon Spurgeon, usually misattributed to Samuel Clemens aka Mark Twain.

Click to share

“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

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.

BPSDB

“The politicians won’t care.“

How often have we heard that with reference to some action we are taking? How often has it proved to be true?

Why does anyone think that it matters?

The problem isn’t the tools that we have available for political action don’t work. The problem is that generally we have no idea what it is we are actually trying to do. I do not mean that in terms of our ultimate goals as they relate to a particular issue, but in terms of what we are trying to achieve with a specific action. As a result we do not know how to effectively use the tools we do have.

In Die Mauer (Berlin Wall), the CJF and climate action I talked about how it is important to distinguish between making “a” difference and making “the” difference. Most actions either manage or fail to make “a” difference. Very few actions make “the” difference, and typically only after very many actions successfully make “a” difference. However, how is it that we have a positive impact, regardless of what kind of difference it is?

Just what are we trying to achieve when we undertake political action? The standard model of politcal struggle looks something like this:

“Actioning” group = the activists

“Target” = those whose behaviour we are trying to influence, typically politicians, bureaucrats, and/or corporate entities.

In the more popular model the Activists do things like protests, organize petitions, education campaigns, hunger strikes and civil disobedience to try and influence/pressure the target to change their behaviour.

In turn, the target takes actions such as media campaigns, creating counter-groups,  and even fines or prison to try and influence/pressure the activists to change their behaviour.

Only one problem … it’s nonsense. Well, not entirely, but too simplistic to be very useful. Since most  actions are unlikely to have much direct impact on the target it is small wonder that many people conclude that most forms of political action are pointless. A reasonably logical conclusion if you are operating with this grossly over-simplified model of political action.

In that model the comparatively small number of activists who attend a rally or sign a petition are no threat to the target as they are too small a group to mount an effective boycott, vote a party out of office, etc. Pretenses to the contrary, the actioning group simply has too little power to make “the” difference.

A more useful, albeit still simple model includes:

Allies: people who actively support the actioning group, at least in spirit, but often also in forms of concrete resources and aid.

Support: The functional opposite of “Allies”, people who actively support the target.

The Public: Often “neutral” in the sense that even if they have an opinion about the issue and the activists, by and large they do not actually do anything about it one way or another. However, in almost all cases the public passively supports the target by:

• holding opinions sympathetic to the target
• supporting the target through consumer purchases, paying taxes, etc

The goal of political action is to (indirectly) get the target to change it’s behaviour by (directly) shifting the relative size of the groups and hence changing the power dynamics.

Fig 2 The gradient of attitudes in society

Points to underscore:

• Political action affects all five groups, and the consequences on each has to be assessed separately;
• Success is determined by the relative increase in the actioning groups “power”, not in their relative change in size;

Now the ideal political action will have an effect as pictured in Fig 3, with

Fig 3. The "ideal" action

members of every group moving towards the Actioning groups end of the gradient. A simple example might be an education campaign. By alerting everyone to the real consequences of a particular issue there is movement from every group towards the actioning group.

The goal is to change the relative power of the Activists vs the Target, and with five groups to work with there are more options and opportunities than we typically consider.

Consider Figure 3. An action that left both the target and the Target’s support unchanged (remove the two arrows on the right hand side)(cf “The politicians won’t care.”), but shifted the public in the manner illustrated. There would have been a significant shift in the relative power of the two groups in favour of the activists even though the targets absolute size remained unchanged. Mange that and the politicians will care, you can bet on that.

In fact in most cases the real focus of any action should be the Public. The target of the action will be some instituion such as government or a corporation, but the intent is to get more members of the Public to join the actioning group’s side.

Counterintuitive:

Consider the example on Fig 4. The absolute size of the Actioning group has shrunk, whereas the absolute size of both the Target and the Target’s Support has grown. By our typical assessment of political action this has been a failure.

Fig 4. Counterintuitive success

However, in this example the large shift in Public support means that the power of the Actioning group has grown substantially, and as such the action was successful. This is not a mere hypothetical example. There are in fact forms of action that have exactly this effect on social power dynamics.

Equally an action that increases the absolute size of the actioning group while it’s relative power gets smaller (ie some people joined the activists, but many more moved the other way) has been a failure.

The Public

One of the obstacles to successful political action is that The Public will initially be slightly hostile to any change because of the reflexive preference for social stability and predictability.

Let’s face it, a society needs some level of predictability to function, whether that is the timing of the buffalo migration or the routes of public transit. If these things become erratic it impairs the ability of the society to function, hence there is a reflexive fear of unpredictable change.

This truth is in no way refuted by the fact that we love changes in the trivial. New fashions, new music, new restaurants etc; all very exciting as they allow us to feel sophisticated and cosmopolitan. But the threat of unpredictable changes in important things such as income, social supports, relationships, etc causes anxiety and fear.

It is only in societies where the status quo is already so deeply dysfunctional or oppressive that the Actioning group can expect the Public to be sympathetic or supportive right from the start. Otherwise the suggestion of any meaningful change will automatically be met with some degree of suspicion, resistance and hostility by the Public.

This is why political action that has not carefully considered the response of the Public will often be polarizing, in which case the activists are in for a long and difficult struggle.

Fig 5. Actions that seem to both threaten and benefit society

Worse is when activists take action that seem to threaten social stability in a society that is not particularly hostile to it’s government. In those instances the result is a colossal failure even though the effect can be masked to the activists by a minor increase in the Actioning groups size as a result of attracting extreme elements and political marginals (Fig 6).

Fig 6. Apparent threat to social stability with no perceived benefit

To really appreciate how to plan successful action it is necessary to understand the ‘Nature of Power’ and the ‘Elements of Action’, two post which will follow this one. Regardless, the importance of appreciating the points made here cannot be underestimated, and neither of those posts are meant to stand alone independant of this one.

In the meantime, Berkley offers the online

PACS 164A Introduction to Nonviolence

(Tip of thew Hat to Krishna)

Summary

1. The goal of political action is to shift power within society such that the relative power of the Actioning group grows while that of the Target shrinks;
2. In contemplating political action it is vital to consider the possible consequences on all five of the significant groups, Actioning, Allies, the Public, the Targets Support, and the Target;
3. There are many possible variations of social dynamic that succeed in achieving the goal;
4. Some successes appear paradoxical because the size of the Actioning group itself actually decreases even though the relative power increased;
5. Some failures appear paradoxical because the absolute size of the Actioning group grows, but are in fact failures because their relative power decreased.

Click to share

“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

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.

PSDB Climate Justice Fast hunger striker Anna Keenan takes some time to reflect about where she has been for her last three birthdays, aspects of the UNFCCC process, COP 14 in Poznan, Poland, 350.org, the rise in civil disobedience and climate camps, the future of the movement and where it needs to go at COP 15 and beyond.

Note that climate Trolls Canada and Harper get special mention:

“I am myself and what is around me. If I do not save it, it shall not save me.” … Gassett

Keep informed on how the Fast and Fasters are doing by subscribing to the CJF youtube channel and the CJF Blog.

Hungry for Climate Justice

Our rolling solidarity Fast (series of short fasts passed from person to person) has picked the name “Hungry for Climate Justice“, here’s how it has been going:

Krishna Nov 16/17

Day 1 thoughts:

After one day without food, i don’t have any cravings but i do have a headache. Must remember to drink water, while we still have it plentiful and free.

I am wondering how much else the people fasting since Nov.6 have had to give up. For example, it takes a fair bit of calories to do my job, walking all day and fixing things. If i quit eating for even 3 days, i would likely become
unproductive and have to take time off. What about writing or going out for meetings or entertainment?

Perhaps this isnt helpful, but a question is bothering me: What if all the people concerned about human-made climate change decided to join the indefinite fast? Wonderful for solidarity. On the other hand, if none of the demands are met and all the hunger strikers die, what have we accomplished? I guess i am looking to identify the nature of the power in this action.

When Donna Dilman went on hunger strike against the uranium mining in Algonquin land (aka part of Ontario), it seemed to galvanize supporters of the cause to lobby the government all at once. Polls have shown that most people are in favour of action to slow climate change by the government and by other people, so maybe this is a way to get people to speak up now.

Day 2 thoughts:

Well the headache is gone so maybe that was due to withdrawal from caffeinated beverages. My stomach felt a bit bunched up today but the absence of food still isnt very sharp; my body is not telling me: eat, eat NOW.

It makes me realize that i could probably get by on a lot less food normally. I hear that dieting makes your metabolism more efficient so i think i’ll try it. Good for the budget, good for the planet.

I got a note from my dad that it was unseasonably hot in India, hotter than he recalls it ever being in his 74 years, and he now believes in global warming. Anecdotal of course, but another tiny coral on the reef of knowledge.

I havent made much progress on answering my big question, but i was inspired by the Gandhi quote on Mike’s page. The fast (even 48h) does have immediate benefits in terms of deepening commitment and understanding for myself as i try to explain what i’m doing to others. I was also inspired to start the recorded course on nonviolence at UCBerkeley.

I hope to have a better idea how to proceed when i’m done.

—-

“I guess i am looking to identify the nature of the power in this action.”

That issue is being at least partially addressed in a series of companion posts that look at the dynamics of political action, the first to be posted shortly.

Canberra Day 11

Peter Nov 14/15

In green terms I grew up taking skin diving lessons at the local pool and joining a local trail club. I watched a lot of nature TV as a kid. I have helped found the green party of Canada in the early 1980’s and still do volunteer in electoral politics. I have never owned a car and have bike or bus and I live 5 minutes walk to my workplace in the government where I use my mathematics education every day at work.

It has been interesting. I have a large amount of veggies in a Greek Leek stew ready for me at midnight and some ice cream. Probably a mistake to run out to the grocery store near the end. It seems the last three hours will be the hardest. Yes I know some are nine days into this now. I am impressed.

Peter has been blogging his Fast @ virtual-green-party-member-debate

Jess Nov 12/13

I would be lying if I said I didn’t think about food during my two day
fast. I thought about it. A lot. In my typically unproductive fashion,
rather than find things to keep my mind occupied, I spent the first day
listing all of the foods I would eat when the fast was over. It was a
long list.

But I wasn’t expecting to think about the water. In the publicity surrounding the Climate Justice Fast, there is extensive discussion about
the effects of climate change on global hunger, particularly in developing
countries. But over two days of consuming nothing but water, I became
increasingly aware of how easy it was to walk to my kitchen and fill my
glass with clean, safe water.

Only 2.5 percent of the water on our planet is drinkable water.
Two-thirds of the human body is composed of water. A person can survive
for quite a while without food, but can only live without water for about
a week.

Over one billion people do not have access to clean water.

Climate change is going to have a profound effect on our food, but it’s
going to have an even greater effect on our water, salt and freshwater
both. And while I am fortunate to have access to clean drinking water,
our planet’s water systems, too, are already being destabilized by climate
change. And that is going to mean even greater suffering for those people
who are already struggling to survive.

I was amazed at how hard it was to voluntarily go without food for two
days. I cannot imagine what it would feel like to have that be my daily
reality.

But even more, fasting made me think about the water.

see also Jess’s Blog The Thing About Climate Change

If you’d like to Fast in solidarity as part of a rolling Fast group just leave a comment on this post. You can also register a solidarity Fast of whatever length, you can do so at the CJF site.

Past CJF Posts

• Days of doubts and fears
• The Climate Justice Fast Six
• Climate Justice Fast, ripples and waves
• Climate Justice Fast – Change is now!
• Climate Justice Fast is to be … indefinite
• Climate Justice Fast begins Nov 6th, how will you be helping?

Click to share

“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.” Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

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.

BPSDB The other day I posted “450 more lies from the climate change Deniers” and the response has been interesting.

This has given fodder for sharing some more examples and reasons why the list is total nonsense.

By sampling approximately one third of the references from “450 320 299 286 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming” I showed that, of the references I looked at, all were:

• • • not  peer reviewed, and/or
    • known to be false, and/or
    • irrelevant, and/or
    • Out of date (no longer relevant), and/or
    • not supportive of climate change Denial*

*(I use the appropriate term (Denier) with respect to what the author was struggling to say when he mis-used the word “skepticism“).

• • Pielke dumps (on) the list
  • Energy & Environment is peer reviewed
    
  • Some more struck from the list
  • Poptart and other Denier’s respond react say stuff
  • What did anyone expect?
    

The author of the 450 list (Andrew) has commented on this blog 45 54 65 (and counting) times. (aka Poptech and more, rechristianed “Poptart” because he keeps popping up all hot and smoking, but turns out to be ‘nutritionally’ valueless). Some of his comments are worth sharing for the insight they give into the alleged thinking that went into compiling the list.

Pielke dumps (on) the list

As noted in an update on the original post:

Pielke pulls 21 papers off the list! 21 papers on the list were authored by Pielke Jr or Sr  (both scientists), who said “they’d better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn’t represent what they think it does.”  Better Recheck That List (Hat Tip to Former Skeptic for the heads up)

Here is what Poptech (the list’s author) has had to say about Pielke’s comment (emphasis added):

“I hardly consider a blog comment by Pielke (if that is him) to be substantial.”

So blog comments by Poptech are substantial, but not Pielke? and who else would post to Pielke’s blog if not Pielke? Let me guess … Al Gore!

“Pielke’s comments are ridiculous as no one is stating he personally is skeptical of a human influence on climate (many skeptical scientists support the basic premise but are skeptical of the alarmist claims).

The papers listed support skepticism of the current alarmist position on climate and will not be removed.

The fact that he used the word “assuming” means he was not even sure himself. “

Sorry Pielke is wrongas there are still 450,

1) Pielke is perfectly literate and quite capable of understanding what the list claims to be, but rather than address Pielke’s statements honestly Poptech simply dismisses them.

2) Apparently (according to Poptech) Pielke is a competent enough scientist as to conduct complex climate research worthy of being on the list, but such a moron that he can’t understand a simple list. Got it.

3) “The papers listed support skepticism of the current alarmist position” So now we’re shifting the definition of what the list actually is … except I can’t help noticing no amendment or clarification posted to the list.

I guess everyone’s supposed to understand that “Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming” doesn’t actually mean “Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming” since the papers are not necessarily skeptical of either global warming or that it is caused by humans. Got it.

4) “will not be removed.” Nothing new there cf Inhofe, Heartland etc. Once the Deniers put you on a list nothing can get you off. “means he was not even sure himself” But Poptech is sure, and certainly no need to discuss it with Pielke himself. Denier zealots know the opinions of scientists and the meaning of their work far better than the scientists themselves. Got it.

He assumed incorrectly that I was listing the papers “refuting” AGW and all the authors and their papers refuted AGW. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Finally some honesty, albeit clearly unintended.

Word to the wise Poptart … so far Pielke has refrained from saying what he really thinks of the rest of your list, but I’m sure if you piss him off enough he will reconsider … just so you know.

Energy & Environment is peer reviewed

Peer review is a process that helps ensure the quality of science. It is not a perfect process (and here), but nonetheless a valuable one. I stated that Energy & Environment (hereafter E&E), a journal which published 82 of the papers on the list, is not peer reviewed. Poptech insists that E&E is a peer reviewed journal, so what are the facts?

1) E&E does NOT appear on the Science Citation Index Master Journal List. The ISI is considered “the” listing of peer reviewed journals, and for the most part if a journal does not appear there, it is not peer reviewed.

2) EBSCO (another index) does include E&E as peer reviewed

According to EBSCO, they use “the following tools to identify peer reviewed journals:

1. The Serials Directory, an online directory of serials with descriptions
2. The publisher of the journal
3. Feedback from librarians and professors
4. EBSCO Publishing staff librarians”

1 & 4 are in-house to EBSCO, and 2 is not necessarily reliable … so it is unclear to me how meaningful this inclusion on EBSCO is.

4) Scopus, another journal index, lists E&E as a trade publication as distinct and separate from peer reviewed journals.

3) There is  no mention of peer-review in E&E’s description of themselves, a pretty significant omission if it actually is peer reviewed.

4) E&E openly admits to allowing politics to influence editorial decisions (here).  Not only that, but the editor has stated:

In addition, she “says that the more mainstream climatologists agree, the more suspicious she becomes about claims that human activity is causing global warming.” For Boehmer-Christiansen, the more consensus there is among scientists, the greater reason there is for skepticism. I wonder how she feels about heliocentrism.

Thoughts on “Energy & Environment”

Thanks to Kfr we know that she has also said (emphasis added):

By the way, E&E is not a science journal and has published IPCC critiques to give a platform critical voices and ‘paradigms’ because of the enormous implications for energy policy, the energy industries and their employees and investors, and for research. We do not claim to be right …

Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen 3 Sept, 2009

More unintended honesty, and here is what an astute commenter on digg.com found:

HuangFeng

Um … here’s something curious: E&E is sometimes clearly marked into different sections which distinguish editorial, viewpoints, book reviews and refereed articles. But E&E is inconsistent, they curiously have a section called just “articles”, sometimes bundling everything under this title.

Everything was generic “article” and it wasn’t until I got down to the 10th article “Climate outlook to 2030″ only to find this is a viewpoint and not a refereed article.

The next is “Dangerous global warming remains unproven” which is a non refereed report.

The first refereed paper from E&E is the 16th E&E article listed: “Evidence for “publication Bias” Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature”. All the previous are generic “article” or some other.

So while E&E is a peer reviewed journal according to EBSCO, not all of the articles are claimed by the journal to be peer reviewed. A cursory examination of the first 16 E&E articles in the 450 list shows that only one is claimed to be peer reviewed by the journal.

HuangFeng

UPDATE: 10:00  But Huangfeng has not stopped there:

I went through the 84 E&E articles listed in the “450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming”. I noted what sections, if any, that each article was published under and here is what I found:

2 articles listed as “Climate sceptic voices”
1 as letters
1 as “Report”
9 as “Viewpoints”
5 were completely undesignated
46 were listed as “Articles”
1 as “Peer reviewed papers”
19 as “Refereed papers”

Admittedly there is a chance that those listed as “Articles” may in fact be peer reviewed, however in at least one issue of a volume of E&E, there was a “Refereed papers” section and an “Articles” section. Further, often when a listing of “Articles” was designated to everything, it would include many more items than was usual to be labelled as “Refereed papers” found in the properly labelled volume parts, some were obviously book reviews. This would seem to imply that none of the “Articles” were refereed or that some were but you cannot be sure, but you could be reasonably sure that they at least some were not refereed.

You cannot state for certainty that any paper labelled under “Articles” is a peer reviewed paper.

As for the 2 “climate sceptic voices” and 9 “viewpoints” – these should be immediately removed from the 450 list if you want to maintain any pretension to credibility with the title. If you want to have a stronger listing then I suggest removing everything except the 19 “Refereed papers” and the single “Peer reviewed paper”. Or you could change the title to say “possibly peer reviewed”.

HuangFeng

UPDATE Nov 19: as the debate rages HuangFeng continues to offer rational, thoughtful, empirical input:

“The claim is that articles appearing in the journal “Energy & Environment” that are listed under the “Articles” category are peer reviewed.

Examining the most recent three volumes I found the following:

a) In the latest issue (Vol 20, #7) there is a section called “Refereed Papers” with 5 articles and a section called “Articles” with 1 paper. “Articles” is clearly made to be different and separate from refereed papers in this issue.

b) In issue #7-8 of volume 18 there are 13 articles under the category “Articles”. One is clearly labelled “Food for thought”.

c) In issue #2 of volume 17 there is no categorisation at all. There are clearly articles which are editorial, fuel for thought, letters, reports and book reviews.

d) In issues that separate Refereed from Viewpoints there are 8 to 10 articles in total in these sections combined, with viewpoints being 25% to 60% of these. However, in issues where there is no differentiation between Refereed and Viewpoints and everything is categorised as “Articles” there are 7-19 articles. While there is the possibility that all of these articles are refereed, I would strongly suggest that the numbers make this appear to NOT be the case.

If the suggestion is that the categorisation of “Articles” always means “Refereed Papers” then (a)-(c) are incorrectly categorised, therefore a error has been made.

Finally, why are there no “Viewpoints” in issues where “Articles” is used for refereed papers?

I suggest that an article appearing in any issue of Energy & Environment under the general category of “Articles” cannot be claimed to be peer reviewed.

If Sonja claims otherwise then I suggest this raises extreme doubt on the validity of Energy & Environment as a peer reviewed publication, and further suggest a petition to EBSCO to have the peer reviewed status be removed from that publication.”

HuangFeng’s findings are shared by others. See John Hunter’s experience here.

When E&E does do peer review, it seems that the process is not to choose as reviewers scientists who will scrutinize the quality of the science, but rather those who will approve of the conclusions. The result is that E&E has an appalling record for publishing work that no self-respecting journal would touch (see here, here, here, here, and here).

However, if those are unconvincing, Carbon Fixated draws our attention to this gem EARTH’S HEAT SOURCE – THE SUN by Oliver K. Manuel E&E VOLUME 20 No. 1 2009: (full paper @icap)

Seriously, you have to read this (emphasis added):

3. CONCLUSIONS

IPCC reports on the dangers of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) are based on an obsolete model of the Sun, a misunderstanding of the many ways that Earth is connected to its heat source, and on politically driven conclusions. The scientists are not at fault. The die for the present disaster was likely cast in the late 1940s or early 1950s, when federal research agencies like NSF started using the anonymous review system to obtain consensus opinions. Politicians realized that knowledge is power when World War II ended with an explosive and decisive display of success by the Manhattan Project. I have seen the unholy alliance between politics and science grow since my scientific career started in 1960, despite this warning by US President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his 17 January 1961 Farewell Address to the Nation: “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded”

This is supposed to be s scientific journal? seriously?

Summary on E&E

A given paper in E&E may have been peer reviewed (but unlikely). If it was, the review process might have been up to the normal standards for science (but unlikely). Hence E&E’s exclusion from the ISI Journal Master list, and why many (including Scopus) do not consider E&E a peer reviewed journal at all.

Further, even the editor states that it is not a science journal and that it is politically motivated/influenced. Finally, at least some of what it publishes is just plain loony.

Since it seems that the majority of the the E&E papers on Poptech’s list were NOT peer reviewed, and since the probability that the few that were reviewed met the minimum standards for science is low, it is fair to say that E&E publications on the list are not peer reviewed, at least until Poptech cleans up the list (like that’s going to happen).

Regardless, it looks like the E&E papers would all fail at least one of the other tests listed above (known to be false, not relevant, etc) anyway.

Some more struck from the list

Thanks to J. Smith for:

Has anyone noticed that one of the papers (at least) is shown twice :

Response to W. Aeschbach-Hertig rebuttal of “On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?” by L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
(Environmental Geology, Volume 54, Number 7, pp. 1567-1572, June 2008)
- L. F. Khilyuk, G. V. Chilingar

And they’re only about 10 papers apart. Wonder how many more there are.

Lots more about that original paper here :

and Marco for

1. Double counting. For example, Craig Loehle’s reconstruction is counted twice: first the original paper, then the correction. There’s a few more of those corrections to papers that are listed. Another form of double-counting is the reply to comments. These replies are hardly ever peer-reviewed. In most cases the Editor briefly looks through them, but certainly does not review them.

UPDATE: and Former Skeptic for

Harold E. Brooks says this on RC:

Re: The 450 papers list
I just noticed I’m the lead author on one of the papers on the list. I have absolutely no idea how that paper could be construed as “skeptical of man-made global warming.” I have no idea how it could be construed as saying anything at all about man-made global warming.

and you can toss out Henrik Svensmark’s 13 papers too (here, here, here, here, here, usw)

Poptart and other Denier’s respond react say stuff

Predictably the Denier’s response to valid criticisms of the list is incoherent babble. Two I enjoyed were:

1. The claim that since I didn’t show that every paper on the list is invalid it follows that all of the papers are valid, and
2. Another commenter was looking forward to me publishing the article in Nature or Science, but until then everything I said was false ie a Denier blog is true until refuted in one of the two premier science journals in the world. Double standards much?

But surely the best has to be from the author Poptart himself. Not only has he been rabbiting around the comments on my article, he has been doing it on other forums where others dare to question the accuracy of his list.

In 45+ comments on this blog Poptart’s responses amount to:

• • the list is valid because he says so
  • all articles refuting the validity of any of the papers on the list are politically motivated nonsense
  • those who question the validity of the list want to oppress/censor/etc “real” science

Not a single instance of citing a credible source to defend any part of the list (of course how could he? there are none) or justify anything on it. Indeed no references to actual science at all. Just a collection of ad hominem attacks, red herrings, straw men, other logical fallacies and both explicit and implicit claims that he knows best.

In fact Poptart is so consistent at ignoring the substantive criticisms and mindlessly reiterating that the list is valid just because he says so that I really think he should rename it “Superfreakopeer-reviewed…”

What did anyone expect?

Naturally one understands how the lay person might be confused by Poptart’s list. They do not know the literature, nor do they typically have the skills to assess scientific papers.

For anyone even slightly familiar with climate science the news that the list is completely bogus is no surprise. The only way it could be otherwise would be if:

1. there were some critical, legitimate paper(s) that no one had ever heard of. If you know anything about science, you know that just isn’t going to happen. If there really were such paper(s) absolutely everyone would know about it, and talk of little else; or
2. you actually believe the Denier conspiracy theories that tens of millions of scientists from 140 nations are in on a plot to create a hoax (it’s true, they meet Thursdays, it’s potluck so bring something). If you believe that then you probably believe that your cat answers back when you talk to it. In fact your cat is probably the one who told you about the conspiracy.

Conclusion

So, the list is not 450 papers, and many are not peer reviewed, not skeptical of global warming, nor supportive of it, not skeptical of anthropogenic causation of climate change, not actually papers, and not actually skepticism, which leaves us with the correct title ““450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming”.”

That’s right, the correct title for Poptart’s post is “ ______.”

I look forward to seeing the correction.

Click to share

“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

IMAGE CREDITS:

poptarts by Rakka

poptart by stu_spivack

pop tart ice cream sandwich by Rakka

Poptarts Cinnamon Roll by renaissancechambara

Brown Sugar and Cinnamon Poptarts by Rachel D

Poptarts by Rachel D

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.

BPSDB The climate change Deniers make four attempts to refute the Meehl et al NCAR: Record high temperatures far outpace record lows study.

Four tries, four epic FAILS!

In reporting on the study which showed that “…daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States.” Wattsupmybutt spins it as Number of record highs beat record lows – if you believe the quality of data from the weather stations ie repeating the false claim that surface station temperature monitoring is unreliable

The Surface Station Meme

(and here).

Not to mention that ” … undergo a quality control process at the data center that looks for such potential problems as missing data as well as inconsistent readings caused by changes in thermometers, station locations, or other factors.”  Record Highs Far Outpace Record Lows Across U.S.

but fair enough, at least Watts is consistent.

NOT

Just the day before he reported that “October USA – temperature 3rd coldest on record, wettest ever on record” with absolutely no mention of how unreliable those surface stations are. So let me get this straight, the equipment is unreliable when reporting warmth, but reliable when reporting cold?

Obvious Alert! Either you believe the equipment is reliable or you don’t, but pick one and stand by it (like that’s going to happen).

Watts has a Second Seizure

The irrationality continues as Watts reposts More on the record high-low temperature debacle (original U.S. Record Temperatures—A Closer Look) from World Climate Report. In it the author argues that:

“… headline proclamations fail to disclose important details of the actual findings … In other words, our days are not becoming extremely hotter, but our nights are becoming less extremely cold.”

OK, the argument is that ‘we’re not getting warmer, in reality we’re actually just getting warmer.‘  Did that make sense to you? It apparently makes sense to Watts and the rest of the Deniers.

Or maybe they are claiming once again that the Laws of Thermodynamics and basic physics are wrong? maybe their premise is that it takes less heat energy to raise air temperature from say 5 degrees C to 6 then from 15 to 16? Is that the premise? The silliness continues:

“Instead of highlighting this, the NCAR press release not only tries to confuse it with all sorts of graphs and numbers“

Yes, we have noticed that actual data in the form of pictures and numbers etc baffles the Denialosphere; I’m just surprised they are so willing to admit it.

” … but by also suggesting that this observation—nights warming more than days—is what is expected because of a rising greenhouse effect, …“

Which is exactly what we actually do expect … duh

“This finding is consistent with years of climate model research showing that higher overnight lows should be expected with climate change.”

Record Highs Far Outpace Record Lows Across U.S.

and

Record lows occur on clear nights when the surface radiates to space and the surface cools quickly. Greenhouse gases directly interfere with that process. Therefore all else equal less severe low temperatures are to be expected.

Climate models of every stripe, as far as I know, generally agree that this is the case.

On the contrary, direct heating equally would increase both record highs and record lows, not substantially affecting the proportion.

It is because the first order effect of CO2 is to suppress surface cooling rather than to enhance surface warming that this is indeed a reasonable place to look for observational confirmation.

Deficit of Record Cold, Surfeit of Inexpertise

but then they would have to actually know something about climate science to have known that.

“While it is true that an enhanced greenhouse effect should warm nights more than days, …”

Oh, they DO know that, they just wanted to say something completely irrelevant and pointless. Carrying on:

” … so too does the processes of urbanization—something which has not been accounted for in the results of Meehl et al. (because it is virtually impossible to do so at a daily level), but something that is widely known to be occurring.”

1) As discussed above, Heat Island temperatures are profoundly affected by cloud cover, whereas CO2 is not, so it is not so hard to test and verify which is the cause.

2) “Widely known” to the Denialosphere, just not to the reality based science community (as above).

We then move to some discussion of the subscription only paper itself.

” … the model results depicted in Meehl et al.’s paper don’t show this at all. In fact, the model in the paper—the NCAR climate model—shows that it expects daily high records should be being increasing (above expectations of no climate change) at about the same frequency that daily minimum temperature records should be decreasing. This model expectation is shown by observations to be wrong.“

“Shown by observations to be wrong” apparently means in this case “I eyeballed the graph and that’s how it looks to me.” Well it doesn’t look that way to me, and your actual analysis is where?

OBVIOUS ALERT! The reason we use mathematical tools like measures of error and tests of significance in science is because “that’s how it looks to me” is untestable, subjective opinion. Subjective opinion leads to idiotic conclusions like “This model expectation is shown by observations to be wrong.”

IF you have any sort of real analysis that supports your claim that Meehl et al is wrong then talk about it, but spare us the uninformed, fact free blather.

The Seizures get worse

Boy, the NCAR paper really has the Denialosphere freaked out. Apparently Watt’s feels his earlier efforts did not actually refute the study (very true, they didn’t … they’re just nonsense), so we get Why NCAR’s Meehl paper on high/low temperature records is bunk.

“…did not include the 1930’s and 1940’s and earlier, conspicuously missing from the NCAR graphic below: The answer: those decades are inconvenient to the conclusion Meehl makes from a cherrypicked portion of the US data. There were many many temperature records during this period.”

Well, we know that 30 years worth of data represents climatic trends,

• • • How to decide climate trends
    • Results on deciding trends

so actually six decades is more than enough valid data to document a real current climatic trend, and adding two more decades would NOT falsify Meehl et al. Still, adding the extra decades is definitely of interest, so let’s see what Watts has to say.

Apparently Richard Alan Keen writes about his book,  Skywatch West:

” … the weather and climate of the 11 western states, plus Alaska, plus 6 western Canadian provincs and territories.“

Wait, what? You’re switching to a different study area, including only 11 of the 50 States that Meehl et al studied, are and claiming this refutes Meehl et al? How could it? That’s like ‘here, let me prove the Congo is not hot, just look at these averaged southern Congo + Antarctic temperature records’ … wtf?

And he accuses Meehl et al of cherry picking when they used twice as much data as they needed to (more than necessary and all of it relevant), while Watts  picks only the States that fit the conclusion he wants? Hypocrisy much? Anyway …

Of the all-time record maximum temperatures, 10 occurred before 1940 (the first six decades), and 8 after (the second six decades).

For record minimum temperatures, the reverse is true: 8 records before 1940, 10 afterwards.

Half of the records – 8 maximum and 10 minimum, a total of 18 – occurred during the middle three decades of the 1930’s, 40’s, and 50’s, and of these nearly a third of the total (10) were during the 1930’s alone.

Those look about balanced to me, what does the statistical analysis say? particularly the corrections for size of data sets given the changing number of stations over the time series?  Where’s the analysis? What? There is no analysis? Nothing? Just more “that’s how it looks to me”???

This is just getting stupid.

Granted this is not the entire USA dataset, only western states, and one could say that I’m engaging in the same sort of cherrypicking that Meehl et al engages in by illustrating it here.

No! not “the same sort”! Meehl et al did not cherry pick, whereas Watts definitely did.

But there’s more.

Please not, not more …  anything but that.

“The graph in #127 may be overly influenced by single extreme heat waves or cold snaps. So, here’s a look at broader populations.

The first is a look at the decades in which summer high temperature records were set. This covers the contiguous US for the three typically hottest months (June/July/August). A single nationwide event would affect the records for one month but not for all three, so this plot should be less-influenced by single extreme events.”

Note: The trendlines for all three graphs are essentially flat (no trend) if the prorated early 2000s are excluded from the trend calculations.

OBVIOUS ALERT! May be, could be, might be, are essentially, blah blah blah … innuendo and speculation are NOT refutation. Is it or isn’t it? Fire up Excel and crunch the numbers and show that it is, IF it is.  Just do it!

And if it isn’t, why are your lips moving?

Grand mal seizure, sigh

For yet another attempt to refute the NCAR paper Watts turns to A Critique of the October 2009 NCAR Study Regarding Record Maximum to Minimum Ratios from Hall of Record (which apparently promotes itself as “Stupidity has it’s own rewards” and “News About Stupidity“; wow, they’re being really upfront about it these days, aren’t they?) by Bruce Hall.

From HoR:

” … it falls short of being both statistically and scientifically complete. Hence, the conclusions from this study are prone to significant bias and any projections from this study are likely incorrect.

By selecting a period of cooling as the starting point, the NCAR study “stacks the deck” in favor of a warming trend. This is the same problem with the 1880s as a starting point for the longer term trend, but due to shorter cyclical variations within the 130 years longer trend data are somewhat tempered. There is no full climate cycle in the NCAR study.

Wait,

• since average temperature is always cooling or warming any study will invariably start in one trend or the other, which in no way invalidates the study. The Meehl et al study merely purports to show what has been happening since 1950, and as discussed above, 30 year data sets are sufficient to show real trends and NOT be influenced by inter-annual variation ie ‘noise.’
• a hidden assumption here is that the cooling trend ended naturally in the 1950s, a logical fallacy known as a Bulversim.
  • IF the alleged natural cooling trend has not ended, then the warming demonstrated is actually far worse than the study suggests;
  • even IF the alleged natural cooling trend has ended (which has not been shown), that does not invalidate the demonstration of a warming trend, nor does it show that all, some, or any of the warming is necessarily natural.

To refute Meehl et al Hall  has to show that the study is invalid regardless of where it started. Further, it Hall wants to argue that there are natural trends then he has to make a case for it and show the periodicity. Here he is just assuming there is and that it fits the pattern he wants it to.

We then get a repetition of the false surface station meme (as above, fail) followed by:

The charts below show the results of nearly 4/5ths of the U.S. weather stations and demonstrate a significant bias toward errors greater than +2°C or about three times the total trend reported for global warming.

False. i) Even though the error range is greater than the trend, any instrumentation can still show a trend smaller than the error range if sufficient and proper measurements are taken. That is what statistical analysis is for. If Hall wants to demonstrate that this is true then he has to actually has to do it, not just claim it.

ii) all of Hall’s own work is based on the same temperature data. If the instrumentation means Meehl et al is bullshit, then so is everything Hall does. He can’t have it both ways.

Now the alleged logic get’s truly Byzantine. Hall uses previous work he has done to refute Meehl et al’s contention that ‘we see the warming in less record cold, not so much in record heat’ by demonstrating that there’s not really an increase in record heat … just like Meehl et al says.

He then restates:

The trendline used by those claiming a long term warming begins in a very cool climate period. Consequently, any trend from that point will be upward.

Only because Hall assumes that the cooling trend ended naturally at that point:

1. something Hall needed to show and not assume … and he didn’t show it;
2. “any trend from that point will be upward” a cooling trend from that point wouldn’t be upward, would it? duh!

but wait, there’s more:

• The late 1990s were an aberration and not indicative of the general climate oscillations presented in these records

The claim of aberration is made based on record highs alone, and not on average temperature. Guess what? global warming is about increase in average temperature over a long term trend, NOT the number of record highs.

Hall then extrapolates the NCAR study and invokes the Hockey Stick

as a way to discredit the NCAR study to a readership that believes that anything that shows increasing temperatures is false ie the implied logic is that ‘this study showing warming is false because it shows warming’, although he does not come right out and say it.

Hall then uses the ratio of maximum to minimum temperature ratios plotted with an undisclosed polynomial fit (pick a high enough order polynomial and you can fit anything).

The 1930s were, by far, the hottest period for the time frame. The ratio of maximum to minimum temperatures is greater in the 2000s, but the absolute number of monthly statewide extreme records is far less significant making the ratio far less significant.

So by the measure Hall claims is significant the 30s were the hottest, except when they weren’t, in which case Hall dismisses the measure he claimed was significant and declares that the absolute number of state wide records is what is important. So it’s important when it supports his claim, but not when it doesn’t? Got it.

And why are we talking about this anyway? Meehl et al claims to have demonstrated that the ratio of record highs to ratio lows has been increasing. Demonstrating shifts in the absolute numbers may be interesting, but it doesn’t refute Meehl et al; in fact it is consistent with the NCAR study.

Conclusion

Even 130 years of data, starting from a relatively cold period, gives a very brief look at climate history for the U.S. and certainly one that is not sufficient to extrapolate a general warming trend, much less an accelerating one.

Except, as documented above, it is sufficient to demonstrate a trend, and nothing in this piece addresses that.

“In the face of the recent decline in new all-time monthly statewide maximum records, it is more probable that we may be facing a cyclical decline in our overall temperature and that something similar to the 1960s and 1970s may be a far more realistic projection.”

Again with the obsessing with record maximums as if that somehow refutes Meehl et al, when in fact it is consistent with it.

“Our most recent winters have been particularly colder than long-term averages…”

“…particularly colder than long-term averages” where did that come from?  Which “most recent“? what “long-term averages“? The old “pulling a rabbit out in the conclusion when it was never discussed in the post itself” trick … shades of The Three Stooges, and completely unjustified.

” … and minimal sunspot activity may be another harbinger of this normal cyclical variation in our relatively stable climate.”

What “normal cyclical variation“? the one that was assumed but never actually demonstrated or documented? Once again taking as a given what you most needed to show? As for “minimal sunspot activity“, it’s well known and accounted for in the science, so let’s not pretend that you are introducing something new.

Conclusion:

The Deniers allege that Meehl et al is wrong because:

• the  instruments are wrong – Fail
• it’s not getting warmer, it’s actually getting warmer – Fail
• the data set that was more than adequate wasn’t adequate – Fail
• the pattern seen in Meehl et al  fits an implied natural trend that is never demonstrated but assumed to exist – Fail

Tip of the Hat to Anthony Watts for collecting the nonsense in one place and saving me having to look for it.

Click to share

“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

IMAGE CREDITS:

EPIC FAIL by bronwynlewis

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;

BPSDB A week ago this “450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming” appeared and I figured it was just a matter of days before it started making the rounds of the climate change Denialosphere.  Sure enough it has turned up at Wattsupmybutt so I guess it’s time to state the obvious, that it’s utter nonsense.

Let’s have a look at a sampling of these “450 Peer-Reviewed Papers.” The list includes:

UPDATE: Pielke pulls 21 papers off the list! “they’d better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn’t represent what they think it does.”  Better Recheck That List (Hat Tip to Former Skeptic for the heads up)

NOT peer-reviwed

The following are NOT peer-reviewed Journals

Energy & Environment: 82 papers on the list

E&E is a sort of vanity press for the Deniers, cited by one Wag as “where bad science goes to die.”

Submitted 2 papers on the list

“Submitted” to a peer reviewed journal is not a synonym for “published” in a peer reviewed journal; anything can be “submitted.”  (did that really have to be stated?)

Known to be wrong

The following papers are known to be wrong (refutations linked)

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

Refutations here.

Ancient atmosphere- Validity of ice records
(Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Volume 1, Number 3, September 1994)
- Zbigniew Jaworowski  

Refutations here.

Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
(Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp. 1-9, January 2008)
- G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, O. G. Sorokhtin

Refutations here.

Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, Issue D14, July 2009)
- John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter

Refutations here.

Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres (PDF)
(Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Volume 111, Number 1, pp. 1-40, 2007)
- Ferenc M. Miskolczi

Refutations here.

Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 21, Issue 21, November 2008)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell

Refutation here

Does a Global Temperature Exist? (PDF)

(Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp. 1–27, February 2007)
- Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, Bjarne Andresen

Refutation here

Hockey Stick: 10 papers on the list

Refutations

• The hockey stick is broken,
• Brand New Hockey Sticks,
• Sorry deniers, hockey stick gets longer, stronger

Straw Men (and outright lying)

The premise is that that certain things like the Medieval Warm Period or greater snow accumulation are evidence against climate change when they are not. The only thing they are evidence of is that the person making the claim is utterly clueless about climate science.

A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 13, July 2007)
- Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, Sergey Kravtsov

With reference to a more recent paper on the same subject, Swanson had this to say “What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others” (I wonder what point he was trying to make with the bold, all caps?).

Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland
(Science, Volume 310, Number 5750, pp. 1013-1016, November 2005)
- Ola M. Johannessen, Kirill Khvorostovsky, Martin W. Miles, Leonid P. Bobylev

Quoting the authors ” … they say, the thickening seems consistent with theories of global warming, blamed by most experts on a build-up of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars.

Warmer air, even if it is still below freezing, can carry more moisture. That extra moisture falls as snow below 0°C. ” Greenland icecap thickens despite warming

A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 1, January 2008)
- Elizabeth R. Thomas, Gareth J. Marshall, Joseph R. McConnell

Same as with Greenland above and here.

CO2 lags Temperature changes: 7 papers on the list

The CO2 lag is in no way inconsistent with climate science. Actually the lag was predicted by Lorius et al (including Hansen) before it was discovered

If they actually understood the science they would realize that one thing that we would have had trouble explaining is if there was no lag … the Deniers  have it totally backwards.
The “Temp leads Carbon” Crock

• The lag between temperature and CO2
• ‘CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags“
• Discussion: A role for atmospheric CO2 in preindustrial climate forcing
• Mind prisons and prisms: CO2 lag and Global Warming
• Why CO2 lags behind temperature; another climate change skeptic myth explained

Medieval Warming Period – Little Ice Age: 21 papers on the list

The Deniers like to claim that the MWP and LIA refute anthropogenic climate change. The logic is basically that “there were fires before matches and napalm, therefore fires are natural and matches and napalm cannot cause fires.” Sorry, that should be “There was warming before humans, therefore warming is natural and …”

“Medieval Warming?” (& the Hockey Stick)

• Climate Myths: Medieval Warm Period
• Myth Used as Evidence Against Global Warming
• The “Medieval Warm Period”

Trivial

Grape harvest dates are poor indicators of summer warmth (PDF)
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 87, Numbers 1-4, pp. 255-256, January 2007)
- D. J. Keenan

It has recently been claimed that the April–August
temperature in France, in any given year, can be estimated
from the harvest date of grapes grown there. Based on this
claim, it was asserted that 2003 was the warmest year in the last six centuries. Herein, it is shown that the grape-derived temperature estimates are highly unreliable, and thus that the assertion is unfounded.

How the hell does that support “Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming”?

Dated

Being old does not make a particular paper or study no longer relevant, but it sure makes some papers totally irrelevant. Commentaries on 20 year old techniques and methodologies would be an example.

Overlooked scientific issues in assessing hypothesized greenhouse gas warming (PDF)
(Environmental Software, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 100-107, 1991)
- Roger A. Pielke Sr.

“The questions which need to answered include the importance of other anthropogenic influences suc as landscape changes and enhanced atmospheric aerosol loading, “

They have been answered. Oh look, the Deniers forgot to mention this bit: “Controls such as conservation and improved energy efficiency, of course, which are benefits to society should be implemented regardless of global climate change,“

Do NOT support Denial

The following papers in no way support Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming”, so they are not “refuted” so much as explained.

Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming
(Nature Geoscience, Volume 2, 576-580, July 2009)
- Richard E. Zeebe, James C. Zachos, Gerald R. Dickens

Explained here and here.

To understand some of the legitimate science that appears on the list I ask you to consider this hypothetical (and nonsensical) example:

I say airplanes cannot fly because they are made of metal and metal is heavier than air. Here are 10 papers that say metal is heavier than air, and here are 10 more  that say airplanes are made of metal. These 20 papers therefore support skepticism about man made airplanes being able to fly.

And it is that lack of logic that puts some of legitimate science on the list; a completely false and idiotic claim.

Mutually exclusive

As discussed here and here, 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 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.

This just a sampling, but this point I decided I had already put more work into the list than the author had and could think of no good reason to do any more. Looking at the third of the list that I did, not one of the papers is current, relevant, peer-reviewed, and supports the Denier claims, not one.

I don’t know about you, but if I dig down 1 m below an outhouse and all I find is exactly what you would expect to find under an outhouse, I am satisfied that the next 2 m will just be more of the same.

If anyone can find anything on the list that actually IS a peer-reviewed paper that is current, relevant, and supports skepticism of anthropogenic climate change, well we should talk about it. Until then, this list seems to be nothing but decomposing shit.

NB: If anyone wants to append comments about any of the papers on the list I will gladly incorporate them into the post. Thanks

Click to share

“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

IMAGE CREDITS:

Garbage by Editor B

Beach Garbage 1 by jschneid

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.

BPSDB

Despite seven months of intense effort to recruit physicists to sign a politically motivated petition disputing anthropogenic climate change, a mere, 0.45% of the American Physical Society’s 47,000 members signed on.

It’s a humiliating defeat for the climate change Deniers who make such false claims as ”many scientists dispute’ and ‘there is no consensus. The Petition drive was announced in the prestigous journal Nature, APS publications, numerous popular and electronic media, as well as heavily promoted by the petition organizers. Despite all of that effort and publicity, a mere 0.45% was all that they could manage.

Consider that the success rate for Nigerian email scams is estimated to be 0.1% to 0.2%, ie roughly speaking about the same. (Tip of the Hat to Grumbine for the genesis of seeking a comparison)

• • Physicists firm on climate change
  • APS rejects plea to alter stance on climate change
  • APS Council Overwhelmingly Rejects Proposal to Replace Society’s Current Climate Change Statement

Of course the reason for that APS Council’s rejection is unrelated to the number of the signatories, but rather was based the quality of the alleged “science” justifying the call. The “scientific” claims are a sad cobbling together of the argumentum ad ignorantiam and appeal to authority logical fallacies, along with the unbelievably idiotic “it’s happened in the past” argument. As “science” it should embarrass a freshman.

Not that there was ever any risk that the APS would actually reverse it’s stance; they are scientists after all. However the Deniers had hoped to demonstrate some meaningful level of grossly uninformed dissent within the APS, so the dismal showing is an embarrassment.

John Mashey has done an impressive (128 page) analysis of the petitions signatories and the politics behind the petition which can be downloaded at DeSmogBlog.

Most significant is that of the signatories

- only one is/has ever been active in climate research

- all work(ed) in fields and specializations largely unrelated to climate science (eg astrophysics, aerospace, defense, nuclear)

The effort was instigated by a core group dominated by members involved with four industry funded groups that pose as “think tanks”, but in reality are little better than Public Relations firms.

This is consistent with the pattern of climate change Denial being driven by a tiny handful of lobbyists and consultants (here and here) working through a network of phony think tanks and astro-turf “citizens groups.”

In this case the key relationships seem to have been to:

• • Science and Environmental Policy Project (here, here, and here)
  • George C. Marshall Institute (here, here, and here)
  • Heartland Institute (here, here, here, and here)
  • CATO Institute (here, here, and here )

As APSmith observed (reported at Get Energy Smart Now!!!), they have been involved in campaigns that claimed:

• • that ozone depletion is nothing to worry about
  • that smoking doesn’t cause cancer
  • that second-hand smoke is nothing to worry about anyway
  • and now that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is nothing to worry about.

This petition seems to be just another in a long series of phony petitions which the core group has a “a long history of manufacturing …” (here and here). As Mashey documents, it’s nothing more than another industry attempt to bypass science and influence policy politically.

In a rather sad attempt to spin the story,  Chair of the Exxon funded G.C. Marshall Institute William Happer said “They basically sent both statements back to their committee on public affairs and asked them to reconsider, I think it’s a big victory for us.”

Ever a bastion of scientific ignorance, Lubos Motl frames the defeat as “APS fat cats stick to the sinking AGW bandwagon” and even has a message for the APS, literally “and tell them, fuck you.” A great example of the cogent, fact based scientific arguments we know so well from the Denialosphere.

Despite Lubos’ delusions of APS political correctness, the truth is that [emphasis added]:

“What this means is that the APS, which is the preeminent society of physicists in the US, and which tends to be extremely conservative in its policy and statements, continues to support the prevailing consensus of AGW model based on the scientifically available studies and results.“

Physics and Physicists

Nonetheless we can expect that there will continue to be more attempts by this cabal of industry consultants and lobbyists to try and create the impression that “the debate is not over.“

More on this story may be found at:

• APS says ‘In your face, Deniers!’
• Another Silly Climate Petition Exposed
• APS rejects plea to alter stance on climate change
• Physicists firm on climate change - November 12, 2009
• Global Warming Skeptics score own goal : Deltoid

Click to share

“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

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.

BPSDB Of course most people will recognize this phony argument  (logical fallacy) in it’s more popular form “have you stopped beating your wife?“

In this verbal trap, if you answer ‘Yes‘ you are admitting to having beaten your wife before, and if you answer ‘No‘ you are admitting that you still beat her.

The climate change Deniers love to use logical fallacies, and this one is the Loaded Question. It is “loaded” because if you answer it in the way that it is posed, you lose no matter how you answer it.  In this example the question is ‘loaded’ with the assumption that you were beating your wife before, and there is no way to answer the question as asked without accepting that premise.

With respect to climate change science the loaded question comes packaged in various forms of “the debate is not over” canard, but really they all boil down to the same ‘Loaded Question’ logical fallacy.

Have you stopped debating your climate science?

If scientists say ‘No‘ then the Deniers claim that climate science is still in dispute and we need more research. If they say ‘Yes‘ then the Deniers cry that this is not science because in real science all questions remain open; nothing is ever settled.

The latter sounds convincing because it is trivially true. That is to say that as a broad abstraction it is true, but in practice you have to actually use your brains when applying it.  The actual application of this axiom is somewhat nuanced and depends on understanding how the question is loaded.

The “debate is over” question is loaded by equating “the debate is over” with “the debate is permanently closed“, and they are NOT synonyms.  Those are actually two different statements.

The answer?

The debate is never over

All scientific questions remain functionally open forever for two reasons:

1) If new evidence arises that makes us question the existence of atoms, that shows the periodic table is total nonsense, or that matter actually repels matter (ie gravity is wrong), or that the Sun doesn’t actually exist, then we would reopen those debates and try and figure out what the hell is going on. Equally we would do the same if a new hypothesis was put forward that better explained the evidence that we already have.

Of course no one would be happy about it in the examples given, but science would do it all the same. Even though the debates on these questions have been over for a very long time, Science would resume the debates because the debate was never permanently closed. No scientific debate ever is.

2) We never know absolutely everything about anything. Even as we answer macro questions we encounter questions on smaller scales as well as more questions about how it fits together. For example the discovery that tissues were made of cells led to questions both about what were cells were made of, as well as how cells interacted to make tissues.

Thus even as our knowledge of a particular system or topic increases every day, there are always unanswered questions. As long as there are questions there is debate, or at least the possibility of debate.

The debate is over

1) The key phrase above is “If new evidence or a new hypothesis arises…” Scientists do not sit around faculty lounges and Institute lunch rooms arguing matters that were resolved centuries, decades or even days ago. Why would they?

Science would never progress at all if every day was spent debating (again) whether water really was composed of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms, or if the laws of thermodynamics really are true. The whole notion is completely idiotic (but then what part of the Denier Canon isn’t?)

In science you stop debating the evidence you currently have when it is satisfactorily explained by the prevailing hypothesis. The debate is not permanently closed (ie new evidence or a better hypothesis can change everything), but you stop debating the current evidence and the existing hypotheses because rehashing the same old stuff over and over is completely pointless and a huge waste of time, ie the debate of the existing evidence is over.

Of course not every piece of new evidence automatically re-opens a scientific debate. Every new piece of evidence showing that water really is composed of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms causes no more than a shrug, if that.

Equally, all new evidence that is consistent with our current understanding of anthropogenic climate change is added to the already vast body of existing evidence without reopening the debate. It is only evidence that is inconsistent with the current understanding that would cause the debate to resume.

2) We never know everything about anything, but we know some things. The Denier claims to the contrary are an Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy (for the record, I do not find any of the Denier ignorance to be appealing).

For example, there is still a huge amount we do not know about elephants, such as the sequence of their genome, but not knowing that does not mean we question whether elephants exist or not. There is a huge amount that we do not know about the Sun, but we know that it exists, that the Earth orbits around it, etc.

Thus “the debate” about many questions at many levels of a given topic can be “over”, even as many other questions about that same topic rage on.  The two are not mutually exclusive at all. In fact within the sciences it is the norm.

The debate is over, but not closed!

In climate science there are many aspects of anthropogenic climate change that are still being hotly debated. However, although aspects are still being hotly debated, given the existing evidence and hypotheses the debate about anthropogenic climate change itself is over … but not permanently closed, nor will it ever be.

Huge thanks to In it for the Gold who pointed me to NASA’s Unresolved questions about Earth’s climate for those who are curious are to what some of the major scientific uncertainties about our current understanding of climate are.

Closely related to the concept of “the debate” are the concepts of “settled vs unsettled science”, and the infamous “scientific consensus.” Intertwined though these are, there are nuances that make them different concepts, and as such that discussion is best left to another time.

Incompetence, malpractice, or fraud?

Of course the reason that the “debate is over”  false argument works is that most people are not aware of how the sciences actually work. Members of the general public and anyone who is not a scientist would not be expected to know this; that is a given.

However, anyone who is or was a scientist should know this perfectly well. It is mindboggingly basic; remedial first year level at best. Anyone working within the sciences should know this as well as they know the scientific method. Broadly speaking it is part of the scientific method.

As such any scientist making this argument is either incompetent, and/or guilty of malpractice and/or fraud (ie deliberately lying to mislead the public). There really aren’t any other options, and I see absolutely no reason to pretend otherwise.

So, in the absence of some new hypothesis or evidence, any time you hear or see a “scientist” making this argument you know exactly what you are dealing with.

Click to share

“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

IMAGE CREDITS

Tibet : Monk Debate 8 by silverlinedwinnebago

Tibet :Monk Debate 7 by silverlinedwinnebago

Tibet : Monk Debate by silverlinedwinnebago

Tibet : Monk Debate by silverlinedwinnebago

Tibet : Monk Debate 11 by silverlinedwinnebago

Tibet : Monk Debate 9 by silverlinedwinnebago

Tibet : Monk Debate 13 by silverlinedwinnebago

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.

BPSDB Debunking the climate change Denierism nonsense that George Will writes is more akin to clubbing plush toys than an actual intellectual exercise.   Shooting fish in a barrel? sure, if we’re talking about the barrel of the gun in question; easy and pointless.

George Will knows perfectly well that he is publishing nonsense about climate science, and he is going to keep right on doing it because he is paid precisely because he writes nonsense, not despite it.

The question is, what are we going to do about it?

Last winter Will stunned us when his pre-existing condition of climate change Denierism plunged to new lows. However, like the arctic sea ice minimums, it seems to have been merely a sign of an on-going precipitous decline.

For example, in July he repeated the “Global Cooling Fable“, got called on it (again), repeats it again in late September, and is corrected again. Since then we have had Seth Borenstein’s widely publicized  “Independent statisticians reject ‘global cooling’ fable” accompanied by all of the other evidence that this Fable is idiotic nonsense. Will’s reaction? he merely repeats the lie again on November 7th.

In fact this most recent example is so bad that James Hrynyshyn writes:

“In an otherwise typically error-dominated Newsweek column, George F. Will spelled “minuscule” correctly. So I don’t want to read any complaints that Will gets everything wrong each time he writes about climate change.“

Another example, in addition to many other errors and fabrications in “Bad climate for global worriers“, Will repeats the “ice age scare in the 70s” meme (debunked) and the “climate science as religion” stupidity. His source for these clots of ignorance? Superfreakonomics.

The date of this assault on credulity? November 8, well after Superfreakonomics had been widely exposed as idiotic drivel. Yet his column contains not even a whiff that there may be some reason to be skeptical of the book’s so-called “facts”, much less the acknowledgement that climate scientists are divided as to whether the book is simply bad fiction or outright delusional. [aside, lovely Superfreaks bon mot here]

There are undoubtedly many more examples, but I think the pattern is clear enough.

Let’s be honest here, a lobotomized hamster set loose on a key board would get the climate change facts right more often than George Will does. This is not a matter of accident, ignorance, or a failure in fact checking; this is a deliberate misleading of the public.

Has Will learned nothing? Yes he has, he has learned he can lie with abandon and by and large he will be thanked for it. The Washington Post etc are not employing Will despite his nonsense, but rather for it. They want a propagandist, not an columnist. The only way for Will to get in trouble at the Post is if he started reporting on climate issues accurately and intelligently.

Which is not to suggest that Will is a reluctant pawn of the powers that be. Like every good Apparatchik I have no doubt he does his work with sincere dedication to the Washington Post’s Columnist Manifesto.

The thing is, Will may be an ugly pustule of climate ignorance , but the real problem is the underlying intellectual putrification that infects the editorial and management decisions of the Washington Post and similar popular media. Even if we managed to lance Will, the pus will continue to ooze from the Post. Will is the sock puppet, not the puppeteer.

To a great extent the climate change science blogosphere operates on the implicit assumption that education is answer, if only we could get the facts out there. Trouble is, we do get the facts out there (not that they were difficult to find in the first place) and it is not winning the day.

As Pierrehumbert’s brilliant open letter to Steve Levitt documents,  many people would rather travel across the continent to be misled rather than walk two blocks to get the facts. In a nutshell, the vested interests are only too happy to employ willing propagandists to write nonsense for a public,  many of whom are only too eager to believe the fiction as it does not threaten their life style.

The problem is not simply a matter of more or better education,  but rather economic and social in nature, ie political. The solution is necessarily economic and social, ie political. Which is not to say that on-going education via correcting Will’s and other Denier’s nonsense isn’t valuable. It is necessary, merely insufficient.

What more will be necessary? Boycotts? pressure campaigns? other? Probably all of the above and more. The relevant media will continue to spew their misinfotainment for as long as it is to their economic advantage to do so.

While I believe that this is implicitly understood throughout the climate change science blogosphere it is only rarely explicitly stated. Further, as far as I know, it is not discussed insofar as how the science blogosphere adjusts to continue it’s vital educational role while being relevant to the new reality.

Make no mistake, our role has changed, the question is how well we fulfill it. James Hansen has embraced it, or is at least exploring what that may mean. What does it mean for the rest of us? what do we need to do differently? and how do we make that happen?

And as for the Bozo the Clown’s egregious stupidity – smack him down as needed, but don’t imagine it will change anything.

Click to share

“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

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.

From Physorg BPSDB

“This graphic shows the ratio of record daily highs to record daily lows observed at about 1,800 weather stations in the 48 contiguous United States from January 1950 through September 2009. Each bar shows the proportion of record highs (red) to record lows (blue) for each decade.

The 1960s and 1970s saw slightly more record daily lows than highs, but in the last 30 years record highs have increasingly predominated, with the ratio now about two-to-one for the 48 states as a whole. Credit: ©UCAR, graphic by Mike Shibao

Spurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb.”

Coupled with the excellent Seth Borenstein Independent statisticians reject ‘global cooling’ fable this provides a definitive response to all of those moronic “my toes are cold, WHAT global warming?” articles and comments that the climate change Deniers bombard us with whenever it is cold in someones backyard.

And it couldn’t have come at a better time given:

United States Overview: October 2009

The average October temperature of 50.8°F was 4.0°F below the 20^th Century average and ranked as the 3^rd coolest based on preliminary data.

For the nation as a whole, it was the third coolest October on record. The month was marked by an active weather pattern that reinforced unseasonably cold air behind a series of cold fronts. Temperatures were below normal in eight of the nation’s nine climate regions, and of the nine, five were much below normal. Only the Southeast climate region had near normal temperatures for October.

Statewide temperatures coincided with the regional values as all but six states had below normal temperatures. Oklahoma had its coolest October on record and ten other states had their top five coolest such months.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See the original post or the National Science Foundation (videos of an interview with Gerald Meehl as well) for the full story, and be sure to Bookmark these links!

• Record high temperatures far outpace record lows across US
• Independent statisticians reject ‘global cooling’ fable
• National Science Foundation: Record Highs

Use them every time you get a chance to, let’s stamp out the pestilence of ignorance and misinformation that is the hallmark of climate change Deniers.

UPDATE Nov 13

Scruffydan points us to Only in it for the Gold’s making the point that this also refutes the “It’s land use changes” canard.

The first place to look for observational confirmation among extreme events would indeed be a smaller incidence of nighttime record lows without an accompanying increase of daytime record highs.

Record lows occur on clear nights when the surface radiates to space and the surface cools quickly. Greenhouse gases directly interfere with that process. Therefore all else equal less severe low temperatures are to be expected.

Deficit of Record Cold, Surfeit of Inexpertise

Click to share

“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

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.

BPSDB

“You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face.

You must do the thing which you think you cannot do.”

Eleanor Roosevelt

.

It is out of this admiration that I am joining a small group of people who will be participating in a rotational solidarity fast for the length of the Climate Change Justice hunger strike. ” Jess

Genuine political action is deeply personal and transformative. There is something awry if the external struggle with power and injustice is not matched by an equally intense internal struggle. The Climate Justice Fast is no exception.

Laura

I sit in front of my computer, contemplating my own hunger strike – a measly 48 foodless hours. I have just watched Anna Keenan and Sara Svensson speaking about their indefinite hunger strike, a notion which is not for the faint of heart.

As I listen to their inspired words, and the conviction in their voices, I think to myself: ‘Has it really come to this?’ Acts of sheer desperation, wrought from the learned hearts of those who care so much – truly, this should be perceived as a bad omen.

Climate change is a complex problem indeed; an issue worthy of thought, actions and solutions if ever there was one. It takes just the tiniest bit of awareness with a smidgen of foresight for each one

of us – we, who make many decisions each day with our wallets and our apathetic attitudes – to become ashamed and fearful of our current global situation.

It is difficult to imagine those two brave young women 40 days from now, closer to death than any of us would care to be, awaiting their demands to be met – while the politicians enjoy their lavish four course meals around boardroom tables. Will words of these women circulate amongst those decision makers? Will the unheard voices of the millions of affected people, starving against their will, infiltrate their minds for even a moment? As with so much of life, only time will tell.

As I continue to abstain from food, I take comfort in the fact that there are solutions which do exist and goals which can be met; above all, I take solace knowing that there are many individuals who deeply care about lives other than their own. It is in these people that I place my hope, and rightly so. Together we can, in fact, make a difference.

Last night Laura finished her shift in the Rolling Solidarity Fast and it was picked up by:

Jess

Jess has been wrestling with her demons as well.

I would like to recommend two posts from her blog; Openly Balanced” is my study on living.  And who am I?  I’m just a regular person seeking balance – I’m a little obsessed with that word – in my life.“

• Is the Climate Justice Fast hunger strike extremism?
• A Bright Green Crisis of Faith

and at Climate Justice Fast Paul is also working through doubt:

Upon reading Clive Hamilton’s ‘Is It Too Late to Prevent Catastrophic Climate Change’, a stark and frankly depressing review of recent scientific appraisals of humanity’s ability to avoid catastrophic climate change, I was immediately struck by one thought: ‘something is missing here’.

The Human Feedback

Just as every soldier experiences both courage and fear, so one of the realities of political action is that one has both hopes and doubts. Political action that has no doubts or uncertainties is like an exercise program that involves no actual effort; it may be easy, but it won’t do you or anyone else much good.

It seems self evident once it is stated, but we usually forget that if the problem isn’t big enough to inspire fear, or risk despair, then it’s probably too small a problem to invest your time in. If the outcome is not uncertain, then it’s too easy. If your personal actions do not stretch you, challenge you, scare you, then you aren’t really trying.

As individuals and groups it is tempting to attempt to suppress the doubts on the premise that they undermine the group, but that is a mistake. Courage is overcoming fear and moving forward despite it. Denying and avoiding it is an invitation to be overwhelmed by it later.

Struggle for truth and justice must be a struggle with the world around us, but it must also be a struggle within our groups, and most particularly within ourselves. Truly confronting “the lies”, external and internal, takes honesty and courage, and the personal struggle is integral to the political struggle.

This is true because the duality of external and internal is an artificial one. In fact no such separation exists; there is just our lives as we live them. Lives lived in denial and fear, or with truth and courage.

Make no mistake, the doubts and fears are legitimate. We may fail, we may fail individually and/or collectively. We may not be up to the demands that our age puts upon us. If honestly confronting our shadows always led to conquering them then everyone would do it. They don’t because failure is possible and the risks are high.

“If one is forever cautious, can one remain a human being? “
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

But doubts and fears that are not confronted honestly cannot be overcome. As long as we bury them inside we can always be defeated by them. “They” need do more than invoke our doubts and fears and we will defeat ourselves. If we do not liberate ourselves from our own fears, we cannot liberate others.

This is not the ‘cost’ of being an activist, it is the benefit. The world has not ‘intruded into our pastoral lives’, but rather woken us from our numb slumber. We have been given the chance to cast off our own shackles and discover that we are better than we thought, that we are capable of so much more.

To soar we must aspire to the heights and throw ourselves from a great cliff.  The prospect may be terrifying, but if we don’t do it we will never fly.

What is before us is not a threat that we might lose the ground, but rather the opportunity to gain the sky. Is that not cause for gratitude?

Hope is not to be be found in the science, or the polls, or in Copenhagen; there is none there. Hope is created by the love and courage of Laura, Jess, the CJF Six, and all of the others the world over wrestling with their doubts and fears, rising above them and taking meaningful action for climate justice. That is where Hope is.  That is how Hope comes to be.

Please see: Climate Justice Fast begins Nov 6th, how will you be helping? for ways to support the Climate Justice Fast.

Two thousand years and half a world away

Dying trees still grow greener when you pray

Bruce Cockburn

Click to share

“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

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.

.

BPSDB These are the six inspiring activists who have committed to a

water only Fast (hunger strike)

until there is a Just Settlement in Copenhagen,

at least 43 days, and possibly beyond…

.t

.

Anna Keenan

Anna began fasting on November 6 at the UN climate talks in Barcelona, along with Sara Svensson, and will continue fasting throughout and perhaps beyond the Copenhagen climate talks, with a presence inside the conference, with Sara, Diane and Daniel

“I am 23 years old, from Brisbane, Australia, and I am a youth climate change activist, a 1940’s jitterbug swing dancer and a former circus acrobat.

I have attended the Bali and Poznan UN climate meetings, and am a proud member of the growing international youth climate movement.

To reach the UNFCCC COP14 in Poznan last year, I travelled with four other young Australians from the Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) on a great ‘overland journey’ through Asia and Russia to reach Poland, instead of flying. In 2009 I have been a freelance climate activist in Europe.

I graduated from university in 2007 with two degrees – Science (Physics and Mathematics) and Arts (Economics and Environmental Studies).

One could say that I have had a diverse activist experience – from writing government advisory papers to being arrested in direct action against coal.

But in the same way that business-as-usual is leading us all to catastrophe, I now feel that activism-as-usual is clearly not forcing politics to change fast enough.

This is a race between a political tipping point and a scientific one, and currently science is losing.

We have now reached the time when a new and higher form of activism is needed, hence my participation in Climate Justice Fast! I intend for this moral, principled action to give politics a major wake-up call – we can’t ignore the science any longer.”

Writing:  The most climate-vulnerable nations are our moral leaders

Blogging: at CJF

‘Climate Change Perspectives‘

Chuck

What is important are the multitudes that suffer because of our own greed.

St Augustine said if you have more than you need, then you are stealing from the poor.

I began a juice fast October 7 – primarily to reform my own life. The deeper I fast, the more I see how much more I need to reform. I plan to intensify my fast in order to intensify the reformation.

I then decided to join the water-only fast from November 6 through the end of Copenhagen, and join my voice with all the other Climate Justice Fast-ers in their cry for justice.The world is in desperate need of change. If we don’t change, we will all suffer the consequences.

Writing:

Blogging:

Diane Wilson

Diane began fasting in Texas on the 6^th of November, and will continue fasting from now until, and perhaps beyond the end of, the Copenhagen climate talks this December. She will travel to Copenhagen for the summit where she will join Sara and Anna.

“I’m a fourth generation fisherwoman that has been fighting environmental issues on the Texas Gulf Coast for over twenty years but this hunger fast is just the second time I’ve did anything on global warming. My environmental activism started after the county where I live, Calhoun County, was ranked No. l in the nation for toxins to the land, according to the 1989 Toxic Release Inventory.

In twenty years of what I call my baby-like naivety I have seen something that I never expected to see in my lifetime and, in fact, is what is currently spurring my hunger strike. In one lifetime, I have seen the consequence of what unclear thinking, tunnel vision, and short term unsustainable living can inflict on a community, town, fishery, and a bay. WHAM! Fish houses shut down. Boats rotting in the harbor. Business shut down. Oysters stressed out. Bay full of mercury. Crabs full of mercury. Cattle’s DNA mutated. Rampant cancer. I have seen everything from dolphin die offs, to political buy-offs, kick-backs, worker deaths, fraudulent reports, exposures, stressed out oysters, mercury superfunds, contaminated seafood, and everything you never wanted to know about super-sized industries hell bent on destruction.

So you see, when the reports and statistics and the stories come out about global warming and the message is clear that we need to cut our greenhouse emissions, I understand. And I understand because I live with stunted inaction and misinformed disbelieve all the time. It lives and breathes where I live in Texas. We are bringing the roof down over our heads– but yet, what do we do in Texas? My home counrty is bringing in two coal burning power plants, a nuclear power plant, a liquid natural gas terminal the size of three footballs fields that will require dredging up a bay where hundreds of thousands of pounds of mercury were lost by a malfunctioning Alcoa plant. That is the reality of my home.

I am a co-founder of:  CodePink, women for peace and justice; Texas Jail Project, changing jails in Texas, one jail at a time; Injured Workers Union, an advocacy support group for injured chemical workers.  I am been a shrimp boat captain all my life and now write.”

Writing:

Blogging: at CJF

Mikayla Irle

Mikayla began fasting in the US on the 6^th of November, and will continue fasting from now until, and perhaps beyond the end of, the Copenhagen climate talks this December. She is 19 years old, an award-winning cross-country runner, and in February 2009 attended the ‘PowerShift’ conference in Washington DC, alongside more than 10,000 other young people from across the USA who agree that climate change is the defining issue of their generation, and who will work and campaign until the problem is solved.

“We choose what to believe using our God-given reasoning abilities. It’s true; I’ve chosen to “have faith” in what scientists overwhelmingly suggest. There are theories (ahem…mainly funded by fossil fuel industries) that run counter to the mainstream climate change theory, but presented with the evidence, I cannot apathetically accept the consequences implied by the majority of climatologists, geologists, meteorologists, ecologists, biologists, and paleontologists. Our mundane, everyday activities are driving the world to a state of crisis, but I believe the collective goodwill and courage of a caring humanity can move us to a new place of sustainability and justice.”

Writing: Trombone and Contemplation

Blogging at CJF

Video interview

Paul Connor

Paul began fasting in Canberra, Australia’s Capitol, on November 6, where he will continue fasting on the protest lawn outside Parliament House, until and perhaps beyond the end of the Copenhagen climate summit this December. He is joined in Canberra by Michael, who will also fast for the entire period.

“I am 29, and currently studying Philosophy and Psychology at the University of Melbourne. I have long been uncomfortable with the inequality of our planet, and after studying global justice issues at university and traveling through Asia and Africa found myself becoming more and more passionate about fighting for a better world.

I am involved with CJF mainly because of the incredible injustice at the heart of climate change: that those who it effects the most are those who have the least ability to cope with it, and who have done the least to cause it. That is something I cannot be complicit with, and to me, CJF represents doing just about everything I can about it.”

Writing: Do extreme actions ‘alienate the mainstream’?

Blogging at CJF

Sara Svensson

Sara, 25, from Sweden, began fasting on November 6 at the UN climate talks in Barcelona, along with Anna Keenan, and will continue fasting throughout and perhaps beyond the Copenhagen climate talks, with a presence inside the conference, with Anna, Diane and Daniel.

“I was 5 years old when I decided to devote my life to the creation of a sustainable future. I’ll celebrate my 25th birthday during CJF, and I’ll be 65 in 2050.

I’ve been involved in different kinds of climate activism for most of my life. I studied International Project Management for Social Movements and NGOs, combined with environmental science.

I’m undertaking this fast out of love. Love for life, for our beautiful planet with all its species and future generations. There’s nothing more important I can do in my life than to contribute in the strongest possible way, with full devotion, to set an end to climate change and injustice and be part of the movement that will lead us to a sustainable future.”

Writing: Why I’m Fasting for Climate Justice

Blogging at CJF

Please see: Climate Justice Fast! taking climate activism to the next level for the inspiring Barcelona press conference by Anna and Sara, and

Climate Justice Fast begins Nov 6th, how will you be helping? for ways to support the Climate Justice Fast.

Click to share

“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

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.

A drop of water blood BPSDB
Mother
Are you crying?
Forgive us our sins
For we know not what we have done

Forgive me
So I can give the last drop to my brother
Horizontal
Because he is your son
And I am not your daughter.

Maybe I forgot
Your daughters feed the world.
They say I am
Mother, how did it happen
Your wounds?

Martha, participant

CJF Solidarity Rolling Fast

The Climate Justice Fast enters it’s 6th Day. Here is the news from Canberra

Don’t forget these links

• Climate Justice Fast:
• Youtube Channel: including video diaries of Paul’s practice fast
• Facebook CJF Page:
• Facebook CJF Support:
• Activists plan hunger strikes for climate justice

I am thrilled to welcome Gail to our CJF Solidarity Rolling Fast. Among many other things Gail is a climate witness documenting the (declining) health of trees. Here is an excerpt from her WWF Climate Witness Profiles:
Until the summer of 2008, I was one of those lucky, oblivious people who believed that though climate change was going to occur, it meant a gradual, linear warming, and that the worst effects would occur far in the future, at some distant, exotic place, losing biodiversity, like maybe in Madagascar.

I expected my paradise to remain a protected niche, where a spring-fed creek provided clean cold water, excellent soil had accumulated, and I was no where near the shore where wild storms and rising seas could disturb the inhabitants of the village where I have been so fortunate to live.

Not in my home, in New Jersey!

In fact though, from my journey to learn what is happening to trees, I have read enough to know that the terrible results of burning greenhouse gases are going to bring about change that is abrupt, violent, and sooner rather than later – just what is already happening in my own back yard, now. read on

Gail is also the voice of Wit’s End, a blog with some interesting posts and absolutely awesome photography, check it out.

As part of our CJF Solidarity Rolling Fast Laura began fasting last night as Stewart (S2) finished his shift. Here’s Stewart’s meditations on the experience.

Day 1:

Up at 0700 UT (earlier than usual for a Sunday).

Immediately I was hungry. This was a surprise, as I skip breakfast a couple of times a week on average. I think this could be analogous to a smoker suddenly discovering that he or she has run out of tobacco – there is an immediate and intensified urge for a smoke. Does deprivation enhance desire? Am I addicted to food?

By about when lunchtime would have been I’d settled down a bit. In fact I had quite a productive morning. Food had come to mind far more often than I would have suspected (especially when cleaning the kitchen). I thought about cheating more than once, but resisted the temptation.

The afternoon was also productive (I spent most of it doing physics). I did notice the cold – but then the autumn (aka fall) has so far been very mild and wet here, but the last couple of days have been cold and dry. I put on an extra jumper, and when that didn’t help I put the fire on.

By 1900 UT I was no longer feeling hungry. It was just the occasional rumble from my stomach that reminded me that I hadn’t eaten (the rumble didn’t go away until the afternoon of day 3). However I was beginning to feel pretty tired. I ended up going to bed perhaps an hour or so earlier than usual.

Day 2:

Woke 2 hours too early. Never mind, it was an excuse to get another couple of odd jobs done and out of the way before leaving for work. I felt really good on my way in, we had had the first heavy frost of the autumn and every twig and blade of grass had it’s own overcoat of frost, the sky was brilliantly clear and the Sun was low in the East – magic. It felt great just to be alive.

The good feeling lasted until lunchtime, when people around me started eating – so I went for a walk. The worst bit was passing between a Fish & Chip shop and an Indian Curry House, but I carried on down for a walk around the park and to say hello to the family of swans there.

By mid-afternoon I was flagging a bit and my head was starting to ache. By the end of the day I was feeing tired, but again going for a walk helped.

After getting home and changing, I began to feel tired again. I thought about staying up until midnight but gave up on the idea and  went to bed early again.

Morning 3:

Woke at 2 a.m. – 4 hours early. What’s going on here? Does the body clock get confused when there’s no food coming in? I seemed to have switched to a 22 hour day. I put a wash on, had a black coffee and went back to bed just to keep warm, I didn’t feel sleepy – but immediately fell asleep for another three hours. On reawakening I felt remarkably good – but this may have simply been because the end was in sight. I got washed, dressed and (finally) had some breakfast. I actually had a surprising craving for yoghurt (which I rarely eat, so there was none in the house) – but I settled for dried cherries and figs.

Tentative observations:

Hunger may be a transient thing. It is your body’s way of telling you that you need to eat, but it may not keep repeating the message if you’re not listening (or unable to respond). I was clearly hungry for the fist half of day 1, after that I was sort of conscious of it but it only became bad when others around me were eating or when I could smell food being prepared.

Food deprivation doesn’t stop you thinking (at least on short timescales). It may even

enhance it. I felt pretty sharp on the physics on Day 1 and for at least the morning on Day 2. A possible corollary – being mentally active may suppress hunger.

I was surprised at how cold I felt, since I don’t usually notice the cold until my fingers go white. I guess it’s a metabolism thing, but I don’t really know.

All in all, the anticipation was worse than the experience.

But I have to say that after having tried it on a small scale myself, I’m even more in awe of the people who are fasting seriously. I took a stroll along the beach, they are serial marathon runners.

Would I try it again?

Yes, I think I probably will. I think I have more respect for food (and what it means to people) than I did before, but that is based on just two days of my life and (at the moment) I would like to explore this a bit further.

I might progress from casual stroller to casual jogger, but I know that I’ll never make serial marathon grade.

Stewart

—-

We still have room for more people to participate if you would like to to be part of a solidarity fast, or start your own group.  There is still 37 days to go, so there is lots of time to organize a group, particularly for during Copenhagen itself.

Click to share

“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

IMAGE CREDITS:

Ripple by ~~Tone~~

Blue Ripple by basegreen

Ripples in the pond of dreams by Thorsten Becker

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.

BPSDB NB: Nov 10, World Science Day for Peace and Development

Rachel Pike: The science behind a climate headline

In 4 minutes, atmospheric chemist Rachel Pike provides a glimpse of the massive scientific effort behind the bold headlines on climate change, with her team — one of thousands who contributed.

Many of the more idiotic climate change Denier Fables grossly misrepresent the vast scale and scope of the science and scientific evidence underlying what we know about climate change. Let’s have a look at some of those fables and how they compare to reality.

“The IPCC scientists blah blah …”

If ever there were a confession that the person making this claim knows absolutely nothing about climate science:

“The IPCC does not itself commission or conduct research, but analyzes and weighs findings by scientists in many nations.

The IPCC: A Guide For Journalists

…Doh!

IPCC report has only blah blah authors

Actually it was

• • 450 lead authors from 130 countries
  • 800 contributing authors (links to their work)
  • 2500 expert reviewers

Scientists blah blah FUNDING blah blah

This claim is idiotic in so many ways that it will take multiple posts to expose all of the false assumptions and ignorance that would allow someone to believe it, but some of them include:

1. There are relatively few scientists involved;
2. The scientists are from the US or only a few agencies/countries;
3. The science is new (since climate change started getting funding as a field);

Of course reality is somewhat different. Thanks to Jim Prall we have is a list of the 2907 most frequently cited authors of climate research with links to their work (10s of thousands of papers). That’s just the work with direct relevance to climate change.

Grumbine describes 6 tiers of scientific endeavour that support climate reserch

from What fields are relevant?

Brave New Climate also discusses the breadth of climate studies; here is a partial list which Barry gives:

Atmospheric and Physical Sciences: Climatology, Meteorology, Atmospheric dynamics, Atmospheric physics, Atmospheric chemistry, Solar physics, Historical climatology

Earth Sciences: Geophysics, Geochemistry, Geology, Soil Science, Oceanography, Glaciology, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoenvironmental reconstruction

Biological Sciences: Ecology, Synthetic biology, Biochemistry, Global change biology, Biogeography, Ecophysiology, Ecological genetics

Mathematics, Statistics and Computational analysis: Applied mathematics, Mathematical modelling, Computer science, Numerical modelling, Bayesian inference, Mathematical statistics, Time series analysis

Quite a diverse field and I’ve not listed many sub-disciplines …

So just who does climate science?

To get a sense of the scope, have a look at part of of Buchdahl’s excellent Global Warming Student Guide. Below is the table of contents for just Section 3 of the Guide.

3. Empirical Study of the Climate 3.1. Introduction
3.2. Climate Construction from Instrumental Data
3.2.1. Measurement of Climate Elements
3.2.1.1. Measurement of Temperature
3.2.1.2. Measurement of Rainfall
3.2.1.3. Measurement of Humidity
3.2.1.4. Measurement of Wind
3.2.2. Homogeneity
3.2.3. Statistical Analysis of Instrumental Records
3.3. Palaeoclimate Reconstruction from Proxy Data
3.3.1. Historical Records
3.3.2. Ice Cores
3.3.2.1. Stable Isotope Analysis
3.3.2.2. Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Ice Cores
3.3.2.3. Dating Ice Cores
3.3.3. Dendroclimatology
3.3.4. Ocean Sediments
3.3.4.1. Palaeoclimatic Reconstruction from Biogenic Material
3.3.4.2. Palaeoclimatic Reconstruction from Terrigenous Material
3.3.5. Terrestrial Sediments
3.3.5.1. Periglacial Features
3.3.5.2. Glacier Fluctuations
3.3.5.3. Lake-Level Fluctuations
3.3.6. Pollen Analysis
3.3.7. Sedimentary Rock

Global warming blah blah just based on computer models

I think that one’s been dealt with, no?

Global warming blah blah in the ’70s blah blah

The basic global warming science is almost 200 yrs old. The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, CO2 identified as one of the gases causing it by John Tyndall in 1859, and it was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

• • “The man who discovered greenhouse gases”
  • “Global warming: blast from the past“

See also these timelines for other notable discoveries and events in the long history of climate change science:

• • Timeline: Climate Change
  • The Road to Copenhagen: A brief history of climate change

and this wonderful series from Doc Snow

• • The Science of Global Warming In The Age of Revolution
  • The Science Of Global Warming In The Age Of Napoleon
  • Global Warming Science In The Age Of Queen Victoria
  • Global Warming Science And The Dawn Of Flight

or some popular press stories about the evolving science:

• • Time Magazine 1953 “Science: Invisible Blanket“
  • and 1953 Popular Mechanics article about global warming
  • July 1959 Carbon Dioxide and Climate in Scientific American

1958 – Global Warming

Related, see Google Timeline reveals triumph of denialism for analysis of climate in the popular press over the decades.

New study blah blah

As discussed before, one of the favourite recurring Denier memes is that ‘New Study disproves/overturns/undermines global warming / climate change science/models/theory!“ (New study, climate Deniers are “fundamentally wrong”)

Never mind that:

• they repeat this meme every few weeks with a completely different study;
• none of the Deniers seem to even remotely understand the study they refer to;
• none of the studies ever turn out to say what the Deniers believe/claim;
• the fact that it is “new” means it should be treated with caution since review by the entire scientific community can lead to:
  • discovery of subtle errors that the authors and reviewers missed;
  • a way of understanding the data different from how the authors had;
• the probability that a single study could overturn the thousands upon thousands of studies that support our understanding of climate change is remote in the extreme

This one has been discussed in more detail:

• The scope and scale of climate science
• Evolution / Global Warming Deniers just don’t get it

The idea that this incredible mass of scientific evidence would be somehow overthrown by a single study, much less the Three Stooges misunderstanding their own work, a Potty Peer ranting about delusional conspiracies, or Anthony Watts doodling on a climate plot, simply defies belief.

Click to share

“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

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.